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 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
This application claims the benefit of and priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2024-0066741, filed on May 22, 2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 5/20/2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “i) the charging station recommendation information, a chargeable index” but appears it should recite “i) the charging station recommendation information and a chargeable index” to avoid potential confusion as to whether or not both elements are under option “i.”
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…” of claim 1
“wherein the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to display…” of claim 4
“wherein the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to determine…” of claim 5
“wherein: the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to transmit data…” of claim 6
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 1-20 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 1-6 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 7-14 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…the charging station recommendation information recommending at least one charging station, among the plurality of charging stations
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
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
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;
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
The limitations of independent claims 1, 7 and 15 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (characterized as selecting or recommending one or more charging stations, and setting a navigation/driving route to include the selected/recommended one or more charging stations) 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,” and “provide” steps of claim 1, the “provide,” “select,” and “generate” steps of claim 7, and the “include,” “selecting,” “setting,” and “determining” 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 provide/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 (selecting or recommending one or more charging station, and setting a navigation/driving route to include the selected/recommended one or more charging stations describes rules or instructions for managing personal behavior of a user), 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. selecting or recommending one or more charging station, and setting a navigation/driving route to include the selected/recommended one or more charging stations as represented by the limitations above) 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 of claim 7; and a processor and a navigation device of a vehicle of claim 15). Nothing in the claims or specification suggests that any of the “charging station recommendation apparatus,” “a charging station information provision server,” and “a connected service server” of claim 1 or the navigation device and processor of claims 7 and 15 are anything more than generic computers used to perform basic data processing, communication, and display/output functions associated with generic computer implementation, or generic vehicle navigation systems used in their ordinary manner. These generic computer elements are merely used as tools to either apply the abstract idea or perform generic computer functions that describe the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, transmit, or output information. 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 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 a vehicle, a 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. selecting or recommending one or more charging station, and setting a navigation/driving route to include the selected/recommended one or more charging stations as represented by the limitations above) 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 of claim 7; and a processor and a navigation device of a vehicle of claim 15). Nothing in the claims or specification suggests that the “charging station recommendation apparatus,” “a charging station information provision server,” and “a connected service server” of claim 1, or the navigation device and processor of claims 7 and 15 are anything more than generic computers used to perform basic data processing, communication, and display/output functions associated with generic computer implementation, or generic vehicle navigation systems used in their ordinary manner. These generic computer elements are merely used as tools to either apply the abstract idea or perform generic computer functions that describe the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, transmit, or output information, which does not add significantly more. As above, the involvement of a vehicle, a battery state of charge, and charging stations in the claims 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.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20:
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, 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 3-6, 9-14, and 16 recite additional steps describing the abstract idea (“determine a chargeable index of the charging station....” of claim 3; “display, on a map…i) the charging station information and real-time state information…and ii) the charging station recommendation information…including…a chargeable index…” of claim 4; “determine whether charging at the charging station is successful based on at least one of…” of claim 5; “update a chargeable index of the charging station based on the data…” of claim 6; “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; and “generate charging data…” of claim 14; and “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 connected service server” and “data received from the charging station recommendation apparatus” of claim 3; “the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to display, on a map screen of a navigation device” of claim 4; “the charging station recommendation apparatus” of claim 5; “the connected service server” of claim 6; “the processor” of claims 9-14; 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 6 recites “the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to transmit data regarding whether charging at the charging station is successful to the connected service server,” 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 a connected service server, charging station recommendation information…and display locations of the plurality of charging stations in a map…,” claim 9 recites “display the selected charging station on a map screen of the navigation device,” and claim 14 recites “transmit the charging data to one or both of the charging station information provision server or the connected service server.”
These limitations of claims 2, 6, 8-9, and 14 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, 6, 8-9, and 14 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 provide any functionality to suggest claims 8-9 recite an improved vehicle navigation system itself.
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 1-20 are ineligible.
Note: Should applicant wish to include specific vehicle control components and functionality for autonomously controlling or driving the vehicle according to the determined navigation instructions/recommended charging station, this subject matter would potentially add meaningful limitations that render claims 1-20 eligible.
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).
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 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
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 does not explicitly teach a separate server (e.g. “connected service server”) that determined and provides the charging station recommendation information of at least one charging station to the charging station recommendation apparatus (to the vehicle circuitry).
However, Wu teaches an external electric vehicle charging recommendation system 115/200 (Wu: Figs. 1-2) that determines one or more recommended electric vehicle charging stations of a plurality of charging stations, and transmits information on the recommended electric vehicle charging stations to the vehicle, i.e. to the charging station recommendation apparatus (Wu: ¶ 0026-0033, ¶ 0049-0051, ¶ 0054).
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 electric vehicle charging recommendation system for providing recommendation information to the vehicle, as taught by Wu, in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Wu with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the limitations above.
Claims 2-4 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), and further in view of US 20140316939 A1 to Uyeki et al. (Uyeki).
Claim 2: Erozlu/Wu 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), Erozlu/Wu do not explicitly teach the following limitations as a whole. However, 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 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 3: Erozlu/Wu teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu/Wu do not explicitly teach, however, Uyeki teaches:
wherein the connected service server is configured to determine a chargeable index of the charging station by checking whether charging at the charging station is successful based on data received from the charging station recommendation apparatus (Uyeki: ¶ 0039 showing “ Based on the historical charging station data 316, the selection module…can aggregate usage data by a particular time and data and calculate a probability of availability for a particular charger”; also see ¶ 0049, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0060; note that selection module, as per Fig. 3, ¶ 0042-0044 the selection module is implemented on a processor of remote server 104),
wherein the chargeable index indicates a charging success probability for the charging station (Uyeki: ¶ 0039, ¶ 0049, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0060 showing a probability that at least one compatible charging station is available; note that a charging station being available for charging is interpreted as a “success”)
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 probability of availability of a charger/charging station, i.e. “chargeable index,” of Uyeki 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 “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 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), but Erozlu/Wu do not explicitly teach also 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 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, Uyeki teaches:
and ii) the charging station recommendation information received from the connected service server (Uyeki: ¶ 0059 showing output module 322 of the remote server transmits information for output to the device associated with the electric vehicle, and Fig. 8, ¶ 0060 showing displayed user interface including a “Recommended” column that provides a ranking number of recommended charging stations), the charging station recommendation information including, for each of one or more charging stations indicated in the charging station information, a chargeable index indicating a charging success probability at the charging station (Uyeki: Fig. 8, ¶ 0060 the user interface includes output of information associated with electric vehicle charging stations that can be displayed to a driver of an electric vehicle, which includes displaying a 75% probability of availability (“charging success”) associated with station 106b at charger 108d; also see ¶ 0039, ¶ 0049, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0060 discussing the determination of a probability that each charging station is available)
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 predicted charging station availability (i.e. chargeable index/probability of charging success) of Uyeki 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 “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).
Claims 5-6 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), and further in view of US 20240051424 A1 to Bennett et al. (Bennett).
Claim 5: Erozlu/Wu teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu/Wu do not explicitly teach, however, Bennett teaches:
wherein the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to determine whether charging at the charging station is successful 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 (Bennett: ¶ 0056-0057, ¶ 0077-0085 showing receiving information from electric vehicle indicating charging at the charging station was completed/successful, and the vehicle generates and transmits session data from the vehicle, including data on a time duration of the charging session), iii) whether a charging plug has been connected to the vehicle, iv) whether power has been supplied to the battery of the vehicle (Bennett: ¶ 0056-0057, ¶ 0077-0085 showing receiving information from electric vehicle indicating charging at the charging station was completed/successful, and the vehicle generates and transmits session data from the vehicle, including data on whether a successful connection was made and charging was successfully initiated, and an amount of power received during the charging event), or v) whether a payment attempt for charging the battery has been made in the 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 determining and receiving data indicative that charging is successful of Bennett in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Wu with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “Charging EVs at various charging stations can be challenging due to the variability across different charging stations that can have varying performance. For example, when an EV driver seeks to use a charging station to charge the electric vehicle, the EV driver may be unaware that this particular charging station is unavailable or performing below its rated performance levels. This can incur delays and impact the EV driver's experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002), and in order to “determine availability and performance of each of the EV charging stations and score the charging stations based on their availability and performance. The present solution can provide, to the EV or other device, one or more indications of the one or more charging stations having high scores corresponding to improved availability and performance, which the EV driver can use to use to charge the EV with improved user experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002).
Claim 6: Erozlu/Wu teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation, Erozlu/Wu do not explicitly teach the following, however, Bennett teaches:
wherein: the charging station recommendation apparatus is configured to transmit data regarding whether charging at the charging station is successful to the connected service server (Bennett: ¶ 0055-0057 showing determining and transmitting data session data from the electric vehicle indicating whether charging session with a particular charger is successful; also see ¶ 0076, ¶ 0085 showing receiving data or updated data (e.g. session data) from electric vehicles upon completion of charging session); and
the connected service server is configured to update a chargeable index of the charging station based on the data received from the recommendation apparatus (Bennett: ¶ 0076, ¶ 0085 showing receiving data or updated data (e.g. session data) from electric vehicles upon completion of charging session, wherein as per ¶ 0076 and ¶ 0085 the session data is used to determine and/or update an availability and performance of each of the first charging station and a second charging station, and generate, based on the updated availability and updated performance, updated score for the charging station and a second updated score for the second 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 determining and receiving data session data indicative that charging is successful, in order to update a score associated with a charging station of Bennett in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Wu with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “Charging EVs at various charging stations can be challenging due to the variability across different charging stations that can have varying performance. For example, when an EV driver seeks to use a charging station to charge the electric vehicle, the EV driver may be unaware that this particular charging station is unavailable or performing below its rated performance levels. This can incur delays and impact the EV driver's experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002), and in order to “determine availability and performance of each of the EV charging stations and score the charging stations based on their availability and performance. The present solution can provide, to the EV or other device, one or more indications of the one or more charging stations having high scores corresponding to improved availability and performance, which the EV driver can use to use to charge the EV with improved user experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002).
Claims 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 20140316939 A1 to Uyeki et al. (Uyeki).
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,
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.
However, Uyeki teaches displaying charging station recommendation information including a probability of availability associated with the identified charging stations (Uyeki: Fig. 8, ¶ 0060 the user interface includes output of information associated with electric vehicle charging stations that can be displayed to a driver of an electric vehicle, which includes displaying a 75% probability of availability (“charging success”) associated with station 106b at charger 108d; also see ¶ 0039, ¶ 0049, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0060 discussing the determination of a probability that each charging station is available). 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 predicted charging station availability (i.e. chargeable index/probability of charging success) of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu 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).
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.”), and
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)
Claim 8: Erozlu/Uyeki 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 does not 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/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).
With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu does not explicitly teach, however, Uyeki teaches:
receive, from a connected service server, charging station recommendation information including chargeable indices (Uyeki: ¶ 0059 showing output module 322 of the remote server transmits information for output to the device associated with the electric vehicle, and Fig. 8, ¶ 0060 showing displayed user interface including a “Recommended” column that provides a ranking number of recommended charging stations; and also Fig. 8, ¶ 0060 the user interface includes output of information associated with electric vehicle charging stations that can be displayed to a driver of an electric vehicle, which includes displaying a 75% probability of availability (“chargeable indices”) associated with station 106b at charger 108d; also see ¶ 0039, ¶ 0049, ¶ 0058, ¶ 0060 discussing the determination of a probability that each charging station is available);
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 of a predicted charging station availability (i.e. chargeable indices) of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/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).
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/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/Uyeki teach claim 8. Erozlu, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to indicate a recommendation mark in a charging station included in the charging station recommendation information (Erozlu: Fig. 3, ¶ 0037 showing suggested route, including indicator 310 of charging station 311, displayed on map in the user interface)
Claim 13: Erozlu/Uyeki teach claim 7. With respect to the following limitation, Erozlu does 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 a 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/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 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 20140316939 A1 to Uyeki et al. (Uyeki), and further in view of US 20210039513 A1 to Konrardy et al. (Konrardy).
Claim 11: Erozlu/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/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/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/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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 20140316939 A1 to Uyeki et al. (Uyeki), and further in view of US 20240051424 A1 to Bennett et al. (Bennett).
Claim 14: Erozlu/Uyeki teach claim 9. With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu/Uyeki do not explicitly teach the following, however, Bennett teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: generate charging data including indication of whether charging at the charging station is successful and evaluation of the charging station (Bennett: ¶ 0056-0057, ¶ 0077-0085 electric vehicle generates and transmits session data from the vehicle, including data on at least whether a successful connection was made and charging was successfully initiated, and an amount of power received during the charging event, and a charging time);
and transmit the charging data to one or both of the charging station information provision server or the connected service server (Bennett: ¶ 0076, ¶ 0085 showing server receiving data or updated data (e.g. session data) from electric vehicles upon completion of charging session, wherein as per ¶ 0076 and ¶ 0085 the session data is used to determine and/or update an availability and performance of each of the first charging station and a second charging station, and generate, based on the updated availability and updated performance, updated score for the charging station and a second updated score for the second 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 determining and receiving data indicative that charging is successful of Bennett in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Uyeki with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “Charging EVs at various charging stations can be challenging due to the variability across different charging stations that can have varying performance. For example, when an EV driver seeks to use a charging station to charge the electric vehicle, the EV driver may be unaware that this particular charging station is unavailable or performing below its rated performance levels. This can incur delays and impact the EV driver's experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002), and in order to “determine availability and performance of each of the EV charging stations and score the charging stations based on their availability and performance. The present solution can provide, to the EV or other device, one or more indications of the one or more charging stations having high scores corresponding to improved availability and performance, which the EV driver can use to use to charge the EV with improved user experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002).
Claims 15-16 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 20240051424 A1 to Bennett et al. (Bennett).
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;
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, Bennett teaches receiving data from a remote data processing system for receiving and displaying a recommended list of charging stations for use, i.e. charging station recommendation information (Bennett: ¶ 0061, ¶ 0073-0075; also see Fig. 4 EV indicator 475 of data processing system 485).
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 electric vehicle charging recommendation system for providing recommendation information to the vehicle, as taught by Bennett, in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “Charging EVs at various charging stations can be challenging due to the variability across different charging stations that can have varying performance. For example, when an EV driver seeks to use a charging station to charge the electric vehicle, the EV driver may be unaware that this particular charging station is unavailable or performing below its rated performance levels. This can incur delays and impact the EV driver's experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002), and in order to “determine availability and performance of each of the EV charging stations and score the charging stations based on their availability and performance. The present solution can provide, to the EV or other device, one or more indications of the one or more charging stations having high scores corresponding to improved availability and performance, which the EV driver can use to use to charge the EV with improved user experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002).
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 Bennett 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)); and
With respect to the remaining limitation, Erozlu does not continue through the actual charging process itself, however, Bennett teaches:
determining, by the processor, whether charging at the selected charging station is successful based on the SOC of the battery (Bennett: ¶ 0076-0080 showing receiving session data corresponding to successful charging of the vehicle at charging station, which as per ¶ 0057 includes at least a state of charge of the vehicle – “Session data 425 can include notifications about the state of charge of the battery pack 110 at a particular time…power, current or voltage measurements as the EV 105 was receiving electricity from a charger 405 during a charge event…time duration of the session of a charge or discharge event…”)
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 reporting the session data during/after a charging event at a charging station as taught by Bennett, in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Bennett with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the limitations above.
Claim 16: Erozlu/Bennett 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 does not explicitly teach receiving state information associated with the plurality of charging stations.
However, Bennett teaches receiving state information associated with charging stations (Bennett: ¶ 0081, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0074-0075 showing indicating charging stations current availability/performance data is provided from data processing system to the EV).
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 providing charging station state information to the vehicle, as taught by Bennett, in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Bennett with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above.
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 state information of 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, Bennett teaches receiving an indication including charging station recommendation information along with scores pertaining to the availability and performance of the charging stations (Bennett: ¶ 0060-0061, ¶ 0073-0074, ¶ 0076, ¶ 0085), and displaying this indication information on a display to an EV driver (Bennett: ¶ 0022). 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 indications of charging station state and score information associated with recommended charging stations as taught by Bennett, in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Bennett with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Claim 19: Erozlu/Bennett 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, a 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/Bennett teach claim 15. With respect to the following limitations, Erozlu does not explicitly teach, however, Bennett 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 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 selected charging station (Bennett: ¶ 0056-0057, ¶ 0077-0085 showing receiving information from electric vehicle indicating charging at the charging station was completed/successful, and the vehicle generates and transmits session data from the vehicle, including data on a time duration of the charging session), iii) whether a charging plug has been connected to the vehicle, iv) whether power has been supplied to the battery of the vehicle (Bennett: ¶ 0056-0057, ¶ 0077-0085 showing receiving information from electric vehicle indicating charging at the charging station was completed/successful, and the vehicle generates and transmits session data from the vehicle, including data on whether a successful connection was made and charging was successfully initiated, and an amount of power received during the charging event), 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 determining and receiving data indicative that charging is successful of Bennett in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Bennett with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “Charging EVs at various charging stations can be challenging due to the variability across different charging stations that can have varying performance. For example, when an EV driver seeks to use a charging station to charge the electric vehicle, the EV driver may be unaware that this particular charging station is unavailable or performing below its rated performance levels. This can incur delays and impact the EV driver's experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002), and in order to “determine availability and performance of each of the EV charging stations and score the charging stations based on their availability and performance. The present solution can provide, to the EV or other device, one or more indications of the one or more charging stations having high scores corresponding to improved availability and performance, which the EV driver can use to use to charge the EV with improved user experience” (Bennett: ¶ 0002).
Claims 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 20240051424 A1 to Bennett et al. (Bennett), and further in view of US 20140316939 A1 to Uyeki et al. (Uyeki).
Claim 17: Erozlu/Bennett 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) Erozlu/Bennett do not explicitly teach it being a “recommendation mark.” However, Uyeki 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 (Uyeki: Fig. 8, ¶ 0059-0060 showing charging station recommendation information is displayed includes a recommended column along with a number in the column corresponding to respective charging stations, e.g. 1, 2, 3)
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 of recommended charging information with a ranking indication of Uyeki in the charging station recommendation system of Erozlu/Bennett 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).
Claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230038012 A1 to Erozlu et al. (Erozlu) in view of US 20240051424 A1 to Bennett et al. (Bennett), and further in view of US 20210039513 A1 to Konrardy et al. (Konrardy).
Claim 18: Erozlu/Bennett 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/Bennett 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/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).
Conclusion
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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