DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Application
Claims 1-20 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 13, 15, and 19 were amended, and claims 3, 5-6, and 14 were canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Priority
As previously acknowledged, this application claims the benefit of and priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2024-0066741, filed on May 22, 2024.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous objection to claim 19 for informalities (pg. 8, remarks filed 5/27/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 19 is amended to correct the previous issues, and the objection is withdrawn.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 (pgs. 8-12, remarks filed 5/27/2026) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, that amended claims 1, 7 and 15 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claims recite a specific closed-loop technical process, provide feedback-based improvements to the accuracy of the chargeable index/charging success probability, and apply the alleged abstract idea in a particular technological environment in a meaningful way (pgs. 9-11, remarks). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the argument that “the amended claims recite a specific closed-loop technical process…” – The argued steps, but for generic computer implementation (transmitting or transmitting data or performing the steps using a server and apparatus) merely further describe the performance of the abstract idea itself. Though the claims recite determining an actual charging outcome according to received charging data, determining whether charging is successful or not just adds an additional step describing the abstract idea. None of the recited steps describe a specific technical mechanism that improves how a vehicle interfaces with a charging station, or provide an improvement to the functioning of a vehicle, charging station, or computers themselves. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer functions to carry out the abstract idea for determining and providing recommended charging stations, and updating a chargeable index based on whether or not charging is successful, within a computer environment. That the claimed invention pertains to vehicle charging stations only generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In response to the argument that the claims i) provide a feedback based improvement to the charging station recommendation system and ii) apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment in a meaningful way that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application – the examiner respectfully disagrees that these elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvements amount to updating an index/charging success probability based on received charging success/failure data – which at best describes an improvement to the underlying abstract idea, but does not describe an improvement to any particular technology or improve the functioning of a computer. Furthermore, the use of the charging station recommendation apparatus, the charging station information provision server, and the connected service server to apply the abstract idea via the use of generic computer functionality only adds mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on generic computers, and does not add meaningful limitations to the claims. Similarly, receiving or transmitting information between the recited computer elements describes the use of computers in their ordinary capacity, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Improving reliability or accuracy of the charging station recommendations to improve the chance of charging success, as above, describes an improvement to an abstract idea itself but does not provide an improvement to any specific technology (e.g. the claims do not recite an improved charging connection mechanism that improves the charging success rate by having a more reliable connection, but instead simply determine indices (scores) associated with charging stations based on collected data). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant further argues, with respect to Step 2B, that amended claims 1, 7 and 15 recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception because “recite a specific ordered combination of technical operations: vehicle-side post-departure determination of actual charging success/failure, transmission of the actual charging result to the connected service server, and server-side updating of a charging success probability for the selected charging station. Therefore, the claimed system, apparatus and method do not merely use generic computers to receive, process, and display information. Instead, the claimed system, apparatus and method use vehicle-side charging result data to update server-side recommendation data in a closed-loop manner” (pgs. 11-12, remarks).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Using the servers and computing devices (the processor) together to receive actual charging results and update a charging success probability, even considered as an ordered combination, does not provide a technological solution, but instead further describes the abstract idea itself (updating the chargeable index according to data indicating charging success or failure) being applied using generic computers (e.g. by the connected service server, the charging station recommendation apparatus, the processor of claims 1, 7 and 15). As described above, this at best improves the abstract idea itself but does not provide an improvement to any specific technology or to the functioning of computers themselves. Updating the chargeable index in a “closed-loop manner” does not indicate anything more than updating information associated with recommended charging stations based on receiving new data, which just further describes the abstract idea itself (being carried out on computers).
Therefore, the examiner maintains that claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the current § 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 below, which is updated in response to the current amendments.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-20 (pgs. 12-18, remarks filed 5/27/2026) have been considered but are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the updated § 103 rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 below in response to applicant’s amendments.
Please see the current § 103 rejections of claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 below, which are updated to incorporated the newly cited reference US 20240294088 A1. Note that claims 3, 5-6, and 14 were canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 4, 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station” but appears it should recite “wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for each of the plurality of charging stations.”
Claims 1 and 7 recite “a stay time of the vehicle at the charging station” but it appears that they should recite “a stay time of the vehicle at the selected charging station” to improve the clarity of claims 1 and 7.
Claim 4 recites “the charging success probability at the charging station” but appears it should recite “the charging success probability at each of the one or more charging stations.”
Claim 7 recites “wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station.” However, it appears this limitation should recite “wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for at least one charging station” (or “each of a plurality charging stations”) in view of the following limitation to “select a charging station…”
Claim 15 recites “wherein the charging station recommendation information includes a chargeable index that indicates a charging success probability for the charging station” but appears it should recite “wherein the charging station recommendation information includes a chargeable index that indicates a charging success probability for each of the plurality of charging stations.”
In each of the cases above, although the examiner is able to ascertain the scope of the claims, correcting the issues identified above would improve the clarity of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 charging station recommendation apparatus for a vehicle, the charging station recommendation apparatus configured to set a driving route…wherein the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to: determine….and transmit data…” of claim 1
“wherein the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to display…” of claim 4
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.
The corresponding structure for performing these functions associated with the “charging station recommendation apparatus” in the specification appears to be recited in Figures 1 & 2, and ¶ 0050, ¶ 0063-0084 showing structure and components associated with the apparatus 10.
