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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-5, 12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 12 recite “directly receiving”. However, it is unclear to the metes and bounds required by directly receiving compared to receiving. The specification does not appear to provide additional information ([0006], [0014], [0035], [0057], [0083]: apparatus 100 for managing electric vehicle charging in the charging station may directly receive charger information and vehicle charging state information for a plurality of chargers through the charger management server from a plurality of chargers).
Claims 4, 14 recite determining a shortest distance between the first vehicle and the first charging person based on a global positioning system (GPS) of the charging person terminal of the first charging person; and providing an alarm to the first charging person when the shortest distance exceeds a preset reference distance. The term “shortest” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shortest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to which distance may be determined as a shortest distance and greater than a reference distance. The metes and bounds are unclear between a shortest distance and a distance. Claims 5, 15 depend upon claims 4, 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) 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 (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 11 are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below, additional elements underlined) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 11 recites:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and
at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the instructions, wherein the instructions comprise:
receiving charger information and vehicle charging status information for a plurality of chargers from a charging station;
determining a time remaining until completion of charging of a first vehicle to a first charging person;
providing the time remaining until completion of charging of a first vehicle to a first charging person via a charging person terminal;
requesting a second charging person having a second vehicle connected to a second charger to pick up the second vehicle when charging is complete;
determining a time elapsed after the completion of the charging of the second vehicle; and
providing the time remaining until the completion of charging of the first vehicle to a charging waiting person waiting to use the charging station via a charging waiting person terminal.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person estimating a time remaining until a completion of charging based on receiving charger information and charging status information; communicating the time remaining to a first person; indicating to a second person that the vehicle is done charging; estimating a time elapsed after completion of charging; sharing the charging time remaining with an additional person.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 11 recites:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and
at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the instructions, wherein the instructions comprise:
receiving charger information and vehicle charging status information for a plurality of chargers from a charging station;
determining a time remaining until completion of charging of a first vehicle to a first charging person;
providing the time remaining until completion of charging of a first vehicle to a first charging person via a charging person terminal;
requesting a second charging person having a second vehicle connected to a second charger to pick up the second vehicle when charging is complete;
determining a time elapsed after the completion of the charging of the second vehicle; and
providing the time remaining until the completion of charging of the first vehicle to a charging waiting person waiting to use the charging station via a charging waiting person terminal.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements of receiving, providing, requesting, and providing notifications are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components of a memory and processor and insignificant extra solution activities of gathering data and outputting results. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering/receiving data, transmitting signals, outputting results), and amounts to mere data gathering and storing, transmitting, outputting do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP 2106, representative independent claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, 11-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240083453 (hereinafter Caveney) in view of US 20230249576 (hereinafter Ogaki).
As per claims 1, 11, Caveney discloses an apparatus for managing electric vehicle charging comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the instructions (Caveney [0071]: One or more of the processor 108, the processor 130, the charging station processor 107, and/or the server 103, may be communicably coupled to a network 104), wherein the instructions comprise:
receiving charger information and vehicle charging status information for a plurality of chargers from a charging station (see at least Caveney [0055]: processor 108, the processor 130, the charging station processor 107, and/or the server 103 are configured to determine a time when one or more charging bays of the charging station system 105, such as the first charging bay 111 and/or a second charging bay 112, are predicted to become vacant);
determining a time remaining until completion of charging of a first vehicle to a first charging person (see at least [0088]: first charging bay 111 and/or the second charging bay 112, are predicted to become vacant…battery charge level can be used by the charging station processor 107 to predict a remaining charging time for the battery 132 that is needed to bring the battery 132 up to a full charge. The remaining charging time can be used by the charging station processor 107 to predict the vacating time when the first charging bay 111 will be vacated by the occupying vehicle 110);
requesting a second charging person having a second vehicle connected to a second charger to pick up the second vehicle when charging is complete (see at least Caveney [0069]: when the completion level for the vehicle 110 has exceeded a threshold, and the driver is not proximate the vehicle 110,…may send a message to a device associated with the driver/occupant that instructs the driver/occupant to vacate the charging bay 111, [0081]: when the charge completion level of the battery 132 is above a threshold, and the occupant is not proximate to the occupying vehicle 110, the charging station processor 107 initiates a sending of a notification message to the mobile device 124 associated with the occupant of the occupying vehicle 110. For example, the notification message may instruct the occupant of the occupying vehicle 110 to vacate the first charging bay 111);
determining a time elapsed after the completion of the charging of the second vehicle (see at least Caveney [0069]: After a period, the instant solution may again send a similar message to the device, and when an amount of time has expired past the first sent message, the charging bay may begin to move the vehicle 110 out of the charging bay 111 to another location).
Caveney does not explicitly disclose providing the time remaining until completion of charging of a first vehicle to a first charging person via a charging person terminal.
However, Ogaki teaches providing the time remaining until completion of charging of a first vehicle to a first charging person via a charging person terminal (see at least [0082]: charging completion notification unit notifies the user terminal of the charging completion information when the remaining charging time coincides with the travel time, [0094]: the charging completion information includes the travel time, and at least one of the remaining charging time and the charging completion time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Caveney by incorporating the teachings of Ogaki with a reasonable expectation of success in order for the user to return to the vehicle at an optimum timing corresponding to a completion of charging and help avoid charging congestion (see at least Ogaki [0083], [0119]).
Caveney discloses determining that another vehicle is waiting for the charging bay (see at least [0057]: notification is sent to one or more vehicles in the group of approaching vehicles 106 that are predicted to arrive at the one or more charging bays, such as the first charging bay 111 and/or the second charging bay 112, at a similar time as the determined time, [0070]: another vehicle is waiting for the charging bay) but does not explicitly disclose providing the time remaining until the completion of charging of the first vehicle to a charging waiting person waiting to use the charging station via a charging waiting person terminal.
However, Ogaki teaches providing the time remaining until the completion of charging of the first vehicle to a charging waiting person waiting to use the charging station via a charging waiting person terminal (see at least [0073]: when the charging control unit 24 receives the signal indicating that the user desires to extend the charging or the extension time set by the user from the user terminal 60, the charging control unit 24 may display the extension of charging or the extension time on a display or the like of the external power supply 50…it is possible to notify another user waiting for charging of the charging state of the vehicle 10, which can contribute in avoiding troubles between the users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Caveney by incorporating the teachings of Ogaki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoiding troubles between the users (see at least Ogaki [0073]).
Claim 1 recites a method with similar limitations as claim 11 and does not recite a memory or at least one processor as recited in claim 11. Claim 1 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 11.
As per claims 2, 12, Caveney discloses wherein receiving the charger information and the vehicle charging status information includes directly receiving charger information and vehicle charging status information for the plurality of chargers from the plurality of chargers through a charger management server (see at least Caveney [0055] the processor 108, the processor 130, the charging station processor 107, and/or the server 103 are configured to determine a time when one or more charging bays of the charging station system 105, such as the first charging bay 111 and/or a second charging bay 112, are predicted to become vacant… charging station processor 107 may monitor a battery charge level (i.e., a state of charge) of a battery 132 of the occupying vehicle 110. The battery charge level of the battery 132 can be monitored by the charging station processor 107 communicating with a battery management system 134 of the occupying vehicle 110. For example, the communication may take place via any of the network 104 and/or the processor 130).
As per claims 3, 13, Caveney discloses wherein receiving of the charger information and the vehicle charging status information includes receiving the charger information and the vehicle charging status information from a vehicle connected to the charger (see at least Caveney [0055] the processor 108, the processor 130, the charging station processor 107, and/or the server 103 are configured to determine a time when one or more charging bays of the charging station system 105, such as the first charging bay 111 and/or a second charging bay 112, are predicted to become vacant… charging station processor 107 may monitor a battery charge level (i.e., a state of charge) of a battery 132 of the occupying vehicle 110. The battery charge level of the battery 132 can be monitored by the charging station processor 107 communicating with a battery management system 134 of the occupying vehicle 110. For example, the communication may take place via any of the network 104 and/or the processor 130).
As per claims 4, 14, Caveney discloses monitoring whether the driver is proximate to the vehicle ([0069], [0077]) but does not explicitly disclose determining a shortest distance between the first vehicle and the first charging person based on a global positioning system (GPS) of the charging person terminal of the first charging person; and providing an alarm to the first charging person when the shortest distance exceeds a preset reference distance.
However, Ogaki teaches determining a shortest distance between the first vehicle and the first charging person based on a global positioning system (GPS) of the charging person terminal of the first charging person; and providing an alarm to the first charging person when the shortest distance exceeds a preset reference distance (see at least [0034]: navigation device 17 includes a global positioning system (GPS) unit, [0044]: travel time acquisition unit 244 calculates a distance from the user terminal 60 to the vehicle 10 based on the position information of the user terminal 60 acquired by the user position acquisition unit 243 and the position information of the vehicle 10 acquired by the navigation device 17, [0047]: a timing at which the remaining charging time becomes a time slightly shorter than the travel time (for example, a timing at which the remaining charging time becomes five minutes and fifty seconds in FIG. 2) may be set as the notification timing, Fig. 5: when completion of rapid charging time approaches, notification is made when time corresponding to distance between user and vehicle is reached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Caveney by incorporating the teachings of Ogaki with a reasonable expectation of success in order for the user to return to the vehicle at an optimum timing corresponding to a completion of charging and help avoid charging congestion (see at least Ogaki [0083], [0119]).
As per claims 5, 15, Caveney discloses monitoring whether the driver is proximate to the vehicle ([0069], [0077]) but does not explicitly disclose determining a walking time of the first charging person to the first vehicle based on the shortest distance; and providing an alarm to the first charging person when the time remaining until the completion of the charging is less than the walking time.
However, Ogaki teaches determining a walking time of the first charging person to the first vehicle based on the shortest distance; and providing an alarm to the first charging person when the time remaining until the completion of the charging is less than the walking time (see at least [0044]: travel time acquisition unit 244 calculates a distance from the user terminal 60 to the vehicle 10 based on the position information of the user terminal 60 acquired by the user position acquisition unit 243 and the position information of the vehicle 10 acquired by the navigation device 17, [0047]: a timing at which the remaining charging time becomes a time slightly shorter than the travel time (for example, a timing at which the remaining charging time becomes five minutes and fifty seconds in FIG. 2) may be set as the notification timing, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Caveney by incorporating the teachings of Ogaki with a reasonable expectation of success in order for the user to return to the vehicle at an optimum timing corresponding to a completion of charging and help avoid charging congestion (see at least Ogaki [0083], [0119]).
As per claims 6, 16, Caveney does not explicitly disclose providing an interface for requesting the second charging person to pick up the second vehicle to the charging waiting person terminal when the time elapsed after the completion of charging of the second vehicle exceeds a preset reference time.
However, Ogaki teaches providing an interface for requesting the second charging person to pick up the second vehicle to the charging waiting person terminal when the time elapsed after the completion of charging of the second vehicle exceeds a preset reference time (see at least [0017]: notifying the user terminal of charging completion information of the battery based on the remaining charging time and the travel time, [0073]: when the charging control unit 24 receives the signal indicating that the user desires to extend the charging or the extension time set by the user from the user terminal 60, the charging control unit 24 may display the extension of charging or the extension time on a display or the like of the external power supply 50…it is possible to notify another user waiting for charging of the charging state of the vehicle 10, which can contribute in avoiding troubles between the users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Caveney by incorporating the teachings of Ogaki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoiding troubles between the users (see at least Ogaki [0073]).
As per claim 9, 19, Caveney discloses wherein the first charging person is an owner of the first vehicle (see at least [0048]: a user may be the owner of a vehicle, [0127]: autonomous vehicle owners, Fig. 1B, Examiner note: instant claim 9 depends upon claim 1, claim 19 depends upon claim 13).
As per claim 10, 20, Caveney discloses wherein the second charging person is an owner of the second vehicle (see at least [0048]: a user may be the owner of a vehicle, [0127]: autonomous vehicle owners, Fig. 1B, Examiner note: instant claim 9 depends upon claim 1, claim 19 depends upon claim 13).
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caveney in view of Ogaki and US 20230053922 (Borrelli).
As per claims 7, 17, Caveney discloses a notification message indicating an availability of the one or more charging bays 245D and a notification message instructing a driver to vacate the charging bay ([0098]) but does not explicitly disclose when the second vehicle is disconnected from the second charger after the request to pick up the second vehicle is received through the interface of the charging waiting person terminal, providing a notification to the charging waiting person that the second vehicle is disconnected.
However, Borrelli teaches when the second vehicle is disconnected from the second charger after the request to pick up the second vehicle is received through the interface of the charging waiting person terminal, providing a notification to the charging waiting person that the second vehicle is disconnected (see at least [0021]: system 100 can coordinate the interchange of vehicles on a charger. When one of the vehicles 104 finishes charging (e.g., vehicle B at the right bottom of the figure), it can be notified to leave the charging spot as soon as possible. When it leaves, the vehicle on a waitlist (e.g., vehicle C on the right bottom of the figure) can be notified to move in and use the now open charger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Caveney by incorporating the teachings of Borrelli with a reasonable expectation of success in order to coordinate the interchange of vehicles on a charger and improve charging efficiency (Borrelli [0007], [0008], [0021])
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caveney in view of Ogaki and Borrelli, and further in view of US 20250296461 (Bregman).
As per claims 8, 18, Caveney discloses a penalty for not vacating a charging bay after charging completion ([0083]: penalty is applied when the occupant has not returned to the vehicle) but does not explicitly disclose when the second charging person receives a request for pickup of the second vehicle and picks up the second vehicle within a predetermined time, and when the charging waiting person uses the second charger, providing a reward to the second charging person through the charging person terminal.
However, Bregman discloses when the second charging person receives a request for pickup of the second vehicle and picks up the second vehicle within a predetermined time, and when the charging waiting person uses the second charger, providing a reward to the second charging person through the charging person terminal (see at least [0031]: a notification is presented to the end-user via the user interface, confirming the termination of the charging session and the commencement of a grace period, [0038]: second EV owner, who has a reservation for the following time slot and is parked in space 102-C, is then able to connect their EV to the now-available charging station and commence their own charging session, [0040]: unlock the connector from Owner A's EV, [0186]: ensures that points are granted not merely for the act of ending a charging session but for the actual physical act of making the charging station available for subsequent users, [0235]: wherein the software application is further configured to report a change in location of the client computing device, indicating that the EV has departed from the location of the EV charger before the conclusion of the grace period, thereby triggering an addition of points to the end-user's account as a reward for vacating a charging space in a timely manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Caveney by incorporating the teachings of Bregman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to optimize the use of infrastructure and enhance user satisfaction. Further, Bregman teaches that notifications enhance a user experience by ensuring that the end-user is well-informed of the status of their charging session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights