DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to amendments filed July 18th, 2025. Claims 1, 8-9, and 13-15 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20-21 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 7/18/25, with respect to claims 9 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 5/12/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 filed 7/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to statutory subject matter. Beginning on page 7 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims, “involve a vehicle autonomously driving to a location and sharing/transferring electrical energy from the vehicle to the location. This process cannot be carried out “abstractly” in the human mind as it requires a vehicle to autonomously maneuver and then provide energy to a location.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and begins by asserting that the claims recite at a high level of generality “controlling an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) and sensors of the vehicle” to perform the argued functions. The claims fail to recite how the system is controlling the ADAS system and sensors as well as the active transfer of electricity by the vehicle to the location. Therefore, the claimed “control” of the ADAS system could be interpreted as a judgement and evaluation of the human mind. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 7 to argue, “choosing the location of greatest need in view of the event, is not something that is well-understood or routine in the art of vehicles”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claimed “choosing the location of greatest need” is recited so generically that this determination of greatest need is analogous to a judgement and evaluation of the human mind. The fact that this functionality is claimed to be performed by “a vehicle” of independent claim 8 is not sufficient as the functions are further described as being performed by “a processor” within the vehicle would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, on page 7 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the claims are directed to a particular solution that supplies power to a location, such as a home, a business, an office, etc. through the use of bi-directional energy transfer from a vehicle. This is new in the art of vehicle/energy management, and it is made possible by predicting a disruption in the electricity supplied to the location from the electric grid.” Examiner asserts that argued “particular solution” of Applicant is not present in the claims, as stated above the transfer of electricity from the vehicle is not positively recited. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Additionally, Examiner asserts, per the cited prior art below, the bi-directional energy transfer from a vehicle is not new in the art. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, on page 7 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the claimed features require a computer and they are new in the art of vehicle management.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that while Applicant argues that these limitations “require a computer” independent claim 1 does not recite any computer components to perform the steps of the method. Therefore, the claim elements are not executed by a computer and could be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation and a human performing the steps. Additionally, even if the claims “required a computer” as argued by Applicant, per the 2019 PEG, “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Further, the 2019 PEG recites the following, “examiners may review the specification to determine if the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.” As the only claimed computer elements are found in independent claims 8 and 15, Examiner asserts that applicant is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea. Additionally, the claimed “dispatching a vehicle”; and “controlling the advanced-driver assistance system (ADAS)” limitations recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity managing relationships and interactions. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “the additional elements of the claim are directed to a process of modifying a vehicle to be a provider of electricity to a location. In particular, a vehicle can be turned into a mobile energy transfer station and send to a location where the vehicle can transfer energy to a home or office in need due to an impending or current power outage from an electrical grid. This process ensures that electricity stays on, especially for higher risk locations such as hospitals and other care centers.” Examiner asserts, as stated above, per MPEP 2106.05(a), “the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” It is unclear, per the claimed invention, the reference to “modifying a vehicle” in particular, “turned into a mobile energy transfer station”. Examiner asserts that argued process referenced above by Applicant is not present in the claims. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, on page 8 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the claims “impose a particular solution to a particular problem of reducing power disruptions.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, per MPEP 2106.05(a), “An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” While Applicant argues the technical problem of “reducing power disruptions” Examiner is unable to locate the notation of this specific technical problem within the provided Specification. Additionally, while Applicant argues that the claims present a particular solution to the particular problem, Examiner asserts that the claimed “controlling the advanced-driver assistance system (ADAS)” is recited at a high-level of generality such that the specifics regarding the unconventional technical solution are not present in the claims. Therefore, the claims do not present a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on page 8 to argue, “Applicant's numerous claim limitations would clearly integrate an alleged abstract idea (collecting data, analyzing the data, etc.) into a practical application that does not monopolize a judicial exception and are thereby patent eligible because the practical application of Applicant's claims allow for a real-world benefit through computing systems.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, as Applicant has not provided the specific claim limitations as reference it is unclear which aspects of the claim are being argued as integrating the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. As stated above, the limitations of the independent claims are directed to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Process. Thus, it is unclear which additional elements Applicant is referring to in asserting “real-world benefit through computing systems”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, regarding Step 2B analysis, Applicant argues “the ordered combination of elements in the independent claims are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts, as stated above, as Applicant has not provided the specific claim limitations as reference it is unclear which aspects of the claim are being argued as significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the limitations of the independent claims are directed to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Process. Thus, it is unclear which additional elements Applicant is referring to as significantly more than the judicial exception. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 filed 7/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Beginning on page 10 of the provided remarks, Applicant argues “neither Omitaomu nor Cheung describe determining a vehicle size, let alone, based on the event and the greatest electricity need”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that cited Cheung discloses the selection of an AEV based on the electricity need of the request (i.e., the claimed greatest electricity need). This in combination with Mori (U.S 2021/0287550 A1) discloses the amended limitations.
Further, Applicant argues “neither Omitaomu nor Cheung describe autonomously maneuvering a vehicle (of the determined size) from its current location to the location with the greatest electricity need and transfer electricity to the location before or during the event.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Cheung specifically discloses the automatic instruction and control of the onboard controller and sensor suite of the AEV to supply power following a request, per cited Figure 7 and related text. This in combination with cited Mori (U.S 2021/0287550 A1) disclose the amended claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 8 (vehicle), and 15 (memory) and dependent claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 20-21, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 8 is directed to a vehicle (i.e. machine), and claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite predicting an event related to an electric grid will affect electricity supplied from the electric grid to a geographic area including at least a first location and a second location; ranking respective electricity needs of the first location and the second location based on the predicted event to determine a location with a greatest electricity need based on the respective electricity needs; determining a vehicle size based on the vent and the greatest electricity need; dispatching a vehicle of the determined vehicle size to the location with the greatest electricity need; and controlling an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) and sensors of the vehicle to autonomously maneuver the vehicle from its current location to the location with the greatest electricity need and transfer electricity to the location before or during the event (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are dispatching vehicles to the location with a greatest electricity need and controlling an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) and sensors of the vehicle to maneuver to the location with the greatest electricity need, which is managing personal behavior and interactions. The Applicant’s claims are dispatching and controlling an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) and sensors of vehicles to maneuver to locations with the greatest electricity need, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract ides of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are predicting an event related to an electric grid will affect electricity supplied from the electric grid, ranking respective electricity needs based on the predicted event to determine a location with a greatest electricity need, and determining vehicle size based on the event, which are functions of the human mind in the form of observation, judgment, and evaluation. The Applicant’s claims are predicting an event related to an electric grid, ranking respective electricity needs based on the predicted event to determine a location with a greatest electricity need, and determining vehicle size based on the event, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the prediction of a power outage; determining distances between the vehicle and the locations; and ranking based on distances. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior and mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claim 21 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the claimed “A vehicle, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor that, when executing the instructions stored in the memory; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a vehicle” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claim 21 additionally recite “sending a message to the vehicle including an identifier of the location as a destination prior to occurrence of the event at the location” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claimed “A vehicle, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor that, when executing the instructions stored in the memory; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a vehicle” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-2, 6-7, and 21; vehicle claims 8-9 and 13-14; and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 15-16 and 20 recite “A vehicle, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor that, when executing the instructions stored in the memory; A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a vehicle”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0049, 0056, and Figures 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claim 21 additionally recites “sending a message to the vehicle including an identifier of the location as a destination prior to occurrence of the event at the location” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omitaomu (U.S 2012/0265502 A1) in view of Cheung (U.S 2021/0382501 A1) in view of Mori (U.S 2021/0287550 A1).
Claims 1, 8, and 15
Regarding Claim 1, Omitaomu discloses the following:
A method comprising [see at least Paragraph 0025 for reference to a method for modeling electricity supply and demand and estimating power outages and/or restoration timeframes; Paragraph 0035 for reference to the method in which a data processor determines or estimates spatial distribution of electric power outages and affected populations; Figure 7 and related text regarding the method of determines or estimates spatial distribution of electric power outages and affected populations]
predicting an event related to an electric grid will affect electricity supplied from the electric grid to a geographic area including at least a first location and a second location [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the method predicting a power outage effect on the electricity service of the area; Paragraph 0034 for reference to disaster event information being mapped within a matrix to obtain a prediction of disaster event effects; Paragraph 0035 for reference to the data processor identifies the affected service areas by comparing the event path with the corresponding demand cells and an estimated number of affected customers can be computed from the demand cell population information for the possibly affected cells; Paragraph 0041 for reference to real-time visualization that VERDE provides characterizes the dynamic behavior of energy resources, such as the electric grid, across multiple regions, substantially mitigating the risk of and accelerating the recovery from wide-area power disruptions; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 58 ‘Determine Affected Service Areas’, item 60 ‘Computer Number of Affected’, and item 66 ‘Compute Restoration Prediction’]
ranking respective electricity needs of the first location and the second location based on the predicted event to determine a location with a greatest electricity need based on the respective electricity needs [see at least Paragraph 0025 for reference to the model utilizing the level of supply (i.e., power capacity) at each substation and the amount of power demand at each destination; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the method including ranking impacted substations with respect to the number of population served, while accounting for critical assets such as police and fire stations, hospitals, and government facilities; Table 1 and related text regarding the Algorithm for Agent-Based Simulation of Power Outage Restoration Time including GIVEN the number of electrical customers without power and where they are located develop a substation priority list by ranking the remaining substations with respect to the number of customers they serve]
dispatching a vehicle to the location with the greatest electricity need [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to the restoration prediction method predicting the number of repair crews that may be needed; Paragraph 0039 for reference to the method determining the number of crews available and assigning crews to substations based on the developed priorities of the ranking step; Table 1 and related text regarding assigning the first available repair crew to repair critical substations]
While Omitaomu discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose determining a vehicle size based on the event and the greatest electricity need; dispatching a vehicle of the determined vehicle size to the location with the greatest electricity need; controlling an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) and sensors of the vehicle to autonomously maneuver the vehicle from its current location to the location with the greatest electricity need and transfer electricity to the location before or during the event.
However, Cheung discloses the following:
predicting an event related to an electric grid will affect electricity supplied from the electric grid to a geographic area including at least a first location and a second location [see at least Paragraph 0015 for reference to AEVs can connect directly to a power grid at the request of a utility company, e.g., to provide supplemental power during a peak demand period, or to service an area that is temporarily cut off from the power grid; Paragraph 0037 for reference to the fleet management system using utility data to identify locations for providing power supplies and identify times or predicted times during which power is to be supplied]
determining a vehicle based on the event and the greatest electricity need [see at least Paragraph 0075 for reference to the fleet management system selecting an AEV from a fleet of AEV’s based on the current location of the AEV, the requested location, a battery level of the selected AEV, and the estimated amount of energy for servicing the request; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 730 ‘Select an AEV of a fleet to fulfill the request’]
dispatching a vehicle of the determined vehicle to the location with the greatest electricity need [see at least Paragraph 0067 for reference to the power source dispatch engine 660 selects and dispatches AEVs 110 for servicing power requests; Paragraph 0067 for reference to requests for power at a given time and location, the power source dispatch engine 660 selects an AEV 110 based on the parameters of the power request (e.g., location, duration, estimated power consumption rate) and based on data describing the available AEVs 110 (e.g., location, charge levels); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the fleet management system instructing the AEV to drive to the location of the power request; Figure 2 and related text regarding the fleet management system dispatching a selected AEV to provide power to a user; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 740 ‘Instruct AEV to drive to location of request’]
controlling an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) and sensors of the vehicle to automatically maneuver the vehicle from its current location to the location with the greatest electricity need and transfer electricity to the location before or during the event [see at least Paragraph 0028 for reference to each AEV including a steering interface that controls the steering of the AEV; Paragraph 0030 for reference to based upon the vehicle state and programmed instructions, the onboard computer connected to the sensor suite modifying or controlling behavior of the AEV; Paragraph 0034 for reference to after selecting an AEV from the fleet of AEVs to perform a particular service or other task, the fleet management system instructs the selected AEV to autonomously drive to a particular location (e.g., a home affected by a power outage); Paragraph 0058 for reference to the fleet management system automatically instructs the AEV to drive to the location and serve as a backup power supply when the location experiences a power outage; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 140 ‘sensor suite’; Figure 2 and related text regarding the fleet management system dispatching a selected AEV to provide power to a user; Figure 3 and related text regarding the selected AEV providing power as requested and updating the fleet management system; Figure 4 and related text regarding the fleet management system instructing the selected AEV to return for charging]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power outage determination method of Omitaomu to include the vehicle maneuvering methods of Cheung. Doing so would provide on-demand power to users without the advanced planning or infrastructure investments required by existing backup power systems, as stated by Cheung (Paragraph 0015).
While the combination of Omitaomu and Cheung discloses the limitations above, they do not disclose determining a vehicle size based on the event and the greatest electricity need; dispatching a vehicle of the determined vehicle size to the location with the greatest electricity need.
However, Mori discloses the following:
determining a vehicle size based on the event and the greatest electricity need [see at least Paragraph 0037 for reference to the vehicle request specifying information about the electricity required at the predetermined shelter, fuel quantity required for power generation at a power generating facility prepared at the shelter, information about the necessity of heat supply to the shelter, etc. using the master information stored in advance about the predetermined shelter; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the vehicle dispatch service device selects an electric vehicle that can be dispatched to the predetermined shelter from the electric vehicles; Paragraph 0064 for reference to master information of the predetermined shelter including a capacity for persons to be accommodated in the shelter; Paragraph 0079 for reference to the calculation unit selecting an electric vehicle suitable for dispatch to the predetermined shelter from the vehicle notification information in the storage unit on the basis of vehicle positional information associated with the acquired vehicle identification information, information indicating a charging state associated with vehicle identification information other than the former vehicle identification information, master Information about the predetermined shelter designated by the user, information about a road situation such as submergence or bridge collapse, for example, and a road width along a route to the predetermined shelter; Paragraph 0081 for reference to examples of the type of electric vehicle selected; Figure 6 and related text regarding item S108 ‘SELECT ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUITABLE FOR DISPATCH TO PREDETERMINED SHELTER’]
dispatching a vehicle of the determined vehicle size to the location with the greatest electricity need [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to the vehicle dispatch service device selects an electric vehicle that can be dispatched to the predetermined shelter from the electric vehicles, and generates a vehicle dispatch instruction directed to the vehicle to be dispatched and including positional information about the predetermine shelter and information instructing vehicle dispatch to the position of the predetermined shelter; Paragraph 0038 for reference to the vehicle dispatch service device transmitting the generated vehicle dispatch instruction to the electric vehicle to be dispatched; Paragraph 0055 for reference to the communication unit acquires a vehicle dispatch instruction output from the management unit, and transmits the acquired vehicle dispatch instruction to the electric vehicle to be dispatched; Figure 6 and related text regarding item S110 ‘Generate Vehicle Dispatch Instruction’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle determination method of Cheung to include the determination of vehicle size of Mori. This makes it possible to avoid the occurrence of shortage of electric vehicles to supply electricity at the predetermined shelter, as stated by Mori (Paragraph 0022).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Cheung teaches a vehicle comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor [Paragraph 0026, 0030, & Figure 1]. Regarding claim 15, Omitaomu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when read by a processor [Paragraph 0011-14]. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Omitaomu, Chueng, and Mori.
Claims 2, 9, and 16
While the combination of Omitaomu, Chueng, and Mori disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Omitaomu discloses the following:
predicting an outage of power at the location with the greatest electricity need [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to the method predicting a power outage effect on the electricity service of the area; Paragraph 0034 for reference to disaster event information being mapped within a matrix to obtain a prediction of disaster event effects; Paragraph 0035 for reference to the data processor identifies the affected service areas by comparing the event path with the corresponding demand cells and an estimated number of affected customers can be computed from the demand cell population information for the possibly affected cells; Paragraph 0041 for reference to real-time visualization that VERDE provides characterizes the dynamic behavior of energy resources, such as the electric grid, across multiple regions, substantially mitigating the risk of and accelerating the recovery from wide-area power disruptions; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 58 ‘Determine Affected Service Areas’, item 60 ‘Computer Number of Affected’, and item 66 ‘Compute Restoration Prediction’]
While Omitaomu discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose transferring electrical energy from the vehicle to the electric grid at the location with the greatest electricity need.
However, Cheung discloses the following:
transferring electrical energy from the vehicle to the electric grid at the location with the greatest electricity need [see at least Paragraph 0067 for reference to the power source dispatch engine 660 selects and dispatches AEVs 110 for servicing power requests; Paragraph 0067 for reference to requests for power at a given time and location, the power source dispatch engine 660 selects an AEV 110 based on the parameters of the power request (e.g., location, duration, estimated power consumption rate) and based on data describing the available AEVs 110 (e.g., location, charge levels); Paragraph 0076 for reference to the fleet management system instructing the AEV to drive to the location of the power request; Paragraph 0076 for reference the AEV distributing electric power from its battery upon reaching the location; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 740 ‘Instruct AEV to drive to location of request’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power outage determination method of Omitaomu to include the vehicle energy transfer of Cheung. Doing so would provide on-demand power to users without the advanced planning or infrastructure investments required by existing backup power systems, as stated by Cheung (Paragraph 0015).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 6, 13, and 20
While the combination of Omitaomu, Chueng, and Mori disclose the limitations above, Omitaomu does not disclose determining a first distance between a vehicle and the first area; and determining a second distance between the vehicle and the second area.
Regarding Claim 6, Cheung discloses the following:
determining a first distance between the vehicle and the first location [see at least Paragraph 0066 for reference to the vehicle monitoring system receiving and maintaining the current locations of AEVs or the vehicle manager tracking AEV locations; Paragraph 0067 for reference to the power source dispatch engine 660 selects an AEV 110 based on the parameters of the power request (e.g., location, duration, estimated power consumption rate) and based on data describing the available AEVs 110 (e.g., location, charge levels)]
determining a second distance between the vehicle and the second location [see at least Paragraph 0066 for reference to the vehicle monitoring system receiving and maintaining the current locations of AEVs or the vehicle manager tracking AEV locations; Paragraph 0067 for reference to the power source dispatch engine 660 selects an AEV 110 based on the parameters of the power request (e.g., location, duration, estimated power consumption rate) and based on data describing the available AEVs 110 (e.g., location, charge levels)]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power outage determination method of Omitaomu to include the distance determination of deployable vehicles of Cheung. Doing so would provide on-demand power to users without the advanced planning or infrastructure investments required by existing backup power systems, as stated by Cheung (Paragraph 0015).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14
While the combination of Omitaomu, Chueng, and Mori disclose the limitations above, Omitaomu does not disclose determining the location with the greatest need based on the first distance and the second distance.
Regarding Claim 7, Cheung discloses the following:
determining the location with the greatest need based on the first distance and the second distance [see at least Paragraph 0026 for reference to based on data about the power request and the locations and charge levels of the AEVs in the fleet, the fleet management system selects an AEV to service the request, i.e., to drive to the location of the power request and provide power from the battery; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the fleet management system selecting the AEV based on parameters of the power request and data describing the AEV fleet; Paragraph 0041 for reference to the fleet management system selects the second AEV because it is located near to the home and has sufficient charge to drive to the home, provide the requested amount of power, and drive to a charging station]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power outage determination method of Omitaomu to include the ranking based on distance determination of deployable vehicles of Cheung. Doing so would provide on-demand power to users without the advanced planning or infrastructure investments required by existing backup power systems, as stated by Cheung (Paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 14, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 21
While the combination of Omitaomu, Chueng, and Mori disclose the limitations above, Omitaomu does not disclose wherein the dispatching comprises sending a message to the vehicle including an identifier of the location as a destination prior to occurrence of the event at the location.
Regarding Claim 21, Mori discloses the following:
wherein the dispatching comprises sending a message to the vehicle including an identifier of the location as a destination prior to occurrence of the event at the location [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to vehicle dispatch instruction including positional information about the predetermine shelter and information instructing vehicle dispatch to the position of the predetermined shelter; Paragraph 0055 for reference to communication unit communicates through the network NW with the terminal device and with the vehicle - installed communication device in the electric vehicle as a self - driving vehicle; Paragraph 0055 for reference to communication unit acquires a vehicle dispatch instruction output from the management unit, and transmits the acquired vehicle dispatch instruction to the electric vehicle to be dispatched; Figure 6 and related text regarding S111 ‘OUTPUT GENERATED VEHICLE DISPATCH INSTRUCTION TO COMMUNICATION UNIT’]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle dispatch method of Cheung to include the messaging of the dispatch information of Mori. Doing so allows for uniform and optimum vehicle dis patch to each shelter, as stated by Mori (Paragraph 0011).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou, Bowen, et al. "An electric vehicle dispatch module for demand-side energy participation." Applied Energy 177 (2016): 464-474.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2022/0068139 A1
Brandon et al.
COORDINATED DISPATCHING OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE FLEET
US 2020/0265720 A1
Uehara et al.
DISPATCH DEVICE AND DISPATCHING METHOD
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 KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625