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 1-2, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2 and 4 recite “A system comprising: a charging station recommendation apparatus…a charging station information provision server…and a connected service server…” (i.e. a machine); claims 7-13 recite “An apparatus…comprising: a navigation device…and a processor…” (i.e. a machine); and claims 15-20 recite “A method…” (i.e. a process). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 recites limitations to:
set a driving route that includes a charging station selected based on i) charging station recommendation information and ii) a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of the vehicle
provide…charging station information indicating a plurality of charging stations located within a predetermined distance from a current driving route of the vehicle, in response to a request
provide the charging station recommendation information based on a chargeable index for each of the plurality of charging stations…the charging station recommendation information recommending at least one charging station, among the plurality of charging stations…wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station
determine whether charging at the selected charging station is successful after the vehicle departs from the selected charging station, wherein a charging success or a charging failure of the selected charging station is determined based on at least one of i) an amount of remaining power of the battery after the vehicle departs the charging station, ii) a stay time of the vehicle at the charging station, iii) whether a charging plug has been connected to the vehicle, iv) whether power has been supplied to the battery of the vehicle, or v) whether a payment attempt for charging the battery has been made in the charging station,
[provide] data of the charging success or the charging failure of the selected charging station…
and…update the chargeable index of the selected charging station based on the data
Independent claim 7 recites similar limitations for recommending a charging station, to:
provide guidance for driving a vehicle
display charging station recommendation information including a chargeable index based on a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of the vehicle,
wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station,
select a charging station included in charging station recommendation information
generate a driving route that includes the charging station, or set the charging station as a destination for the vehicle,
determine whether charging at the selected charging station is successful after the vehicle departs from the selected charging station, wherein a charging success or a charging failure of the selected charging station is determined based on at least one of i) an amount of remaining power of the battery after the vehicle departs the charging station, ii) a stay time of the vehicle at the charging station, iii) whether a charging plug has been connected to the vehicle, iv) whether power has been supplied to the battery of the vehicle, or v) whether a payment attempt for charging the battery has been made in the charging station,
[provide] data of the charging success or the charging failure of the selected charging station…for updating the chargeable index of the selected charging station based on the data
Independent claim 15 recites similar limitations for recommending a charging station, to:
…include a charging station in a driving route based on a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of the vehicle,
receiving and displaying…charging station information for a plurality of charging stations and charging station recommendation information,
wherein the charging station recommendation information includes a chargeable index that indicates a charging success probability for the charging station;
selecting…a charging station, among the plurality of charging stations, based on the charging station recommendation information
setting… the driving route including the selected charging station; and
determining… whether charging at the selected charging station is successful based on the SOC of the battery, after the vehicle departs from the selected charging station; and
[providing] data of the charging success or a charging failure of the selected charging station…for updating the chargeable index of the selected charging station based on the data
The limitations of independent claims 1, 7 and 15 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. recommending and displaying one or more charging stations including a chargeable index, generating a route including a selected charging station, and determining whether charging is successful at the selected charging station to update the chargeable index of the selected charging station) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1, 7 and 15 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “receiving” step of claim 15 amounts to an observation, while the “set,” “provide,” “provide,” “determine,” and “update” steps of claim 1, the “provide,” “select,” “generate,” “determine,” and “update” steps of claim 7, and the “include,” “selecting,” “setting,” “determining,” and “updating” steps of claim 15 are evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Note that the plurality of “provide,” “display,” and “displaying” steps above describe functions that could otherwise be performed by humans using simple tools such as pen and paper (by writing down or drawing information on paper to either transfer the information from one entity to another or to output the respective information). Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1, 17 and 15 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to managing personal behavior (recommending and displaying one or more charging stations including a chargeable index, generating a route including a selected charging station, and determining whether charging is successful at the selected charging station to update the chargeable index of the selected charging station), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
As claims 1, 7, and 15 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “mental processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 7 and 15 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. recommending and displaying one or more charging stations including a chargeable index, generating a route including a selected charging station, and determining whether charging is successful at the selected charging station to update the chargeable index of the selected charging station) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a system, comprising “a charging station recommendation apparatus,” “a charging station information provision server,” and “a connected service server” of claim 1; an apparatus comprising a navigation device and a processor, and a connected service server, of claim 7; and a processor, a navigation device of a vehicle, and a connected service server of claim 15). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The use of the “charging station recommendation apparatus,” “a charging station information provision server,” and “a connected service server” of claim 1, and controlling the navigation device, the processor, and the connected service server of claims 7 and 15 to receive and transmit data between the computing devices, output or display information, or provide generic vehicle navigation functionality merely describes the use of computers in their ordinary capacity. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, while the claims involve elements involved in vehicle charging such as a vehicle, a vehicle battery state of charge, and charging stations, these elements are merely descriptive of the technical environment in which the abstract idea is performed, and thus at best, generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (electric vehicles and vehicle chargers). Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 7 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. recommending and displaying one or more charging stations including a chargeable index, generating a route including a selected charging station, and determining whether charging is successful at the selected charging station to update the chargeable index of the selected charging station) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a system, comprising “a charging station recommendation apparatus,” “a charging station information provision server,” and “a connected service server” of claim 1; an apparatus comprising a navigation device and a processor, and a connected service server, of claim 7; and a processor, a navigation device of a vehicle, and a connected service server of claim 15). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The use of the “charging station recommendation apparatus,” “a charging station information provision server,” and “a connected service server” of claim 1, and controlling the navigation device, processor and connected service server of claims 7 and 15 to receive and transmit data between the computing devices, output or display information, or provide generic vehicle navigation functionality merely describes the use of computers in their ordinary capacity. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not add significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, while the claims involve elements involved in vehicle charging such as a vehicle, a vehicle battery state of charge, and charging stations, these elements are merely descriptive of the technical environment in which the abstract idea is performed, and thus at best, generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (electric vehicles and vehicle chargers). Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not provide significantly more, as all of the additional elements presented in claims 1, 7 and 15 are generic computer components being used to apply the abstract idea and/or being used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea within a computer environment.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8-13, and 16-20:
Dependent claims 2, 4, 8-13, and 16-20 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 7 and 15 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 9-13, and 16 recite additional steps describing the abstract idea (“display, on a map…i) the charging station information and real-time state information…and ii) the charging station recommendation information…including…the chargeable index indicating the charging success probability at the charging station…” of claim 4; “select a charging station…and display the selected charging station…” of claim 9; “indicate a recommendation mark…” of claim 10; “determine a charging station…” of claim 11; “determine the charging station based on…” of claim 12; “based on determining…select a charging station…” of claim 13; “wherein receiving and displaying…includes receiving…i) the charging station information…and ii) state information…receiving… the charging station recommendation information and chargeable indices…and displaying the state information…by matching locations of the plurality of charging stations with a map” of claim 16) and recite mere instructions to further apply the abstract idea using generic computer implementation or computers being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e. “the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to display, on a map screen of a navigation device” of claim 4; “the processor” of claims 9-13; and “charging station information provision server” and “connected service server” of claim 16).
Claim 2 recites “receive real-time state information of each of the plurality of charging stations…and transmit the real-time state information to the charging station recommendation apparatus,” claim 8 recites “the navigation device is configured to: receive, from a charging station information provision server, i) charging station information…and ii) state information …receive, from the connected service server, charging station recommendation information…and display locations of the plurality of charging stations in a map…,” and claim 9 recites “display the selected charging station on a map screen of the navigation device.” These limitations of claims 2 and 8-9 merely recite the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive or transmit data, or add generic computer implementation to aid in the performance of the abstract idea, which does not render claims 2 and 8-9 eligible. Claims 8-9 use a navigation device recited at a high level of generality to perform basic functions associated with vehicle navigation devices (e.g. receive and display information) – which does not recite an improved vehicle navigation system.
Claims 17-20 do not add any additional elements beyond those already discussed above, but merely further describe the abstract idea above by reciting limitations for “wherein receiving and displaying …includes displaying a recommendation mark in a charging station, and wherein the recommendation mark is determined based on the charging station recommendation information” (claim 17); “selecting the charging station based on the charging station recommendation information without receiving a selection of a user in an autonomous driving mode or when a user command is not input within a predetermined time” (claim 18); “wherein selecting the charging station includes selecting the charging station based on at least one of…” (claim 19); and “wherein determining whether the charging at the selected charging station is successful includes determining whether the charging at the selected charging station is successful based on at least one of…” (claim 20).
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 are ineligible under § 101.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 20250251252 A1 to Wu et al. (Wu), and further in view of US 20240294088 A1 to Wu et al. (referred to by second inventor “Meroux” for clarity).
Claim 1: Erozlu teaches:
A system (Erozlu: Fig. 1, ¶ 0023 “FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of components of a system 100 of electric vehicle 101 for providing, to an occupant of electric vehicle 101 (e.g., the driver), suggested charging stations and recharge durations for recharging electric vehicle 101 on a route to a destination”) comprising:
a charging station recommendation apparatus for a vehicle (Erozlu: Fig. 1, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0028-0029 showing vehicle 101 includes processing circuitry including a processor and memory, a GPS system 134 and display 130),
the charging station recommendation apparatus configured to set a driving route that includes a charging station selected based on i) charging station recommendation information (Erozlu: ¶ 0055-0059, ¶ 0041 showing determining and selecting (recommending) charging stations from a plurality of charging stations, and adding the charging stations to the initial route; e.g. see ¶ 0055 “processing circuitry 102 may select one of the charging stations based on charging attributes of the charging stations, the distance of the charging stations from the locations, the distance off the initial route, etc.”) and ii) a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of the vehicle (Erozlu: ¶ 0051 “processing circuitry 102 may determine a current SOC of electric battery 110 of electric vehicle 101,” which impacts determining partial range of the electric vehicle and subsequent selection of charging stations to add to the route in ¶ 0053, ¶ 0055-0059/Fig. 4, and also see ¶ 0040-0041);
With respect to the limitation:
a charging station information provision server configured to provide, to the charging station recommendation apparatus, charging station information indicating a plurality of charging stations located within a predetermined distance from a current driving route of the vehicle, in response to a request from the charging station recommendation apparatus; and
Erozlu teaches the processing circuitry 102 of the vehicle searching for and charging stations with a predetermined range of a location along a driving route of an electric vehicle (Erozlu: ¶ 0040-0041, ¶ 0055), and further teaches that “communications circuitry…may be in communication with one or more servers 140 (e.g., over a communications network such as, for example, the Internet), which may be configured to provide information related to electric charging stations…” (Erozlu: ¶ 0031), but merely lacks an explicit teaching that the server provides this information on the plurality of charging stations located with the predetermined distance from the driving route in response to a request.
However, Wu teaches a system configuration including one or more server(s) 120/208 and an electric vehicle charging recommendation system 115/200, in communication with one another and a vehicle 105/202 (Wu: Fig. 1, ¶ 0019-0020 and Fig. 2, ¶ 0036-0037), and specifies that the electric vehicle charging recommendation system and the server(s) 120/208 may be part of the same server(s) or separate servers (Wu: ¶ 0037). Wu teaches the server 120/208 is used to provide charging station information on a plurality of vehicle charging stations within a predetermined geofence/distance from a point along a vehicle route to vehicle charging recommendation system in response to a request/query, which is then used to provide the vehicle with list of charging stations according the charging station information (Wu: ¶ 0020-0026, ¶ 0028, ¶ 0031; and ¶ 0044, ¶ 0047-0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the server for providing charging station information on a plurality of charging stations within a geofence/predetermined distance of Wu in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “There exists a need for a resource management system and method that optimally utilizes the EV charging station network” (Wu: ¶ 0003), to “recommend one or more optimal charging stations to charge the vehicle 105 based on the inputs” (Wu: ¶ 0021), and to “enable the vehicle user to conveniently charge the vehicle 202” (Wu: ¶ 0054). Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, 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.
With respect to the limitation:
a connected service server configured to provide the charging station recommendation information based on a chargeable index for each of the plurality of charging stations to the charging station recommendation apparatus, the charging station recommendation information recommending at least one charging station, among the plurality of charging stations, to the charging station recommendation apparatus
wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station
Erozlu teaches determining charging station recommendation information that is determined by the vehicle circuitry and displayed on the vehicle interface, i.e. charging station recommendation apparatus (Erozlu: ¶ 0040-0043/Fig. 3, and ¶ 0055-0059/Fig. 4) and further teaches that the “communications circuitry…may be in communication with one or more servers 140 (e.g., over a communications network such as, for example, the Internet), which may be configured to provide information related to electric charging stations…” (Erozlu: ¶ 0031), but Erozlu/Wu do not explicitly teach server that determines and provides the charging station recommendation information of at least one charging station to the charging station recommendation apparatus/vehicle (to the vehicle circuitry) based on a chargeable index for each of the plurality of charging stations, wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station.
However, Meroux teaches a charger monitoring server (Meroux: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0029-0030 charger monitoring server 120) which determines and provides charging station recommendation information (Meroux: Figs. 8-9, ¶ 0108-0119 showing providing charging station recommendations based on charger scores, including a reliability score; also see ¶ 0100-0107 combining reliability scores with other charging station scores to determine user specific score) based on a chargeable index (Meroux: ¶ 0056-0057, with ¶ 0057 showing “assign reliability score operation 502 may include assigning a base probability score 508 for reliability of each charging station 114 based on the CACS records 310 showing success or lack of success of the charging station 114”; also see ¶ 0045-0046, ¶ 0058-0077 showing operations for calculating/determining the base probability score/reliability score for each charging station), wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station (Meroux: ¶ 0057 as above, “a base probability score 508 for reliability of each charging station 114 based on the CACS records 310 showing success or lack of success of the charging station 114” – wherein as per ¶ 0070-0077 success or lack of success is referring to whether or not successful charging was performed at each respective charging station). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the determination of a reliability score corresponding to a probability of successful charging at each charging station of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Wu with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “A charger recommendation system may provide scores for chargers or charger locations for each of a plurality of such ratings. However, such as system may present a user with many different numbers, which may be difficult for the user to distill into a desired choice. An enhanced charger recommendation system may incorporate a learning mechanism to capture user charging behavior. This behavior may be used to determine a per-user weighting of the different ratings. By applying these weights to collected information about the chargers and charger locations, the charger recommendation system may provide a ranking of chargers tailored to the user's requirements and historical behavior” (Meroux: ¶ 0020).
With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu/Wu do not explicitly teach, however, Meroux teaches:
wherein the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to: determine whether charging at the selected charging station is successful after the vehicle departs from the selected charging station (Meroux: ¶ 0111 and ¶ 0113 showing the charger service receives new raw vehicle data 116, which is used to update the scores in accordance with the processes describes in Figs. 3-6, which as per ¶ 0048, ¶ 0058-0076 includes determining whether or not charging was successful from data between when a vehicle is plugged in, to when a vehicle is disconnected, i.e. after the vehicle departs; see ¶ 0048 “The data transformation 308 portion of the data ETL 304 may convert the ingested raw vehicle data 116 into to charging attempts-based data. For example, the data transformation 308 may correlate the events in the raw vehicle data 116 into charging attempts. For instance, each charging attempt record may include one or more EV events that occurred between plug in to the charging station 114 and disconnection from the charging station 114. These EV events may include whether charging was initiated, whether charging was completed, whether charging was interrupted, initial state of charge (SOC), ending SOC, etc. Each charging attempt record may be assigned a charging status. This status may be one of: charged and no fault, charged and fault, no charge and no fault, and no charge and fault. Thus, the data transformation 308 may correlate the raw vehicle data 116 records into discrete charging attempts each with a defined charging status. These records may be referred to as charge-attempt charging-status (CACS) records 310” and see ¶ 0058-0076 showing after the raw data is converted into CACS records, it is determined whether each charging attempt was successful or not),
wherein a charging success or a charging failure of the selected charging station is determined based on at least one of
i) an amount of remaining power of the battery after the vehicle departs the charging station (Meroux: Fig. 6, ¶ 0058-0061 showing if there is a change is SoC in the CACS record and zero no charge or fault events, a base score of 100 is applied, i.e. successful; also see ¶ 0059 “the CSRS algorithm determines whether the change in SOC indicated in the location-associated CACS record 314 is greater than zero. If not, no charging was accomplished and at operation 604 a base probability score 508 of zero may be assigned to the CACS records 310”; also see ¶ 0075-0076),
ii) a stay time of the vehicle at the charging station,
iii) whether a charging plug has been connected to the vehicle (Meroux: ¶ 0048 “each charging attempt record may include one or more EV events that occurred between plug in to the charging station 114 and disconnection from the charging station 114. These EV events may include whether charging was initiated, whether charging was completed, whether charging was interrupted, initial state of charge (SOC), ending SOC, etc. Each charging attempt record may be assigned a charging status. This status may be one of: charged and no fault, charged and fault, no charge and no fault, and no charge and fault”),
iv) whether power has been supplied to the battery of the vehicle (Meroux: Fig. 6, ¶ 0058-0061 showing if there is a change is SoC in the CACS record and zero no charge or fault events, a base score of 100 is applied, i.e. successful; also see ¶ 0059 “the CSRS algorithm determines whether the change in SOC indicated in the location-associated CACS record 314 is greater than zero. If not, no charging was accomplished and at operation 604 a base probability score 508 of zero may be assigned to the CACS records 310”; also see ¶ 0075-0076), or
v) whether a payment attempt for charging the battery has been made in the charging station, and
transmit data of the charging success or the charging failure of the selected charging station to the connected service server (Meroux: ¶ 0047 “The data ingestion 306 portion of the data ETL 304 may receive the raw vehicle data 116 from the vehicles 102 into the cloud environment of the charger monitoring server 120. This data may be received from those vehicles 102 having signed up to send raw vehicle data 116 to the charger service 122,” which as per ¶ 0048, ¶ 0058-0076 above indicates charging success or faults/no charge records based on the raw vehicle data), and
wherein the connected service server is configured to update the chargeable index of the selected charging station based on the data (Meroux: ¶ 0111 “At operation 902, the charger service 122 determines whether to update the user weights 124 and/or the charging station scores 126 based on the receipt of new raw vehicle data 116 is received…” and ¶ 0113 “the charger service 122 updates the charging station scores 126. In an example, the charger service 122 may utilize the raw vehicle data 116 to computer various charging station scores 126 such as the reliability scores 302 discussed in detail with respect to FIGS. 3-6”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the updating the reliability scores based upon new raw vehicle data indicating charging attempts at a charging station of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Wu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described with respect to the limitations above.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 2025251252 A1 to Wu et al. (Wu), further in view of US 20240294088 A1 to Wu et al. (referred to by second inventor “Meroux” for clarity), and further in view of US 20140316939 A1 to Uyeki et al. (Uyeki).
Claim 2: Erozlu/Wu/Meroux teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, while Erozlu teaches the one or more server(s) 140 configured to transmit the charging station information to processing circuitry (Erozlu: ¶ 0031, ¶ 0045), and Wu teaches receiving real-time operator charging amounts and storing charging station information at a server (Wu: ¶ 0020, ¶ 0028, ¶ 0030, ¶ 0044). However, to the extent that Erozlu/Wu/Meroux do not explicitly teach the following limitations as a whole, Uyeki teaches:
wherein the charging station information provision server is configured to: receive real-time state information of each of the plurality of charging stations (Uyeki: ¶ 0003-0005, ¶ 0036-0037, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0047-0049 showing server receives real-time data, i.e. real-time state information, from each of a plurality of charging stations),
wherein the real-time state information for each charging station includes at least one of a location of the charging station, a name of the charging station, a number of chargers at the charging station, and whether each charger at the charging station provides a charging service (Uyeki: ¶ 0036-0037 showing charging station data including charging station, including identifier, charging station location, real-time charger availability, real-time charger status, price information, etc., and which as per above includes real-time data received from charging station); and
transmit the real-time state information to the charging station recommendation apparatus (Uyeki: ¶ 0059 showing transmitting charging station information to a vehicle computing device indicating an available and compatible charging station based on the real-time charging station information/availability above; also see Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving, and transmitting to a vehicle, real-time charging station information of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Wu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Drivers of electric vehicles typically need access to current and reliable charging station information, including, but not limited to, location, availability and accessibility information of chargers at said charging stations” (Uyeki: ¶ 0002).
Claim 4: Erozlu/Wu/Meroux teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to display, on a map screen of a navigation device, i) the charging station information and real-time state information received from the charging station information provision server
Erozlu teaches displaying, on a map screen of a navigation device or vehicle display, charging station information for selected/recommended charging stations along a route from an origin to a destination (Erozlu: Fig. 3, ¶ 0037-0046), and Meroux teaches displaying charging stations in a navigation interface with recommendation scores (Meroux: Fig. 8, ¶ 0109). Therefore, Erozlu/Wu/Meroux may suggest but do not explicitly teach displaying received real-time state information associated with the charging stations.
However, Uyeki teaches a user interface displayed on an electric vehicle device with real-time information associated with charging stations that is received from a remote server (Uyeki: Fig. 8 and ¶ 0060 showing displaying charging station information including real-time availability of each charging station, for the charging stations for which real-time data was available; ¶ 0047-0049, ¶ 0055-0059 showing real-time availability data collected via remote server from charging stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the display of real-time charging station information received from and collected by a server of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Wu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Drivers of electric vehicles typically need access to current and reliable charging station information, including, but not limited to, location, availability and accessibility information of chargers at said charging stations” (Uyeki: ¶ 0002).
With respect to the following limitation, Erozlu teaches displaying charging station information as per above, but Erozlu/Wu do not explicitly teach the following. However, Meroux teaches:
and ii) the charging station recommendation information received from the connected service server (Meroux: Fig. 8, ¶ 0109 showing charging station user-specific recommendation scores displayed on user interface of the vehicle), the charging station recommendation information including, for each of one or more charging stations indicated in the charging station information, the chargeable index indicating the charging success probability at the charging station (Meroux: Fig. 8, ¶ 0109 showing displaying the user-specific recommendation scores, i.e. chargeable index, whereas per ¶ 0100-0107 the reliability scores calculated from a probability of a successful charging attempt (see ¶ 0057-0077, ¶ 0094) at each station in are included in, and thus indicated by, the user-specific recommendation scores displayed to the user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the display of a recommendation score (i.e. index) for each charging station of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Wu/Meroux/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 7, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 20240294088 A1 to Wu et al. (referred to by second inventor “Meroux” for clarity).
Claim 7: Erozlu teaches:
An apparatus for recommending a charging station (Erozlu: Fig. 1, ¶ 0023-0024 showing electric vehicle 101 comprising various computer components/devices), the apparatus comprising:
a navigation device configured to provide guidance for driving a vehicle (Erozlu: Fig. 1, ¶ 0028-0029 showing GPS, output circuitry, display and speaker; which as per Figs 2 & 3, and ¶ 0033-0037 are used to output a navigation interface and provide navigation instructions to a driver/occupant); and
a processor (Erozlu: Fig. 1, ¶ 0024 processing circuitry 102 with processor and memory) configured to:
With respect to the limitation:
display charging station recommendation information including a chargeable index based on a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of the vehicle, wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station;
Erozlu teaches displaying charging station recommendation information, which is based on a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of the vehicle (Erozlu: ¶ 0006 “determine a partial range of the electric vehicle corresponding to a predetermined percentage of a current SOC of a battery of the electric vehicle, determine, along a route to a destination, a location corresponding to the partial range, select a suggested charging station based on the location corresponding to the partial range, and generate for presentation, at a display, the suggested charging station”; also see Fig. 3, ¶ 0037, ¶ 0044-0046 showing displaying a suggested a route to destination including stops at first and second charging stations with recommended charging times, and showing expected SOC of the battery at arrival/departure from each point and charging station; and ¶ 0055-0061, Fig. steps 416-428 showing similar), but does not explicitly teach the charging station recommendation information including a chargeable index, wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station.
However, Meroux teaches providing and displaying charging station recommendation information including a recommendation score, i.e. chargeable index, that is at least in part derived from a reliability score for each charging station (Meroux: Figs. 8-9, ¶ 0108-0119 showing displaying charging station recommendations with recommendation scores that are based on charger scores, including a reliability score; also see ¶ 0100-0107 combining reliability scores with other charging station scores to determine user specific score), wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station (Meroux: as per ¶ 0100-0107 the reliability scores calculated from a probability of a successful charging attempt in ¶ 0057-0077, ¶ 0094 at each station are included in, and thus indicated by, the user-specific recommendation scores displayed to the user; specifically see ¶ 0057 as above, “a base probability score 508 for reliability of each charging station 114 based on the CACS records 310 showing success or lack of success of the charging station 114” and ¶ 0070-0077 success or lack of success is referring to whether or not successful charging was performed at each respective charging station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included displaying a recommendation score for each charging station that is at least in part based on a probability of successful charging at each charging station of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “A charger recommendation system may provide scores for chargers or charger locations for each of a plurality of such ratings. However, such as system may present a user with many different numbers, which may be difficult for the user to distill into a desired choice. An enhanced charger recommendation system may incorporate a learning mechanism to capture user charging behavior. This behavior may be used to determine a per-user weighting of the different ratings. By applying these weights to collected information about the chargers and charger locations, the charger recommendation system may provide a ranking of chargers tailored to the user's requirements and historical behavior” (Meroux: ¶ 0020).
Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
select a charging station included in charging station recommendation information (Erozlu: ¶ 0041-0043 showing selecting one of the charging stations as the first charging station (and repeating for a second charging station is necessary); see ¶ 0041 “processing circuitry 102 may select one of the charging stations based on various factors including charging attributes of identified charging stations, the distance of the identified charging stations from the location corresponding to the partial range, etc.”),
control the navigation device to generate a driving route that includes the charging station or to set the charging station as a destination for the vehicle (Erozlu: Fig. 3, ¶ 0037-0046, and Fig. 4, ¶ 0056-0061 showing generating and displaying a driving route including a first and second selected charging station along the route, which are set as destination points on the route to the final destination),
With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu teaches the processing circuitry connected to the vehicle battery system for managing charging of the electric battery, measuring characteristics of the battery, detecting if faults have occurred, and monitoring charge status information indicating whether the battery is being charged (Erozlu: ¶ 0025-0027), but does not explicitly teach the following, however, Meroux teaches:
determine whether charging at the selected charging station is successful after the vehicle departs from the selected charging station (Meroux: ¶ 0036, ¶ 0047-0048, ¶ 0075-0076 showing determining whether charging was successful or not based on data on the charging event data between the arrival and departure from the charging station), wherein a charging success or a charging failure of the selected charging station is determined based on at least one of
i) an amount of remaining power of the battery after the vehicle departs the charging station (Meroux: Fig. 6, ¶ 0058-0061 showing if there is a change is SoC in the CACS record and zero no charge or fault events, a base score of 100 is applied, i.e. successful; also see ¶ 0059 “the CSRS algorithm determines whether the change in SOC indicated in the location-associated CACS record 314 is greater than zero. If not, no charging was accomplished and at operation 604 a base probability score 508 of zero may be assigned to the CACS records 310”; also see ¶ 0075-0076),
ii) a stay time of the vehicle at the charging station,
iii) whether a charging plug has been connected to the vehicle (Meroux: ¶ 0048 “each charging attempt record may include one or more EV events that occurred between plug in to the charging station 114 and disconnection from the charging station 114. These EV events may include whether charging was initiated, whether charging was completed, whether charging was interrupted, initial state of charge (SOC), ending SOC, etc. Each charging attempt record may be assigned a charging status. This status may be one of: charged and no fault, charged and fault, no charge and no fault, and no charge and fault”),
iv) whether power has been supplied to the battery of the vehicle (Meroux: Fig. 6, ¶ 0058-0061, ¶ 0047-0048, ¶ 0075-0076 showing success or fault/no charge events based on whether or not charging and/or a threshold change in the SOC of the vehicle battery occurred), or
v) whether a payment attempt for charging the battery has been made in the charging station, and
transmit data of the charging success or the charging failure of the selected charging station to a connected service server (Meroux: ¶ 0047 “The data ingestion 306 portion of the data ETL 304 may receive the raw vehicle data 116 from the vehicles 102 into the cloud environment of the charger monitoring server 120. This data may be received from those vehicles 102 having signed up to send raw vehicle data 116 to the charger service 122,” which as per ¶ 0048, ¶ 0058-0076 above indicates charging success or faults/no charge records based on the raw vehicle data) for updating the chargeable index of the selected charging station based on the data (Meroux: ¶ 0111 “At operation 902, the charger service 122 determines whether to update the user weights 124 and/or the charging station scores 126 based on the receipt of new raw vehicle data 116 is received…” and ¶ 0113 “the charger service 122 updates the charging station scores 126. In an example, the charger service 122 may utilize the raw vehicle data 116 to computer various charging station scores 126 such as the reliability scores 302 discussed in detail with respect to FIGS. 3-6”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining whether charging is successful and transmitting data for updating the reliability scores based upon new raw vehicle data indicating charging attempts at a charging station of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described with respect to the limitations above.
Claim 15: Erozlu teaches:
A method of recommending a charging station (Erozlu: ¶ 0006-0010, ¶ 0014-0015; ¶ 0006 “methods are provided for suggesting a charging station for an electric vehicle”),
the method comprising: controlling, by a processor, a navigation device of a vehicle to include a charging station in a driving route (Erozlu: ¶ 0041-0046, ¶ 0059-0060, Fig. 3 showing adding one or more recommended charging stations to suggested driving route) based on a state of charge (SOC) of a battery of the vehicle (Erozlu: ¶ 0039-0040 showing based on SOC of the vehicle);
With respect to the limitation:
receiving and displaying, by the navigation device, charging station information for a plurality of charging stations and charging station recommendation information,
wherein the charging station recommendation information includes a chargeable index that indicates a charging success probability for the charging station
Erozlu teaches receiving information from an external server about available charging stations (Erozlu: ¶ 0031 “one or more servers 140 (e.g., over a communications network such as, for example, the Internet), which may be configured to provide information related to electric charging stations, information that can be used to determine driving range (e.g., elevation maps), charging locations”), but does not explicitly teach displaying these options or that charging station information was “recommended” charging station information from the server.
However, Meroux teaches receiving and displaying, by an in-vehicle navigation device, a set of recommended charging stations including recommendation scores associated with each charging station (Meroux: Figs. 8-9, ¶ 0108-0119 showing displaying charging station recommendations with recommendation scores that are based on charger scores, including a reliability score; also see ¶ 0100-0107 combining reliability scores with other charging station scores to determine user specific score), and where the charging station recommendation information includes a chargeable index that indicates a charging success probability for the charging station (Meroux: as per ¶ 0100-0107 the reliability scores calculated from a probability of a successful charging attempt in ¶ 0057-0077, ¶ 0094 at each station are included in the user-specific recommendation scores displayed to the user; specifically see ¶ 0057 as above, “a base probability score 508 for reliability of each charging station 114 based on the CACS records 310 showing success or lack of success of the charging station 114” and ¶ 0070-0077 success or lack of success is referring to whether or not successful charging was performed at each respective charging station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving and displaying a recommendation score for each charging station that is based on reliability scores indicating a probability of successful charging attempts at each station of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “A charger recommendation system may provide scores for chargers or charger locations for each of a plurality of such ratings. However, such as system may present a user with many different numbers, which may be difficult for the user to distill into a desired choice. An enhanced charger recommendation system may incorporate a learning mechanism to capture user charging behavior. This behavior may be used to determine a per-user weighting of the different ratings. By applying these weights to collected information about the chargers and charger locations, the charger recommendation system may provide a ranking of chargers tailored to the user's requirements and historical behavior” (Meroux: ¶ 0020).
Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
selecting, by the processor, a charging station, among the plurality of charging stations, based on the charging station recommendation information (Erozlu: ¶ 0041, ¶ 0059 showing selecting, from a plurality of identified charging stations (which as per Meroux above may be recommended), a single charging station as a first charging station to add to the route; as per ¶ 0031 plurality of charging station info received external server 140);
setting, by the navigation device, the driving route including the selected charging station (Erozlu: ¶ 0041-0046, ¶ 0055-0061 showing selected charging station(s) added to route, and route is generated for presentation; also see Fig. 3 interface with route and selected charging station(s));
With respect to the remaining limitations, Erozlu does not teach the limitations for determining whether charging is successful and transmitting the data to a connected service server, however, Meroux teaches:
determining, by the processor, whether charging at the selected charging station is successful (Meroux: ¶ 0111 and ¶ 0113 showing the charger service receives new raw vehicle data 116, which is used to update the scores in accordance with the processes describes in Figs. 3-6, which as per ¶ 0036, ¶ 0048, ¶ 0058-0076 includes determining whether or not charging was successful from data between when a vehicle is plugged in (arrival), to when a vehicle is disconnected (departure), i.e. after the vehicle departs; and see ¶ 0058-0076 showing after the raw data is converted into CACS records, it is determined whether each charging attempt was successful or not) based on the SOC of the battery, after the vehicle departs from the selected charging station (Meroux: ¶ 0036, ¶ 0048, ¶ 0059-0074 showing determining whether charging occurred based on whether a threshold change in the SoC of the battery occurred between arrival and departure; specifically see Fig. 6, ¶ 0058-0061 showing if there is a change is SoC in the CACS record and zero no charge or fault events, a base score of 100 is applied, i.e. successful; also see ¶ 0059 “the CSRS algorithm determines whether the change in SOC indicated in the location-associated CACS record 314 is greater than zero. If not, no charging was accomplished and at operation 604 a base probability score 508 of zero may be assigned to the CACS records 310”); and
transmitting, by the processor, data of the charging success or a charging failure of the selected charging station to a connected service server (Meroux: ¶ 0047 “The data ingestion 306 portion of the data ETL 304 may receive the raw vehicle data 116 from the vehicles 102 into the cloud environment of the charger monitoring server 120. This data may be received from those vehicles 102 having signed up to send raw vehicle data 116 to the charger service 122,” which as per ¶ 0048, ¶ 0058-0076 above indicates charging success or faults/no charge records based on the raw vehicle data) for updating the chargeable index of the selected charging station based on the data (Meroux: ¶ 0111 “At operation 902, the charger service 122 determines whether to update the user weights 124 and/or the charging station scores 126 based on the receipt of new raw vehicle data 116 is received…” and ¶ 0113 “the charger service 122 updates the charging station scores 126. In an example, the charger service 122 may utilize the raw vehicle data 116 to computer various charging station scores 126 such as the reliability scores 302 discussed in detail with respect to FIGS. 3-6”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining whether charging is successful and transmitting data for updating the reliability scores based upon new raw vehicle data indicating charging attempts at a charging station of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described with respect to the limitations above.
Claim 19: Erozlu/Meroux teach claim 15. Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein selecting the charging station includes selecting the charging station (Erozlu: ¶ 0041 identifying plurality of stations, and selecting/recommending one of the stations) based on at least one of i) the charging station recommendation information and the chargeable index, ii) a driving distance according to the SOC of the battery (Erozlu: ¶ 0039-0041 showing the charging station is selected based on SOC of current vehicle and how far it can travel along the route before needing a charging station; ¶ 0041 “search for charging stations within a predetermined range of the location corresponding to the partial range…select one of the charging stations based on…the distance of the identified charging stations from the location corresponding to the partial range”), iii) a distance up to the charging station (Erozlu: ¶ 0041 showing selection based on distance from the location corresponding to the partial range), iv) state information of the charging station, or v) an expected driving distance and an expected arrival time comprising the charging station
Claim 20: Erozlu/Meroux teach claim 15. With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu does not explicitly teach, however, Meroux teaches:
wherein determining whether the charging at the selected charging station is successful includes determining whether the charging at the selected charging station is successful (Meroux: ¶ 0036, ¶ 0047-0048, ¶ 0075-0076 showing determining whether charging was successful or not based on data on the charging event data between the arrival and departure from the charging station)
based on at least one of
i) an amount of remaining power of the battery after the vehicle departs the charging station (Meroux: Fig. 6, ¶ 0058-0061 showing if there is a change is SoC in the CACS record and zero no charge or fault events, a base score of 100 is applied, i.e. successful; also see ¶ 0059 “the CSRS algorithm determines whether the change in SOC indicated in the location-associated CACS record 314 is greater than zero. If not, no charging was accomplished and at operation 604 a base probability score 508 of zero may be assigned to the CACS records 310”; also see ¶ 0075-0076),
ii) a stay time of the vehicle at the selected charging station,
iii) whether a charging plug has been connected to the vehicle (Meroux: ¶ 0048 “each charging attempt record may include one or more EV events that occurred between plug in to the charging station 114 and disconnection from the charging station 114. These EV events may include whether charging was initiated, whether charging was completed, whether charging was interrupted, initial state of charge (SOC), ending SOC, etc. Each charging attempt record may be assigned a charging status. This status may be one of: charged and no fault, charged and fault, no charge and no fault, and no charge and fault”),
iv) whether power has been supplied to the battery of the vehicle (Meroux: Fig. 6, ¶ 0058-0061 showing if there is a change is SoC in the CACS record and zero no charge or fault events, a base score of 100 is applied, i.e. successful; also see ¶ 0059 “the CSRS algorithm determines whether the change in SOC indicated in the location-associated CACS record 314 is greater than zero. If not, no charging was accomplished and at operation 604 a base probability score 508 of zero may be assigned to the CACS records 310”; also see ¶ 0075-0076), or
v) whether a payment attempt for charging the battery has been made in the selected charging station
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the methods of determining whether charging attempts are successful of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Claims 8-10, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 20240294088 A1 to Wu et al. (referred to by second inventor “Meroux” for clarity), and further in view of US 20140316939 A1 to Uyeki et al. (Uyeki).
Claim 8: Erozlu/Meroux teach claim 7. Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the navigation device is configured to: receive, from a charging station information provision server (Erozlu: ¶ 0031 processing circuitry (via communications circuitry) is in communication with one or more servers 140 which “provide information related to electric charging stations, information that can be used to determine driving range (e.g., elevation maps), charging locations, weather information, and/or mapping or GPS information to electric vehicle 101”), i) charging station information on a plurality of charging stations within a predetermined distance from a current driving route of the vehicle (Erozlu: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0041 showing processing circuitry searches for and selects from charging stations within a predetermined range of a location along the route)
With respect to the limitation:
and ii) state information of the plurality of charging stations;
While Erozlu teaches searching for and selecting the charging station(s) based upon attributes of the identified charging stations (Erozlu: ¶ 0041) – Erozlu/Meroux do not appear to explicitly teach receiving state information associated with the plurality of charging stations.
However, Uyeki teaches receiving, by a vehicle device, real-time state information associated with the charging stations (Uyeki: ¶ 0059-0060 showing output module transmits output information to vehicle device, which as per Fig. 8/¶ 0060 includes information pertaining to real-time state information (availability or current usage status) of several charging stations; also see ¶ 0042-0044 showing output module of the remote server for communicating with vehicle device, and ¶ 0034/Fig. 1, 0037, ¶ 0047-0049 further describing real-time information corresponding to charging stations and which is received from the charging station data store 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the receiving and displaying real-time charging station state information of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Drivers of electric vehicles typically need access to current and reliable charging station information, including, but not limited to, location, availability and accessibility information of chargers at said charging stations” (Uyeki: ¶ 0002).
With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu does not explicitly teach the following, however, Meroux teaches:
receive, from the connected service server, charging station recommendation information including chargeable indices (Meroux: Figs. 8-9, ¶ 0108-0119 showing displaying charging station recommendations with recommendation scores received from the server/charger service that are based on charger scores, including a reliability score; also see ¶ 0100-0107 combining reliability scores with other charging station scores to determine user specific score);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving and displaying charging station recommendation scores, i.e. chargeable indices, calculated at least in part on reliability scores of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
and display locations of the plurality of charging stations in a map by matching the locations of the plurality of charging stations with the map (Erozlu: Fig. 3, ¶ 0037-0046 showing displaying map with locations of selected charging stations marked on the map)
Claim 9: Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki teach claim 8. Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: select a charging station, among the plurality of charging stations included in the charging station recommendation information (Erozlu: ¶ 0041 processing circuitry 102 selects one of the charging stations from a plurality of identified charging stations); and
display the selected charging station on a map screen of the navigation device (Erozlu: Fig. 3, ¶ 0037-0046 showing selected charging station(s) are displayed as points on map user interface)
Claim 10: Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki teach claim 8. With respect to the following limitation, Erozlu does not explicitly teach a recommendation mark included in the charging station recommendation information, however, Meroux teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to indicate a recommendation mark in a charging station included in the charging station recommendation information (Meroux: Fig. 8, ¶ 0109 showing charging station recommendation information including user interface callouts, i.e. marks, indicating the recommendation score for each station)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included displaying charging station recommendation information including the user interface elements containing recommendation scores of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 13: Erozlu/Meroux teach claim 7. With respect to the following limitation, Erozlu/Meroux do not explicitly teach, however, Uyeki teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to, based on determining that multiple charging stations, among a plurality of charging stations included in the charging station recommendation information, have an identical condition (Uyeki: Fig. 8, ¶ 0059-0060 showing displaying plurality of determined options indicating multiple charging stations that are compatible with the vehicle), select a charging station based on the chargeable index (Uyeki: ¶ 0050 “a single charger at a charging station can be selected”; and see ¶ 0060, Fig. 8 showing a charger can be selected from plurality of compatible charger options according the presented information which includes a chargeable index showing probability of availability; also see charger 108d ranked as number 1 recommendation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the identification of multiple compatible charging stations and selection of a single station based upon presented information including a probability of availability (chargeable index) of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Drivers of electric vehicles typically need access to current and reliable charging station information, including, but not limited to, location, availability and accessibility information of chargers at said charging stations” (Uyeki: ¶ 0002).
Claim 16: Erozlu/Meroux teach claim 15. Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein receiving and displaying the charging station information of the plurality of charging stations and the charging station recommendation information includes: receiving, from a charging station information provision server (Erozlu: ¶ 0031 processing circuitry (via communications circuitry) is in communication with one or more servers 140 which “provide information related to electric charging stations, information that can be used to determine driving range (e.g., elevation maps), charging locations, weather information, and/or mapping or GPS information to electric vehicle 101”), i) the charging station information on the plurality of charging stations within a predetermined distance from a current driving route of the vehicle (Erozlu: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0041 showing processing circuitry searches for and selects from charging stations within a predetermined range of a location along the route)
With respect to the limitation:
and ii) state information of the plurality of charging stations;
While Erozlu teaches searching for and selecting the charging station(s) based upon attributes of the identified charging stations (Erozlu: ¶ 0041) – Erozlu/Meroux do not appear to explicitly teach receiving state information associated with the plurality of charging stations.
However, Uyeki teaches receiving, by a vehicle device, real-time state information associated with the charging stations (Uyeki: ¶ 0059-0060 showing output module transmits output information to vehicle device, which as per Fig. 8/¶ 0060 includes information pertaining to real-time state information (availability or current usage status) of several charging stations; also see ¶ 0042-0044 showing output module of the remote server for communicating with vehicle device, and ¶ 0034/Fig. 1, 0037, ¶ 0047-0049 further describing real-time information corresponding to charging stations and which is received from the charging station data store 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the receiving and displaying real-time charging station state information of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Drivers of electric vehicles typically need access to current and reliable charging station information, including, but not limited to, location, availability and accessibility information of chargers at said charging stations” (Uyeki: ¶ 0002).
With respect to the remaining limitations:
receiving, from a connected service server, the charging station recommendation information and chargeable indices of the plurality of charging stations; and
displaying […] the plurality of charging stations and the chargeable indices by matching locations of the plurality of charging stations with a map
Erozlu teaches determining selected/recommended charging stations and displaying/matching the recommended charging stations on a map interface represented by map indicators alongside a suggested route (Erozlu: ¶ 0037-0046, ¶ 0055-0060, Figs. 3-4), but does not explicitly teach receiving chargeable indices information associated with the charging stations and displaying state information with the display of the charging station information.
However, Meroux teaches receiving and displaying charging station recommendations with recommendation scores, i.e. chargeable indices, received from the server/charger service that are based on charger reliability scores (Meroux: Figs. 8-9, ¶ 0108-0119; also see ¶ 0100-0107 combining reliability scores with other charging station scores to determine user specific score). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving and displaying charging station recommendation scores, i.e. chargeable indices, calculated at least in part on reliability scores of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 15 above.
With respect to the limitations:
displaying the state information of the plurality of charging stations
While Erozlu and Meroux teach displaying charging station information as seen in the limitations above, Erozlu/Meroux do not explicitly teach displaying state information associated with the plurality of charging stations. However, Uyeki teaches displaying/outputting real-time state information associated with a plurality of charging stations (Uyeki: ¶ 0059-0060 showing output module transmits output information to vehicle device, which as per Fig. 8/¶ 0060 includes information pertaining to real-time state information (availability or current usage status) of several charging stations; also see ¶ 0042-0044 showing output module of the remote server for communicating with vehicle device, and ¶ 0034/Fig. 1, 0037, ¶ 0047-0049 further describing real-time information corresponding to charging stations and which is received from the charging station data store 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the receiving and displaying real-time charging station state information of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “Drivers of electric vehicles typically need access to current and reliable charging station information, including, but not limited to, location, availability and accessibility information of chargers at said charging stations” (Uyeki: ¶ 0002).
Claim 17: Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki teach claim 16. With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu teaches an indicator associated with the selected recommended charging stations in a suggested route (Erozlu: ¶ 0037, Fig. 3), but Erozlu does not explicitly teach it being a “recommendation mark.” However, Meroux teaches:
wherein receiving and displaying the charging station information of the plurality of charging stations and the charging station recommendation information includes displaying a recommendation mark in a charging station, and wherein the recommendation mark is determined based on the charging station recommendation information (Meroux: Fig. 8, ¶ 0109 showing charging station recommendation information including user interface callouts, i.e. marks, indicating the recommendation score for each station)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included displaying charging station recommendation information including the user interface elements containing recommendation scores of Meroux in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 20240294088 A1 to Wu et al. (referred to by second inventor “Meroux” for clarity), further in view of US 20140316939 A1 to Uyeki et al. (Uyeki), and further in view of US 20210039513 A1 to Konrardy et al. (Konrardy).
Claim 11: Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki teach claim 8. With respect to the following limitations, while Erozlu teaches the processing circuitry making the determination of the charging station without explicit user input (Erozlu: ¶ 0041, for example), Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki do not explicitly teach doing so in conjunction with an autonomous driving mode or lack of input with a predetermined time. However, Konrardy teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine a charging station, among the plurality of charging stations without receiving a selection of a user, in an autonomous driving mode or when a user command is not input within a predetermined time (Konrardy: ¶ 0009, ¶ 0176-0188 showing identifying, selecting and routing to a determined charging station from among a plurality of identified options by an autonomous vehicle, without user input)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the autonomous vehicle determination of a selected charging station of Konrardy in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “it is possible to predict and schedule vehicle refueling or recharging without vehicle operator involvement… Currently, vehicle operators must manually determine when to refuel or recharge vehicles. To perform such manual refueling or recharging, vehicle operators observe fuel or charge gauges on a vehicle dashboard and estimate when to refuel based upon knowledge or guesses about availability of fueling or charging stations…The methods described herein solve the problems associated with refueling or recharging autonomous vehicles by automating the process to be performed at an opportune time and without vehicle operator involvement” (Konrardy: ¶ 0176).
Claim 12: Erozlu/Meroux/Uyeki/Konrardy teach claim 11. Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the charging station (Erozlu: ¶ 0041 identifying plurality of stations, and selecting/recommending one of the stations) based on at least one of the charging station recommendation information, the chargeable index, a driving distance according to the SOC of the battery (Erozlu: ¶ 0039-0041 showing the charging station is selected based on SOC of current vehicle and how far it can travel along the route before needing a charging station; ¶ 0041 “search for charging stations within a predetermined range of the location corresponding to the partial range…select one of the charging stations based on…the distance of the identified charging stations from the location corresponding to the partial range”), a distance up to the charging station (Erozlu: ¶ 0041 showing selection based on distance from the location corresponding to the partial range), state information of the charging station, and an expected driving distance (Erozlu: ¶ 0039-0041 showing expected partial range vehicle can drive before needing recharging, used to determine charging station) and an expected arrival time comprising the charging station, with respect to each of the plurality of charging stations
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 20240294088 A1 to Wu et al. (referred to by second inventor “Meroux” for clarity), and further in view of US 20210039513 A1 to Konrardy et al. (Konrardy).
Claim 18: Erozlu/Meroux teach claim 15. With respect to the following limitations, while Erozlu teaches the processing circuitry making the determination of the charging station without explicit user input (Erozlu: ¶ 0041, for example), Erozlu/Meroux do not explicitly teach doing so in conjunction with an autonomous driving mode or lack of input with a predetermined time. However, Konrardy teaches:
wherein selecting the charging station includes selecting the charging station based on the charging station recommendation information without receiving a selection of a user in an autonomous driving mode or when a user command is not input within a predetermined time (Konrardy: ¶ 0009, ¶ 0176-0188 showing identifying, selecting and routing to a determined charging station from among a plurality of identified options by an autonomous vehicle, without user input)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the autonomous vehicle determination of a selected charging station of Konrardy in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Meroux with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “it is possible to predict and schedule vehicle refueling or recharging without vehicle operator involvement… Currently, vehicle operators must manually determine when to refuel or recharge vehicles. To perform such manual refueling or recharging, vehicle operators observe fuel or charge gauges on a vehicle dashboard and estimate when to refuel based upon knowledge or guesses about availability of fueling or charging stations…The methods described herein solve the problems associated with refueling or recharging autonomous vehicles by automating the process to be performed at an opportune time and without vehicle operator involvement” (Konrardy: ¶ 0176).
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights