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 Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the election response filed on 06/19/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 16-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a US Provisional Application No. 63/635,081 filed on 04/17/2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
In claim 2, line 2, “a secure access token” is not defined in the spec. Examiner suggests amending the term to “a secure lookup token,” which is defined in the spec.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 10 is directed to a method (a process and a process).
Under Step 2A Prong One, Claim 1 recites: causing storage of a digital vehicle key comprising a vehicle identifier and a user identifier, wherein the digital vehicle key enables access and operation of a vehicle associated with the vehicle identifier; providing the digital vehicle key to a mobile device associated with the user identifier; retrieving vehicle usage data associated with the vehicle identifier; and causing a transaction to be added into a queue for a digital account associated with the user identifier, wherein the transaction includes a value based on the vehicle usage data.
Under Step 2A Prong One, Claim 10 recites: causing storage of a digital vehicle key comprising a vehicle identifier and a user identifier, wherein the digital vehicle key enables access and operation of a vehicle associated with the vehicle identifier; providing the digital vehicle key to a mobile device associated with the user identifier; retrieving vehicle usage data associated with the vehicle identifier, wherein the vehicle usage data includes a charging session; determining a credit value based on the charging session; and causing the credit value to be applied to a digital account associated with the user identifier.
Claims 1 and 10 as drafted include language (see underlined language above) that recite an abstract idea of track charging history of electric vehicle usage, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions (e.g., including agreements in the form of contracts)).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) “mobile device” generally “apply” the concept of track charging history of electric vehicle usage. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim does not require a particular machine, transformation, or unconventional technical solution, but rather, automates a business process using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using one or more mobile device amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea of track charging history of electric vehicle usage. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 2 which claim “wherein providing the digital vehicle key to the mobile device is in response to receiving a secure access token associated with the digital vehicle key” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 3 which claims “wherein the digital vehicle key defines a period of validity” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 4 which claims “wherein the vehicle usage data includes at least one of: a charging session, a mileage record, a toll usage record, and a traffic ticket record” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 5 which claims “wherein the vehicle usage data is retrieved from at least one of: polling from a vehicle manufacturer data application programming interface (API), a charging network API, and the mobile device” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 6 which claims “wherein the transaction is a transfer to a beneficiary account that is separate from the digital account” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 7 which claims “determining that an outstanding balance associated with the user identifier exceeds a threshold; and sending an instruction to the mobile device to disable the digital vehicle key for operation of the vehicle until the outstanding balance is paid” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 8 which claims “wherein the threshold is based on at least one of: a number of failed transaction attempts on the digital account, or a threshold total amount owed” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 9 which claims “storing a driver score based on the vehicle usage data” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 11 which claims “wherein the credit value is based on a location of the charging session” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 12 which claims “wherein the credit value is based on an estimated electricity rate” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 13 which claims “wherein the estimated electricity rate is based on a time of day” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 14 which claims “wherein the estimated electricity rate is adjusted based on estimated energy transfer efficiency loss” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 15 which claims “wherein the digital account includes at least one of: a payroll account, and a bank account” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20210026728 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a method (Paragraphs 0063 and 0070 teach after vehicle key registration is made with reference to FIG. 4, a process of storing and registering basic information for payment in the payment server; a process in which payment is made according to a request from an affiliated store will be described with reference to FIG. 5) comprising: causing storage of a digital vehicle key comprising a vehicle identifier and a user identifier, wherein the digital vehicle key enables access and operation of a vehicle associated with the vehicle identifier (Paragraphs 0047-0048 and 0064-0065 teach a terminal identification number is unique information for specifying the user terminal, and may be, for example, a terminal phone number used when transmitting a predetermined push message from the outside; that is, after a digital key is registered, the information transmission unit extracts the vehicle number and the terminal identification number stored in the storage unit and transmits the extracted vehicle number and the terminal identification number to the payment server; the digital key app communicates with the vehicle management server to request transmission of the digital key; the digital key app may transmit vehicle information or login information input by a user to the vehicle management server); providing the digital vehicle key to a mobile device associated with the user identifier (Paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0066 teach the digital key registration unit performs a function of registering a digital key for vehicle control; here, the digital key performs a function of starting or turning off the vehicle, and since the function of the vehicle digital key itself corresponds to a known technology, a more detailed description will be omitted; the digital key registration unit communicates with the vehicle management server to receive the digital key and then registers it in the storage unit, wherein the digital key registration unit generates an authentication token corresponding to the digital key; the vehicle management server processes vehicle registration confirmation using information received from the digital key app and transmits the vehicle digital key to the digital key app when it is determined that there is a normal authority); retrieving vehicle usage data associated with the vehicle identifier (Paragraphs 0070-0071 teach a process in which payment is made according to a request from an affiliated store will be described with reference to FIG. 5; the affiliated store device recognizes the vehicle number of the vehicle providing the service through camera photographing and image analysis, and then transmits a payment request signal including the vehicle number to the payment server); and causing a transaction to be added into a queue for a digital account associated with the user identifier, wherein the transaction includes a value based on the vehicle usage data (Paragraphs 0068-0069 and 0072-0073 teach a payment processing app transmits the vehicle number received from the digital key app and a terminal identification number (for example, a phone number) that has been self-confirmed to the payment server to request registration; the payment server matches and registers the vehicle number and the terminal identification number received from the payment processing app; the payment server extracts the vehicle number from the payment request signal received from the affiliated store device and then checks the terminal identification number matched with the extracted vehicle number; the payment server transmits a payment confirmation request signal to the user terminal using the terminal identification number identified in this way).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Lee further teaches wherein providing the digital vehicle key to the mobile device is in response to receiving a secure access token associated with the digital vehicle key (Paragraph 0042 teaches the digital key registration unit communicates with the vehicle management server to receive the digital key and then registers it in the storage unit, wherein the digital key registration unit generates an authentication token corresponding to the digital key; as a result, it may be transmitted to the vehicle management server to be stored).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Lee further teaches wherein the vehicle usage data includes at least one of: a charging session, a mileage record, a toll usage record, and a traffic ticket record (Paragraph 0030 teaches the affiliated store device is a device corresponding to an affiliated store that provides various services related to the vehicle to a vehicle driver, and is provided, for example, at a highway toll gate, etc., and may be in charge of a kind of payment request; the device may perform a function of automatically recognizing the vehicle number of a vehicle to be provided with a service).
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 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.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20210026728 A) in view of Penilla (US 20200361335).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the digital vehicle key defines a period of validity.
Penilla from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the digital vehicle key defines a period of validity (Paragraphs 0080-0081 and 0294 teach an advisor account can be for any duration, and the duration can be set by the user; the creation of an advisor account can therefore be for a short duration, or long duration, or permanently, or until the account is canceled, stopped, revoked, expires, or eliminated by the person/user that issued or created the advisor account; the advisor account can act to provide access to a vehicle, wherein access can be by way of electronic keys (e.g., e-keys), which can be sent by a vehicle owner/admin to some person or entity; for example, the user-owner of the vehicle can assign a valet with access to the vehicle by going on an application on a computing device (e.g., mobile or non-mobile device), identifying the recipient, identifying a mode for communicating with the recipient (e.g., text, email, message, notification, etc.), selecting the account privileges (e.g., amount of time the e-keys will be valid (or else expire)), and requesting that e-keys be sent to the recipient; a cloud services website, which may be managing the generation of e-keys will set metadata that defines what the limits or restrictions or parameters of the e-keys are, such as how long the-keys will be active; in one embodiment, the generation of the e-keys can be for a predefined set period of time, e.g., such as 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 30 seconds, or until cancelled or eliminated by the user).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Penilla for the digital vehicle key to define a period of validity.
There is motivation to combine Penilla into Lee because the unique access codes can be generated by the mobile devices using applications, and expiration, cancellation or revoking of assignee-keys can be made or conducted via the mobile device (or any computing device, including the electronics of the vehicle). In some embodiments, the mobile device will communicate with the server and in other embodiments no server communication will be needed (Penilla Paragraph 0281).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle usage data is retrieved from at least one of: polling from a vehicle manufacturer data application programming interface (API), a charging network API, and the mobile device.
Penilla from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the vehicle usage data is retrieved from at least one of: polling from a vehicle manufacturer data application programming interface (API), a charging network API, and the mobile device (Paragraphs 0178 and 0232 teach a user and or vehicle may find system useful in one example, where the user drives the vehicle past an electronic toll bridge where a fee is required to pass the toll bridge; the vehicle's computer will communicate wirelessly as it passes the stationary structure transmitting and receiving information with it as it drives by; the user's vehicle may have an APP installed on the vehicle computer that can process the input using the computer's wireless antenna, network interface, input output system, automatically responding to the toll bridge with payment information. Once the payment is received and processed, the APP receives information from the stationary wireless toll taking device which is then stored either locally on the vehicle's storage or remotely using cloud services; different vehicles have different APIs, systems, software, firmware, etc., and the vehicle interface can facilitate the handshake between cloud services and a specific vehicles; the vehicle interface file a can include or have contact with vehicle control logic, which manages the interfacing with the specific vehicles; for example, if one vehicle type requires a specific algorithm, packet structure, API, etc., the vehicle interface will utilize that communication protocol).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Penilla for the vehicle usage data to be retrieved from at least one of: polling from a vehicle manufacturer data application programming interface (API), a charging network API, and the mobile device.
There is motivation to combine Penilla into Lee because a vehicle manufacturer data application programming interface (API) provides a standardized, secure way for applications to access and exchange vehicle-related data, enabling deeper integration between manufacturers, dealerships, service providers, and end users.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the transaction is a transfer to a beneficiary account that is separate from the digital account.
Penilla from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the transaction is a transfer to a beneficiary account that is separate from the digital account (Paragraph 0116 teaches automatic purchase settings can be processed in response to requests from the vehicle; the request can be, for example, to transact a payment is for one of a car wash service, a fast food service, a toll road service, a goods purchase service, a rental service, a lease service, or combinations thereof).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Penilla for the transaction to be a transfer to a beneficiary account that is separate from the digital account.
There is motivation to combine Penilla into Lee because it enables a user to perform a transaction with a service provider digitally.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20210026728 A) in view of Salah (US 20180121903).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Lee does not explicitly teach determining that an outstanding balance associated with the user identifier exceeds a threshold; and sending an instruction to the mobile device to disable the digital vehicle key for operation of the vehicle until the outstanding balance is paid.
Salah from same or similar field of endeavor teaches determining that an outstanding balance associated with the user identifier exceeds a threshold; and sending an instruction to the mobile device to disable the digital vehicle key for operation of the vehicle until the outstanding balance is paid (Paragraph 0016-0017 teach a user who purchases a car from a dealer agrees to have the system installed on the purchased automobile to protect the lender asset and insure the payments on an outstanding loan; on initiation, parameters which relate to maintenance and loan terms, for example maintenance date or driving distance and total number of payments and payment interval, are loaded into a system memory from a server unit; the logic processing unit computes a deadline time which corresponds to a maintenance due date and up keeping of the asset and time for receipt of a payment; when a user follows terms of the agreement, the system sends a confirmation via a multi delivery communication channel: mobile application, Web, direct communication with the system that releases a predetermined alpha-numeric command to the user; a user who fails to carry out the terms of an agreement being linked to maintenance or make a payment will not receive the command necessary to ‘unlock’ the system; if the user fails to enter the proper command by the time the deadline passes, the vehicle is put into a disabled state by way of interruption of the starter until the maintenance or payment is made; thus the logic processing unit is provided an indication that maintenance or timely payment was made via receipt of a correct command).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Salah to determine that an outstanding balance associated with the user identifier exceeds a threshold; and send an instruction to the mobile device to disable the digital vehicle key for operation of the vehicle until the outstanding balance is paid.
There is motivation to combine Salah into Lee because the present invention includes a critical system interruption mechanism which can be operated without the user returning to the maintenance or a payment center. Systems of the art require returning to the maintenance or payment center (Salah Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Lee and Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above; however, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold is based on at least one of: a number of failed transaction attempts on the digital account, or a threshold total amount owed.
Salah further teaches wherein the threshold is based on at least one of: a number of failed transaction attempts on the digital account, or a threshold total amount owed (Paragraph 0017 teaches a user who fails to carry out the terms of an agreement being linked to maintenance or make a payment will not receive the command necessary to ‘unlock’ the system).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee and Salah to incorporate the further teachings of Salah for the threshold to be based on at least one of: a number of failed transaction attempts on the digital account, or a threshold total amount owed.
There is motivation to further combine Salah into the combination of Lee and Salah because of the same reasons listed above for claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20210026728 A) in view of Zaid (US 20110288891).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Lee does not explicitly teach storing a driver score based on the vehicle usage data.
Zaid from same or similar field of endeavor teaches storing a driver score based on the vehicle usage data (Paragraph 0080 teaches a driver rating ("driver score") can be generated and/or updated using driver information history from telematics hardware ("carkit") installed in the vehicle driven by the driver (e.g., the carkit can record acceleration and speed related information possibly correlated with location information to determine speed driven relative to posted speed limits on roads traveled on during a driving route) to supplement DMV related driver record information and/or owner feedback).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Zaid to store a driver score based on the vehicle usage data.
There is motivation to combine Zaid into Lee because renter attributes can enable the owner to determine the trust and risk associated with accepting the CRO. For example, this can include the renter's feedback rating, previous rental activity, shared connections on a social network, driving record information, driver score, and/or other parameters or criteria or combinations thereof (Zaid Paragraph 0081).
Claims 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20210026728 A) in view of Littrell (US 20200055415).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches a method (Paragraphs 0063 and 0070 teach after vehicle key registration is made with reference to FIG. 4, a process of storing and registering basic information for payment in the payment server; a process in which payment is made according to a request from an affiliated store will be described with reference to FIG. 5) comprising: causing storage of a digital vehicle key comprising a vehicle identifier and a user identifier, wherein the digital vehicle key enables access and operation of a vehicle associated with the vehicle identifier (Paragraphs 0047-0048 and 0064-0065 teach a terminal identification number is unique information for specifying the user terminal, and may be, for example, a terminal phone number used when transmitting a predetermined push message from the outside; that is, after a digital key is registered, the information transmission unit extracts the vehicle number and the terminal identification number stored in the storage unit and transmits the extracted vehicle number and the terminal identification number to the payment server; the digital key app communicates with the vehicle management server to request transmission of the digital key; the digital key app may transmit vehicle information or login information input by a user to the vehicle management server); providing the digital vehicle key to a mobile device associated with the user identifier (Paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0066 teach the digital key registration unit performs a function of registering a digital key for vehicle control; here, the digital key performs a function of starting or turning off the vehicle, and since the function of the vehicle digital key itself corresponds to a known technology, a more detailed description will be omitted; the digital key registration unit communicates with the vehicle management server to receive the digital key and then registers it in the storage unit, wherein the digital key registration unit generates an authentication token corresponding to the digital key; the vehicle management server processes vehicle registration confirmation using information received from the digital key app and transmits the vehicle digital key to the digital key app when it is determined that there is a normal authority); and causing the credit value to be applied to a digital account associated with the user identifier (Paragraphs 0068-0069 and 0072-0073 teach a payment processing app transmits the vehicle number received from the digital key app and a terminal identification number (for example, a phone number) that has been self-confirmed to the payment server to request registration; the payment server matches and registers the vehicle number and the terminal identification number received from the payment processing app; the payment server extracts the vehicle number from the payment request signal received from the affiliated store device and then checks the terminal identification number matched with the extracted vehicle number; the payment server transmits a payment confirmation request signal to the user terminal using the terminal identification number identified in this way).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach retrieving vehicle usage data associated with the vehicle identifier, wherein the vehicle usage data includes a charging session; and determining a credit value based on the charging session.
Littrell from same or similar field of endeavor teaches retrieving vehicle usage data associated with the vehicle identifier, wherein the vehicle usage data includes a charging session (Paragraphs 0030 and 0038 teach a unique vehicle identifier is accessible only upon authorization by the user of electric vehicle, as to restrict unauthorized access to unique vehicle identifier; a new unique vehicle identifier is generated after completion of one or more of transactions for the delivery of electrical charging power, and identifier is stored in electric vehicle and server system for a subsequent transaction; a quantity of electrical charging power is delivered to electric vehicle via vehicle charging station through connector, and the quantity of electrical charging current delivered is metered); and determining a credit value based on the charging session (Paragraph 0038 teaches a transaction amount is determined based on an actual quantity of electrical charging power delivered to electric vehicle at vehicle charging station).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Littrell to retrieve vehicle usage data associated with the vehicle identifier, wherein the vehicle usage data includes a charging session; and determine a credit value based on the charging session.
There is motivation to combine Littrell into Lee because the system facilitates delivering electrical charging power to vehicles, such as electric vehicles. More specifically, the embodiments described herein facilitate identifying an electric vehicle at a vehicle charging station using a unique identifier embedded within the electric vehicle. Identifying an electric vehicle via a network connection to a wireless network provider facilitates automatic deduction of a transaction amount from an account. Such an automatic deduction facilitates time savings for a customer and greater ease in collecting revenue for an electric distribution utility (Littrell Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Lee and Littrell teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the credit value is based on a location of the charging session.
Littrell further teaches wherein the credit value is based on a location of the charging session (Paragraph 0033 teaches electric vehicle also transmits a location of electric vehicle and/or vehicle charging station; electric vehicle may obtain the location from a Global Positioning Satellite receiver (not shown) in electric vehicle, from wireless network provider, from vehicle charging station, or from any means known to those skilled in the art that is capable of performing the functions described herein; moreover, in such an embodiment, server system may use the location information to determine a different rate per unit of electrical charging power for service to electric vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee and Littrell to incorporate the further teachings of Littrell for the credit value is based on a location of the charging session.
There is motivation to further combine Littrell into the combination of Lee and Littrell because further, in such an embodiment, the server system may also use the location information to determine an availability of electrical charging power to vehicle charging station, and based on such a determination, vehicle charging station may deny service to electric car or delay service to electric car for a period of time, as to avoid, for example, peak charging times, a per unit cost higher than desired by the user or the owner of electric car, or an electricity shortage (Littrell Paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Lee and Littrell teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the digital account includes at least one of: a payroll account, and a bank account.
Littrell further teaches wherein the digital account includes at least one of: a payroll account, and a bank account (Paragraphs 0025 and 0028 teach each electric vehicle includes a unique identifier that is used by vehicle charging station and/or server to identify the electric vehicle and/or an account associated with electric vehicle; for example, database may include transactional and/or accounting data related to prepayment information associated with a quantity of electrical charging power that has been paid for in advance for later distribution to electric vehicle; an owner or user of electric vehicle may access server system via web server to access, for example, the user's account and/or a payment service that enables the user to pay for electrical charging power that has been delivered to electric vehicle via connector or will be delivered to electric vehicle; moreover, in one embodiment, mail server may be configured to send a message, such as an email message, to the user when the user's account balance falls below a predetermined balance; alternatively, a user may setup a periodic reminder, wherein mail server transmits a message to the user at a configurable periodic rate or when the account balance reaches a predetermined balance as a reminder to prepay for electrical charging power to be delivered later to electric vehicle; as used herein, the term “balance” includes any amount of money available in an account for use in paying for electrical charging power, such as an amount of cash on deposit and an amount of credit available on an account, including a credit card and line of credit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee and Littrell to incorporate the further teachings of Littrell for the digital account to include at least one of: a payroll account, and a bank account.
There is motivation to further combine Littrell into the combination of Lee and Littrell because it enables a user to perform a transaction with a service provider digitally.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20210026728 A) in view of Littrell (US 20200055415) in further view of Li (US 20180158150).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Lee and Littrell teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the credit value is based on an estimated electricity rate.
Li from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the credit value is based on an estimated electricity rate (Paragraph 0050 teaches the method comprises, at the server, absent a measurement of electricity provided to the electric vehicle while charging at the electric vehicle charger, computing at the processor of the server an estimated cost of the electricity provided to the electric vehicle while charging at the electric vehicle charger based on one or more physical characteristics of a battery of the electric vehicle, the price of electricity and the at least one charging time indicator).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee and Littrell to incorporate the teachings of Li for the credit value to be based on an estimated electricity rate.
There is motivation to combine Li into the combination Lee and Littrell because this solution includes avoiding the cost and inconvenience of adding a physical metering device to the electric vehicle charger and making the solution compatible with different combinations of electric vehicle/electric vehicle charger not considering presence of a metering device as a requirement (Li Paragraph 0050).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Lee, Littrell, and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the estimated electricity rate is based on a time of day.
Li further teaches wherein the estimated electricity rate is based on a time of day (Paragraph 0058 teaches computing the price of electricity may further be based on a time of day at the location or a host energy consumption pattern applicable to a host; a skilled person will understand that the price of electricity may be dynamic within a particular geographic location such that it changes depending on a number of factors, such as time of day, the amount of electricity used and/or outside temperature; if this is the case, computing the price of electricity may comprise using a model to estimate the price of electricity for the host based on the relevant factors).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee, Littrell, and Li to incorporate the further teachings of Li for the estimated electricity rate to be based on a time of day.
There is motivation to further combine Li into the combination Lee, Littrell, and Li because of the same reasons listed above for claim 12.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Lee, Littrell, and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above; however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the estimated electricity rate is adjusted based on estimated energy transfer efficiency loss.
Li further teaches wherein the estimated electricity rate is adjusted based on estimated energy transfer efficiency loss (Paragraph 0058 teaches the server may be made aware of characteristics of such auxiliary power generator, which may then be used to adjust the price of electricity; for instance, the cost per kWh may be increased or decreased in real-time, or real-time priority processing, considering electricity currently being generated and/or may be fixed up to a certain amperage demand by the electric vehicle considering the auxiliary power generator nominal or actual power output before varying considering the grid characteristics, etc.); a skilled person will understand that there could be a multitude of different prices associated with a multitude of different electricity usage thresholds, and a multitude of electricity prices associated with a multitude of different times of day; it is also possible that the price of electricity within a given geographic location could depend on any permutations of the time of day, the amount of electricity used by the host and the outside temperature).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Lee, Littrell, and Li to incorporate the further teachings of Li for the estimated electricity rate to be adjusted based on estimated energy transfer efficiency loss.
There is motivation to further combine Li into the combination Lee, Littrell, and Li because of the same reasons listed above for claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong (US 20230376967) teaches a vehicle for performing a simple payment service, and a mobile device configured to perform communication with the vehicle includes a display, a communicator configured to perform communication with a mobile device, and a processor configured to transmit an authentication request signal to the mobile device when performing a car payment service, proceed with a payment when receiving authentication success information from the mobile device, and control the display to output authentication failure information and cancel the payment when the authentication failure information is received from the mobile device.
Luke et al. (US 20170039631) teaches a network of collection and distribution machines may collect, charge and/or distribute portable electrical energy storage devices (e.g., batteries, supercapacitors or ultracapacitors). Electric vehicles available for sharing, renting or otherwise available for temporary use may be located at such collection and distribution machines or other designated areas. Users may request temporary use of such electric vehicles via a user interface of the collection and distribution machine, the user's mobile device or that of the electric vehicle itself. During temporary use, the user may exchange depleted portable electrical energy storage devices of the vehicle being used for charged portable electrical energy storage devices at the collection and distribution machines and may be offered the opportunity to terminate the temporary use session or continue the temporary use session in conjunction with the portable electrical energy storage device exchange.
David et al. (US 20230306423) teaches methods, apparatuses, and computer program products are disclosed for effectuating payment for time-sensitive responses. An example method includes receiving a time-sensitive request for payment from a service provider device, generating an actionable payment notification for a first user device associated with the time-sensitive request for payment, and transmitting the actionable payment notification to the first user device. In an instance in which the computing device receives responsive authorization from the first user device, the method includes transmitting a first real-time payment to the service provider device. In an instance in which the computing device fails to receive responsive authorization from the first user device, the method includes transmitting a payment failure notification to the service provider device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469)295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CST (M-F).
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights