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 action is in reply to the communications filed on 04/23/2025.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “wherein for the calculation of the route, the data processing device if further operatively configured to…”. This limitation should be amended to recite “the data processing device is further operatively configured to…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “in the case of the first of the at least two different cost models…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the case of a first of the at least two different cost models”. Furthermore, claim 3 recites “in the case of a second of the at least two different cost models, only a portion of the predetermined number of predetermined costs are considered”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the case of a second of the at least two different cost models” and “the predetermined number of predetermined costs”. As such, claim 3 is rendered indefinite for reciting limitations for which there is a lack of antecedent basis. For the sake of compact prosecution, these limitations will be interpreted as ““in a case of the first of the at least two different cost models…”, “in a case of a second of the at least two different cost models…”, and “the predetermined number of predetermined parameters”.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are directed to a manufacture (“a data processing device”), claim 8 is directed to a process (“a computer-implemented method”), and claim 9 is directed to a manufacture (“a computer product comprising a non-transitory computer medium”). Thus, claims 1-9 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-9, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Carry out a calculation of a route for a motor vehicle proceeding from a starting point to an end point, wherein the calculation of the route comprises a charging stop calculation for determining charging stops for the motor vehicle along the route;
Wherein an accuracy of the charging stop calculation decreases with increasing distance from the starting point.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-7, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above are directed to collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations identified above are directed to planning/calculating a route for a driver of a motor vehicle, which is the abstract idea of managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s Specification at ¶ [0025] and ¶ [0033].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “data processing device”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 8, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Calculating a route for a motor vehicle proceeding from a starting point to an end point, wherein the calculation of the route comprises a charging stop calculation for determining charging stops for the motor vehicle along the route;
Wherein an accuracy of the charging stop calculation decreases with increasing distance from the starting point.
Therefore, claim 8 recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above are directed to collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations identified above are directed to planning/calculating a route for a driver of a motor vehicle, which is the abstract idea of managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s Specification at ¶ [0025] and ¶ [0033].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, claim 8 does not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that can be considered to recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 9, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Calculating a route for a motor vehicle proceeding from a starting point to an end point, wherein the calculation of the route comprises a charging stop calculation for determining charging stops for the motor vehicle along the route;
Wherein an accuracy of the charging stop calculation decreases with increasing distance from the starting point.
Therefore, claim 9 recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above are directed to collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis in a manner that is analogous to human mental work with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations identified above are directed to planning/calculating a route for a driver of a motor vehicle, which is the abstract idea of managing personal behavior. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s Specification at ¶ [0025] and ¶ [0033].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when executed by a computer, causes the acts”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further describes the utilization of at least two different cost models for the charging stop calculation. Thus, claim 2 further describes the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., analyzing information) and mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 3 further describes considering costs as a predetermined parameter in the case of a first cost model and considering only a portion of predetermined costs/parameters in the case of a second cost model. Thus, claim 3 further describes the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., analyzing information) and mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1-2 from which the claim depends.
Claim 4 further describes calculating an initial route that does not comprise a charging stop calculation, dividing the initial route into a first and second initial part, carrying out a charging stop calculation each of the first and second initial parts, and obtaining the route by combining the first and second part. Thus, claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of mental processes, (i.e., collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis). The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1-3 from which the claim depends.
Claim 5 further describes carrying out the charging stop calculation for the first and second initial part of the route. Thus, claim 5 further describes the abstract idea of mental processes, (i.e., collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis).
The claim further introduces the additional elements of a data processing device carrying out the charging stop calculations “partially simultaneously”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 6 further describes the predetermined parameters as comprising at least one of a detour time resulting from a charging stop, waiting time necessary for a charging stop, charging time necessary for a charging stop, a design of an environment of a charge point, or the costs of a charging stop. Thus, claim 6 further describes the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., collecting information and analyzing information) and mathematical calculations. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1-3 from which the claim depends.
Claim 7 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of a “motor vehicle comprising the data processing device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of us. Because merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meroux et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0067031, hereafter known as Meroux, in view of Inoue et al. U.S. Publication No. 2015/0316389, hereafter known as Inoue.
Claim 1: Meroux teaches the following:
A data processing device, wherein the data processing device is operatively configured to: carry out a calculation of a route for a motor vehicle proceeding from a starting point to an end point, (¶ [0029]: Systems are provided for transmitting a charging recommendation from a cloud based server to an electric vehicle (EV), where the charging recommendation includes preferred options for charging stations. The preferred options may reflect a charging strategy); (¶ [0076]: the charging strategy parameters may include location of EV, such as a current location and/or a future destination accessed from the navigation system); (¶ [0066]: when operating the EV, the driver may enter a destination into the onboard navigation system which may indicate one or more routes from the current location to the destination on a map);
Wherein the calculation of the route comprises a charging stop calculation for determining charging stops for the motor vehicle along the route; (¶ [0029]: see above); (¶ 0076]: see above); (¶ [0069]: EV may send vehicle location and route information to charging recommendation system, and the charging recommendation system may send the EV a recommendation regarding where to charge the EV. The charging stations available to EV may be located along the route of the EV); (¶ [0074]: when a desired charging station is selected, the EV may be routed to the desired charging station); (¶ [0075]: charging recommendation UI may include a map-based display, where the candidate charging stations are displayed on a map and are selectable).
Meroux does not explicitly teach wherein an accuracy of the charging stop calculation decreases with increasing distance from the starting point.
However, Inoue teaches the following:
A data processing device, wherein the data processing device is operatively configured to: carry out a calculation of a route for a motor vehicle proceeding from a starting point to an end point, wherein the calculation of the route comprises a charging stop calculation for determining charging stops for the motor vehicle along the route; (¶ [0039]: a navigation device presents information to a driver for guiding the vehicle along a route from a departure point to a destination point which are set by the driver); (¶ [0044]: an input unit receives input regarding the departure point, the destination point, and the battery level of the vehicle. The input information is then output to a route calculation unit); (¶ [0045]: a route calculation unit receives the input information (i.e., departure/destination points and battery level) and transmits a search request for the route. Next, the route calculation unit receives information regarding the route and the location of charging facilities/hubs that will be traversed when driving along the route, where the received information is then output to a display unit); (¶ [0152]: a vehicle information providing device provides information regarding the determine route, as well as determined power consumption information and charging hubs that will be traversed along the route).
An accuracy of the charging stop calculation decreases with increasing distance from the starting point. (¶ [0088]: a predetermined distance may be set as the radius which defines the departure point range and destination point range); (¶ [0089]: the system determines whether a number of similar routes is equal to or greater than a predetermined first value); (¶ [0090]: the departure point range and destination point range are expanded by one step, and the search for a similar route is performed again); (¶ [0096]: if the departure point range and destination point range are expanded further, the accuracy of the detected similar routes will decrease).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meroux with teachings of Inoue by incorporating the features for decreasing an accuracy of a charging stop calculation along a calculated route as the distance increases from the starting point, as taught by Inoue, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In 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 are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of Inoue are compatible with the system of Meroux as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to generate routes for vehicles from a starting location to a destination location, wherein the routes comprise charging facility locations for the vehicle.
Claim 2: Meroux/Inoue teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Meroux teaches the following:
Wherein the data processing device if further operatively configured to use at least two different cost models for the charging stop calculation. (¶ [0150]: the charging recommendation may be generated by one or more algorithms of the recommendation engine, where the one or more algorithms apply one or more rules to the battery charging parameters to output the charging options); (¶ [0151]: for example, one algorithm may determine a sensitivity of the driver to price differences at different charging stations, and another algorithms may apply rules to historical purchasing data to determine a desired price range at which the driver wishes to purchase electricity for the EV. Additional algorithms may be applied to further refine or reorder the charging options); (¶ [0031]: the charging recommendation may also be based partly on an environmental cost value assigned to charging events).
Claim 3: Meroux/Inoue teaches the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Meroux teaches the following:
In a case of a first of the at least two different cost models, a predetermined number of predetermined parameters are considered as costs; (¶ [0150]: the charging recommendation may be generated by one or more algorithms of the recommendation engine, where the one or more algorithms apply one or more rules to the battery charging parameters to output the charging options); (¶ [0151]: for example, one algorithm may determine a sensitivity of the driver to price differences at different charging stations, and another algorithm may apply rules to historical purchasing data to determine a desired price range at which the driver wishes to purchase electricity for the EV. Additional algorithms may be applied to further refine or reorder the charging options); (¶ [0038]: charging recommendation system may provide recommendations based on rankings of charging stations, the rankings based on information received from the charging stations including electricity costs).
As noted on ¶ [0023] of the Applicant’s specification, “The predetermined parameters can comprise at least one of the following parameters: […] the costs of a charging stop”.
In the case of a second of the at least two different costs models, only a portion of the predetermined number of predetermined costs are considered. (¶ [0150]: the charging recommendation may be generated by one or more algorithms of the recommendation engine, where the one or more algorithms apply one or more rules to the battery charging parameters to output the charging options); (¶ 0151]: a second algorithm may apply rules to historical purchasing data to determine a desired price range at which the driver wishes to purchase electricity for the EV. Some or all of the historical purchasing data may be captured in one or more battery charging parameters); (¶ [0152]: ranked charging options may be generated based on the battery charging parameters); (¶ [0038]: charging recommendation system may provide recommendations based on rankings of charging stations, the rankings based on information received from the charging stations including electricity costs). Thus, the system of Meroux may use a plurality of algorithms which consider a plurality of different rules/parameters that may be associated with costs.
Claim 6: Meroux/Inoue teaches the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, Leroux teaches the following:
Wherein the predetermined parameters comprise at least one of the following parameters: […] or the costs of a charging stop. (¶ [0150]: the charging recommendation may be generated by one or more algorithms of the recommendation engine, where the one or more algorithms apply one or more rules to the battery charging parameters to output the charging options); (¶ [0151]: for example, one algorithm may determine a sensitivity of the driver to price differences at different charging stations, and another algorithms may apply rules to historical purchasing data to determine a desired price range at which the driver wishes to purchase electricity for the EV. Additional algorithms may be applied to further refine or reorder the charging options).
Claim 7: Meroux/Inoue teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Meroux teaches the following:
A motor vehicle comprising the data processing device according to claim 1. (¶ [0017]: Fig. 2 shows a schematic diagram including components of an electric vehicle and a charging recommendation system of the electric vehicle charging system); (¶ [0031]: Fig. 2 shows components of the EV and the cloud-based charging recommendation system); (¶ [0060]: Referring to Fig. 2, a schematic diagram shows EV in communication with charging recommendation system via the cloud of the electric vehicle charging system); (¶ [0061]: charging recommendation system includes at least a processor, a memory, and recommendation engine); (¶ [0072]: EV may include a charging recommendation UI); (¶ [0073]: user may submit requests for charging recommendations from the system via the charging recommendation UI).
Claim 8: The limitations of claim 8 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as set forth herein with regard to claim 1.
Claim 9: Meroux teaches the following:
A computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code, which when executed by a computer, causes the acts of: (¶ [0178]: the system comprises a controller storing executable instructions in non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the controller to perform the disclosed functions).
The remaining limitations of claim 9 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the remaining limitations of claim 9 are rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as set forth herein with regard to claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meroux, in view of Inoue, in further view of Ellison et al. U.S. Publication No. 2014/0129139, hereafter known as Ellison.
Claim 4: Meroux/Inoue teaches the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, Meroux teaches the following:
Wherein for calculation of the route, the data processing device is further operatively configured to: carry out a calculation of an initial route for the motor vehicle proceeding from the starting point to the end point, wherein the calculation of the initial route does not comprise a charging stop calculation; (¶ [0066]: when operating the EV, the driver may enter a destination into the onboard navigation system which may indicate one or more routes from the current location to the destination on a map); (¶ [0069]: EV may send vehicle location and route information to charging recommendation system, and the charging recommendation system may send the EV a recommendation regarding where to charge the EV. The charging stations available to EV may be located along the route of the EV); (¶ [0074]: when a desired charging station is selected, the EV may be routed to the desired charging station). Thus, the route to a destination is initially created and a charging station recommendation may be subsequently provided based on the route information.
Meroux does not explicitly teach dividing the calculated initial route into at least a first initial part and a second initial part, wherein the second initial part is arranged further away from the starting point than the first initial part, carrying out the charging stop calculation for the first initial part of the route via the first cost model, in order to obtain a first part of the route, carrying out the charging stop calculation for the second initial part of the route via the second cost model, in order to obtain a second part of the route, and obtaining the route for the motor vehicle by combining the first and second part.
However, Ellison teaches the following:
Divide the calculated initial route into at least a first initial part and a second initial part, wherein the second initial part is arranged further away from the starting point than the first initial part; (¶ [0006]: systems and methods are provided that allow for determination of a path and/or route to a desired destination that accounts for vehicle charging requirements); (¶ [0051]: each leg of a route may have an associated calculated cost (e.g. each leg between intermediate stops along the route). The total cost of a route may be associated with the sum of calculated costs of its constituent legs. For example, Route 1 may have may have a first leg between the origin point and a first charging station, a second leg between the first charging station and a second charging station, and a third leg between the second charging station and destination location).
Carry out the charging stop calculation for the first initial part of the route via the first cost model, in order to obtain a first part of the route; carry out the charging stop calculation for the second initial part of the route via the second cost model, in order to obtain a second part of the route; (¶ [0044]: variable pricing models may be used in route cost determinations); (¶ [0051]: each leg of a route may have an associated calculated cost (e.g. each leg between intermediate stops along the route). The total cost of a route may be associated with the sum of calculated costs of its constituent legs. For example, Route 1 may have may have a first leg between the origin point and a first charging station, a second leg between the first charging station and a second charging station, and a third leg between the second charging station and destination location); (¶ [0052]: a user may adjust the relative importance and/or weights of factors used to calculate costs associated with identified routes, thus adjusting identified optimal routes); (¶ [0053]: a variety of parameters may be utilized in calculating and comparing costs associated with a route and its constituent legs).
Obtain the route for the motor vehicle by combining the first and second part. (¶ [0051]: see above); (¶ [0053]: a variety of parameters may be utilized in calculating and comparing costs associated with a route and its constituent legs); (¶ [0051]: based on the calculated cost of various routes, an optimal route may be automatically selected and/or recommended to a user of the vehicle for reaching the destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meroux with the teachings of Ellison by incorporating the features for dividing an initial route into multiple legs, calculating charging stops for each of the legs using variable pricing models, and obtaining an optimal route from an origin to destination based on the cost of the route and its constituent legs, as taught by Ellison, into the system of Meroux that is configured to generate routes for an EV vehicle between an origin and destination location including charging stops. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of “determining an optimal charging path and/or route to a destination for an electric vehicle (“EV”)” (¶ [0003]) and when one considers “the cost of the journey may be reduced” (¶ [0044]), as suggested by Ellison.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meroux, in view of Inoue, in further view of Ellison, in further view of Rajagopalan et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0176195, hereafter known as Rajagopalan.
Claim 5: Meroux/Inoue/Ellison teaches the limitations of claim 4. Furthermore, Meroux does not explicitly teach, however Rajagopalan does teach, the following:
Wherein the data processing device is further operatively configured to carry out the charging stop calculation for the first initial part and the second initial part of the route at least partially simultaneously. (¶ [0058]: a routing module is configured to generate and obtain travel routes between trip legs of a user itinerary, including to and from any charging stations); (¶ [0098]: operation of the disclosed methods can be performed simultaneously); (¶ [0100]: method is performed with respect to multiple trip legs); ( [0099]: operations are performed by execution of a computer processor maintained at the vehicle, user mobile device, or data center).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meroux/Inoue/Ellison with the teachings of Rajagopalan by incorporating the features for simultaneously performing operations of generating routes for multiple trip legs including to and from charging stations, as taught by Rajagopalan, into the system of Meroux/Inoue/Ellison that is configured to divide initial routes into multiple legs and calculate costs associated with each leg to determine an optimal route. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose to help further “increase a performance of a charging recommendation engine of charging recommendation system” (¶ [0059]), as suggested by Meroux.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628