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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/13/2026.
Claim 8 has been canceled.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending and have been considered.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended. Also dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process and mathematical concept), without significantly more.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15-18 20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The rejection of claim 8(1) , rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“) in view of Marmaras et al Simulation of electric vehicle driver behavior in road transport and electric power networks, Transportation Research Part C 80 (2017) p239-256 (“MAR“) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The rejection of Claims 6(1), 19(2), rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“) in view of HIROSHI, et al, JP-2020154586-A (“HIR“) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The rejection of claims 13(1), 14(1), rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“) in view of Dong et al : Charging infrastructure planning for promoting battery electric vehicles: An activity-based approach using multiday travel data Transportation Research C Vol 38 Jan 2014 (“DON”) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
In view of the amendments, a new ground of rejection - under U.S.C. 103 - is made with respect to independent claims 1, 15, and 16 . In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 17-20-13, which depend from the newly amended claims 1, 15, and 16 are now also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the updated prior art. Because the basis and the combination of references has changed, these rejections are likewise new grounds of rejection and are properly made final in view of the amendments.
Claim(s) 1-4-14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu et al, Charging station location problem of plug-in electric vehicles Journal of Transport Geography, 52, 2016, 11-22 in view of Kim & Kuby, The deviation-flow refueling location model for optimizing a network of refueling stations, int journal of hydrogen energy,, 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 5 4 0 6e5 4 2 0, (“KIM”) in further view of Shukla, et al An optimization framework for cost effective design of refueling station infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Volume 35, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1431-1438, (“SHU”)
Claim(s) 5, 7, 9-12, 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu et al, Charging station location problem of plug-in electric vehicles Journal of Transport Geography, 52, 2016, 11-22 in view of Kim & Kuby, The deviation-flow refueling location model for optimizing a network of refueling stations, int journal of hydrogen energy,, 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 5 4 0 6e5 4 2 0, (“KIM”) in further view of Shukla, et al An optimization framework for cost effective design of refueling station infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Volume 35, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1431-1438, (“SHU”) in further view of Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“)
Claims 6(1) and 19(2) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over ZHU/KIM/ SHU/ in view of FUK in further view of HIROSHI, et al, JP-2020154586-A (“HIR“)
Claims 13(1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FZHU/KIM/SHU in view of Dong et al : Charging infrastructure planning for promoting battery electric vehicles: An activity-based approach using multiday travel data Transportation Research C Vol 38 Jan 2014 (“DON”)
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The Amendments and Arguments filed on 04/13/2026 have been considered.
Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending and have been considered. Independent claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended. Dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, and 20 have also been amended.
In view of Amendment and Arguments claims are interpreted in broadest reasonable interpretation; no interpretation under 112(f) is made.
The rejection of Claim 16 under 35 USC 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter (transitory signals) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Re the 101 rejection the Arguments have been considered but have not been found persuasive. Applicant makes the argument: “Amended claims are directed to a simulation apparatus (and corresponding method and storage medium) that performs simulation of "dynamics of the movable body …”also “First, the claimed invention explicitly requires simulation of dynamics of a movable body”
The Examiner respectfully points out that no step of (performing the) simulation is recited in the claim. Instead, an optimization is performed “based on a simulation result obtained by simulating dynamics of the movable body”. In Broadest reasonable interpretation the simulation could be performed by someone else, at a different time, etc, all that is invoked in the step of the claim is the use of the result.
Regarding the mental process as the abstract idea, as recited, the BRI of the optimization can be a simple selection of alternatives that uses simple arithmetic expressions and can in fact be evaluated in the mind, or with pen and paper. Neither the relational expressions, not the optimization indicate any complexity that would prevent a person to perform the mental evaluations and judgement and doing that by computer does not change the “mental process” interpretation.
The amendments only added limitations that are abstract (mental process) and output steps that are insignificant extra-solution activities, the same as previously recited output steps – and the level of generality recited, as a technique, are generic and have been found by the courts to be WURC, while also being accompanied by additional elements that recite ‘apply it’ or the technological environment – field of use limitations. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are insufficient to provide the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, or to recite significantly more. The claims remain rejected under 101.
Regarding the art rejections: In view of the amendments, the rejections of the first office action are withdrawn as follows
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15-18 20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“) is withdrawn in view of the amendments. The rejection of Claims 6(1), 19(2), rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“) in view of HIROSHI, et al, JP-2020154586-A (“HIR“) is withdrawn in view of the amendments. The rejection of claims 13(1), 14(1), rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“) in view of Dong et al : Charging infrastructure planning for promoting battery electric vehicles: An activity-based approach using multiday travel data Transportation Research C Vol 38 Jan 2014 (“DON”) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
In view of the amendments, a new ground of rejection - under U.S.C. 103 - is made with respect to independent claims 1, 15, and 16 . In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 17-20-13, which depend from the newly amended claims 1, 15, and 16 are now also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the updated prior art. Because the basis and the combination of references has changed, these rejections are likewise new grounds of rejection and are properly made final in view of the amendments.
Priority
This application is a National Stage Entry of International Application No. PCT/JP2021/046799, filed on December 17, 2021, which claims priority to Japanese Patent Applications No. 2020-210744 filed in JP on December 18, 2020 and No. 2020- 210738 filed in JP on December 18, 2020. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). No translation of the application has been provided.
d based on at least one of (i) t
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. The number in the parenthesis, next to a claim number, is the number of the parent claim. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-7, 9-20 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 15 directed to a method), machine (claims 1-7, 9-14 17- 20 directed to an apparatus) and manufacture (claim 16 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium).
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 15, 16 recite a simulation apparatus configured to perform a simulation of an arrangement of an energy recovery apparatus capable of recovering an accumulated energy amount of an energy accumulation apparatus, the simulation apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to output a result of the simulation, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
output a first output amount which is an output amount related to a position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged; or
output a second output amount which is an output amount used for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged,
based on:
a first relational expression which is a relational expression for deriving a cost of an owner or an operator of the energy recovery apparatus and which corresponds to a first variation amount that is a variation amount related to a position of the energy recovery apparatus; and
a second relational expression which is a relational expression for deriving a convenience of a user or a convenience of a movable body and which corresponds to the first variation amount and a second variation amount that is a variation amount related to dynamics of the user of the energy accumulation apparatus or to dynamics of the movable body configured to move by using energy of the energy accumulation apparatus;
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to
execute a program for calculating an optimum solution of an objective function including the first relational expression and the second relational expression, based on a simulation result obtained by simulating dynamics of the movable body that are in each of a plurality of candidate site areas set in a target zone as a target for the arrangement of the energy recovery apparatus and that are in a case where the movable body is capable of moving without considering a recovery of the accumulated energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus; and
output the first output amount or the second output amount based on the optimum solution;
and
output, for each of arrangement patterns of the energy recovery apparatus, determined as the optimum solution, information indicating at least one of a calculation result of the first relational expression, a calculation result of the second relational expression, and a calculation result of terms included in the first relational expression or the second relational expression.
The determinations that produce the information for outputting are determinations that describe a process that can be performed in the mind; for example the deriving the cost based on a variation related to a position of energy recovery apparatus can be done or with pen and paper. The BRI of the optimization can be a simple selection of alternatives that uses simple arithmetic expressions and can in fact be evaluated in the mind, or with pen and paper. Neither the relational expressions, not the optimization indicate any complexity that would prevent a person to perform the mental evaluations and judgement and doing that by computer does not change the “mental process” interpretation.
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the bolded limitations recite mental processes that in combination describe a process aimed at: “Determine a cost-convenience optimal positioning of apparatus, where cost and convenience are based on result of simulation of traffic in a region” .
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. Nothing in the claim elements precludes these steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human.
These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2),
Accordingly, claims 1, 16, 17 recite an abstract idea.
(S2A2) The additional claim elements are mere data outputting/manipulation adding insignificant extra-solution to activity to the judicial exception; see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g)]. The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea., nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the additional elements do not result in an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claims 1, 15, 16 do not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite data outputting/manipulation. For situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data manipulation, and data outputting/ transmission, recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)). The additional elements, when considered individually, are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception; and amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to data outputing and instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea - Determine a cost-convenience optimal positioning of apparatus, where cost and convenience are based on result of simulation of traffic in a region, could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 15, 16 are ineligible.
Claim 2-5,7, 13, 17-18 further recite
2(1) Wherein the first variation amount includes a plurality of the variation amounts related to a position of each of a plurality of the energy recovery apparatuses.
3(1), 17(2) wherein the first variation amount is a first position which is the position of the energy recovery apparatus, the second variation amount is a second position which is a position of the user or the movable body when energy recovery demand of the energy accumulation apparatus arises, and the second relational expression is a relational expression for deriving the convenience, a degree of which varies along with a movement of the user or the movable body from the second position to the first position.
4(3) wherein the convenience is indicated by an amount having a correlation with a difference between, at least one of, times, costs and energies that are required for the movement in and movement distances in (i) a case where the user or the movable body moves along a first path that reaches a destination of the user or the movable body from the second position and (ii) a case where the user or the movable body moves along a second path that is a path different from the first path and that reaches the destination from the second position via the first position
5(3) wherein the convenience is indicated by an amount having a correlation with a wait time
which is a time during which the user or the movable body stands by for recovering the accumulated energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus in the energy recovery apparatus, after the user or the movable body moves from the second position to the first position
7 (1) Wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
output the first output amount or the second output amount further based on a third relational expression which is a relational expression for deriving a safety of the energy accumulation apparatus and which corresponds to a third variation amount that is a variation amount related to a state of the energy accumulation apparatus.
13(1) wherein the first variation amount is the position of the energy recovery apparatus or the position and a number of the energy recovery apparatuses, and
the first relational expression is a relational expression into which the first variation amount is input and which is for outputting at least one of an installation cost and an operational cost of the energy recovery apparatus.
18(4) the convenience is indicated by an amount having a correlation with a wait time which is a time during which the user or the movable body stands by for recovering the accumulated energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus in the energy recovery apparatus, after the user or the movable body moves from the second position to the first position.
These further elements in the dependent claims only limit other claim elements, like –variation amount, convenience –, by describing their nature, structure and/or content, thus further limiting the form of the transactions that are acted upon in the parent claim. The nature, form or structure of these elements themselves do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
none of the claims there is an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus, when each of these claims is considered as a whole, it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, claims 2-5, 7, 13, 17-18 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 6 (1) further recites - wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
execute first processing for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged such that a first objective function including the first relational expression and the second relational expression is minimized or such that a value of the first objective function becomes smaller than a predetermined value; and
(i) output, when a solution whose number is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number is obtained through the first processing, the first output amount based on the solution from the first processing, and (ii) execute, when solutions whose number is more than the predetermined number are obtained through the first processing, second processing for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged such that a second objective function placing more importance on the second relational expression than on the first relational expression as compared to the first objective function is minimized or such that a value of the second objective function becomes smaller than a predetermined value, and output the first output amount based on a solution from the second processing.
The claim continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the independent claim. The bolded claim elements recite mental processes and mathematical concepts, related to function minimization and comparisons of the value of an objective function with a a predetermined value. The additional elements in the claim are similar to those of the independent claim related to data outputting, an insignificant post-processing solution activity (also found WURC at step 2B). When considered individually or on combination, these claim elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim remains directed to a judicial exception. When considered individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 6 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9(3) recites: the apparatus of claim 3 wherein the at least one processor is further configured to
estimate energy recovery demand of the energy accumulation apparatus, and
determine the second position based on a result of estimating the energy recovery demand.
The claim continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the independent claim. The bolded claim elements recite mental processes concepts related to estimation of the demand and determination of a position based on estimate. The additional elements in the claim are similar to those of the independent claim related to data outputting, an insignificant post-processing solution activity (also found WURC at step 2B) and field of use. When considered individually or on combination, these claim elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim remains directed to a judicial exception. When considered individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 9 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10(9) further recites
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to acquire a remaining energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus; and
estimate a demand arising position which is a position at which the energy recovery demand has arisen, based on a low remaining amount position which is a position of the energy accumulation apparatus when the remaining energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus acquired by the energy amount acquisition unit becomes equal to or smaller than a predetermined amount.
The claim continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the independent claim. The bolded claim elements recite mental processes related to estimation of the demand and determination of a position based on estimate. The additional elements in the claim are similar to those of the independent claim related to data gathering (acquire) and outputting, insignificant extra solution activity (also found WURC at step 2B) and field of use. When considered individually or on combination, these claim elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim remains directed to a judicial exception. When considered individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 10 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11(10) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to estimate a deviation amount which is a physical amount due to the movable body stopping by at a stop-by position based on (i) a destination location which is a location of a destination of the movable body and (ii) the stop-by position which is a position of the energy recovery apparatus capable of recovering the accumulated energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus and at which the movable body has stopped by in movement to the destination.
The claim continues to recite, and further reinforces/elaborates on the abstract idea in the independent claim and parent claim. The bolded claim elements recite mental related to estimation of a deviation The additional elements in the claim as a whole are similar to those of the parent claim related to data gathering (acquire) and outputting, insignificant extra solution activity (also found WURC at step 2B) and field of use. When considered individually or on combination, these claim elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim remains directed to a judicial exception. When considered individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claim 11 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12(11) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to estimate the deviation amount based on (i) a reference amount determined based on the demand arising position and the destination location and (ii) a stop-by amount determined based on the demand arising position, the stop-by position, and the destination location.
The analysis of claim 12 is similar to that of claim 11, with similar mental process (in bold) and similar additional elements (inherited from the parent claim), which fail to provide significantly more. With similar deficiencies as claim 11, claim 12 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 14 (1) further recites
Wherein at least one of the first relational expression and the second relational expression constitutes at least a part of an objective function of a mathematical programming problem for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged.
The analysis of claim 14 is similar to that of claim 1, further reciting similar mental process and (in bold) and similar additional elements (inherited from the independent claim), which fail to provide significantly more. With similar deficiencies as claim 1, claim 14 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 19(2) wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
execute first processing for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged such that a first objective function including the first relational expression and the second relational expression is minimized or such that a value of the first objective function becomes smaller than a predetermined value; and
(i) output, when a solution whose number is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number is obtained through the first processing, the first output amount based on the solution from the first processing, and (ii) execute, when solutions whose number is more than the predetermined number are obtained through the first processing, second processing for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged such that a second objective function placing more importance on the second relational expression than on the first relational expression as compared to the first objective function is minimized or such that a value of the second objective function becomes smaller than a predetermined value, and output the first output amount based on a solution from the second processing.
The analysis of claim 19 is similar to that of claim 7, with similar mental process and mathematical concepts and similar additional elements, which fail to provide significantly more. With similar deficiencies as claim 7, claim 19 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 20 (2) further recites:
Wherein he at least one processor is configured to output the first output amount or the second output amount further based on a third relational expression which is a relational expression for deriving a safety of the energy accumulation apparatus and which corresponds to a third variation amount that is a variation amount related to a state of the energy accumulation apparatus.
The analysis of claim 11 is similar to that of claim 1, with similar mental process (in bold) and similar additional elements (inherited from the independent claim), which fail to provide significantly more. With similar deficiencies as claim 1, claim 11 is deemed ineligible.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Claim(s) 1-4-14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu et al, Charging station location problem of plug-in electric vehicles Journal of Transport Geography, 52, 2016, 11-22 in view of Kim & Kuby, The deviation-flow refueling location model for optimizing a network of refueling stations, int journal of hydrogen energy,, 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 5 4 0 6e5 4 2 0, (“KIM”) in further view of Shukla, et al An optimization framework for cost effective design of refueling station infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Volume 35, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1431-1438, (“SHU”)
Re Claim 1, ZHU teaches a simulation apparatus configured to perform a simulation of an arrangement of an energy recovery apparatus capable of recovering an accumulated energy amount of an energy accumulation apparatus, the simulation apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to output a result of the simulation, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
output a first output amount which is an output amount related to a position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged; or (b) output a second output amount which is an output amount used for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged,
{ABS: A novel model for the charging station location problem of plug-in electric vehicles is proposed in this paper. With the objective of minimizing the total cost, the proposed model simultaneously handles the problem of where to locate the charging stations and how many chargers should be established in each charging station. P16 right col distance between the charging station and the destination. We simulate the case for people who charge in Beijing Jiaotong University and are destined to Xizhimen. (position interpreted as location)
based on: a first relational expression which is a relational expression for deriving a cost of an owner or an operator of the energy recovery apparatus and which corresponds to a first variation amount that is a variation amount related to a position of the energy recovery apparatus; and a second relational expression which is a relational expression for deriving a convenience of a user or a convenience of a movable body and which corresponds to the first variation amount and a second variation amount that is a variation amount related to dynamics of the user of the energy accumulation apparatus or to dynamics of the movable body configured to move by using energy of the energy accumulation apparatus; {3.1. 3.2. The model Two different sub-objectives are considered for the CSLP in this paper:
Minimize the total charging station construction costs;
2) Attain a desired traveler convenience
PNG
media_image1.png
420
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
762
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
output the first output amount or the second output amount based on the optimum solution; and output, for each of arrangement patterns of the energy recovery apparatus, determined as the optimum solution, information indicating at least one of a calculation result of the first relational expression, a calculation result of the second relational expression, and a calculation result of terms included in the first relational expression or the second relational expression. {See at least 4, Case Study, Numerical Results, Table 4 Expected number of charging station and number of chargers Table 6 Optimal numerical results )
execute a program for calculating an optimum solution of an objective function including the first relational expression and the second relational expression, (Section 3.3 Model B can be directly solved to select optimal station locations.}
PNG
media_image3.png
76
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ZHU does not explicitly teach the deviation, however KIM teaches what is well-known in the field as deviation-flow refueling model, more specifically KIM teaches
deriving a convenience of a user or a convenience of a movable body and which corresponds to the first variation amount and a second variation amount that is a variation amount related to dynamics of the user of the energy accumulation apparatus or to dynamics of the movable body configured to move by using energy of the energy accumulation apparatus;
{ Abstract: Optimizes the locations of fueling stations considering not only the limited driving range of vehicles but also the necessary deviations that drivers are likely to make from their
shortest paths in order to refuel their vehicles when the refueling station network is sparse.; 3.1. An example network We illustrate the difference among the FCLM with deviation, the FRLM, and the suggested DFRLM model with a simple network with 5 nodes and 2 paths (Fig. 1)l See section 3, especially 3.3. The objective function (1) maximizes the total flow that can be refueled. Constraints (2) limit the contribution to the objective function to at most one deviation path r. The set of
paths r for OeD pair q includes q itself, as q is the shortest path from OeD pair q with deviation distance ¼ 0. The number of possible r can be very large, and thus without this constraints, double counting of flows on deviation paths might also be possible. Constraints (3) ensure that for any deviation path r to
be refueled, at least one valid combination h has to be open.
I would be obvious to combine the teaching of ZHU and KIM to have the advantage of incorporating the deviation-models in the literature for a better modeling of a realistic scenario. In fact KIM refers to Kuby’s group’s work as a reference, (Kuby 2005, Kuby 2005, Kuby 2006, Kuby 2009, Kuby 2010 )
ZHU/KIM does does not explicitly teach but SHU explicitly teaches using a simulation
based on a simulation result obtained by simulating dynamics of the movable body that are in each of a plurality of candidate site areas set in a target zone as a target for the arrangement of the energy recovery apparatus and that are in a case where the movable body is capable of moving without considering a recovery of the accumulated energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus; { Abs(tract): This work deals with the use of mathematical programming for determining the best locations for establishing alternative transportation fuel stations. The objective was to site the refueling stations at locations which maximize the number of vehicles served, (convenience) while staying within budget constraints (cost). Abs: Origin-destination travel demand data for this city is simulated through a transportation simulator to determine the routes taken by individual vehicles. Abs: For the case study we used the transportation network of Alexandria, Virginia, as a test bed for our model. P1434, 3.1: This network contains 2620 nodes and 3653 links; 5.1. Computational insights Maximum number of refueling stations that can be established (m) affect the solution time for the problem. Total number of feasible solutions to the problem is equal to the binomial coefficientnCm. This number increases as m increases, until m = n/2 and then it starts to decrease. For our case studies, n = 2620 and 1 ≤ m ≤ 21,}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of ZHUKIM and SHU. Both teach optimization of location for charging stations and focus on a specific region for getting data. ZHU/KIM with SHU. One would have been motivated to combine the results to obtain results that better reflect the conditions of the traffic in the region and thus obtain an overall more realistic optimization context.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over ZHU/KIM in view of SHU.
Regarding claim 2(1) ZHU/KIM/ SHU discloses the limitations of the parent claim. KIM further discloses:
wherein the first variation amount includes a plurality of the variation amounts related to a position of each of a plurality of the energy recovery apparatuses. {See at least Section 3.3.
PNG
media_image4.png
1018
622
media_image4.png
Greyscale
I would be obvious to combine the teaching of ZHU and KIM to have the advantage of incorporating the deviation-models in the literature for a better modeling of a realistic scenario and the fact each position implies a different deviation that needs to be accounted for (as mentioned ZHU refers to Kuby’s group’s work (coauthor with Kim) as a reference,
Regarding claim 3(1), 17(2) ) ZHU/KIM/ SHU discloses the limitations of the parent claim. KIM further discloses:
wherein the first variation amount is a first position which is the position of the energy recovery apparatus, the second variation amount is a second position which is a position of the user or the movable body when energy recovery demand of the energy accumulation apparatus arises, and
the second relational expression is a relational expression for deriving the convenience, a degree of which varies along with a movement of the user or the movable body from the second position to the first position. {. {See at least Section 3.3.
PNG
media_image4.png
1018
622
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
280
408
media_image5.png
Greyscale
I would be obvious to combine the teaching of ZHU and KIM to have the advantage of incorporating the deviation-models in the literature for a better modeling of a realistic scenario and the fact each position implies a different deviation that needs to be accounted for (as mentioned ZHU refers to Kuby’s group’s work (coauthor with Kim) as a reference
Regarding claim 4(3) ) ZHU/KIM/ SHU discloses the limitations of the parent claim. KIM further discloses:
wherein the convenience is indicated by an amount having a correlation with a difference between, at least one of, times, costs and energies that are required for the movement in and movement distances in (i) a case where the user or the movable body moves along a first path that reaches a destination of the user or the movable body from the second position and (ii) a case where the user or the movable body moves along a second path that is a path different from the first path and that reaches the destination from the second position via the first position. {{The solution
for deviation case fA;Dg should provide higher objective than the solution for basic FRLM, fA; Bg or fA; Eg, does because the former accounts for the additional customer flows that deviated from their shortest paths.. This paper does not assume a specific curve shape of the decreasing function to describe the fraction of flows on deviation paths, but loosely defines it as a decreasing function
of deviation distance. Section 3.3. O-D pair (the shortest path), r, index of deviation parhts ; 3.4.2. Computing the fraction of flow volume on deviation paths
I would be obvious to combine the teaching of ZHU/KIM/SHU and KIM to have the advantage of incorporating the deviation-models in the literature for a better modeling of a realistic scenario and the fact each position implies a different deviation that needs to be accounted for (as mentioned ZHU refers to Kuby’s group’s work (coauthor with Kim) as a reference
Regarding claim 14 ZHU/KIM/SHU discloses the limitations of claim 1. KIM further teaches
wherein at least one of the first relational expression and the second relational expression constitutes at least a part of an objective function of a mathematical programming problem for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged.{p. 3.3. Formulation of the deviation-flow refueling location
model
This section presents a mixed-integer linear programming formulation of the deviation-flow refueling location model (DFRLM)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine their teachings. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of using mathematical methods to determine the alternative with lower cost and convenience.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 9-12, 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhu et al, Charging station location problem of plug-in electric vehicles Journal of Transport Geography, 52, 2016, 11-22 in view of Kim & Kuby, The deviation-flow refueling location model for optimizing a network of refueling stations, int journal of hydrogen energy,, 3 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 5 4 0 6e5 4 2 0, (“KIM”) in further view of Shukla, et al An optimization framework for cost effective design of refueling station infrastructure for alternative fuel vehicles, Computers & Chemical Engineering, Volume 35, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1431-1438, (“SHU”) in further view of Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“)
Regarding claim 5(3), 18(4) ) ZHU/KIM/ SHU discloses the limitations of the parent claim. They do not disclose however FUK discloses:
wherein the convenience is indicated by an amount having a correlation with a wait time which is a time during which the user or the movable body stands by for recovering the accumulated energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus in the energy recovery apparatus, after the user or the movable body moves from the second position to the first position. { [0035] In this way, the charger determining unit 104 selects the virtual charger to reduce waiting times for charging of the virtual vehicles and moving times to the destination zone as much as possible.}
Regarding claim 7(1), 20(2) ZHU/KIM/ SHU teach the limitations of the parent claim,. They do not explicitly teach but FUK further discloses:
wherein the output unit is configured to output the first output amount or the second output amount further based on a third relational expression which is a relational expression for deriving a safety of the energy accumulation apparatus and which corresponds to a third variation amount that is a variation amount related to a state of the energy accumulation apparatus. {FUK: [0009] A charger arrangement planning supporting apparatus according to the present invention includes: a simulation unit configured to simulate, on a virtual road network, movement of a plurality of virtual electric vehicles and consumption of rechargeable batteries and simulate situations of use of the plurality of virtual chargers arranged on the virtual road network; and a charger determining unit configured to select which of the virtual chargers is used to charge the virtual electric vehicle when the virtual electric vehicle needs to be charged on the basis of residual charge of the rechargeable battery and a present location of the virtual electric vehicle and a situation of use and a location of each of the chargers. } In BRI the claim is interpreted as the influence on position of charging stations through a relation corresponding to a state/level of the battery.
Regarding claim 9(3), ZHU/KIM/ SHU teach the limitations of the parent claim. They do not explicitly teach but FUK further discloses:
further comprising: a demand estimation unit configured to estimate energy recovery demand of the energy accumulation apparatus, wherein the demand estimation unit is configured to determine the second position based on a result of estimating the energy recovery demand. {FUK [0046] As shown in the figure (Fig. 5), the traffic simulation unit 1031 collects information concerning the locations of the virtual vehicles and residual charges of the rechargeable batteries and transmits the locations, destinations (destination zones), and the residual charges of the virtual vehicles determined as requiring charging to the charger determining unit 104 (S201). [0047] Whether charging of the virtual vehicles is necessary may be determined on the basis of the residual charges of the rechargeable batteries. For example, the virtual vehicles are charged when the residual charges decrease to 30% or less of a full capacity. The traffic simulation unit 1031 may transmit information concerning all the virtual vehicles to the charger determining unit 104 without determining whether charging of the virtual vehicles is necessary. In this case, the charger determining unit 104 determines whether charging of the virtual vehicles is necessary; [CLAIM 1]… a charger determining unit configured to select which of the virtual chargers is used to charge the virtual electric vehicle when the virtual electric vehicle needs to be charged on the basis of residual charge of the rechargeable battery and a present location of the virtual electric vehicle and a situation of use and a location of each of the virtual chargers} Estimating energy recovery demand is interpreted as determining whether charging of the virtual vehicles is necessary may be determined on the basis of the residual charges of the rechargeable batteries. Determining the position when vehicle needs recharging is interpreted as select which of the virtual chargers is used to charge the virtual electric vehicle when the virtual electric vehicle needs to be charged on the basis of residual charge of the rechargeable battery since this selection of distances to charger, reflects the ability of vehicle to travel till when it needs to be charged.
Regarding claim 10(9), ZHU/KIM/ SHU teach the limitations of the parent claim. They do not explicitly teach but FUK further discloses:
wherein the demand estimation unit includes: an energy amount acquisition unit configured to acquire a remaining energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus; {FUK [0046] the traffic simulation unit 1031 collects information concerning the locations of the virtual vehicles and residual charges of the rechargeable batteries }
and a demand arising position estimation unit configured to estimate a demand arising position which is a position at which the energy recovery demand has arisen, based on a low remaining amount position which is a position of the energy accumulation apparatus when the remaining energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus acquired by the energy amount acquisition unit becomes equal to or smaller than a predetermined amount. {FUK [0046] Whether charging of the virtual vehicles is necessary may be determined on the basis of the residual charges of the rechargeable batteries. For example, the virtual vehicles are charged when the residual charges decrease to 30% or less of a full capacity. …the charger determining unit 104 determines whether charging of the virtual vehicles is necessary; [CLAIM 1]… a charger determining unit configured to select which of the virtual chargers is used to charge the virtual electric vehicle when the virtual electric vehicle needs to be charged on the basis of residual charge of the rechargeable battery and a present location of the virtual electric vehicle and a situation of use and a location of each of the virtual chargers} Determining the position when vehicle needs recharging is interpreted as select which of the virtual chargers is used to charge the virtual electric vehicle when the virtual electric vehicle needs to be charged on the basis of residual charge of the rechargeable battery since this selection of distances to charger, reflects the ability of vehicle to travel till when it needs to be charged. when the remaining energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus acquired by the energy amount acquisition unit becomes equal to or smaller than a predetermined amount is interpreted as when the residual charges decrease to 30% or less of a full capacity.
Regarding claim 11(10), ZHU/KIM/ SHU teach the limitations of the parent claim. They do not explicitly teach but FUK further discloses:
a deviation amount estimation unit configured to estimate a deviation amount which is a physical amount due to the movable body stopping by at a stop-by position based on (i) a destination location which is a location of a destination of the movable body and (ii) the stop-by position which is a position of the energy recovery apparatus capable of recovering the accumulated energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus and at which the movable body has stopped by in movement to the destination. {FUK: Fig 7; [0053] Since the charger A is present on the shortest route, the excess moving distance is zero. When using the charger B, since the virtual vehicle has to pass a route of a dotted line, the excess distance for reaching the destination is |RQ|+|QP|-|RP|(|XY|).} a deviation estimation unit, in view of the specification is a program/subroutine. Destination is P, stop-by is Q,
PNG
media_image6.png
445
701
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12(11), ZHU/KIM/ SHU teach the limitations of the parent claim. They do not explicitly teach but FUK further discloses:
the deviation amount estimation unit is configured to estimate the deviation amount based on (i) a reference amount determined based on the demand arising position and the destination location and (ii) a stop-by amount determined based on the demand arising position, the stop-by position, and the destination location. {FUK: Fig 7; [0053] Since the charger A is present on the shortest route, the excess moving distance is zero. When using the charger B, since the virtual vehicle has to pass a route of a dotted line, the excess distance for reaching the destination is |RQ|+|QP|-|RP|(|XY| is a distance between points X and Y).} reference amount is the distance of segment RP. Stop by amount is the sum of segments between demand arising position R and the charger stop-by Q segment and the segment between Q and destination P.
Claims 6(1) and 19(2) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over ZHU/KIM/ SHU/ in view of FUK in further view of HIROSHI, et al, JP-2020154586-A (“HIR“)
Claim 6 is interpreted using BRI as follows: determine position of chargers by a process of minimization of expressions determining cost and convenience, outputting/accepting the objective of minimization smaller than a value, and when larger determine positions for chargers such that convenience is given more importance than cost.
Regarding claim 6(1), 19(2) FZHU/KIM/SHU discloses the limitations of the parent claims (1, respectively 2). They do not explicitly teach, however FUK discloses:
wherein the output unit is configured to: (a) execute first processing for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged such that a first objective function including the first relational expression and the second relational expression is minimized or such that a value of the first objective function becomes smaller than a predetermined value; and (b) (i) output, when a solution whose number is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number is obtained through the first processing, the first output amount based on the solution from the first processing, and (ii) execute, when solutions whose number is more than the predetermined number are obtained through the first processing, second processing for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged such that a second objective function placing more importance on the second relational expression than on the first relational expression as compared to the first objective function is minimized or such that a value of the second objective function becomes smaller than a predetermined value, and output the first output amount based on a solution from the second processing. { [0070] When determining that the number of virtual chargers has been sufficiently reduced as a result of the comparison with the reference values, the setting plan drawing-up unit 205 outputs an arrangement at that point as a setting plan. When reducing the virtual chargers, the setting plan drawing-up unit 205 gives priority to the virtual chargers using the simulation results. Examples of a method of giving priority include a method of giving high priority to the virtual chargers with high rates of operation. The setting plan drawing-up unit 205 excludes the virtual charger with the lowest priority from simulation targets and carries out the simulation again. By repeating the processing until simulation results satisfy the criteria in this way, it is possible to narrow down setting places of the virtual chargers.}
FUK does not teach, however HIR teaches
(ii) execute, when solutions whose number is more than the predetermined number are obtained through the first processing, second processing for determining the position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged such that a second objective function placing more importance on the second relational expression than on the first relational expression as compared to the first objective function is minimized or such that a value of the second objective function becomes smaller than a predetermined value, and output the first output amount based on a solution from the second processing {HIR: [0058] In addition, the determination unit 115 may consider statistical data indicating an allowable waiting time of the user when the user who visits the charging exchange device is waited for battery replacement or charging. Specifically, when determining that the total initial cost is greater than the budget amount as described above, the determination unit 115 may determine the number of slots of the cluster so that the waiting time greater than the allowable waiting time calculated from the allowable waiting time is the num her of slots required for the user not to be imposed, while adjusting the number of slots so that the total initial cost is equal to or less than the budget amount. In this case, it is preferable that the total initial cost is equal to or less than the initial budget, but it is sufficient that the total initial cost is within a range of a new budget increased by the adjustment unit 11 7 even if the total initial cost is not equal to or less than the initial budget.} in BRI the if cost is greater that a value when larger determine positions for chargers such that convenience, which is (lower) waiting time, is given more importance than cost.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine their teachings. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of including user convenience in determining locations of chargers, based here on reduced waiting time.
Claims 13(1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over FZHU/KIM/SHU in view of Dong et al : Charging infrastructure planning for promoting battery electric vehicles: An activity-based approach using multiday travel data Transportation Research C Vol 38 Jan 2014 (“DON”)
Regarding claim 13 FZHU/KIM/SHU discloses the limitations of claim 1. FZHU/KIM/SHU does not disclose, however DON discloses
wherein the first variation amount is the position of the energy recovery apparatus or the position and a number of the energy recovery apparatuses, and the first relational expression is a relational expression into which the first variation amount is input and which is for outputting at least one of an installation cost and an operational cost of the energy recovery apparatus. {DON: [p 48]
PNG
media_image7.png
508
963
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig 2 shows location/position as inputs; infrastructure cost as outputs.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine their teachings to obtain the advantage of determining the cost of the infrastructure which allows comparing different variants of positions/locations of chargers.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 108981728 A An Intelligent Vehicle Navigation Map Establishing Method
US 7146272 B2, Navigation System And Navigation Method For Movable Body, Program Storage Device And Computer Data Signal Embodied In Carrier Wave
Bapna, Infrastructure development for conversion to environmentally friendly fuel, European Journal of Op Research 142 480-496, 2002
Huang Optimal Deployment of Alternative Fueling Stations on Transportation Networks Considering Deviation Paths Netw Spat Econ (2015) 15:183–204
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.
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 ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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 Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
