DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of the application number 19/007048.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 have been amended to recite “notifying the device to return to the vehicle when the length of the queue falls below a threshold”. Paragraph 69 of the Specification describes determining the length of a queue and delaying the notifying in response to the length of the queue being below a threshold ([0069] … determining that the occupant is at a location comprising one or more of a waiting area, a store, a restaurant, a recreational facility, an entertainment facility, or a service provider, predicting a duration for which the occupant will remain at the location, and extending the time of departure in response to the predicted duration 247D, determining a length of a queue at the charging station, and delaying the notifying in response to the length of the queue being below a threshold 248D); however, Examiner cannot find any description or disclosure of notifying the device to return to the vehicle when the length of the queue falls below a threshold. Therefore, Examiner finds that the claims contain subject matter that was not described in the specification in a way to reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1 – Yes) Claims 1-7 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 8-14 are directed to an apparatus comprising a processor; thus the apparatus comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 1 – No) Claims 15-20 is/are directed to a computer-readable storage medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customer meaning of machine accessible storage medium. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). A claim drawn to such a machine accessible storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101).
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to estimate a time of departure of a vehicle from a charging station, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
receiving location data of … an occupant of the vehicle when … the occupant exit the vehicle and enter a location;
determining a time of departure of the vehicle based on an optimal charge level of the battery of the vehicle; and
predicting a length of time that the occupant will remain at the location;
modifying the time of departure of the vehicle based on the predicted length of time the occupant will remain at the location…
The identified limitations in the claims describing estimating a time of departure of a vehicle from a charging station (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices, commercial activities, and managing personal behavior. Dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20 recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea; therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the device in claim 1; the processor; memory, wherein the processor and the memory are communicably coupled, and device in claim 8; and the computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions and device in claim 15, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor/computer.
Additional elements such as receiving location data of a device… and notifying the device… do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; further, these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering/transmission). Similarly, additional elements in claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17, related to notifying the device…; providing content data to the device…; and providing of the content data from the device to the vehicle… add additional elements that do not yield an improvement; these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data display/transmission). Additional elements related to determining a battery installed within a vehicle is receiving a charge at a charging station and controlling charging of the battery to continue based on the modified time of departure do not improve the computer or technology; these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the hardware additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Spec. [0041][0042]). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements such as receiving location data of a device… and notifying the device… do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; further, these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering/transmission). Additional elements in claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17, related to notifying the device…; providing content data to the device…; and providing of the content data from the device to the vehicle… do not yield an improvement; these additional elements only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data transmission). With respect to data gathering and transmission limitations, the courts have recognized the use of computers to receive and transmit data as a well-understood, routine, and conventional, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Additional elements related to determining a battery installed within a vehicle is receiving a charge at a charging station and controlling charging of the battery to continue based on the modified time of departure do not provide an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0401613 (Khoo); in view of US 2023/0009749 (Kinsey).
As per claim 1, Khoo teaches: a method, comprising: determining a battery installed within a vehicle is receiving a charge at a charging station; ([0004] An electric vehicle (EV) is the common name given to describing automobiles designed to operate their electric motor on a rechargeable battery. The battery is recharged when the electric vehicle is connected to an electric vehicle charging station or electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). [0147] … an empty charging space 1170 is monitored by a geolocation method 1145 using either nearby sensors or another geolocation method. [0148] …the charging station 1190 may monitor a charging space 1150 with a geolocation method 1135 to verify whether an electric vehicle 1140 has left or not. [0165] … If an electric vehicle 1140 connects to the charging station 1190 via a charging coupler 665 and begins charging the vehicle's battery, then the charging station 1190 determines using geolocation method 1145 that the electric vehicle 647 occupies the charging space 1140. [0166] At step 1320, the user 1160 of the mobile device 1120 initiates a charge transfer for the electric vehicle 1140 at the charging station 1190. If the electric vehicle 1140 connects to the charging station 1190 via a charging coupler 665 and begins charging the vehicle's battery, then the charging station 1190 may determine that the electric vehicle 647 occupies the charging space 1140.)
receiving location data of a device of an occupant of the vehicle when the device and the occupant exit the vehicle and enter a location; ([0149] In one implementation, the charging station 1190 may also monitor the geolocation of a mobile device 1130 associated with the electric vehicle 1140 to determine the estimated time of arrival of the mobile device's 1130 user… geolocation method 1125 may be utilized at the charging station 1190 or a geolocation method 1115 by the cloud server 1110 to track the mobile device's 1130 whereabouts [0154] … alert the charging station 1190 or the cloud server 1110 whether an electric vehicle or a mobile device is entering or leaving the charging station 1190; device enters a location [0166] At step 1320, the user 1160 of the mobile device 1120 initiates a charge transfer for the electric vehicle 1140 at the charging station 1190… [0167] At step 1330, the charging station 1190 detects the mobile device 1120 leaving the charging station 1190 using a geolocation method 1155.)
determining a time of departure of the vehicle based on an optimal charge level of a battery of the vehicle; and ([0068] …provide charging information related to a charge transfer, such as charging status reports for the electric vehicle 130 that may include how long until the user's 160 charge transfer is complete, whether there are any complications in the charging process, the current cost of a charging transaction
Although not explicitly taught by Khoo, Kinsey teaches: predicting a length of time that the occupant will remain at the location; ([0009] … For example, a user may request the EVCS to start charging their electric vehicle at 1:00 pm, and the EVCS may retrieve a first piece of user information indicating that a device associated with the user (e.g., smartphone, tablet, etc.) crossed a geofence at 1:05 pm. The EVCS can use the user information to determine an estimated charge time (e.g., fifteen minutes) based on the amount of time the user normally spends in the location related to the geofence. For example, the user may spend different amounts of time in different locations (e.g., average of ten minutes in coffee shops, average of two hours in restaurants, etc.). [0010] The EVCS can also use location information (e.g., local patterns, electrical grid information, site information, etc.) in conjunction with user information to determine an inferred dwell time. For example, a user may request the EVCS to start charging their electric vehicle and the EVCS may retrieve a first piece of user information indicating that the user purchased an item for pickup from a location (e.g., restaurant) within a threshold distance (e.g., one mile) from the EVCS. The EVCS may determine a first local pattern, that users who purchased an item for pickup from the location wait an average time within a time frame (e.g., fifteen minutes). The first local pattern may be received from a database comprising entries linking user dwell times to locations)
modifying the time of departure of the vehicle based on the predicted length of time the occupant will remain at the location; and ([0009] … For example, a user may request the EVCS to start charging their electric vehicle at 1:00 pm, and the EVCS may retrieve a first piece of user information indicating that a device associated with the user (e.g., smartphone, tablet, etc.) crossed a geofence at 1:05 pm. The EVCS can use the user information to determine an estimated charge time (e.g., fifteen minutes) based on the amount of time the user normally spends in the location related to the geofence. For example, the user may spend different amounts of time in different locations (e.g., average of ten minutes in coffee shops, average of two hours in restaurants, etc.). [0011] … For example, a user may request the EVCS to start charging their electric vehicle at 1:00 pm, and the EVCS may retrieve a first piece of user information indicating that the user purchased a movie ticket for a movie ending at 3:00 pm. The EVCS can use the user information to determine an estimated charge time (e.g., two hours) [0039] … dwell time module 204 can use the user's calendar information 212 to determine an estimated dwell time 206. For example, the user may request an EVCS to start charging their electric vehicle at 1:00 pm, and the dwell time module 204 may receive a user's calendar information 212 indicating that the user has an event, located within the vicinity of the EVCS, ending at 3:00 pm. The dwell time module 204 can use the user's calendar information 212 to determine that the estimated dwell time 206 is approximately two hours.)
controlling charging of the battery to continue based on the modified time of departure ([0011] … For example, a user may request the EVCS to start charging their electric vehicle at 1:00 pm, and the EVCS may retrieve a first piece of user information indicating that the user purchased a movie ticket for a movie ending at 3:00 pm. The EVCS can use the user information to determine an estimated charge time (e.g., two hours). [0026] … the EVCS 102 uses the estimated dwell time that a user will be within a first vicinity to determine an estimated charge time for the electric vehicle 104. In some embodiments, the EVCS 102 determines a charging rate for the electric vehicle 104 based on the estimated charge time. For example, a slower charging rate may be used for longer estimated charge times (e.g., two hours) and a faster charging rate may be used for shorter estimated charge times (e.g., fifteen minutes). [0039] … dwell time module 204 can use the user's calendar information 212 to determine an estimated dwell time 206. For example, the user may request an EVCS to start charging their electric vehicle at 1:00 pm, and the dwell time module 204 may receive a user's calendar information 212 indicating that the user has an event, located within the vicinity of the EVCS, ending at 3:00 pm. The dwell time module 204 can use the user's calendar information 212 to determine that the estimated dwell time 206 is approximately two hours. In some embodiments, the dwell time module 204 can also determine an estimated charge time and/or charging rate for the electric vehicle of the user. For example, a slower charging rate may be used for longer estimated dwell times (e.g., two hours), and a faster charging rate may be used for shorter estimated dwell times (e.g., fifteen minutes)).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Khoo with the aforementioned teachings of Kinsey with the motivation of modifying charge rate based on dwell time (Kinsey [0039]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Kinsey to the system of Khoo would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow adjust the charging based on an estimated time.
As per claim 2, Khoo teaches: in response to the location data of the device indicating a movement towards the vehicle, notifying the device with first information related to the charge; and in response to the location data of the device not indicating a movement towards the vehicle, notifying the device with second information related to the charge ([0149] In one implementation, the charging station 1190 may also monitor the geolocation of a mobile device 1130 associated with the electric vehicle 1140 to determine the estimated time of arrival of the mobile device's 1130 user. As shown in FIG. 11, a geolocation method 1125 may be utilized at the charging station 1190 or a geolocation method 1115 by the cloud server 1110 to track the mobile device's 1130 whereabouts. [0162] … The mobile device 1120 may receive the message over the network connection 1175 to the cloud server 1110. The message may be based on … an electric vehicle charging transaction, the mobile device's 1120 distance from the charging station 1190, whether the mobile device 1120 is approaching or leaving the charging station 1190, or any other relevant message).
As per claim 5, Khoo teaches: wherein the location comprises at least one of a waiting area, a store, a restaurant, a recreational facility, an entertainment facility, and a service provider ([0149] In one implementation, the charging station 1190 may also monitor the geolocation of a mobile device 1130 associated with the electric vehicle 1140 to determine the estimated time of arrival of the mobile device's 1130 user. As shown in FIG. 11, a geolocation method 1125 may be utilized at the charging station 1190 or a geolocation method 1115 by the cloud server 1110 to track the mobile device's 1130 whereabouts. [0155] In one implementation, geolocation information may not necessarily be a single coordinate or reading, but a series of readings taken over seconds, minutes, hours, or even days. For example, the speed at which a mobile device is traveling, the type of terrain where a mobile device is located, metadata, or any other related data may be included in geolocation information. [0158] …geolocation information, where the information is in regard to a geographical feature. Geographical features may include roads, cities, radio or cell towers, a physical landmark, such as a forest or mountain, or a commercial establishment, such as hotels or restaurants [0160] …By knowing how far the mobile device 1120 is from the charging station 1190, the cloud server 1110 may provide an accurate predictor of the future arrival time when the mobile device's 1120 user 1160 may collect their electric vehicle 1140. [0161] Availability may be gauged in terms of actual availability or as a probability or likelihood that a charging space may be available upon a user's arrival at the charging station 1190. [0163] …the amount of time when a charging station may become available).
In addition to Khoo, Kinsey also teaches: wherein the location comprises at least one of a waiting area, a store, a restaurant, a recreational facility, an entertainment facility, and a service provider ([0009] … The EVCS can use the user information to determine an estimated charge time (e.g., fifteen minutes) based on the amount of time the user normally spends in the location related to the geofence. For example, the user may spend different amounts of time in different locations (e.g., average of ten minutes in coffee shops, average of two hours in restaurants, etc.). [0006] … a user may request the EVCS to start charging their electric vehicle at 1:00 pm, and the EVCS may retrieve a first piece of user information indicating that the user purchased a movie ticket for a movie ending at 3:00 pm. The EVCS can use the user information to determine that the estimated charge time will be approximately two hours).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Khoo with the aforementioned teachings of Kinsey with the motivation of modifying charge rate based on dwell time (Kinsey [0039]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Kinsey to the system of Khoo would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for estimation of dwell time at different types of locations.
As per claims 8 and 15, these claims recite limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 1; above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claims 9 and 16, these claims recite limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 2; above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claims 12 and 19, these claims recite limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 5; above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0401613 (Khoo); in view of US 2023/0009749 (Kinsey); in view of US 2020/0257317 (Musk).
As per claim 3, Khoo teaches: in response to the location data of the device indicating a movement towards the vehicle, notifying the device … ([0149] In one implementation, the charging station 1190 may also monitor the geolocation of a mobile device 1130 associated with the electric vehicle 1140 to determine the estimated time of arrival of the mobile device's 1130 user. As shown in FIG. 11, a geolocation method 1125 may be utilized at the charging station 1190 or a geolocation method 1115 by the cloud server 1110 to track the mobile device's 1130 whereabouts. [0162] … The mobile device 1120 may receive the message over the network connection 1175 to the cloud server 1110. The message may be based on … an electric vehicle charging transaction, the mobile device's 1120 distance from the charging station 1190, whether the mobile device 1120 is approaching or leaving the charging station 1190, or any other relevant message).
Although not explicitly taught by Khoo, Musk teaches: notifying the device that the vehicle can maneuver to a location of the device ([0014] … For example, a user provides a location by dropping a pin on a graphical map user interface at the destination location. As another example, a user summons the vehicle to the user's location by specifying the user's location as the destination location. The user may also select a destination location based on viable paths detected for the vehicle. The destination location may update (for example if the user moves around) leading the car to update its path to the destination location. [0021] … a sidewalk, a crosswalk, an intersection, a lake, etc. are typically not valid stopping locations and the user may be prompted to select a valid location. In some embodiments, the destination received is modified from the user's initial selected destination to account for safety concerns, such as enforcing a valid stopping location. [0025] … the notification is sent to a mobile application, a key fob (e.g., indicated by a change in state associated with the key fob), via a text message, and/or via another appropriate notification channel. [0082] … vehicle controller 707 is used to control notification systems including warning systems to inform the driver and/or passengers of driving events [0094] In the example shown, dialog window 803 includes a text description such as “Press and hold to start, or tap the map to choose a destination” to inform the user how to activate the summon feature. In some embodiments, the default action is to navigate the vehicle to the user. The default action is activated by selecting the “Find Me” button that is part of dialog window 803. In some embodiments, once the “Find Me” action is enabled, the selected path is displayed on the user interface (not shown in FIG. 8). As the vehicle navigates to the user's location, vehicle locator element 805 is updated to reflect the vehicle's new location).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Khoo with the aforementioned teachings of Musk with the motivation of summoning a vehicle to a user location (Musk [0014]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Musk to the system of Khoo would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow users to direct a vehicle to maneuver to a location.
As per claims 10 and 17, these claims recite limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 3; above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0401613 (Khoo); in view of US 2023/0009749 (Kinsey); in view of US 2015/0321570 (Cun).
As per claim 4, although not explicitly taught by Khoo, Cun teaches: determining a destination for the vehicle; and determining the optimal charge level based on an amount of energy to reach the destination ([0054] For example, the charging completion time may be advanced to cease charging sooner. The charging profile may be updated based on a required SOC of the battery. For example, if the EV requires a SOC of 54% to reach the next destination (e.g., home), but the current SOC is at 43%, then the charging cycle will continue until the SOC is at least 54%, even though the original charging profile would have charged the battery 104 to 80% if no congestion signal was received. The charging control system 102 may update the charging cycle at 330 based on other factors in alternative embodiments after the congestion signal is received. [0055] In an exemplary embodiment, the user interface 130 displays charging information on the display 132 when the user interface 130 prompts the operator. For example, the user interface 130 may display the current battery SOC, the remaining charging time to complete charging in accordance with the original charging profile, a travel range based on the current battery SOC, and the like).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Khoo with the aforementioned teachings of Cun with the motivation of decreasing charge time during congestion (Cun [0054]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Cun to the system of Khoo would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the charging of a vehicle based on energy requirements.
As per claims 11 and 18, these claims recite limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 4; above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0401613 (Khoo); in view of US 2023/0009749 (Kinsey); in view of US 2014/0125485 (Juhasz).
As per claim 6, although not explicitly taught by Khoo, Juhasz teaches: determining a length of a queue at the charging station; and notifying the device to return to the vehicle when the length of the queue being below a threshold ([0058] … information regarding the current state of the queue or the EVCS--for example, the number of others in the queue [0065] Once the driver has removed the current vehicle from the EVCS or, in some cases, simultaneously with the driver's notification to remove the current vehicle from the EVCS; the driver at the top of the queue will be notified to move his or her PEV to the EVCS at 730 [0074] … If there are not more drivers in the queue, then the driver at the top of the queue is notified that the EVCS is still available for his or her use)
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Khoo with the aforementioned teachings of Juhasz with the motivation of transmitting data pertaining to the use of EVCS (Juhasz [0044]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Juhasz to the system of Khoo would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow users to receive notifications based on queue length.
As per claims 13 and 20, these claims recite limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 5; above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0401613 (Khoo); in view of US 2023/0009749 (Kinsey); in view of US 2018/0091582 (Vossen).
As per claim 7, Khoo teaches: providing content data to the device based on the time of departure; ([0068] …provide charging information related to a charge transfer, such as charging status reports for the electric vehicle 130 that may include how long until the user's 160 charge transfer is complete, whether there are any complications in the charging process, the current cost of a charging transaction [0160] … By knowing how far the mobile device 1120 is from the charging station 1190, the cloud server 1110 may provide an accurate predictor of the future arrival time when the mobile device's 1120 user 1160 may collect their electric vehicle 1140. [0162] At step 1250, the charging system 1100 sends a message to the mobile device 1120 based on the distance between the mobile device 1120 and the charging station 1190. [0169] In one implementation, where the mobile device 1120 is a cell phone or similar device, the cloud server 1110 or the charging station 1190 may communicate over the network connection 1175 with the mobile device 1120 about the user's 1160 estimated time of arrival. The cloud server 1110 may send inquiries asking when the user 1160 expects to collect their vehicle).
determining when the location data of the device indicates a movement towards the vehicle; and in response to the determining the movement towards the vehicle, … providing of the content data ([0149] In one implementation, the charging station 1190 may also monitor the geolocation of a mobile device 1130 associated with the electric vehicle 1140 to determine the estimated time of arrival of the mobile device's 1130 user. As shown in FIG. 11, a geolocation method 1125 may be utilized at the charging station 1190 or a geolocation method 1115 by the cloud server 1110 to track the mobile device's 1130 whereabouts. [0162] … The mobile device 1120 may receive the message over the network connection 1175 to the cloud server 1110. The message may be based on … an electric vehicle charging transaction, the mobile device's 1120 distance from the charging station 1190, whether the mobile device 1120 is approaching or leaving the charging station 1190, or any other relevant message).
Although not explicitly taught by Khoo, Vossen teaches: … transitioning the providing of the content data from the device to the vehicle within a timeframe ([0005] …transition between mobile derives and other device can be beneficial is in the area of vehicle infotainment systems… transition between these mobile devices and the vehicle infotainment system [0028] … the communication can be selected to be either first presented to the user through the mobile device [0032] … allow a user to start and stop the playback of content between a vehicle and another out of vehicle device (e.g., computer, home entertainment center, smartphone, etc.) in any order.).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Khoo with the aforementioned teachings of Vossen with the motivation of delivering content to a vehicle user (Vossen [0006]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Vossen to the system of Khoo would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for content to be provided to a mobile device and vehicle system.
As per claim 14, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 7, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. With respect to the first prong, Examiner maintains that the identified limitations (receiving location data of … an occupant of the vehicle when … the occupant exit the vehicle and enter a location; determining a time of departure of the vehicle based on an optimal charge level of the battery of the vehicle; and predicting a length of time that the occupant will remain at the location; modifying the time of departure of the vehicle based on the predicted length of time the occupant will remain at the location…) in the claims describing estimating a time of departure of a vehicle from a charging station (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices, commercial activities, and managing personal behavior. Examiner acknowledges that the claims recite certain additional elements; these additional elements have been considered and addressed in prong two and Step 2B.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Additional elements related to determining a battery installed within a vehicle is receiving a charge at a charging station and controlling charging of the battery to continue based on the modified time of departure do not improve the computer or technology; these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, the claim recited a broadcast system in which a cellular telephone located outside the range of a regional broadcaster (1) requests and receives network-based content from the broadcaster via a streaming signal, (2) is configured to wirelessly download an application for performing those functions, and (3) contains a display that allows the user to select particular content. Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d at 1255-56, 120 USPQ2d at 1202. The court identified the claimed concept of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content as an abstract idea, and noted that the additional elements limited the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like). 838 F.3d at 1258-59, 120 USPQ2d at 1204. Although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. 838 F.3d at 1259, 120 USPQ2d at 1204.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0074523 (Turner) – discloses the notification of users in a queue ([0005]).
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 ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights