Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 02/26/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-17, and 19-20 were amended; no claim was cancelled, or added in a reply filed 05/22/2026. Therefore claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 in regards to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Independent claims 1 and 11 are amended, and Applicant respectfully submits the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea with respect to patent eligibility, as the claimed Plug and Charge (PnC) enables an electric vehicle user to charge a vehicle without additional approval procedures.” (remarks p. 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because requiring the vehicles to “communicate based on a communication protocol configured to support “plug and Charge” merely places the abstract idea in a particular technological environment. The claim does not recite how the protocol operates, what information is exchanged, how authentication occurs, or how the communication controls the physical transfer of power. “Configured to support” states a desired capability or result rather than a technological improvement. Even as a combination, using a charging server, vehicle communications, and a Plug and Charge compatible protocol is a conventional computer/network component used to receive and transmit data over a network. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 9, filed 05/22/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 16-17 and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 in regards to 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “MPEP § 2181(I) states that "a claim limitation that does not use the term 'means' or 'step' will trigger the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph does not apply." As Applicant's claims do not user either of these terms, the § 112(f) interpretation is only proper if "a substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term 'means' and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function." Id. Here, that is not the case. Applicants submit that the claimed "modules" are definite structural components that should not be considered under § 112(f).” (remarks p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully notes that “module for” are not definite structural components but rather a place holder which triggers 112(f) interpretation (see MPEP 2181(I)(A) “When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The issue in Williamson was whether a "distributed learning control module" limitation in claims directed to a distributed learning system should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1347, 115 USPQ2d at 1110. The Federal Circuit concluded that "the 'distributed learning control module' limitation fails to recite sufficiently definite structure and that the presumption against means-plus function claiming is rebutted." Id. at 1351, 115 USPQ2d at 1113. In support, the Federal Circuit determined that "the word 'module' does not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term ‘means’ had been used." Id. at 1350–51, 115 USPQ2d at 1112.”)
Similar to Williamson, “a server communication module” in claim 2 and “communication module”, “control module” and “charging module” in claim 7 do not provide any indication of a structure because its sets a black box recitation of the structure for providing the same specified function as if the terms “means” has been used. Therefore, the 112(f) interpretation is pending.
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 server communication module” in claim 2, “communication module”, “control module” and “charging module” in claim 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1/11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “monitor the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle and manage the charging service, dispatch the first electric vehicle corresponding to a request of the second electric vehicle based on status information of the first electric vehicle.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for dispatching a vehicle to a location and managing a charge which is a method of certain method of organizing human activity because they recite fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “charging management server” (claims 1/11). This additional element is recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions. The claim further recites “at least one first electric vehicle configured to supply power to at least one second electric vehicle that requests a charging service” (claim 1) and “supplying, by a first electric vehicle, power to at least one second electric vehicle that requests a charging service” (claim 11) and “wherein the at least one first electric vehicle and the at least one second electric vehicle communicate based on a communication protocol configured to support a Plug and Charge (PnC) function”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality without technical details on how the supplying of power, the authentication or communication protocol are done which merely amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use/technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim 2/12 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“ a server communication module configured to support a communication protocol for transmitting and receiving information with respect to the first electric vehicle; a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to access the memory and execute at least one of the instructions, wherein the instructions include generating request information based on information of the second electric vehicle; selecting the first electric vehicle based on the request information and the status information, controlling request information to be transmitted to the selected first electric vehicle, and dispatching the first electric vehicle based on a response from the selected first electric vehicle corresponding to the request information ” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea in a general computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 3/13 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 2 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“the communication protocol supports at least one of open charge point protocol (OCPP), ISO 15118, or IEC 61850” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea in a general computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 4/5/6/14/15/16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 3/4/5/13/14/15 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 7/17 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 5 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“wherein the first electric vehicle is configured to include: a communication module configured to support the communication protocol for transmitting and receiving information with respect to the second electric vehicle and the charging management server; a control module configured to generate response information corresponding to the request information” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea in a general computer environment; “and a charging module configured to supply power to the second electric vehicle” is recited at a high level of generality without technical details which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 8/18 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 7 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 9/19 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 7 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“the control module is configured to generate charging service information, and the communication module is configured to transmit the charging service information to the charging management server” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea in a general computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 10/20 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 9 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 2018/0281614) in view of Prasad (US 2026/0021734).
As per claim 1/11, Hu discloses a charging management system comprising:
at least one first electric vehicle configured to supply power to at least one second electric vehicle that requests a charging service ([0008] A charging rescue system for all-electric vehicles comprises: a rescue vehicle APP, a charging rescue vehicle, a rescued vehicle APP, and a rescue platform, wherein the rescue vehicle APP comprises a user module, an order module, a monitoring module, and a communication module; the charging rescue vehicle comprises a controller, a GPS device, a direct current battery charger, an alternating current battery charger, and a measuring module; [0022] 13). When the charging rescue vehicle is arrived, the electric vehicle driver selects a charging mode, and the rescue vehicle charges the rescued vehicle); and
a charging management server configured to monitor the at least one first electric vehicle and the at least one second electric vehicle and manage the charging service, wherein the charge management server is configured to dispatch the at least one first electric vehicle corresponding to a request of the at least one second electric vehicle based on status information of the at least one first electric vehicle ([0008] A charging rescue system for all-electric vehicles comprises: a rescue vehicle APP, a charging rescue vehicle, a rescued vehicle APP, and a rescue platform, wherein the rescue vehicle APP comprises a user module, an order module, a monitoring module, and a communication module; the charging rescue vehicle comprises a controller, a GPS device, a direct current battery charger, an alternating current battery charger, and a measuring module; the rescued vehicle APP comprises a user module, an order module, a payment module, and a communication module; and the rescue platform comprises an access module, an order execution module, a vehicle selection module, a rescue vehicle monitoring module; [0041] The vehicle selection module of the rescue vehicle involved in the rescue system and method of the present invention could calculate the priority for each usable rescue vehicle according to the rescue vehicle state, the positions of both the rescue vehicle and the rescued vehicle and a rescued vehicle model, so as to guide a platform operator on duty to dispatch the rescue vehicle, thereby greatly simplifying the rescue vehicle dispatching process, and improving the accuracy and efficiency of the rescue vehicle dispatching.”).
However, Hu does not disclose but Prasad discloses wherein the at least one first electric vehicle and the at least one second electric vehicle communicate based on a communication protocol configured to support a Plug and Charge (PnC) function [0017] FIG. 1 is an illustration of a direct current-to-direct current (DC-DC) charging process in the form of a representative vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) charging process, with the V2V charging process performed between a charge-providing electric vehicle (“donor”) and a charge-receiving electric vehicle (“recipient”) using a V2V charging unit in accordance with an aspect of the present disclosure… [0042] The V2V charging process 10 of FIG. 1 is coordinated via an exchange of data/messages between the EV controller 25 of the donor 12D, the system controller 36 and SECCs 40D, 40R of the V2V charging unit 14, and the corresponding EV controller 125 of the recipient 12R, e.g., a Battery Management System or another battery controller. The above-noted comms and proximity signals are exchanged per a predetermined protocol, with the general process of DC charging under DIN 70121 or other relevant protocols being well understood in the art, such as international protocols/standards like ISO 15118-20, ISO 15118-2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Prasad in the teaching of Hu, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2/12, Hu discloses wherein the charge management server is configured to include:
a server communication module configured to support a communication protocol for transmitting and receiving information with respect to the first electric vehicle ([0008]…the rescue platform comprises an access module, an order execution module, a vehicle selection module, a rescue vehicle monitoring module, a bill management module, and a user authentication module.; [0013] 4). A vehicle selection module of the rescue platform calculates a priority using an optimal algorithm according to the GPS information of the current charging rescue vehicle; [0021] 12) In a rescue process, a rescue vehicle monitoring module of the rescue platform acquires the GPS of the charging rescue vehicle in real time, and pushes the GPS to the rescued vehicle APP, so that the electric vehicle driver could know a position, a speed and an expected arrival time of the charging rescue vehicle in real time.)
a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to access the memory and execute at least one of the instructions (fig. 1, [0008]…the rescue platform comprises an access module, an order execution module, a vehicle selection module, a rescue vehicle monitoring module, a bill management module, and a user authentication module.) , wherein the instructions include generating request information based on information of the second electric vehicle ([0010] 1). An electric vehicle driver selects a one-key rescue function on a rescued vehicle APP;
[0011] 2). The rescued vehicle APP packages user information and GPS information and sends a rescue application; [0012] 3). A rescue platform acquires the rescue application, parses the user information and the GPS information, and generates an order table; [0013] 4). A vehicle selection module of the rescue platform calculates a priority using an optimal algorithm according to the GPS information of the current charging rescue vehicle),
selecting the first electric vehicle based on the request information and the status information, controlling request information to be transmitted to the selected first electric vehicle ([0013] 4). A vehicle selection module of the rescue platform calculates a priority using an optimal algorithm according to the GPS information of the current charging rescue vehicle; [0014] 5). The rescue platform pushes a charging rescue vehicle list to operating personnel according to a descending order of the priority; [0015] 6). The operating personnel select a charging rescue vehicle having the highest priority and assign a rescue order; [0016] 7). The rescue platform estimates a rescue expense and time according to the GPS information of the charging rescue vehicle that accepts the order; [0017] 8). The charging rescue vehicle acquires the order, and accepts the order), and
dispatching the first electric vehicle based on a response from the selected first electric vehicle corresponding to the request information ([0017] 8). The charging rescue vehicle acquires the order, and accepts the order; [0018] 9). The rescue platform pushes the estimated expense and time and a charging rescue vehicle state to the rescued vehicle APP; [0019] 10). The electric vehicle driver selects whether to accept the rescue order; [0020] 11). An order execution module of the rescue platform informs a rescue vehicle APP when the rescue is accepted, and a rescue action is started; [0021] 12). In a rescue process, a rescue vehicle monitoring module of the rescue platform acquires the GPS of the charging rescue vehicle in real time, and pushes the GPS to the rescued vehicle APP, so that the electric vehicle driver could know a position, a speed and an expected arrival time of the charging rescue vehicle in real time).
As per claim 3/13, Hu does not explicitly disclose but Prasad discloses wherein the communication protocol supports at least one of open charge point protocol (OCPP), ISO 15118, orIEC 61850 (“[0042] The V2V charging process 10 of FIG. 1 is coordinated via an exchange of data/messages between the EV controller 25 of the donor 12D, the system controller 36 and SECCs 40D, 40R of the V2V charging unit 14, and the corresponding EV controller 125 of the recipient 12R, e.g., a Battery Management System or another battery controller. The above-noted comms and proximity signals are exchanged per a predetermined protocol, with the general process of DC charging under DIN 70121 or other relevant protocols being well understood in the art, such as international protocols/standards like ISO 15118-20, ISO 15118-2”)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 4/14, Hu discloses wherein the status information includes at least one of an identifier of the first electric vehicle, charger information, position information, price information, communication protocol information, or user customer information ([0016] 7). The rescue platform estimates a rescue expense and time according to the GPS information of the charging rescue vehicle that accepts the order).
As per claim 5/15, Hu discloses wherein the request information includes at least one of a user identifier of the second electric vehicle, user information, battery information, position information, or a request message ([0032] 2) When the all-electric vehicles break down due to power shortage, the driver runs the rescued vehicle APP on the mobile phone; the rescued vehicle APP automatically starts the user module; the user module is connected to the access module of the rescue platform with a 3G/4G network through the communication module and Internet; and the driver enters a main page of the rescued vehicle APP after passing the authentication of the rescue platform and the user authentication module; at this time, the driver uses the one-key rescue function, and the order module is immediately started to send rescue application information, user data and current GPS position data of the user to the rescue platform through the communication module and Internet, and the access module of the rescue platform acquires the data and immediately pushes such data to the order execution module).
As per claim 6/16, Hu discloses wherein the instructions further include selecting the first electric vehicle that is positioned closest to the second electric vehicle by considering positions of the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle ([0013] 4). A vehicle selection module of the rescue platform calculates a priority using an optimal algorithm according to the GPS information of the current charging rescue vehicle; [0014] 5). The rescue platform pushes a charging rescue vehicle list to operating personnel according to a descending order of the priority; [0015] 6). The operating personnel select a charging rescue vehicle having the highest priority and assign a rescue order).
As per claim 7/17, Hu discloses wherein the first electric vehicle is configured to include:
a communication module configured to support the communication protocol for transmitting and receiving information with respect to the second electric vehicle and the charging management server (fig. 1, [0014] 5). The rescue platform pushes a charging rescue vehicle list to operating personnel according to a descending order of the priority; [0015] 6). The operating personnel select a charging rescue vehicle having the highest priority and assign a rescue order; [0016] 7). The rescue platform estimates a rescue expense and time according to the GPS information of the charging rescue vehicle that accepts the order; [0017] 8). The charging rescue vehicle acquires the order, and accepts the order),
a control module configured to generate response information corresponding to the request information ([0017] 8). The charging rescue vehicle acquires the order, and accepts the order); and
a charging module configured to supply power to the second electric vehicle ([0022] 13). When the charging rescue vehicle is arrived, the electric vehicle driver selects a charging mode, and the rescue vehicle charges the rescued vehicle).
As per claim 8/18, Hu discloses wherein the response information includes at least one of a response message, dispatch information, expected charging fee information, or expected charging time information ([0017] 8). The charging rescue vehicle acquires the order, and accepts the order).
As per claim 9/19, Hu discloses wherein, when the charging module completes the supply of power, the control module is configured to generate charging service information, and the communication module is configured to transmit the charging service information to the charging management server ([0026] 17). When charging is completed, order information pushed by the rescue vehicle APP is sent to the rescued vehicle APP via the rescue platform; [0027] 18). The rescued vehicle APP informs the user of payment and evaluation; [0028] 19). The rescued vehicle APP sends payment and evaluation information to the rescue platform; [0029] 20). The rescue platform finishes the rescue and presses the rescue order into a bill management module).
As per claim 10/20, Hu discloses wherein the charging service information includes at least one of a supply identifier, charging position information, power supply information, charging communication protocol information, charging rate information, or charging time information ([0026] 17). When charging is completed, order information pushed by the rescue vehicle APP is sent to the rescued vehicle APP via the rescue platform; [0027] 18). The rescued vehicle APP informs the user of payment and evaluation; [0028] 19). The rescued vehicle APP sends payment and evaluation information to the rescue platform; [0029] 20). The rescue platform finishes the rescue and presses the rescue order into a bill management module.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights