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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 34 should have “according to claim 1” removed.
Line 41 “predict future a state of use” is unclear, -a future- appears correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13, 14, 16, & 17 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "determine tender conditions" in line 1 of the final paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is already a “tender conditions” introduced in line 15 and so it is unclear if this recitation is introducing new tender conditions or referring back to the previously introduced tender conditions.
Claims 14, 16, & 17 depend from claim 13 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13, 14, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (USPGPN 2020/0384881 A1 – published December 10, 2020), in view of Sumi et al. (USPGPN 2022/0048400 A1 – filed January 22, 2020) and Topon et al. (Japanese Publication JP 2014056589 A – published 2014).
Regarding Claim 13, Yano (Fig.5) teaches a power transaction management server (2b) that manages tenders and contracts for mobile objects by exchanging information with a power transaction management server that manages transactions of electric power in a power transaction market, wherein
the power transaction market includes a plurality of individual transaction markets, each of which correspond to a plurality of charging/discharging facilities (¶0025: electric power purchase facilities communicate with the aggregator server, indicating a presence of individual markets),
each of the plurality of individual transaction markets is configured to execute transactions for power directly exchanged between the between the corresponding charging/discharging facility and the mobile object (¶0003: charging and discharging stand indicates executing power exchange),
the power transaction management server comprises:
a storage device (¶0025: data is stored in a storage device); and
a first processor (¶0028: information providing apparatus parts are implemented by a CPU) configured to execute non-transitory computer-executable program instructions stored in a first memory (¶0028: CPU executes a program or software, indicating presence of a first memory), to:
receive power transaction information including positional information of the corresponding charging/discharging facility (¶0026: latitude and longitude of the position of the electric power purchase facility, stores the position in the storage device) and tender conditions for a transaction of electric power (¶0025: aggregator server receives power demands, and stores an electric power purchase price in the storage device) and to register the received power transaction information in the storage device for each individual transaction market;
receive information of the mobile object (¶0029: communication part receives data from the vehicle) participating in the power transaction market, the information of the mobile object including information indicating a geographical range in which the mobile object is able to receive electric power (¶0039: facilities are shown based on the position of the vehicle which are equal to or less than a predetermined length, indicating a geographical range);
set retrieval conditions based on the information of the mobile object (42b);
retrieve an individual transaction market matching the retrieval conditions out of the plurality of individual transaction markets (43b); and
provide the power transaction information in the individual transaction market matching the retrieval conditions (44b),
the information of the mobile object includes a market price per unit time period (¶0025: electric power purchase price),
the power transaction processing device for a mobile object comprises:
a communication circuit configured to transmit the information on a mobile object (¶0027: car navigation device collects position data to provide to the aggregator server, indicating the presence of a communication circuit) participating in the power transaction market to the power transaction management server and to receive the power transaction information in the individual transaction market matching the retrieval conditions from the power transaction management server (Fig.3, car navigation receives locations of electric power purchase facilities P1-P4), and
a second processor configured to execute non-transitory computer-executable program instructions stored in a second memory (EVs include processors and memory to operate and display navigation IM, Fig.3).
Yano fails to explicitly teach a system which is used to both supply electrical power to a mobile body and discharge electrical power from the mobile body, the information of the mobile object including a time period in which the corresponding charging/discharging facility is able to supply and receive electric power and an amount of electric power per unit time period in the time period, and the second processor instructions cause the processor to:
collect data including operation data of the mobile object, SOC change data of the storage battery of the mobile object, and a state of connection of the mobile object to the charging/discharging facilities to predict future a state of use of the mobile object including future travel data, connection places of the charging/discharging facilities, and stop time based on the collected data; and
determine tender conditions for a transaction of electric power of the mobile object such that a benefit for the mobile object is maximum based on the power transaction information in the individual transaction market matching the retrieval conditions and a predicted state of use of the mobile object.
However, Sumi teaches that it is common for electrical vehicle charging systems to be capable of both charging and discharging an electric vehicle (Abstract: charge/discharge requests), a vehicle management system which receives timeslot information from a charger (Fig.3, requested timeslot), and an amount of electric power per unit time period in the time period (Fig.6, RQ0004: 21kwh amount across a one hour timeslot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Yano to include vehicle charging costs, to include a time period in the tender conditions, and include an amount of electric power per unit time, as taught by Sumi. Doing so allows for the user to see potential charging costs to maximize their cost savings to charge their vehicle, the system to adjust supply and demand of electric power with accurate timing, and a determination if a sufficient charge can be provided in the time period.
Moreover, Sumi further teaches a mobile body which collects information including connection status to a charging/discharging station (Fig., EV status: Charging) and operation data of the mobile object (Fig.7, EV status: vacant) which is used to predict a state of use of the mobile object including connection places of the charging/discharging facilities (Fig.32, chargers CH0001 & CH0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Yano with Sumi to include the mobile object collecting the information of a connection status and operation of the mobile object to be used to predict connection places of charging/discharging facilities. Doing so allows a system to determine if the mobile object is in use or being charged, before determining where the closest recharging stations are for a mobile object, thus reducing processing time.
Lastly, Topon teaches a system for providing vehicle navigation for charging EVs which includes the information of SOC change data of the storage battery of the mobile body (Pg.3, para. 4: energy efficiency) for predicting future travel data (Pg.3, para. 4: route) and stop time (Pg.3, para. 13: estimated arrival time), and determining tender conditions for a transaction of electric power of the mobile object such that a benefit is maximized (Pg.3, para. 3: optimizing driving cost/distance/time/charging cost) based on the power transaction information in the individual transaction market matching the retrieval conditions and a predicted state of use of the mobile object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Yano with Topon to include collecting information of SOC change data for predicting future travel data and stop time, and determining tender conditions for a maximized benefit. Doing so ensures the vehicle has a sufficient efficiency to reach a destination, and allows a user to determine if they will arrive within a given timeframe, while ensuring an optimized/maximized benefit of operating the mobile object.
Regarding Claim 14, Yano further teaches the second processor notifies an owner of the mobile object of the power transaction information received by the communication circuit via a user interface (Fig.3; ¶0033: the image IM is displayed on a display mounted in the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 16, Yano further teaches the second processor determines the individual transaction market serving as a tender destination, an amount of electric power which the mobile object supplies or receives to or from the corresponding charging/discharging facility (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 15 and claim 1), and a market price for the electric power per unit time period (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 3).
Yano fails to explicitly teach wherein the second processor calculates an amount of electric power according to which a storage battery of the mobile object is chargeable or dischargeable per unit time period, and a total amount of electric power which the mobile object is able to supply or receive to or from the corresponding charging/discharging facility based on the predicted state of use of the mobile object and to determine a tendered power upper limit per unit time period in the mobile object based on
the calculated amount of electric power according to which the storage battery of the mobile object is chargeable or dischargeable per unit time period,
the calculated total amount of electric power which the mobile object is able to supply or receive to or from the corresponding charging/discharging facility, and
an amount of electric power for each unit time period in the individual transaction market matching the retrieval conditions, and
wherein the determinations are based on the determined tendered power upper limit and the market price per unit time period in the individual transaction market matching the retrieval conditions.
However, Sumi further teaches that it is common for a battery management system to determine an amount of electric power a storage battery is chargeable or dischargeable (Fig.7, EV Remaining Battery Power), a total amount of electric power which the mobile object is able to supply or receive based on a predicted use (Fig.11B, S122: Remaining Battery Power + Amount of Power to be Used), and to determine a tendered power upper limit (Fig.11b, S122 the requested amount of charge would become the tendered power upper limit after the comparison is made) based on
the calculated amount of electric power according to which the storage battery of the mobile object is chargeable or dischargeable per unit time period (Fig.7, EV Remaining Battery Power),
the calculated total amount of electric power which the mobile object is able to supply or receive to or from the corresponding charging/discharging facility, (Fig.11B, S122: Remaining Battery Power + Amount of Power to be Used) and
an amount of electric power for each unit time period in the individual transaction market matching the retrieval conditions (Fig.11B, S122: Requested Amount of Charge)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system taught by Yano, in view of Sumi and Topon, with Sumi to include a calculation of the storage battery available charge, a calculation of the total amount of power the mobile body can provide based on the predicted use, and use these calculations to determine a tendered power upper limit which is then used to determine the transaction market. Doing so allows the user to ensure they will be able to maximize their savings by ensuring they receive the total amount of charge possible from the charging station at the advertised rate after traveling to the location.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano, in view of Sumi and Topon, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lu (USPGPN 2021/0291671 A1 – published September 23, 2021).
Yano further teaches the second processor notifies an owner of the mobile object of the determined tender conditions for the mobile object via a user interface (Fig.3, ¶0033: the image IM is displayed on a display mounted in the vehicle) and an owner of a mobile unit using the charging/discharging facility is equivalent to the user approving of the tender conditions.
Yano fails to explicitly teach the second processor making a contract when the tender conditions have been approved by the owner of the mobile object.
However, Lu teaches that it is common for a contract to be made for services rendered (¶0086: smart contracts define terms of transaction agreements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Yano, in view of Sumi and Topon, to include the creation of a contract after the tender conditions are approved. Doing so provides a record of the transaction which can then be referenced to identify parties associated with the transaction, as evidenced by Lu.
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 JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859