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 a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 10/17/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1- 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15-18 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“)
Claims 6(1), 19(2) are 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“)
Claim 8(1) are 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“)
Claims 13(1), 14(1) are 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”)
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.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2022 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: ‘unit configured to’ for example in in the form “output unit is configured to” in the independent claims 1, 15, 16.
The 112(f) interpretation applies to dependent claims as well, and thus to all claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 non-statutory subject matter -transitory signals
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim recites a ‘computer-readable storage medium’ but does not affirmatively limit the memory to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The claim’s scope may therefore encompass transitory signals – which is non-statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106.03).
To overcome this rejection, the applicant should amend the claim to recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium or otherwise limit the memory to a physical implementation.
For the purposes of advancing prosecution and providing a complete analysis under 35 USC 101 the Examiner interprets the claimed ‘computer-readable storage medium’ as referring to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, consistent with the Applicant’s example embodiments. This interpretation is made solely for the purpose of conducting a full eligibility analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework and does not concede that the claim is definitely within a statutory category under 101.
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 1-20 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 1-20 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims X-15 directed to a method), machine (claims 1-14, 17-20 directed to an apparatus) and manufacture (claim 16 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium – as per the interpretation made for advancing prosecution).
(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: an output unit configured to output a result of the simulation, wherein the output unit 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 at least one of:
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.
The determination that makes the bases of 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. The claim also recites mathematical concepts as the relational expressions, in view of the specification, are for example “[0203] a first objective function including the first relational expression and the second relational expression is minimized or that a value of the first objective function becomes smaller than a predetermined value” “and “[0249] Examples of the above-described calculation result include…ii) a value of at least of of the first relational expression, second relational expression, and the third relational expression”
In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the claim recites a process aimed at: “Determining relational expressions for cost or convenience, corresponding to a position or, respectively to the movement of the user or vehicle” .
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 the 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), subsection III The combination also covers performance of limitations expressing mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships and calculations. These are Mathematical Concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection I) ).
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 claim as a whole does not integrate 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 - Determining relational expressions for deriving cost or convenience, corresponding to a position or, respectively to the movement of the user or vehicle, 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, 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
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.
Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the further elements in these dependents claims, respectively, do not perform any claimed method steps and are not part of the claimed system. They are outside the scope of the claimed invention and, as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“Determining relational expressions for deriving cost or convenience, corresponding to a position or, respectively to the movement of the user or vehicle”), from a judicial exception into an eligible application, because they do not represent significantly more. In summary, in 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, 13, 17-18 are deemed ineligible.
Claim 6 (1) further recites - wherein the output unit 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 7 (1) further recites:
Wherein the output unit is 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
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 calculation of an optimal solution and simulating dynamics of a movable body. 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 7 is thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 (1) further recites:
wherein the output unit is 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
The analysis of claim 8 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 8 is deemed ineligible.
Claim 19(2) further recites,
wherein the output unit 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 9(3) recites: the apparatus of claim 3 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.
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 estimation of the demand and determination of a position based on estimate. The demand estimation unit is interpreted as a computer program on a general computer, in view of the specification. 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. T 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 demand estimation unit includes:
an energy amount acquisition unit configured to acquire a remaining energy amount of the energy accumulation apparatus; 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.
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 estimation of the demand and determination of a position based on estimate. The energy amount acquisition unit and demand arising position estimation unit are interpreted as generic computer programs, in view of the specification. 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) recites further comprising:
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.
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 processes and mathematical concepts related to estimation of a deviation. The deviation amount estimation unit is interpreted as generic computer program, in view of the specification. 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) further recites:
Wherein 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.
The analysis of claim 12 is similar to that of claim 11, with similar mental process and mathematical concepts (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 20 (2) further recites:
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.
The analysis of claim 11 is similar to that of claim 1, with similar mental process and mathematical concepts (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 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 mathematical concepts (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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15-18 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“)
Regarding Claim(s) 1 (representative for claims 15, 16) FUK discloses
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: an output unit configured to output a result of the simulation, wherein the output unit is configured to: {FUK: [Abstract] A charger arrangement planning supporting apparatus includes a simulation unit }
(a) 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, based on at least one of (i) 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 (ii) 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. {FUK [0026] The setting plan draft storing unit 101 retains, for example, candidates of places where chargers are set in the real world and the number of chargers. The chargers cannot be set anywhere. It is assumed that the chargers are set in existing gas stations, shopping centers, parking lots, and the like. Therefore, places where the chargers are supposed to be able to be set and the number of chargers that can be set are stored in the setting plan draft storing unit 101 in advance. The places where the chargers are set are retained in a form in which positions can be specified on road data retained by the traffic model storing unit 102 such as coordinates, latitudes and longitudes, or the like on a map. Information concerning the candidates of the setting places of the chargers and the number of chargers is transmitted to the simulation unit 103 and used to determine places where virtual chargers are set and the number of virtual chargers in the simulation unit 103. ; [0006] A charger business operator needs to set charging facilities appropriately by taking into account minimizing costs of setting facilities and other expenses while maximizing profits. For this purpose, the charger business operator needs to plan the setting of charging facilities on the supposition that users can efficiently use the facilities on the basis of information on actual traffic conditions and usage states of the charging facilities.} In broadest reasonable interpretation, position at which the energy recovery apparatus is to be arranged is interpreted as positions (of places to be retained) for the chargers. This is 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 which is interpreted as costs corresponding to traffic related to specific location/position.
Regarding the additional limitation of claim 16, “the computer-readable storage medium” FUK discloses {[0024] As the charger arrangement planning supporting apparatus 10, a dedicated or general-purpose computer including a CPU, memories such as a ROM and a RAM, an external storage device configured to store various kinds of information}
Regarding claim 2(1) FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claim. FUK 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. {FUK [0026] The setting plan draft storing unit 101 retains, for example, candidates of places where chargers are set in the real world and the number of chargers. The chargers cannot be set anywhere. It is assumed that the chargers are set in existing gas stations, shopping centers, parking lots, and the like. Therefore, places where the chargers are supposed to be able to be set and the number of chargers that can be set are stored in the setting plan draft storing unit 101 in advance. The places where the chargers are set are retained in a form in which positions can be specified on road data retained by the traffic model storing unit 102 such as coordinates, latitudes and longitudes, or the like on a map. Information concerning the candidates of the setting places of the chargers and the number of chargers is transmitted to the simulation unit 103 and used to determine places where virtual chargers are set and the number of virtual chargers in the simulation unit 103. } A plurality of the variation amounts related to a position of each of a plurality of the energy recovery apparatuses is interpreted as the places of the number of chargers.
Regarding claim 3(1), 17(2) FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claim (claims 1 and 2 respectively). FUK 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. {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). When using the charger C, since the virtual vehicle has already passed the point S and needs to return to the point S, the excess moving distance for reaching the destination is 2|OS|.} The position of the energy recover apparatus is interpreted as position of the charger, P/Q, the position when energy recovery demand arises is interpreted as O, the relation expression for deriving convenience, a degree of which varies along the movement is interpreted as the expression |RQ|+|QP|-|RP|(|XY|.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4(3) FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claim. FUK 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. {{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). When using the charger C, since the virtual vehicle has already passed the point S and needs to return to the point S, the excess moving distance for reaching the destination is 2|OS|.} Fig 7 shown above. Convenience is interpreted as shorter distance which is correlated in fact with all three times, costs (of gaseline) and energy to movement along a first path along RP and along the second path RQP.
Regarding claim 5(3), 18(4) FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claims (3, respectively 4). FUK further 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) FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claim (claim 1 and claim 2 respectively). 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), FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claim and 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), FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claim and 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), FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claim and 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_image1.png
445
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12(11), FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claim and 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.
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.
Claims 6(1) and 19(2) are 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“)
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) FUK discloses the limitations of the parent claims (1, respectively 2). FUK further 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 the teachings of FUK with HIR. 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.
Both FUK and HIR are in the same art, directed to optimal placement of recharging stations, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by FUK and HIR would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over FUK in view of HIR.
Claims 8(1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fukubayashi Y, US 20130317790 A1 (“FUK“) in view of Marmaras et al (“MAR“) (Simulation of electric vehicle driver behavior in road transport and electric power networks 2019)
Regarding claim 8 FUK discloses the limitations of claim 1. FUK does not disclose, however MAR discloses
wherein the output unit is 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. { MAR: [p253 line4] Fig. 9 presents the aggregated charging demand from the Public Chargers of each District. The Unaware EV agents look for the closest Public Charger when they need a recharging stop, while the Aware EV agents try to minimise the total duration of the recharging stop by considering the waiting times at a Public Charger.} The claim is interpreted as calculating optimal arrangement based on cost and convenience determining results by simulating vehicles that are around target charge stations but can travel further. As disclosed some look (to stop) at the closest Public Charger, while others… don’t, seeking other minimization. So the simulation includes cases where the vehicle does not stop at the closest charger.
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 FUK with MAR. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of include in simulation the real-life situation where users do not necessarily stop at the first refuel /recharge station when determining vehicle needs it, if continuing to next charger(s) would not pose a safety issue and may offer other advantage, such as lesser time, if closest charger has a long waiting time.
Both FUK and MAR are in the same art, doing simulations of electric vehicle and recharging stations, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by FUK and MAR would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over FUK in view of MAR.
Claims 13(1), 14(1) are 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”)
Regarding claim 13 FUK discloses the limitations of claim 1. FUK 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_image2.png
508
963
media_image2.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 the teachings of FUK with DON. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of determining the cost of the infrastructure which allows comparing different variants of positions/locations of chargers. Both FUK and DON are in the same art, doing simulations of electric vehicle and recharging stations, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by FUK and DON would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over FUK in view of DON.
Regarding claim 14 FUK discloses the limitations of claim 1. FUK does not disclose, however DON discloses
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. 48 Consider a set of candidate sites I={1, 2, …m} for installing charging stations, … The public charger placement problem is to determine the locations and the types of the chargers to be installed …p.49
PNG
media_image3.png
317
1266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[p49, 4.3. Genetic algorithm-based optimization] Location and type of public chargers are found using a genetic algorithm (GA)-based optimization model that minimizes missed trips subject to the budget constraint.
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 FUK with DON. 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. Both FUK and DON are in the same art, doing simulations of electric vehicle and recharging stations, and implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Since the elements disclosed by FUK and DON would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over FUK in view of DON.
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
Conclusion
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