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 .
Application status
This office action is in response to application filed on 05/30/2025 and Preliminary Amendment filed on 05/30/2025. Claims 1-13 are canceled. Claims 14-26 are pending. Claims 14-26 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the parent Application No. DE10 2023 101 611.3 filed on 01/24/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “a method for determining a charging station for a motor vehicle considers entries that are validated.” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which step of claim 14 this limitation is referring back. Due to term “a method for..” it is unclear “a method for determining a charging station for a motor vehicle considers entries that are validated” is referring to a new method or is it referring to the method disclosed in claim 14?
The limitation “wherein a new entry is created based on a group that is not assigned to any entry” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. it is unclear what is the different between a new entry in claim 22 and the entry in claim 14? It is also unclear what entry is refereed in relation to “any entry” in claim 22. It is unclear that “a group that is not assigned to any entry” is referring to an empty group without any entries or a specific type of group such as private charging station group or public charging station group.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 recites the limitation "entries" in line 2. If the applicant is referring to already claimed “entries” of claim 14 (line 6), claim 17 should read as “wherein it is determined what proportion of each of the entries is each assigned to exactly one group”. If the term "entries" in claim 17 is referring to new type of entries, applicant needs to clearly show the difference between the term “entries” in claim 17 and the term “entries” in claim 14.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "an entry" in line 2. If the applicant is referring to claimed “an entry” of claim 14 (line 5), claim 18 should read as “the entry that is assigned to exactly one group is validated; and”. If the limitation "an entry" in claim 18 is referring to new type of entry, applicant needs to clearly show the difference between “an entry” in claim 18 and the “an entry” in claim 14.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "entries" in line 9. If the applicant is referring to already claimed “entries” of claim 25 (line 5), claim 25 should read as “determine the entries that are each assigned to exactly one group.”. If the term "entries" in line 9 is referring to new type of entries, applicant needs to clearly show the difference between “entries” in line 9 and the term “entries” in line 5.
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.
Claim 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
As described in MPEP § 2106, the analyses as to whether a claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 includes the following determinations:
(1) Whether the claim is to a statutory category, i.e. to a process, machine,
manufacture or composition of matter ("Step 1")- see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III,
and 2106.03.
(2) If the claim is to a statutory category, whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(3) If the claim recites a judicial exception, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ("Step 2A, Prong Two") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(4) If the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ("Step 2B") — see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.05.
Step 1: Claims 14-24 are directed to A method for validating entries of mapped charging stations, wherein each entry is assigned a geographical position of a charging station (process). There, claims 14-24 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 14 is considered a representative independent claim.
Claims 15-24 are considered as dependent claims of claim 14
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below) and will be used as a representative independent claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 14 recites:
(New) A method for validating entries of mapped charging stations, wherein each entry is assigned a geographical position of a charging station, the method comprising:
detecting locations of actual charging processes of at least one motor vehicle;
assigning spatially adjacent locations to groups;
assigning an entry for a mapped charging station to a nearby group; and
determining entries that are each assigned to exactly one group.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person can “detect locations of actual charging processes of at least one motor vehicle’, “assign spatially adjacent locations to groups”, assign an entry for a mapped charging station to a nearby group”, and “determine entries that are each assigned to exactly one group.”. In other words, an individual knows when a car is actually being charged, the location of the car being charged, when the car was charged, and is able to categorize each of the charging stations into groups based on the location of each of the charging stations. These steps involved in claim 14 can simply be done mentally, could just be data gathering, or done in combination with pen and paper, if desired. Thus, the claim recites a simple process, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer or processor to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are listed. Accordingly, the no additional limitation(s) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 14 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, no additional elements are utilized to “detect locations of actual charging processes of at least one motor vehicle’, “assign spatially adjacent locations to groups”, assign an entry for a mapped charging station to a nearby group”, and “determine entries that are each assigned to exactly one group.” Hence, the claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 15-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More specifically:
Claim 15 includes additional steps to further delineate “detecting locations of actual charging processes of at least one motor vehicle”, wherein the additional steps include “locations of charging processes”.
Claim 16 includes additional steps to further delineate “assigning an entry for a mapped charging station to a nearby group”, wherein the additional steps include two entries.
Claim 17 includes additional steps to further delineate “determining entries that are each assigned to exactly one group”, wherein the additional steps include proportion of entries.
Claim 18 includes additional steps to further delineate “determining entries that are each assigned to exactly one group” based on the validation of an entry.
Claim 19 includes additional steps to further delineate “assigning spatially adjacent locations to groups”, wherein the additional steps includes a method of clustering.
Claim 20 further delineates “assigning spatially adjacent locations to groups” based on additional data gathering.
Claim 21 includes additional steps to further delineate “detecting locations of actual charging processes of at least one motor vehicle”, wherein the additional steps include at least two locations.
Claim 22 includes additional steps to further delineate “determining entries that are each assigned to exactly one group”, wherein the additional steps include a new entry is created based on a group that is not assigned to any entry.
Claim 23 includes additional steps to further delineate “determining entries that are each assigned to exactly one group”, wherein the additional steps include a group is not considered when its locations are situated in a residential area.
Claim 24 includes additional steps to further delineate “determining entries that are each assigned to exactly one group”, wherein the additional steps include the geographical position of a group is determined as the geometric mean of the included positions.
Therefore, dependent claims 15-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 14. Therefore, claims 15-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-15, 18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NOVY (DE 102021001361 A1).
Regarding claim 14, NOVY teaches (New) A method for validating entries of mapped charging stations, wherein each entry is assigned a geographical position of a charging station (NOVY, page 2, para. 8 in translated copy; “According to one aspect of the invention, a method for detecting charging stations for a traction battery of an electrically operated vehicle is proposed, at least comprising detecting a charging process of the vehicle at the charging station; matching a geographical position of the charging station with the geographical positions of known public charging stations stored in a database”, wherein the charging stations NOVY teach the entries), the method comprising:
detecting locations of actual charging processes of at least one motor vehicle (NOVY, page 4, para. 6 in translated copy; “a map 60 a database, for example a navigation system of a vehicle, with registered charging processes at charging stations 12th , 22nd according to an embodiment of the invention. The positions of the individual charging processes at the charging stations 12th , 22nd are entered as "X" in the map shown.”, wherein each charging stations 12th and 22nd are detected as entries);
assigning spatially adjacent locations to groups (NOVY, page 4, para. 8 in translated copy; “If a lot 10 , 20th of charging processes at charging stations 12th , 22nd with similar geographical positions in a radius can be recorded, this amount 10 , 20th a charging station 12th , 22nd be assigned with an average geographical position.”, wherein the clustering charging stations 12 into lot 10 is a group and charging stations 20 into lot 20 another group);
assigning an entry for a mapped charging station to a nearby group (NOVY, page 5, para. 1 in translated copy; “Within the perimeter of the first cluster 10 is also a public charging station 14th known. For the geographic position of the second cluster 20th is not a public charging station 14th known. According to the method according to the invention, the averaged geographical position of the second cluster 20th assigned to a private charging station. With the first cluster 10 it is assumed that the charging processes at the charging stations 12th at the one public charging station 14th have been carried out and therefore no additional charging station has been entered.”); and
determining entries that are each assigned to exactly one group (NOVY, page 5, para. 4 in translated copy; “a charging process of the vehicle at the charging station 12th , 22nd capture; a geographical position of the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographical positions of in a database 50 stored known public charging stations 14th to match; and at repeated charging at this charging station 12th , 22nd the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographic position in the database 50 to be entered if there is no public charging station 14th is known at this position.”).
Regarding claim 15, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein locations of charging processes of a plurality of motor vehicles are detected (NOVY, page 4, para. 8 in translated copy; “a lot 10 , 20th of charging processes at charging stations 12th , 22nd with similar geographical positions in a radius can be recorded, this amount 10 , 20th a charging station 12th , 22nd be assigned with an average geographical position.”).
Regarding claim 18, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein: an entry that is assigned to exactly one group is validated (NOVY, page 5, para. 3 in translated copy; “The device 40 which can be used, for example, as a control unit in the vehicle 30th or can be implemented as a function in an already existing control unit of the vehicle, has means, a charging process of the vehicle at the charging station 12th , 22nd capture; a geographical position of the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographical positions of in a database 50 stored known public charging stations 14th to match; and at repeated charging at this charging station 12th , 22nd the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographic position in the database 50 to be entered if there is no public charging station 14th is known at this position.”, wherein charging station 14 is assigned to lot 10 and the position of the charging station 14 is validated with device 40); and a method for determining a charging station for a motor vehicle considers entries that are validated (NOVY, page 2, para. 10 in translated copy; “According to the proposed method, data about private and unintelligent charging stations, such as wall boxes, household sockets and the like, which are not recorded on any map of a public charging station, can be recorded. As a result, their positions and data can then be made available to the respective vehicle and / or made known to a navigation system. This enables a route planner to plan better routes that include these charging stations. For example, the route planning on the way home could allow an extremely low charge level when reaching the home address, as it then knows that it can be recharged there. This means there is no need to stop charging shortly before the end of the journey.”, wherein the residential charger is a validated charger only for the vehicle that corresponds to the specific address of the residential charger).
Regarding claim 21, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein at least two locations are required to form a group (NOVY, page 3, para. 3 in translated copy; “lot 10 , 20th of charging processes at charging stations 12th , 22nd with similar geographical positions in a radius can be recorded”, wherein more than one charging stations are also shows in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein a new entry is created based on a group that is not assigned to any entry (NOVY, page 2, para. 10 in translated copy; “According to the proposed method, data about private and unintelligent charging stations, such as wall boxes, household sockets and the like, which are not recorded on any map of a public charging station, can be recorded. As a result, their positions and data can then be made available to the respective vehicle and / or made known to a navigation system. This enables a route planner to plan better routes that include these charging stations. For example, the route planning on the way home could allow an extremely low charge level when reaching the home address, as it then knows that it can be recharged there. This means there is no need to stop charging shortly before the end of the journey.”, In other words, the new entry is created based on the residential charger and it is not available to the general public. Resultantly, the residential charger belongs to a specific lot that has no other assigned entries, wherein the specific group is different from lot 10 and 20).
Regarding claim 23, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 22, wherein a group is not considered when its locations are situated in a residential area (NOVY, page 3, para. 3 in translated copy; “According to the proposed method, data about private and unintelligent charging stations, such as wall boxes, household sockets and the like, which are not recorded on any map of a public charging station, can be recorded. As a result, their positions and data can then be made available to the respective vehicle and/or made known to a navigation system. This enables a route planner to plan better routes that include these charging stations. For example, the route planning on the way home could allow an extremely low charge level when reaching the home address, as it then knows that it can be recharged there. This means there is no need to stop charging shortly before the end of the journey.”, In other words, the residential charging station is only available to the corresponding owner of that residential charger. Therefore, general public is not able to access the residential chargers during the route planning thus excluding the residential chargers from the group. It is also oblivious to a skilled person not to list charging stations of private individuals in a public database).
Regarding claim 24, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein the geographical position of a group is determined as the geometric mean of the included positions (NOVY, page 3, para. 3 in translated copy; “a set of charging processes at charging stations with similar geographical positions in a radius can be recorded and a charging station with an average geographical position can be assigned to this set. In this way, charging processes can be clustered in order to compensate for inaccuracies in determining the position of the vehicle. All charging processes in a cluster can thus be assigned an averaged position as the most probable position of a charging station.”).
Regarding claim 25, NOVY teaches (New) A device for validating entries of mapped charging stations, wherein each entry is assigned a geographical position of the charging station (NOVY, page 5, para. 4 in translated copy; “The device 40 which can be used, for example, as a control unit in the vehicle 30th or can be implemented as a function in an already existing control unit of the vehicle, has means, a charging process of the vehicle at the charging station 12th , 22nd capture; a geographical position of the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographical positions of in a database 50 stored known public charging stations 14th to match; and at repeated charging at this charging station 12th , 22nd the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographic position in the database 50 to be entered if there is no public charging station 14th is known at this position.”), the device comprising:
a first interface for detecting locations of actual charging processes of at least one motor vehicle (NOVY, page 5, para. 4 in translated copy; “The device 40 which can be used, for example, as a control unit in the vehicle 30th or can be implemented as a function in an already existing control unit of the vehicle, has means, a charging process of the vehicle at the charging station 12th , 22nd capture; a geographical position of the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographical positions of in a database 50 stored known public charging stations 14th to match; and at repeated charging at this charging station 12th , 22nd the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographic position in the database 50 to be entered if there is no public charging station 14th is known at this position.”);
a second interface for detecting entries of mapped charging stations (NOVY, page 5, para. 5 in translated copy; “Database 50 can for example be used as a remote database 50 be realized, which via a communication link 52 with the vehicle 30th and whose navigation system is connected. Database 50 however, it can also be in the vehicle 30th and its navigation system must be implemented.”); and a processing unit configured to (NOVY, page 5, para. 4 in translated copy; “a control unit in the vehicle 30th”):
assign spatially adjacent locations to groups (NOVY, page 4, para. 8 in translated copy; “If a lot 10 , 20th of charging processes at charging stations 12th , 22nd with similar geographical positions in a radius can be recorded, this amount 10 , 20th a charging station 12th , 22nd be assigned with an average geographical position.”);
assign an entry for a mapped charging station to a nearby group (NOVY, page 5, para. 1 in translated copy; “Within the perimeter of the first cluster 10 is also a public charging station 14th known. For the geographic position of the second cluster 20th is not a public charging station 14th known. According to the method according to the invention, the averaged geographical position of the second cluster 20th assigned to a private charging station. With the first cluster 10 it is assumed that the charging processes at the charging stations 12th at the one public charging station 14th have been carried out and therefore no additional charging station has been entered.”); and
determine entries that are each assigned to exactly one group (NOVY, page 5, para. 4 in translated copy; “a charging process of the vehicle at the charging station 12th , 22nd capture; a geographical position of the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographical positions of in a database 50 stored known public charging stations 14th to match; and at repeated charging at this charging station 12th , 22nd the charging station 12th , 22nd with the geographic position in the database 50 to be entered if there is no public charging station 14th is known at this position.”).
Regarding claim 26, NOVY teaches (New) A system, comprising: a device according to claim 25; and at least one motor vehicle configured to provide a location of an actual charging process (NOVY, page 2, para. 8 in translated copy; “According to one aspect of the invention, a method for detecting charging stations for a traction battery of an electrically operated vehicle is proposed, at least comprising detecting a charging process of the vehicle at the charging station; matching a geographical position of the charging station with the geographical positions of known public charging stations stored in a database”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOVY (DE 102021001361 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Telpaz (US 20220318859 A1).
Regarding claim 16, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 14 (NOVY, page 5, para. 1 in translated copy; “Within the perimeter of the first cluster 10 is also a public charging station 14th known. For the geographic position of the second cluster 20th is not a public charging station 14th known. According to the method according to the invention, the averaged geographical position of the second cluster 20th assigned to a private charging station. With the first cluster 10 it is assumed that the charging processes at the charging stations 12th at the one public charging station 14th have been carried out and therefore no additional charging station has been entered.”), wherein two entries that are assigned to the same group are merged.
Even though NOVY teaches about “assigning an entry”, NOVY does not explicitly teach wherein two entries that are assigned to the same group are merged.
Telpaz, in the same field of endeavor (Telpaz, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates to systems, storage media, and methods for detecting, characterizing, and presenting charging stations for electric vehicles based on users' charging patterns”) teaches wherein two entries that are assigned to the same group are merged (Telpaz, at least one para. 0054; “Referring back to the flowchart in FIG. 2, in one or more embodiments, the method 200 determines (at block 202) if a charging station 120 that is encountered when analyzing the charging session dataset 125 is an undocumented charging station if the charging station 120 is not part of any existing clusters 410. If the charging station 120 is a documented charging station (i.e., is part of a cluster 410 or has been profiled earlier) the charging station is used to train a prediction model that is used to determine whether a charging station is public or private.”, wherein the charging station recognized from the dataset 125 and document charging station of a cluster 410 are the same, two different entries are recognized as a single entity).
NOVY and Telpaz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as characterizing charging stations as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assigning an entry of the NOVY with teaching of Telpaz. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense” (KSR). Furthermore, the claim would have been obvious to eliminate duplicate entries thus resulting faster process time and optimized storage capacity.
Regarding claim 17, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 14 (NOVY, page 5, para. 1 in translated copy; “Within the perimeter of the first cluster 10 is also a public charging station 14th known. For the geographic position of the second cluster 20th is not a public charging station 14th known. According to the method according to the invention, the averaged geographical position of the second cluster 20th assigned to a private charging station. With the first cluster 10 it is assumed that the charging processes at the charging stations 12th at the one public charging station 14th have been carried out and therefore no additional charging station has been entered.”), wherein it is determined what proportion of entries are each assigned to exactly one group.
Even though NOVY teaches about “assigning an entry”, NOVY does not explicitly teach wherein it is determined what proportion of entries are each assigned to exactly one group.
Telpaz, in the same field of endeavor (Telpaz, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates to systems, storage media, and methods for detecting, characterizing, and presenting charging stations for electric vehicles based on users' charging patterns”) teaches wherein it is determined what proportion of entries are each assigned to exactly one group (Telpaz, at least one para. 0050; “the computer device 130 also analyzes and populates characteristics such as the proportion of occupancy of the charging stations in the cluster 410 at different times of day, days of the week, and so on. TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Cluster Characteristics Description “distinctVehicles” Unique vehicles that charged in the cluster location “vin_dispersion” Deviation in the number of charging's per vehicle “sampleSize” How many samples form the cluster “CType_Station” Proportion of charges with “station” connection “CType_Fast” Proportion of charges with “Fast” connection “CType_Unavailable” Proportion of charges with ″Unavailable″ connection “CType_cord” Proportion of charges with “cord” connection”).
NOVY and Telpaz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as characterizing charging stations as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the assigning an entry of the NOVY with teaching of Telpaz. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique to a known device (characterization of charging stations) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art so that detailed layout of a lot or cluster can be provided to drivers (ex: percentage of normal charging station and fast charging station).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOVY (DE 102021001361 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of MALEWICZ (US 20240046389 A1).
Regarding claim 19, NOVY teaches (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein spatially adjacent locations are determined using a (NOVY, page 4, para. 6 in translated copy; “a map 60 a database, for example a navigation system of a vehicle, with registered charging processes at charging stations 12th , 22nd according to an embodiment of the invention. The positions of the individual charging processes at the charging stations 12th , 22nd are entered as "X" in the map shown.”).
Even though NOVY teaches about “spatially adjacent locations”, NOVY does not explicitly teach DBSCAN method.
MALEWICZ, in the same field of endeavor (MALEWICZ, at least one para. 0005; “Many clustering methods have been developed by prior art, for example: connectivity-based clustering, for example a hierarchical agglomerative clustering; centroid-based clustering, for example a k-means clustering; distribution-based clustering, for example an expectation—maximization algorithm; density-based clustering, for example DBSCAN; grid-based clustering, for example STING or CLIQUE; pre-clustering, for example canopy clustering; subspace clustering, for example CLIQUE or SUBCLU; projected clustering, for example PreDeCon; and so on.”) teaches DBSCAN method (MALEWICZ, at least one para. 0005; “Many clustering methods have been developed by prior art, for example: connectivity-based clustering, for example a hierarchical agglomerative clustering; centroid-based clustering, for example a k-means clustering; distribution-based clustering, for example an expectation—maximization algorithm; density-based clustering, for example DBSCAN; grid-based clustering, for example STING or CLIQUE; pre-clustering, for example canopy clustering; subspace clustering, for example CLIQUE or SUBCLU; projected clustering, for example PreDeCon; and so on.”).
NOVY and MALEWICZ are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as clustering methods of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the spatially adjacent locations of the NOVY with teaching of MALEWICZ. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique to a known device (DBSCAN clustering method) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, MALEWICZ teaches (New) The method according to claim 19, wherein a neighborhood length of approximately 10 in is used (MALEWICZ, at least one para. 0050; “locations are processed in an arbitrary order, and a location creates a new singleton cluster, if the location cannot be added to any previously created cluster, without exceeding a cluster radius, for example set to 10 meters.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UPUL P CHANDRASIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-5823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30 am to 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/U.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights