DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to amendment filed 1/20/2026.
2. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-24 are pending.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-24
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following limitations in amended claims 1, 8 and 15 are not adequately supported by the specification or drawings and hence rejected as new matter:
detect, via information provided by the charging station, an electrical connection between the electric vehicle and the charging station which establishes a charging session;
Applicant is requested to provide adequate support for the above limitation in the original disclosure, or else, cancel the new matter.
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 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-24
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 21, 22 are directed to a system; claims 8-11, 13, 23 are directed to a medium; claims 15, 17-20, 24 are directed to a method, each of which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the steps – receive a request to generate eligibility data for the electric vehicle; generate the eligibility data that (i) identifies the electric vehicle as eligible for energy consumption tracking at a charging station and (ii) includes an identifier to authenticate the electric vehicle during subsequent charging sessions; receive one or more sets of information associated with the electric vehicle including the identifier to authenticate the electric vehicle; provision the charging station to charge the electric vehicle according to the charging protocol which was modified to include the one or more operations to track the amount of energy provided to the electric vehicle during the charging session; execute charging session to provider power to the vehicle battery; collect energy consumption tracking data; and transmit energy consumption tracking data that (i) includes an indication of the amount of energy provided to the electric vehicle during the charging session and (ii) is accessible via a security key – that fall under the Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human (Commercial/Legal Interactions) Activity categories of abstract ideas.
The Federal Circuit has consistently held that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying the results of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[S]electing information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining “that the ‘realm of abstract ideas’ includes ‘collecting information, including when limited to particular content’” as well as analyzing and presenting information).
B. Evaluating Claims Reciting Multiple Judicial Exceptions
A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
In other claims, multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different groupings, or multiple laws of nature may be recited. In these cases, examiners should not parse the claim. For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.
See also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to – comparing tracking data of a first and second EV, eligibility data based on users, determining energy consumption reimbursement amount for a particular geographic area, triggering energy consumption tracking based on eligibility data, receiving unique user identifier, receiving utility data for a particular geographic area, and storing and communicating eligibility certificate, storing and displaying energy consumption tracking – that also describe Mental Process and/or Commercial/Legal Interactions.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, the claims recite a combination of judicial exception(s).
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: a computerized system comprising one or more processors coupled with memory; computing device associated with an electric vehicle; graphical user interface of the computing device; application installed on the computing device; user interface of an application of the computing device; second computing device; first electric vehicle; second electric vehicle; charging station; computer-storage media.
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described “the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’” 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)).
Here, Examiner finds that the following claim limitations -
detect, via information provided by the charging station, an electrical connection between the electric vehicle and the charging station which establishes a charging session;
detect that the one or more sets of information include the identifier to authenticate the electric vehicle;
modify, responsive to the electric vehicle having been authenticated for the energy consumption tracking, a charging protocol to include one or more operations to track an amount of energy provided to the electric vehicle during the charging session;
provision the charging station to charge the electric vehicle according to the charging protocol which was modified to include the one or more operations to track the amount of energy provided to the electric vehicle during the charging session;
execute, based at least on the charging protocol, the charging session to provide power, via the charging station, to a battery of the electric vehicle;
collect, via the electrical connection between the electric vehicle and the charging session, energy consumption tracking data using the one or more operations;
have been recited in a result-focused and functional way such they cover any solution to an identified problem.
Each of the functions – detect, modify, provision, execute, collect – is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. All purported inventive concepts reside in how the – ‘detect … an electric connection,’ ‘detect … sets of information,’ ‘modify … a charging protocol,’ ‘provision the charging station to charge the electric vehicle,’ ‘execute, … the charging session,’ ‘collect, … energy consumption tracking data,’ – are technically accomplished and not in how the processing technologically merely achieves the result which neither the specification or the drawings shed any light on.
See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim [before the court] requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”); see Intellectual. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”); see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.”); see Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 952-53, 954-56 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Instead of focusing on the technical implementation details of the zooming functionality, for example, claim 1 recites nothing more than the result of the zoom.”).
Examiner further points out that the limitation “detect … an electric coupling between an electric vehicle and the charging station” has also been rejected under 35 USC 112 as inadmissible new matter not disclosed in the specification.
Examiner thus finds that additional elements have been recited at a high level of generality such that claim limitations – ‘receive … a request,’ ‘generate … eligibility data,’ ‘communicate the eligibility data to the charging station,’ ‘detect … an electric coupling,’ ‘receive … sets of information,’ ‘detect … sets of information,’ ‘modify … a charging protocol,’ ‘provision the charging station to charge the electric vehicle,’ ‘transmit to the computing device or a second computing device,’ – amount to no more than Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). See also MPEP 2106 (h) Field of Use and Technological Environment (“vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
The combination of additional elements – receive, generate, communicate, detect, receive, modify, provision, execute, collect, transmit – does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than “use the computer as a tool” and/or “link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas such as – tracking charging energy consumption data by an EV for reimbursement – that merely use computers as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility.
Therefore, additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – tracking charging energy consumption data by an EV for reimbursement – into significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
112
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8 and 15 with electrical connection in place of electrical coupling. However, Examiner notes that there is no support for “detect … electrical connection between the electric vehicle and the charging station …” For example, the specification does not elaborate on how to “detect” the electrical connection between the EV and the charging station. Therefore, this rejection has not been overcome.
101
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite any abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant cannot reasonably deny that provisioning a charging station to charge an EV, and executing the charging station to provide power to the battery of an EV – constitutes Commercial/Legal Interactions. The analysis is no different than provisioning a charging cable or charging equipment to provide charge to a laptop or smartphone or other electronic device(s) and nearly parallel to providing fuel (gas) to an ICE vehicle. Whether the charging station is home based or a commercial facility does not change the analysis because providing energy (fuel or electricity) in exchange for payment has been a Commercial/Legal Interaction for nearly a hundred years.
In Electric Power Group, the independent claim recited receiving plural data streams in real time from a wide area of an interconnected electric power grid, other power system data sources, and non-grid data sources, and detecting and analyzing events in real time from the plural data streams based on limits, sensitivities, and rates of change for one or more measurements and dynamic stability metrics derived from an analysis of the measurements including frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes derived from phasor measurements and other power system data sources to indicate events, grid stress, and grid instability over the wide area. The Federal Circuit found that the focus of the claims was on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. (“But merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”). Similarly, here Examiner finds that the focus of the present claims is directed to collecting EV charging energy consumption tracking data and displaying the results of the collection on a computing device. “Like Electric Power, the purported advance in the applicant’s invention ‘is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.’” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354). For the above reasons, the independent claims have rejected for reciting a combination of Mental Process and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Examiner also points out that the limitations “detect … an electrical connection,” “detect … identifier to authenticate the electric vehicle,” “modify … a charging protocol,” “provision the charging station,” “execute … the charging station” and “collect … energy consumption tracking data,” have been recited in a result-oriented way devoid of implementation details. For example, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a human charging station attendant may visually determine whether an electrical connection has been established between the EV and the charging station, may visually view EV information on a display, visually identify EV authentication information, manually modify charging protocol, manually provision the charging station and execute the charging session, and visually collect the energy consumption data from the charging meter. See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’n, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim [before the court] requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”); see Intellectual. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”); see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.”); see Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 952-53, 954-56 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Instead of focusing on the technical implementation details of the zooming functionality, for example, claim 1 recites nothing more than the result of the zoom.”).
Applicant argues that claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because they provide an improvement to a technical field, as described in para [0037].
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the cited section merely describes the charging management system is capable to energy consumption tracking. As per para [0037], the charging management engine generates eligibility data that identifies an EV as eligible for energy consumption tracking a charging station. Based on the eligibility data the EV charging protocol triggers a first set of operations for energy consumption tracking, and without the eligibility data the EV charging protocol triggers a second set of operations for energy consumption tracking. It is not clear from para [0037] what technical improvement is provided by the present invention. That a charging management generates EV charging eligibility data and energy consumption tracking data is a feature of the charging management similar to a gas station displaying how much fuel is consumed by the vehicle. This is not evidence of technical improvement. The applicant does not explain what has been improved by the present invention. As per the disclosure, the charging protocol can process different types of eligibility data to make a determination that an EV is eligible for energy consumption tracking for reimbursement. In other words, the applicant’s invention enables an employee to determine whether a particular charging station is capable of providing energy consumption tracking data that can be submitted to his/her employer for reimbursement – which is an abstract idea and not technical improvement.
See MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field II (“However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”). Here, the claims may improve the abstract idea obtaining reimbursement to a person for charging his/her EV but this has nothing to do with improving computers or technology. Neither of the computing device, processor, computer readable medium or user device(s) has been improved by the claimed steps. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.”).
Examiner notes that a review of the specification indicates that instead of describing technical improvement, the applicant’s invention is primarily directed to collecting and presenting the total amount of energy consumed for charging an EV so that it can be reimbursed and merely use generic computer components for that determination. For example, para [0019] states that home charging stations do not provide gas-station type receipts; and that the amount charged at a public charging station may not reflect exclusively a cost associated with electrical fees for charging the EV. Different types of reimbursors (e.g., a company, an employer, or a contractee) provide reimbursement to a reimbursee (e.g., a worker, an employee, or a contractor) for gas for a vehicle when the reimbursee submits a receipt indicating a cost for the gas used. Para [0020] states that electric vehicle management system may be configured to determine whether an EV is eligible for reimbursement. Para [0021] states that reimbursement amount may be determined using utility data from a utility company of a charging session when the energy consumption data was tracked. Para [0022] states that based on the determination that an EV is eligible for energy consumption tracking, energy consumption tracking data is generated at the charging station and communicated to the client devices. Based on the above noted disclosure from the specification, it is clear that the primary focus of the present invention is to obtain energy consumption tracking data for charging an EV, in a manner similar to gas station receipts, so that an eligible EV driver or owner may be reimbursed for charging the EV. Tracking and communicating energy consumption data is merely collecting, analyzing and reporting data. Hence, the claimed invention merely limits the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it and reporting the results to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, “[i]nformation as such is an intangible” and collecting, analyzing (e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset), and displaying that information, without more, is an abstract idea. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and citing similar decisions holding that displaying different types or sets of information from various sources on a generic display is abstract absent a specific improvement to the way computers or other technologies operate); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information … is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”).
See also Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1337-38 (forwarding real-time information to users having access to a communications network by processing streams of audio or visual information routed information by reciting result-based functional language of converting, routing, controlling, monitoring, and accumulating records that did not describe how to achieve those results in a non-abstract way and thus recited an abstract idea); see also Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims recited the abstract idea of capturing and transmitting data from one device to another device to publish to the Internet); ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to the abstract idea of communicating over a network for device interaction is a “building block of the modern economy”) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 220); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (communicating regional broadcast content to an out-of-region recipient with no particular way to perform that function is an abstract idea).
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application in that the inclusion of an identifier to authenticated an electric vehicle and the modification of a charging protocol confines claim 1 to the useful application of limiting protocol modification to electric vehicles that have been authenticated.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because the limitation “modify, … a charging protocol … to track an amount of energy” has been recited at a high level of generality that does not explain what “modification” has been effected here. For example, as per para [0024], the EV charging protocol (e.g., SAE J1772) can be modified to include operations for using eligibility data to determine that an EV is eligible for energy consumption tracking for reimbursement and configuring charging session parameters for the charging station based on eligibility data to support energy consumption tracking and reimbursement. There is no indication that the charging protocol (J1772) has been modified. At most, this limitation refers to merely utilizing the tracking and charging parameters available under a specific charging protocol – which is merely a certain method of organizing human activity rather than unconventional step.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-24 do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h). The additional elements amount to no more than Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Hence, when considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692