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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-26 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 02/04/2026. claims 1-26 were cancelled, and claims 54-79 were added in a reply filed 02/12/2026. Therefore claims 54-79 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 8, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of 1, 4-6, 12, 14, 17, 20, 24 and 26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 8, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to 112b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of claims 3, 5, 16 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed in regards to 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kyoung fails to disclose the minimum reserved energy (RE) limitation and that the concept of reserving a minimum energy amount would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art because Kyoung is directed to high voltage grid connected charging stations that lack an “energy constraint” (remarks p. 10-11). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s assertion that “kyoung relies solely on comparing available amounts of power” and contains “no references to amounts of available energy” is directly contradicted by the express teachings of the reference itself.
Kyoung states “[0009] In accordance with an aspect of the present embodiment, a charging reservation of an electric vehicle may be managed based on at least one of a requested charging amount and a remaining battery power amount.” And “[0061]… Herein, each of the plurality of charging reservation guide requests may include vehicle identification information, information on a requested charging amount (i.e., an electric power amount to which an electric vehicle user wants to charge an electric vehicle), and/or electric vehicle location information. The requested charging amount may be expressed as a specific electric power value (e.g., 10 kWh) or a percentage (e.g., 80%) of a full charge.”, “[0068] At steps S414a through S414n, when a corresponding requested charging amount does not exceed the threshold value (No-S412), electric charging reservation management system 120 may transmit a reservation disapproval guide message to a corresponding EV terminal”.
These passage establish unambiguously that Kyoung manages reservations based on a requested charging amount expressed in KWh (a quantified energy amount) and that reservations are only accepted when the requested energy exceeds a minimum threshold value. This is the functional equivalent of the claimed “charging process that exceeds a minimum reserved energy (RE)”. The claim languages does not require that the minimum RE be necessitated by an on-site battery energy storage system. Claim 54 recites no such structural limitation regarding the source of the energy constraint. The claim language reads on any system that manages charging event reservations based upon a minimum energy threshold, regardless of whether that threshold arises from a stationary battery, grid power limitations, or administrative policy.
Applicant contends that the minimum reserved energy limitation is “unique to Applicant’s kind of EV charging system because this system has that constraint unlike the typical charging stations” and that it “would not be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art who is designing an EV charging system that does not employ significant on-site energy storage”
This argument improperly imports an unclaimed structural feature, namely the on-site battery energy storage system, into the scope of the independent claims. Claims 54 and 67 contain no limitation requiring on site battery energy storage, a constrained grid connection, a DC fast charger, or any particular voltage level. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard applicable during examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Claim 54 broadly recites reserving “a charging process that exceeds a minimum reserved energy (RE)” and determining “the availability of site couplers. Based upon the minimum RE). These limitations are not qualified by any language restricting them to a battery buffered system.
Because the claim do not recite the on-site energy storage system that Applicant argues distinguishes the invention, Applicant’s argument does not distinguish the claims from the prior art.
Furthermore, Kyoung’s “requested charging amount” is structurally and functionally the minimum reserved energy. Applicant draws a distinction between Kyoung’s “requested charging amount” and the claimed “minimum reserved energy (RE)” this distinction is not supported by the claim language. Claim 54 recites “a charging process that exceeds a minimum reserved energy (RE)” Kyoung discloses in 67 that the system accepts a reservation only when the requested charging amount exceeds a threshold value, and rejects the reservation when the requested amount does not exceed that threshold. The claim limitation, reserving a charging process that exceeds a minimum RE, reads directly on Kyoung’s process of accepting a reservation conditioned on the requested charging amount exceeding a minimum threshold. Kyoung’s threshold is functionally the “minimum RE” recited in the claim.
Furthermore, Kyoung discloses that the system determines “available electric chargers…at a specific time (e.g., at the time when a corresponding electric vehicle arrives)…based on…an electric charging schedule associated with the corresponding electric charger” This corresponds to determining the availability of site couplers based upon the minimum RE and the specified time window, as recited in the independent claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 in regards to have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 9, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-26 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a client communication device” in claim 67.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-26 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.
Claims 54/67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “enabling the user to reserve (a) a charging event at a specific site during a specified time window and (b) a charging process that exceeds a minimum reserved energy (RE) or a minimum driving range that is converted to the minimum RE; determine the availability of site couplers at the specific site based upon the minimum RE, the amount of energy at each of the site couplers, and the specified time window; and communicating a reserved site coupler identification to the user based upon the availability.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reserving a charging station which is a method that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. That is, the method allows for concepts that fall under fundamental economic practice and business practice.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1/14 recites “electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) and electric vehicle (EV) charging couplers”, “enabling the user to communicate with a reservation system, the reservation system being communicatively coupled to a plurality of EVSEs at a plurality of sites; while the user communicates with the reservation system” and “reservation system” which are recited at a high level of generality that amounts to field of use limitation. Claim 14 further recites “a client communications device, a processor and memory”. These additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 55-57/59-66/68-69/71-78 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 58/70 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“making any remaining power available for use by one or more other site couplers at the site” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions to automate the abstract idea in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “enabling the user to reserve (a) a charging event at a specific site having a plurality of EVSEs during a specified time window and (b) a charging process that exceeds a predetermined minimum threshold; determining availability of site couplers at the site based upon the predetermined minimum threshold; and communicating a reserved site coupler identification to the user based upon the availability.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reserving a charging station which is a method that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. That is, the method allows for concepts that fall under fundamental economic practice and business practice.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 79 recites “electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) and electric vehicle (EV) charging couplers” which are recited at a high level of generality that amounts to field of use limitation. Claim 79 further recites a means for enabling, determining, and communicating”. These additional elements as defined in the specification are also recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 54-55, 67-68, 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kyoung (US 2014/0257884).
As per claim 54/67/79, Kyoung discloses a method for enabling a user to reserve time at electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) having electric vehicle (EV) charging couplers to enable charging of an EV with electricity, the method comprising the steps of:
enabling the user to communicate with a reservation system, the reservation system being communicatively coupled to a plurality of EVSEs at a plurality of sites; while the user communicates with the reservation system (fig. 1, paragraph 40-45)
enabling the user to reserve (a) a charging event at a specific site during a specified time window and (b) a charging process that exceeds a minimum reserved energy (RE) or a minimum driving range that is converted to the minimum RE (paragraph 10, 12-13, 43, 49, 66 and 69, “[0010] a method may be provided for managing an electric charging reservation for an electric vehicle charging. The method may include receiving one or more charging reservation guide requests, and performing a charging reservation guide procedure associated with the one or more charging reservation guide requests, based on at least one of a requested charging amount and a remaining battery power amount “, “[0013] The performing may include transmitting a reservation disapproval message to a corresponding electric vehicle terminal when the requested charging amount included in each charging reservation guide request is lesser than a threshold value”, “[0043] electric charging management system 132 may be a dedicated system for managing a specific electric vehicle (EV) charging station 142. Electric vehicle (EV) charging station 142 may include electric chargers 1421a through 1421n”, fig. 1, “[0066} … Herein, the available electric chargers may represent electric chargers which are not occupied by electric vehicles at a specific time (e.g., at the time when a corresponding electric vehicle arrives at a corresponding electric vehicle charging station),”, “[0069”… For example, two or more electric vehicles associated with two or more charging reservation guide requests may be predicted to arrive at the same electric vehicle charging station in the same time range. For another example, two or more charging reservation guide requests may request an electric charging service in the same time range at the same electric vehicle charging station.”);
enabling the reservation system to determine the availability of site couplers at the specific site based upon the minimum RE, the amount of energy at each of the site couplers, and the specified time window (paragraph 24, 26 and 66-67, “[0024]… The method may include determining whether a remaining battery power amount of an electric vehicle is lesser than a threshold value, determining one or more electric vehicle charging stations reachable by the electric vehicle when the remaining battery power amount of an electric vehicle is lesser than the threshold value”, “0066] At step S410, electric charging reservation management system 120 may obtain information on available electric chargers in a corresponding electric vehicle charging station, from each electric charger state information. Herein, the available electric chargers may represent electric chargers which are not occupied by electric vehicles at a specific time (e.g., at the time when a corresponding electric vehicle arrives at a corresponding electric vehicle charging station), among electric chargers which can properly work.”, “0067] At step S412, electric charging reservation management system 120 may determine whether each requested charging amount (i.e., a requested charging amount included in each charging reservation guide request) exceeds a threshold value. Herein, the threshold value may be predetermined. In at least one embodiment, the threshold value may be predetermined by a corresponding electric vehicle charging station. In other embodiments, the reference information associated with a requested charging amount may be differently determined per electric vehicle charging station.”); and
with the reservation system, communicating a reserved site coupler identification to the user based upon the availability (paragraph 52, 77, “For example, the information, requests, messages may include electric vehicle charging station information (S402, S502), a request for electric charger sate information (S406, S506, S606, S710), a reservation disapproval guide message (S414, S514), charging reservation guide information (5426, S526, S616), a charging reservation complete message (5432, S434, S532, S534), and/or electric charging alarm information (S716).”, “[0077]… Herein, the charging reservation request may correspond to a confirmation message for a charging reservation. Furthermore, the charging reservation request may include at least one of electric vehicle identification information, a required charging amount, an electric vehicle charging station identification information, and an electric charger identification information.”).
As per claim 55/68, Kyoung discloses enabling the user to specify a length of the time window (paragraph 69. “For another example, two or more charging reservation guide requests may request an electric charging service in the same time range at the same electric vehicle charging station… a time at which users wants (or requests) to charge the corresponding electric vehicle.”)
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 56, 58, 61, 69, 70, 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 54/67, in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0274792).
As per claim 56/69, Kyoung does not disclose but Vaughn discloses enabling the user to also reserve, as part of the charging process, a reserved minimum peak power (RMPP); and enabling the reservation system to determine the availability of the site couplers at the specific site based at least in part upon the RMPP (paragraph 55-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Vaughn in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 58/70, Kyoung does not disclose but Vaughn discloses storing a site coupler power max (SCNPMax) for each EVSE at the site; determining if sufficient energy and power remains during the reserved time window based upon the reserved predetermined minimum threshold and the SCNPmax ((paragraph 29-30, 70-71, “The amount of power that the power modules 115A-L can supply to the dispensers 150A-B may not be enough to handle the maximum rating of the connected dispensers or the maximum capability of electric vehicles connected to those dispensers. As an example, consider the total amount of power that can be supplied by the power modules 115A-L to be 375 kW, and each of the dispensers 150A-B may be rated to dispense 350 kW. In order to not exceed the power capacity of the power cabinet 110 (which may cause a circuit breaker to trip if exceeded), the sum of the power draw of the dispensers 150A-B should be less than or equal to the total amount of power that can be supplied by the power modules 115A-L. As another example, if the EV 170A (capable of drawing 250 kW in this example) and the EV 170B (capable of drawing 150 kW in this example) are simultaneously connected to the dispensers 150A-B, the electric vehicles cannot both receive their maximum capability as that would exceed the total amount of power that can be supplied by the power modules 115A-L.); making any remaining power available for use by one or more other site couplers at the site (paragraph 32-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Vaughn in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 61/73, Kyoung does not disclose but Vaughn discloses storing a site power max capacity value (SPMC) for the site; storing a site coupler power max (SCNPMax) for each EVSE at the site; and determining the availability of each site coupler at the site based upon the reserved charging process, the SPMax, and the SCNP (paragraph 24-25, 28-31, 50, 70-71, “[0024] The electric vehicle and the dispenser communicate after being connected. The dispenser may advertise the available power to the vehicle, which is sometimes referred to as the maximum available continuous current capacity. This advertisement may take the form of modulating a signal (e.g., a control pilot signal). The amount of power that may be available may be determined by the dispenser based at least in total site feed and/or demand response information received from the network 180 and/or the amount of power allocated from the power cabinet 110. In an embodiment, the electric vehicle may indicate a desired amount of power it wants to draw, which may change throughout the charging cycle (e.g., the electric vehicle may send a current command to the dispenser that the dispenser can use to determine how much power to supply to the electric vehicle)… [0025] In an embodiment, to determine the amount of power allocated from the power cabinet 110, the dispenser requests the status of the power modules 115A-L. The status of each power module 115A-L may indicate whether the power module is currently allocated (e.g., whether it is currently connected to a power bus and may indicate which power bus), whether the power module is idle (e.g., not currently connected to a power bus), or whether the power module is offline (e.g., it cannot be contacted). The dispenser may request the status of each power module 115A-L directly or may send a request to the PCU 120 which then queries the status of the power modules 115A-L and returns the statuses to the requesting dispenser. The status of each power module 115A-L may include an amount of time each power module has been operating….[0031]… [0031] FIG. 2 illustrates an example of allocating power modules according to an embodiment. In the example of FIG. 2, the EV 170A is capable of drawing 250 kW, the EV 170B is capable of drawing 150 kW, and the total amount of power that can be supplied by the power modules 115A-L is 375 kW (each capable of supplying 31.25 kW). [0032]… For instance, if the EV 170A has a reservation at the dispenser 150A, the dispenser 150A may send the request for power to the power cabinet 110 at a time prior to and proximate to the reservation time. If the EV 170A does not show up for the reservation, the dispenser 150A may release the allocated power modules. As another example, through use of telemetry such as the navigation of the EV 170A and/or an app on a mobile device of an EV operator of the EV 170A, the dispenser 150A may send the request for power to the power cabinet 110 at a time when the EV 170A is determined to be near the dispenser 150A…))
Claim(s) 57, 66 and 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 54, in view of Karner (WO 2012012023).
As per claim 57, Kyoung discloses in the case of the minimum driving range determining an estimate of the vehicle state of charge (SOC) at the start of the reserved charging event (paragraph 67, 69). However, Kyoung does not disclose but Karner discloses determining an equivalent RE for the reserved charging event based upon a vehicle make, model, and year associated with the user (paragraph 44, 49, “the profile can comprise information relating to the user 105 associated with the profile and/or with electric vehicle 101 of user. For example, the profile can comprise personal information of user 105 (e.g., name, contact information, bank account numbers, etc.), vehicular information of electric vehicle 101 (e.g., a make, model, and/or year of electric vehicle 101, a vehicle identification number of electric vehicle 101, a type of rechargeable energy storage system 117, as described below, of electric vehicle 101, an odometer reading of electric vehicle 101, data relating to historic distances traveled per quantity of charge of rechargeable energy storage system 117, etc.)… For example, reservation data can comprise locations, availability, and/or capacity of the one or more vehicle charging stations 110, one or more desired times requested by client computer system 103, a charge level of chargeable energy storage system 117 of electric vehicle 101, a location of electric vehicle 101, a planned route of electric vehicle 101, a distance between the location of electric vehicle 101 and one or more vehicle charging stations of the one or more vehicle charging stations 1 10, an estimated time of arrival of client 104 at one or more vehicle charging stations of the one or more vehicle charging stations).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Karner in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 66/78, Kyoung does not disclose but Karner discloses when the reservation occurs, preventing other users from reserving the site coupler associated with the reservation during a time window associated with the reservation (paragraph 62-64, “For example, if electrical connector 111 of vehicle charging station 102 is available (i.e., electrical connector 111 is not reserved and/or not presently being used to charge rechargeable energy storage system 117 of an electric vehicle other than electric vehicle 101) during some period of time equal to or less than and/or during or partially during the at least one timeframe for the request for the reservation of time, charger computer system 112 of vehicle charging station 102 can deactivate electrical connector 111 and/or vehicle charging station 102 for all or part of the first timeframe of the at least one timeframe, thereby providing the reservation of vehicle charging station 102 and/or its electrical connector 111 for the first timeframe. In various examples, charger computer system 112 only deactivates the vehicle charging station 102 and/or electrical connector 111 for part of the first timeframe (e.g., the first 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, etc.) while it waits to receive the first authentication from client 104. Accordingly, if charger computer system 112 fails to receive the first authentication from client 104 during the first part of the first timeframe, charger computer system 1 12 can cancel the reservation for the remainder of the first timeframe such that another client 104 can immediately begin to use and/or reserve vehicle charging station 102 for the remainder of the first timeframe.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Karner in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 59-60 and 71-72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 54, in view of “EVgo Reservations launces at Fast charging stations in 3 markets”, published by Evgo.com on May 25, 2021, hereinafter “EVgo”.
As per claim 59/71, Kyoung does not disclose but Evgo discloses charging a higher fee for the charging event as compared to a charging event without the charging process (page 2, the system charges the user 3 dollar fee to reserve a charger in order to use the charging process. Wherein, a user who shows up at the charger without a reservation is not charged the fee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by EVgo in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 60/72, Kyoung does not disclose but Evgo discloses communicating the fee to the user; and requesting confirmation of the fee (page 2, the user reserves the charger through the app by following the reservation process and paying the 3 dollar fee).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by EVgo in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 62 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 54, in view of “EVgo Reservations FAQ”, published by Evgo.com on May 25, 2021, hereinafter “EVgo FAQ”.
As per claim 62/74, Kyoung does not disclose but EVgo FAQ discloses notifying other users that the reserved site coupler is unavailable during the reserved time window (page 2, if the charger is reserved, a user will not be able to start a session and the screen will say unavailable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by EVgo FAQ in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 63 and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 54, in view of Lowenthal (US 20100211643).
As per claim 63/75, Kyoung does not disclose but Lowenthal discloses notifying other users that a reduction in charging capacity will occur during the reserved time window (fig. 5, claim 12, paragraph 68-69, “the electric vehicle is fully charged, the electric vehicle is a percentage charged, charging of the electric vehicle has been throttled, a charging cord has not been plugged into the electric vehicle for the charging session, a time for the charging session has expired,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Lowenthal in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 64-65 and 76-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 54, in view of Tremblay (US 2015/0149221).
As per claim 64/76, Kyoung does not disclose but Tremblay discloses receiving and storing user account information, the user account information including a user name, a user billing address, a user telephone number for short message service (SMS) text messaging, a user email address, and user bank or credit card account information for billing; and enabling the user to access an internet website to enable the user to make the reservation (paragraph 123, 126-133, 141, 298, “the account information in the record 170 could include, without limitation: [0127] user information 172, which may include: identification information and credentials for a user (name, password, etc.), contact information (e.g., phone number, geographical address, email address, etc.) to reach the user, including in an emergency; etc.; [0128] vehicle identification information 174, which may include: a make, model and color of the vehicle; registration information such as the vehicle identification number (VIN) and license plate of the particular electric vehicle, etc.; [0129] vehicle location information 176, such as current, last-known and/or past locations of the particular electric vehicle; [0130] parking time information 184 for when the particular electric vehicle is parked, such as an arrival time at the vehicle's parked location and/or an estimated departure time from the parked location; [0131] charging rules 178; [0132] battery charge level information 180, such as current and past charge levels of the particular electric vehicle's battery; [0133] billing information 182 (credit card number, bank information, billing address, etc.); [0134] etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Tremblay in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 65/77, Kyoung in view of Tremblay discloses all the limitations of claim 64/76. Kyoung does not disclose but Tremblay further discloses detecting a cancelation or a completion of the charging event; and debiting a monetary amount from the user bank or credit card account that is appropriate for the cancelation or the completion (paragraph 179, “For instance, messages may be generated once it has been decided to charge an electric vehicle, once charging of the vehicle has begun, once charging has been completed, and/or once the fee has been debited from the account.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Tremblay in the teaching of Kyoung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Kevin Flynn can be reached at 5712703108. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights