DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/25/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. No copy was provided for CN 118618044 A and therefore CN 118618044 A has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 250E. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 11, claim 8 line 14, and claim 15 line 12 read "vehicles currently charging at the charging station" which appears to be a continuity error since the image data of the vehicles is from an alternative charging station. Thus, this should read "vehicles currently charging at the alternative charging station" to improve clarity and continuity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The recited “display device” and “input device” are not considered as invoking 112(f) as the processor performs both display and receiving functions required by the claims which recite these devices. As neither device is recited performing a function, 112(f) is not utilized for interpretation. Instead, the devices are interpreted under BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation).
The computer-readable storage medium (CRM) is being interpreted as excluding transitory CRMs as the specification (see at least ¶ 0187-0188) only provides examples of the CRM being non-transitory. It would thus be unreasonable to interpret the CRM as including transitory CRMs (e.g. including signals per se).
“Routing” and “re-routing” are being interpreted as providing/generating instructions to a location, not autonomous control to the location, in light of the specification (see at least ¶ 0066).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
assigning a vehicle to a charging station at a future time based on a predicted availability of the charging station determined by an artificial intelligence (AI) model;
routing the vehicle to the charging station;
receiving sensor data from an alternative charging station, the sensor data comprising image data and session data associated with vehicles currently charging at the charging station;
determining that current charging equipment at the alternative charging station is compatible with the vehicle based on the sensor data; and
responsive to a determination that charging equipment at the charging station is non-functional,
rerouting the vehicle to the alternative charging station based on the compatible current charging equipment for the vehicle at the alternative charging station.
The limitations recited above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a memory, CRM, and processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person may examine a map of charging stations and mentally predict that one or more chargers will be available in the future and mentally determine that they will use that charger in the future (a). The person can then plan a route in order to arrive at the charger utilizing the map (b). The person, using a received image and charging wattage of vehicles currently charging at a different charging station, can observe the vehicles in the image and the received charging wattage to determine if their vehicle will be able to charge at the other station (d). The person can remember this compatible other station for later use if needed. At a later point, the person may then mentally determine that the charging station appears to be non-functional (e). Examiner notes the determination of (e) can be performed any number of ways mentally such as by observing a notification from the charger itself that the charger is non-functional (e.g. seeing a sign posted on the charger after driving to the charger), reading reviews stating that the charger is non-functional, observing the environment around the charger indicating that the charger may be non-functional (after driving to the charger or by using received images of the charger), or observing the condition of the charger itself (e.g. seeing cut cables) after driving to the charger or by using received images of the charger. The person can then plan a new route to the other station previously identified (f). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the memory, CRM, and processor is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the recitation of an AI model performing the prediction step acts as a mere recitation of applying the method utilizing a computer. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein. The limitation of receiving sensor data (c) is an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of mere data reception. Mere data reception cannot form an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the memory and processor are generically recited as stated above and the method is generically recited as being applied using an AI model. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of receiving sensor data is a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception of data over a network is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite further aspects of the abstract idea and an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of retrieving sensor data and message data. The limitation of receiving data is a WURC activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the reception of data over a network is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 recite further aspects of the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite further aspects of the abstract idea and an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of displaying a queue position and time period of use of the charger. The limitation of displaying queue position and time period of use is a WURC activity because Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) indicated that the display of data without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible. Further, the display device is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite generic training of the AI model. This claim generically links the abstract idea to the realm of machine learning since the training is only generically recited.
Dependent claim(s) 7 and 14 recite(s) further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Claims 7 and 14 recite autonomous vehicle control in response to performing the abstract idea beyond general linking such that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Examiner recommends amending the limitations in claims 7 and 14 into the independent claims to overcome the 101 rejection of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 15-20 would be allowed if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection of record.
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Consider the following references: Campbell et al. US 20250124359 A1 (hereinafter Campbell) and Wu et al. US 20260001436 A1 (hereinafter Wu).
In light of the rejection detailed in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026, applicant has amended in the following limitation not taught in the prior art of record:
receiving sensor data from an alternative charging station, the sensor data comprising image data and session data associated with vehicles currently charging at the charging station;
determining that current charging equipment at the alternative charging station is compatible with the vehicle based on the sensor data.
Campbell and Wu appear to be the closest prior art of record. Campbell teaches obtaining an image of a charging connector to determine compatibility with a vehicle (see Figure 2 and ¶ 0082 for example). Wu teaches updating a database of known connectors for stations based on pictures of the charging station captured from a user or another vehicle (see ¶ 0037 for example). Neither of these disclose that the images are associated with vehicles currently charging at the charging station as required by the claimed invention. This limitation appears to be counterintuitive in light of all the prior art of record which typically has the connector information of each charging station already known and stored in a database (for example Wu ¶ 0043) wherein this data can be updated if needed. The claimed invention appears to introduce additional processing steps that may result in additional processing time/resources being spent to find compatible charging stations and thus appears to be disadvantageous in light of the prior art of record such that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not find the invention obvious in light of the prior art of record. Therefore, the claims contain allowable subject matter that appears to be novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art of record.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 6/24/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/15/2025. These/this objections and rejections have/has been withdrawn.
Drawing amendments filed 6/24/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the majority of the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn. On page 9 of the remarks filed 6/24/2026, applicant kindly indicates a typo that was in the Office Action dated 4/15/2026. Particularly, the callouts 205C and 250D were typographical errors that resulted in undue confusion. Applicant adequately realized that 205C was meant to be 250C and amended the specification (dated 6/24/2026) to overcome this rejection. 250D was meant to be 250E which is still not within the specification. Therefore, the objection to 250E has been corrected to avoid a typo and is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11, applicant argues that as a whole, the claim does not present an abstract idea as it uses real time sensor data to determine compatibility of charging equipment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Human beings are particularly well equipped to study images such that, even in real time, they can easily identify a vehicle charging at a station and determine, provided knowledge of EVs, if the vehicles currently charging shown in a received image have the same charging port as the person’s own vehicle. Any further sensor data given to a user, such as session data indicating charging speed, can be mentally processed in real time to determine if a charger has compatible charging specifications. Since the method is not particularly performed while an additional process is occurring that would split a person’s attention, a user’s mind would be adequately free to perform the very minimal processing required to examine any received sensor data. If applicant intends to indicate that data reception itself is more than the abstract idea, applicant is kindly reminded that that is merely an insignificant extra pre solution activity of mere data reception which is a WURC as detailed in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, the claim amendments do not overcome the 101 rejection.
Further on page 11, applicant further argues that since the claim recites rerouting a vehicle, physical interaction with charging stations and charging equipment must occur such that no abstract idea exists. Applicant is kindly reminded of the wording of the rerouting limitation as currently presented:
responsive to a determination that the charging equipment at the charging station is non-functional, rerouting the vehicle to the alternative charging station based on the compatible current charging equipment for the vehicle at the alternative charging station.
Nothing in the claim limitation requires physical control or interaction with the charging stations and/or equipment. Instead, under broadest reasonable interpretation, data reception (which is WURC as detailed above) is all that is required to form the basis for this determination and rerouting limitation. E.g. data can be transmitted to the vehicle from the charging station to be used in the determination that it is non-functional as detailed in claim 2 for example. The actual determination and rerouting steps are mere mental processes. Applicant is kindly reminded that routing and rerouting are not active control steps but are interpretated as generation/provision of instructions to navigate to a location as detailed in the claim interpretation above. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly an abstract idea of a mental process.
On pages 11-12, applicant further argues that the claimed invention is an improvement in operation of EV charging systems and vehicle routing systems. This is not persuasive as the necessary processing to perform the invention is quite minimal (mere generic determination, prediction, and routing). The invention as claimed does not provide any significant details to result in a hardware improvement for EV charging systems or vehicle routing systems nor does it provide significant details regarding how processing is performed that implements the invention in a manner that significantly improves the software performance of these systems. Furthermore, the claimed invention does not adequately claim an improvement to mere routing methods that is clearly advantageous over existing methods. Instead, as stated regarding the allowable subject matter detailed above, the claimed method appears to be counterintuitive and disadvantageous in light of the existing prior art of record and may result in additional processing which may not clearly improve the performance of conventional vehicle routing methods. Since an improvement is not clearly realized within the invention as claimed, the invention fails step 2A.
On page 12, applicant further argues that reception of real time sensor data integrates the claimed invention into a practical application. As stated above, reception of data is mere insignificant extra pre solution activity of data reception and therefore fails step 2A.
Further on page 12, applicant further argues that the invention is integrated into a practical application in step 2B. Since the applicant fails to articulate any reasoning as to why the combination of claimed elements incorporates the invention into a practical application in step 2B, the mere allegations cannot be considered persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-14, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 4/15/2026 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights