DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 06/18/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-8 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
Claim 16 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of Applicant’s Response filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7-9, that the claims now require a portable charging station which travels physically, and therefore, the claims cannot be said to recite a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the creation of a charging plan for the vehicle such that energy is available at certain points recites an abstract idea, as outlined below. The mere requirement to traverse the plan using a portable charging vehicle, recited at this level of breadth, amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a portable charging vehicle and further recites the mere requirement to limit the abstract idea to this particular field of use. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. These interpretations have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14 of Applicant’s response filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 11, that modifying Wheeler to consider a state of charge of the subject vehicles, as taught by Lin, would change the principle operation of Wheeler. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that further consideration of a state of charge of a subject vehicle would not change the principle operation of Wheeler, but would rather add in a factor to take into consideration along with those taught by Wheeler. Nothing in Wheeler frustrates or makes impossible the ability to further incorporate consideration of the state of charge of the subject vehicles. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues, on pages 11-13, that Wheeler in view of Lin fails to teach the newly added limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Wheeler in view of Lin does in fact teach three locations in teaching a first node, second node, and base station (storage location) along the route which Wheeler teaches may be determined in advance. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Peterman fails to teach a low power and high power mode. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Peterman teaches that a charging station may exclude low voltage modes and opt for high voltage modes when a preferred time for charging is not sufficient to use a low voltage charging mode. (Peterman: paragraph [0047]) In teaching the exclusion of a low power mode in favor of a high power mode, Peterman teaches this element. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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:
Claim 16:
“state of charge calculator”. . . configured to determine
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 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claim 1 the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine). The claimed invention of independent claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal 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); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claim 1, as a whole, recites the following limitations:
. . . based on an amount of electricity that the charging station has, based on a work plan including work to be done by a subject vehicle which is an electric vehicle, and based on a remaining battery level of the subject vehicle, calculate a charging plan to ensure charging of the subject vehicle by the charging station; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a charging plan based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since calculating a charging plan amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals)
. . . based on the amount of electricity that the charging station has and based on the charging plan, determine whether shared charging is available or not, the shared charging including using the charging station to charge an external vehicle other than the subject vehicle. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether shared charging is available based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining whether shared charging with another vehicle is available based on these factors amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals)
in a case that the shared charging is determined to be available, . . . such that an amount of electricity for the charging station to travel from the shared charging position to the storage location is at least ensured when the shared charging ends, the shared charging position being a position at which the shared charging is to be performed, the prioritized charging position being a position at which the subject vehicle is to be charged and being included in the charging plan. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a charging plan for a vehicle which ensures an amount of electricity is available including these charging positions; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining whether shared charging with another vehicle is available based on these factors amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since the entirety of the set of above steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since the determination as to whether charge is available to be shared amongst vehicles and allowing sharing amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A sharing system to share a charging station to charge electric vehicles, the sharing system comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a controller configured or programmed to function as. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a charging plan calculator configured or programmed to. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a shared charging determiner configured or programmed to. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
wherein the charging station is a mobile charging station powered by electricity to travel alone. . . configured or programmed to. . . travel, (Claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a mobile charging station of this type since the element is recited at a high level of generality, merely performs in its existing capacity to perform the abstract idea, and the claim recites the outcome or solution of using this element without describing how the solution is brought about; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10 and 12-16, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein the charging plan calculated by the charging plan calculator is prioritized over the determination by the shared charging determiner that the shared charging is available.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could prioritize on charging plan over another; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since prioritization of a first charging plan before one that allows sharing amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals.
Claim 3:
wherein the shared charging determiner is configured or programmed to determine that the shared charging is available when a value obtained by subtracting an amount of electricity to be consumed by charging the subject vehicle from the amount of electricity that the charging station has is equal to or more than a predetermined value.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine that shared charging is available based on subtracting these values; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining when one has enough power to share it amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Further still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since subtraction is a mathematical operation.
Claim 4:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to function as a permission determiner configured or programmed to determine that the shared charging is permitted by a manager of the charging station;
and a shared charging plan calculator configured or programmed to, when the shared charging determiner determines that the shared charging is available and the permission determiner determines that the shared charging is permitted, generate a shared charging plan to charge the external vehicle.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a plan when a manager determines that shared charging is allowed alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since generating a plan when a manager determines that shared charging is allowed amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Regarding the use of the permission determiner, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 5:
wherein the shared charging plan calculator is configured or programmed to, based on an amount of electricity to be consumed by charging the subject vehicle and charging time-of-day information which are included in the charging plan, calculate a time-of-day during which the shared charging is permitted and an upper limit of the amount of electricity supplied by the shared charging.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a time of day during which shared charging is permitted based on these factors and an upper limit of an amount of energy supplied therein; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals.
Claim 6:
and the shared charging plan calculator is configured or programmed to: calculate a shared charging position at which the shared charging is to be performed;
and calculate the time-of-day during which the shared charging is permitted, based on a time required for the portable charging station to move from a prioritized charging position to the shared charging position and based on the charging time-of-day information relating to charging of the subject vehicle.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a position, time of day, and include them in a charging plan in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Regarding the recitation of a portable charging station, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea in a particular field of use. Furthermore, this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a portable charging station since the station merely acts in its ordinary capacity to deliver power, and the limitation merely recites the outcome or solution of using a portable charging station without reciting how the solution is accomplished.
Claim 7:
and the shared charging plan calculator is configured or programmed to calculate an upper limit of the amount of electricity to be supplied by the shared charging, based on the amount of electricity to be consumed by the mobile charging station moving from a prioritized charging position to a shared charging position.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate an upper limit and a position in this manner and include the position in the charging plan; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Regarding the recitation of a mobile charging station powered by electricity to travel alone, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea in a particular field of use. Furthermore, this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a mobile charging station powered by electricity to travel alone since the station merely acts in its ordinary capacity to deliver power, and the limitation merely recites the outcome or solution of using a mobile charging station powered by electricity to travel alone without reciting how the solution is accomplished.
Claim 8:
wherein the shared charging plan calculator is configured or programmed to calculate the upper limit of the amount of electricity to be supplied by the shared charging, based on the amount of electricity to be consumed by the charging station to move from the shared charging position to a storage location of the charging station pre-set by the manager.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate an upper limit based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals.
Claim 9:
further comprising a server, wherein the server is configured or programmed to: acquire the determination that the shared charging by the charging station is permitted;
and transmit, to the external vehicle, the shared charging plan and position information of the charging station for which the shared charging is permitted.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could acquire a determination that shared charging is permitted and send a position and charging plan to an entity intended to perform the sharing of charging; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Regarding the use of the server and the terminal to transmit and receive this information, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 10:
wherein the charging station: includes a low-voltage power output and a high-voltage power output;
and is configured or programmed to, based on a time-of-day during which the shared charging is permitted, determine which of the low-voltage power output and the high-voltage power output to use to perform the permitted shared charging.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether high voltage or low voltage should be used based on a time of day; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Regarding the recitation of a mobile charging station with two outputs, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea in a particular field of use. Furthermore, this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using such a station since the station is not actually required to deliver power according to these output levels, and the limitation merely recites the outcome or solution of using a mobile charging station powered by electricity to travel alone without reciting how the solution is accomplished, since these limitations merely determine the type of power which should be used, but do not require any active switching between the two.
Claim 12:
further comprising a terminal;
wherein the server is configured or programmed to transmit, to the terminal, the shared charging plan and position information of the charging station for which the shared charging is permitted.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send a charging plan an position information to an entity which is to perform charging; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Regarding the use of the server and the terminal to transmit and receive this information, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 13:
wherein the terminal is a first terminal operable by the manager of the charging station.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of terminal used in the abstract idea above, and further recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 14:
wherein the terminal includes a second terminal in or on the external vehicle.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of terminal used in the abstract idea above, and further recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 15:
wherein a second terminal is configured or programmed to, upon receipt of a request for a reservation of the shared charging, transmit, to the shared charging determiner, reservation information indicating that the reservation of the shared charging is requested;
the shared charging determiner is configured or programmed to transmit, to the second terminal, a result of the determination of whether the shared charging for which the reservation is requested is available or not;
and the second terminal is configured or programmed to display the result of the determination of whether the shared charging is available or not.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could coordinate a charging reservation in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Regarding the use of the server and the terminal to transmit and receive this information, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 16:
wherein the subject vehicle includes a state of charge calculator to determine the remaining battery level of the subject vehicle; and
the remaining battery level of the subject vehicle is transmitted to the controller.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could, at this level of breadth, determine a remaining battery level and send an indication of such; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of social interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people since determining factors governing shared charging in this manner amounts to following rules and managing sharing behaviors of individuals. Regarding the use of the state of charge calculator and the controller, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-16, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler, Clive Graham (UK Patent Document No. GB2532812A; hereinafter "Wheeler") in view of Lin et al. (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 117022016 A; hereinafter "Lin") further in view of Cronie, Harm Stefan (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20160129793; hereinafter "Cronie").
As per claim 1, Wheeler teaches:
A sharing system to share a charging station to charge electric vehicles, the sharing system comprising:
Wheeler teaches a system and method for sharing charging between a mobile charging station and work vehicles. (Wheeler: abstract)
a controller configured or programmed to function as:
Wheeler further teaches a controller in the form of a processor used to perform the functions of the system. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 20-28, Fig. 2)
With respect to the following limitation:
a charging plan calculator configured or programmed to, based on an amount of electricity that the charging station has, based on a work plan including work to be done by a subject vehicle which is an electric vehicle, and based on a remaining battery level of the subject vehicle, calculate a charging plan to ensure charging of the subject vehicle by the charging station;
Wheeler teaches vehicles which may comprise work vehicles with engagements for repairs. (Wheeler: page 1 lines 12-27) Wheeler teaches that a charging plan may be calculated for recharging the vehicle based on the amount of charge remaining in the vehicle, and the amount of engagements left for the vehicle, wherein the charging plan may comprise a mobile charging vehicle recharging the work vehicle. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-18, page 4 lines 19-22) Wheeler further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more processors. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 20-29, Fig. 2) Wheeler, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that the amount of charge in the portable charging vehicle is considered in determining that the vehicle should be recharged.
Lin, however, teaches that a determination may be made as to whether a portable charging vehicle will have enough remaining charge after charging a vehicle to at least make it back to base station before allowing the portable charging vehicle to charge a given rechargeable node in the network. (Lin: paragraph [0039-42]) Lin teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Wheeler for the benefit of providing a system which not only meets the needs of urgently needed charging nodes, but also takes into account the energy of other nodes in the network, reduces charging costs, improves charging effects, and improves the reliability and stability of wireless rechargeable sensor networks. (Lin: paragraph [0008]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of Wheeler to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Wheeler in view of Lin further teaches:
and a shared charging determiner configured or programmed to, based on the amount of electricity that the charging station has and based on the charging plan, determine whether shared charging is available or not, the shared charging including using the charging station to charge an external vehicle other than the subject vehicle;
Wheeler teaches that a charging plan may be calculated for recharging the vehicle based on the amount of charge remaining in the vehicle, and the amount of engagements left for the vehicle, wherein the charging plan may comprise a mobile charging vehicle recharging the work vehicle. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-18, page 4 lines 19-22) Wheeler further teaches that the first vehicle may be prioritized as given first rights to the mobile charging station before subsequent vehicles. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-15, page 4, lines 11-17) Wheeler further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more processors. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 20-29, Fig. 2) Lin further teaches that a determination may be made as to whether a mobile charging vehicle has more than a threshold amount of power remaining after charging a first rechargeable node in a network, and, if so, the vehicle may be allowed to continue on and charge other rechargeable nodes in the network. (Lin: paragraph [0042-43]) The motivation to combine Lin persists.
Wheeler in view of Lin does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the charging station is: a mobile charging station powered by electricity thereof to travel alone;
Cronie, however, teaches that a charging vehicle and vehicles receiving charge may comprise self-driven electric vehicles. (Cronie: paragraphs [0021, 24-25, 33]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Chambers, or by Cronie. Implementing the system using self driven electric vehicles, as taught by Cronie does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Chambers. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Cronie with the teachings of Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Chambers, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further teaches:
and is configured or programmed to, in a case that the shared charging is determined to be available, travel from a prioritized charging position via a shared charging position to a storage location of the charging station such that an amount of electricity for the charging station to travel from the shared charging position to the storage location is at least ensured when the shared charging ends, the shared charging position being a position at which the shared charging is to be performed, the prioritized charging position being a position at which the subject vehicle is to be charged and being included in the charging plan.
Wheeler further teaches that further positions at which a next charge (the shared charge) may occur may be determined. (Wheeler: page 4, lines 19-22; page 8, lines 7-15, page 13 lines 19-30, page 14 lines 1-17, Fig. 7, 12) Lin further teaches the calculation of a remaining amount of power in the mobile charging vehicle after consuming power traveling to the charging node and therefore teaches the calculation of an upper limit of an amount of power which can be supplied by the vehicle. (Lin: paragraph [0039-41]) In teaching that a determination is made as to whether the vehicle will have enough power to charge the subsequent node and teaching that the vehicle must be determined to have enough power to return to the base station, Lin teaches that this happens in a case that shared charging is determined to be available. (Lin: paragraphs [0039-43]) The motivation to combine Lin persists.
As per claim 2, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the charging plan calculated by the charging plan calculator is prioritized over the determination by the shared charging determiner that the shared charging is available.
Wheeler teaches that a charging plan may be calculated for recharging the vehicle based on the amount of charge remaining in the vehicle, and the amount of engagements left for the vehicle, wherein the charging plan may comprise a mobile charging vehicle recharging the work vehicle. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-18, page 4 lines 19-22) Wheeler further teaches that the first vehicle may be prioritized as given first rights to the mobile charging station before subsequent vehicles. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-15, page 4, lines 11-17) Lin further teaches that a determination may be made as to whether a mobile charging vehicle has more than a threshold amount of power remaining after charging a first rechargeable node in a network, and, if so, the vehicle may be allowed to continue on and charge other rechargeable nodes in the network. (Lin: paragraph [0042-43]) The motivation to combine Lin persists.
As per claim 3, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the shared charging determiner is configured or programmed to determine that the shared charging is available when a value obtained by subtracting an amount of electricity to be consumed by charging the subject vehicle from the amount of electricity that the charging station has is equal to or more than a predetermined value.
Wheeler teaches that a charging plan may be calculated for recharging the vehicle based on the amount of charge remaining in the vehicle, and the amount of engagements left for the vehicle, wherein the charging plan may comprise a mobile charging vehicle recharging the work vehicle. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-18, page 4 lines 19-22) Wheeler further teaches that the first vehicle may be prioritized as given first rights to the mobile charging station before subsequent vehicles. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-15, page 4, lines 11-17) Lin further teaches that a determination may be made as to whether a mobile charging vehicle will have more than a threshold amount of power remaining after charging a first rechargeable node in a network, and, if so, the vehicle may be allowed to continue on and charge other rechargeable nodes in the network. (Lin: paragraph [0042-43]) The motivation to combine Lin persists.
As per claim 16, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the subject vehicle includes a state of charge calculator to determine the remaining battery level of the subject vehicle;
Cronie further teaches that each vehicle may determine its current state of charge of its battery and send such to a controller which may use the state of charge in planning recharging for the vehicle. (Cronie: paragraph [0024, 28, 36-37, 53, 65, 72]) The motivation to combine Cronie persists.
the remaining battery level of the subject vehicle is transmitted to the controller.
Cronie further teaches that each vehicle may determine its current state of charge of its battery and send such to a controller which may use the state of charge in planning recharging for the vehicle. (Cronie: paragraph [0024, 28, 36-37, 53, 65, 72]) The motivation to combine Cronie persists.
Claims 4-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180204232; hereinafter "Chambers").
As per claim 4, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
a permission determiner configured or programmed to determine that the shared charging is permitted by a manager of the charging station;
Chambers, however, teaches that a user who owns a mobile energy source may input into a system 350, which may comprise a cloud server, an indication that he is willing to share energy with others, or the system itself may automatically make offers on behalf of the user, and the system may broadcast out the request and make matches on behalf of the user in response to this indication that energy sharing is permitted. (Chambers: paragraph [0063-69], Fig. 4) Chambers teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie for the benefit of providing a system which may allow an energy consumer vehicle and an energy provider vehicle to conveniently locate each other and negotiate, schedule and execute an energy sale/purchase transaction. (Chambers: paragraph [0006]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chambers with the teachings of Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers further teaches:
and a shared charging plan calculator configured or programmed to, when the shared charging determiner determines that the shared charging is available and the permission determiner determines that the shared charging is permitted, generate a shared charging plan to charge the external vehicle.
Wheeler teaches that a charging plan may be calculated for recharging the vehicle based on the amount of charge remaining in the vehicle, and the amount of engagements left for the vehicle, wherein the charging plan may comprise a mobile charging vehicle recharging the work vehicle. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-18, page 4 lines 19-22) Chambers, as outlined above, teaches that a user who owns a mobile energy source may input into a system 350, which may comprise a cloud server, an indication that he is willing to share energy with others, or the system itself may automatically make offers on behalf of the user, and the system may broadcast out the request and make matches on behalf of the user in response to this indication that energy sharing is permitted. (Chambers: paragraph [0063-69], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
As per claim 5, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the shared charging plan calculator is configured or programmed to, based on an amount of electricity to be consumed by charging the subject vehicle and charging time-of-day information which are included in the charging plan, calculate a time-of-day during which the shared charging is permitted and an upper limit of the amount of electricity supplied by the shared charging.
Wheeler further teaches that the system may only allow for charging from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and may calculate times of days for charging within that time interval. (Wheeler: page 13 lines 19-30, page 14 lines 1-17, Fig. 12) Lin further teaches the calculation of a remaining amount of power in the mobile charging vehicle and therefore teaches the calculation of an upper limit of an amount of power which can be supplied by the vehicle. (Lin: paragraph [0041]) The motivation to combine Lin persists.
As per claim 6, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the charging station is a portable charging station;
Wheeler teaches that a charging plan may be calculated for recharging the vehicle based on the amount of charge remaining in the vehicle, and the amount of engagements left for the vehicle, wherein the charging plan may comprise a mobile charging vehicle recharging the work vehicle. (Wheeler: page 3 lines 10-18, page 4 lines 19-22)
and the shared charging plan calculator is configured or programmed to: calculate a shared charging position at which the shared charging is to be performed;
Wheeler further teaches that the system may calculate a position at which the charging is to occur. (Wheeler: page 9, lines 15-22) Wheeler further teaches that further positions at which a next charge (the shared charge) may occur may be determined. (Wheeler: page 4, lines 19-22; page 8, lines 7-15, page 13 lines 19-30, page 14 lines 1-17, Fig. 7, 12)
and calculate the time-of-day during which the shared charging is permitted, based on a time required for the portable charging station to move from a prioritized charging position to the shared charging position and based on the charging time-of-day information relating to charging of the subject vehicle, the prioritized charging position being included in the charging plan and being a position at which the subject vehicle is to be charged.
Wheeler further teaches that the system may only allow for charging from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and may calculate times of days for charging within that time interval. (Wheeler: page 13 lines 19-30, page 14 lines 1-17, Fig. 12) Wheeler further teaches that the system may calculate a position at which the charging is to occur. (Wheeler: page 9, lines 15-22) Wheeler further teaches that further positions at which a next charge (the shared charge) may occur may be determined. (Wheeler: page 4, lines 19-22; page 8, lines 7-15, page 13 lines 19-30, page 14 lines 1-17, Fig. 7, 12)
As per claim 7, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the charging station is a mobile charging station powered by electricity thereof to travel alone;
Cronie, however, teaches that a charging vehicle and vehicles receiving charge may comprise self-driven electric vehicles. (Cronie: paragraphs [0021, 24-25, 33]) The motivation to combine Cronie persists.
Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers further teaches:
and the shared charging plan calculator is configured or programmed to calculate an upper limit of the amount of electricity to be supplied by the shared charging, based on the amount of electricity to be consumed by the mobile charging station moving from a prioritized charging position to a shared charging position, the prioritized charging position being a position at which the subject vehicle is to be charged and being included in the charging plan, the shared charging position being a position at which the shared charging is to be performed.
Wheeler further teaches that further positions at which a next charge (the shared charge) may occur may be determined. (Wheeler: page 4, lines 19-22; page 8, lines 7-15, page 13 lines 19-30, page 14 lines 1-17, Fig. 7, 12) Lin further teaches the calculation of a remaining amount of power in the mobile charging vehicle after consuming power traveling to the charging node and therefore teaches the calculation of an upper limit of an amount of power which can be supplied by the vehicle. (Lin: paragraph [0039-41]) The motivation to combine Lin persists.
As per claim 8, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the shared charging plan calculator is configured or programmed to calculate the upper limit of the amount of electricity to be supplied by the shared charging, based on the amount of electricity to be consumed by the charging station to move from the shared charging position to a storage location of the charging station pre-set by the manager.
Lin, as outlined above, teaches that a determination may be made as to whether a portable charging vehicle will have enough remaining charge after charging a vehicle to at least make it back to base station before allowing the portable charging vehicle to charge a given rechargeable node in the network. (Lin: paragraph [0039-42]) The motivation to combine Lin persists.
As per claim 9, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising a server, wherein the server is configured or programmed to: acquire the determination that the shared charging by the charging station is permitted;
Chambers, as outlined above, teaches that a user who owns a mobile energy source may input into a system 350, which may comprise a cloud server, an indication that he is willing to share energy with others, or the system itself may automatically make offers on behalf of the user, and the system may broadcast out the request and make matches on behalf of the user in response to this indication that energy sharing is permitted. (Chambers: paragraph [0063-69], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
and transmit, to the external vehicle, the shared charging plan and position information of the charging station for which the shared charging is permitted.
Wheeler further teaches that the system may calculate a position at which the charging is to occur. (Wheeler: page 9, lines 15-22) Chambers further teaches that the shared charging location may be sent to the user who accepts the offer for shared charging. (Chambers: paragraph [0066-68], Fig. 4) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
As per claim 12, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising a terminal;
Chambers, however, teaches mobile devices of users including energy sellers (managers of energy sharing vehicles) and energy purchasers (subject vehicles and shared vehicles), wherein the location and plan for charging may be sent to the sharing vehicle device as well as the receiving vehicle device. (Chambers: paragraphs [0021-29, 34-35, 52, 66-68, 77-79]) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
wherein the server is configured or programmed to transmit, to the terminal, the shared charging plan and position information of the charging station for which the shared charging is permitted.
Chambers, as outlined above, teaches mobile devices of users including energy sellers (managers of energy sharing vehicles) and energy purchasers (subject vehicles and shared vehicles), wherein the location and plan for charging may be sent to the sharing vehicle device as well as the receiving vehicle device. (Chambers: paragraphs [0021-29, 34-35, 52, 66-68, 77-79]) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
As per claim 13, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the terminal is a first terminal operable by the manager of the charging station.
Chambers, as outlined above, teaches mobile devices of users including energy sellers (managers of energy sharing vehicles) and energy purchasers (subject vehicles and shared vehicles), wherein the location and plan for charging may be sent to the sharing vehicle device as well as the receiving vehicle device. (Chambers: paragraphs [0021-29, 34-35, 52, 66-68, 77-79]) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
As per claim 14, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the terminal includes a second terminal in or on the external vehicle.
Chambers, as outlined above, teaches mobile devices of users including energy sellers (managers of energy sharing vehicles) and energy purchasers (subject vehicles and shared vehicles), wherein the location and plan for charging may be sent to the sharing vehicle device as well as the receiving vehicle device. (Chambers: paragraphs [0021-29, 34-35, 52, 66-68, 77-79]) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
As per claim 15, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein a second terminal is configured or programmed to, upon receipt of a request for a reservation of the shared charging, transmit, to the shared charging determiner, reservation information indicating that the reservation of the shared charging is requested;
Chambers, however, teaches mobile devices of users including energy sellers (managers of energy sharing vehicles) and energy purchasers (subject vehicles and shared vehicles), wherein the location and plan for charging may be sent to the sharing vehicle device as well as the receiving vehicle device. (Chambers: paragraphs [0021-29, 34-35, 52, 66-68, 76-79]) Chambers teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie for the benefit of providing a system which may allow an energy consumer vehicle and an energy provider vehicle to conveniently locate each other and negotiate, schedule and execute an energy sale/purchase transaction. (Chambers: paragraph [0006]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chambers with the teachings of Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Chambers further teaches:
the shared charging determiner is configured or programmed to transmit, to the second terminal, a result of the determination of whether the shared charging for which the reservation is requested is available or not;
Chambers, as outlined above, teaches mobile devices of users including energy sellers (managers of energy sharing vehicles) and energy purchasers (subject vehicles and shared vehicles), wherein the location and plan for charging may be sent to the sharing vehicle device as well as the receiving vehicle device, wherein those receiving energy may accept an offer and reserve the charging from the seller vehicle or may bid for purchasing energy, wherein if their bid is selected and indication of such may be sent to the shared charging vehicle terminal. (Chambers: paragraphs [0021-29, 34-35, 52, 66-68, 76-79]) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
and the second terminal is configured or programmed to display the result of the determination of whether the shared charging is available or not.
Chambers, as outlined above, teaches mobile devices of users including energy sellers (managers of energy sharing vehicles) and energy purchasers (subject vehicles and shared vehicles), wherein the location and plan for charging may be sent to the sharing vehicle device as well as the receiving vehicle device, wherein those receiving energy may accept an offer and reserve the charging from the seller vehicle or may bid for purchasing energy, wherein if their bid is selected and indication of such may be sent to the shared charging vehicle terminal. (Chambers: paragraphs [0021-29, 34-35, 52, 66-68, 76-79]) The motivation to combine Chambers persists.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Peterman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20240010099; hereinafter "Peterman").
As per claim 10, Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the charging station: includes a low-voltage power output and a high-voltage power output;
Peterman, however, teaches that a charging station may exclude low voltage modes and opt for high voltage modes when a preferred time for charging is not sufficient to use a low voltage charging mode. (Peterman: paragraph [0047]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Wheeler in view of Lin, or by Peterman. Choosing a higher voltage charging mode instead of a lower voltage charging mode does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Wheeler in view of Lin. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Peterman with the teachings of Wheeler in view of Lin, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Wheeler in view of Lin further in view of Cronie further in view of Peterman further teaches:
and is configured or programmed to, based on a time-of-day during which the shared charging is permitted, determine which of the low-voltage power output and the high-voltage power output to use to perform the permitted shared charging.
Wheeler further teaches that the system may only allow for charging from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and may calculate times of days for charging within that time interval. (Wheeler: page 13 lines 19-30, page 14 lines 1-17, Fig. 12) Peterman, as outlined above, teaches that a charging station may exclude low voltage modes and opt for high voltage modes when a preferred time for charging is not sufficient to use a low voltage charging mode. (Peterman: paragraph [0047]) The motivation to combine Peterman persists.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights