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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on February 27, 2026. No claim has been amended, Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled.
Currently claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are pending, and claim 1 is independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 7, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that The claim as a whole integrates any judicial exception of the office might have considered to exist into a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, claim 1 recites “a memory” storing a program, and “a processor” for executing the program to perform the steps. However, beyond the abstract idea, the “processor” may perform the steps including acquire vehicle information…from a user terminal, acquire charging/discharging devices information from a manager terminal, receive charging/discharging signals from the user terminals, and display the assigned directions to the charging/discharging destination on the screen of the user terminal of the user of the electric vehicle. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform generic computer functions including receiving, storing, displaying, and transmitting information over a network. Other than using the basic capability of the existing technologies, none of the claim elements, whether considered individually or in an ordered combination, reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology. For example, assigning a charging/discharging device with the higher capability for a vehicle may shorten the charging/discharging time, but they do not improve the functioning of the computer or the charging/discharging device itself. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are directed to a system comprising a memory and a processor, which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Claim 1 recites limitations of “acquire vehicle information including vehicle capabilities regarding charging/discharging capabilities of multiple electric vehicles, acquire device information including device capabilities regarding charging/discharging capabilities of multiple charging/discharging devices, compare the vehicle capabilities based on the vehicle information, assign the multiple charging/discharging devices to multiple electric vehicle based on the device capabilities and the vehicle capabilities, receive charging/discharging signals transmitted from the user terminals of users of the multiple electric vehicles during a predetermined period of time, acquire vehicle capabilities of multiple electric vehicles calculated from batter states of batteries mounted on the multiple electric vehicle, calculate a distance from an electric vehicle among the multiple electric vehicles to the first charging/discharging device based on the current position information of the electric vehicle and the position information of the first charging/discharging device, determine whether or not the vehicle capability of the electric vehicle is equal to or higher than a predetermined reference capability, determine whether or not the distance is shorter than a predetermined reference distance, assign the first charging/discharging device as a charging/discharging destination, and provide, to the user, direction s to the charging/discharging destination”, and the dependent claims further narrowing the limitations of claim 1. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of using the electric vehicle. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person can manually acquire data, compare the vehicle capabilities, assign the multiple charging/discharging devices to the multiple electric vehicles based on the device capabilities and the vehicle capabilities, calculate a distance from an electric vehicle among the multiple electric vehicles among the electric vehicles to the first charging/discharging device”, which fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Thus, the claims fall within the mental processes grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “using the electric vehicle” do not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping and mathematical concepts grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, claims recite a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “multiple charging/discharging devices”, “a user terminal”, “a manager terminal”, “a memory” and “a processor” configured to perform the steps. The Specification describes “The control device is configured or programmed to manage charging or discharging of electric vehicles. The control device includes, for example, CPU, ROM, and RAM, as shown in Fig 2, the control device includes a storage, a first communication controller, a second communication controller…, the control device may be realized by one or more processors or incorporated into a circuit.” (see ¶ 35). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating and transmitting information over a network. However, reciting a processor for implementing the abstract idea steps is no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, nothing in the claims that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “multiple charging/discharging devices”, “a user terminal”, “a manager terminal”, “a memory” and “a processor” configured to perform the steps. The Specification describes “The control device is configured or programmed to manage charging or discharging of electric vehicles. The control device includes, for example, CPU, ROM, and RAM, as shown in Fig 2, the control device includes a storage, a first communication controller, a second communication controller…, the control device may be realized by one or more processors or incorporated into a circuit.” (see ¶ 35). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating and transmitting information over a network. The additional elements, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including receiving or transmitting charging/discharging signals from the electric vehicle over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 3 and 5-7 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above. Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624