CTFR 17/977,201 CTFR 98840 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the claims and response filed on 16 March 2026. Claims 11 and 12 have been withdrawn due the restriction requirement. Claims 3-4 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1-9 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process) and claim 10 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-10 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES). Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception. Representative Claim 1 : determining a tradeable power; transmitting a power trading offer based on the tradable power; posting a power for sale according to the power trading offer; and confirming a V2V charging contract to [a second vehicle] for the power for sale, wherein determining the tradable power comprises: determining a first index according to a driving behavior tendency of the first vehicle; determining a second index according to a vehicle traveling environment of the first vehicle; determining an estimated power consumption by applying the first index and the second index to an estimated mileage; and determining the tradable power based on a residual power of the first vehicle and the estimated power consumption of the first vehicle. As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses managing power trading. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a business activity of managing the sale of power, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” See MPEP 2106. As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES). Step 2A - Prong Two : This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): a first vehicle, a second vehicle and a server. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO). Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible. The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above ( Step 2B: NO ). Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Dependent claim 2 further includes the additional of “performing the V2V charging between the first vehicle and the second vehicle”. This/These additional element(s) does not integrate the exception into a practical application because it is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation is considered to be insignificant application because the performing step is merely incidental to the main process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, this additional element is a merely insignificant application which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities (see Paragraph [0004] of the instant specification; the vehicles as described in the claims use the V2V functionality in the same way as V2L would occur. Only one vehicle is required to transmit power to another vehicle, effectively using the receiving vehicle as a load). Therefore, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim(s) 2 is/are ineligible. Dependent claim(s) 5-9 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 3-9 are ineligible. Claim 10 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 10 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 10 recites the following additional elements: a server; a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a program stored in memory executed by a processor. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 5-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basak (US 20110238519 A1) in view of Kobayashi (US 20150155715 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Basak teaches a method of an electrified V2V power trading, the method comprising: determining, by a first vehicle, a tradable power; (see at least Paragraph [0040] “First, the vehicle that is to sell measures the amount of energy available in its storage, that is, its remaining charge (416). If (418) the amount of energy is more than the preset threshold for selling, it would proceed to start the selling process (420)”; Paragraph [0041] “In starting the selling process, the vehicle broadcasts, e.g., over its wireless network a message regarding its surplus (426)”; Fig. 4a) transmitting, by a first vehicle, a power trading offer to a server based on a tradable power of a first vehicle; (see at least Paragraph [0041] “the vehicle broadcasts, e.g., over its wireless network a message regarding its surplus (426)”; step 426 of Fig. 4b) posting, by the server, a power for sale according to the power trading offer; (Paragraph [0041] “the vehicle broadcasts, e.g., over its wireless network a message regarding its surplus (426) […] The broadcasting vehicle then listens for bids from potential buyers (428).”; Paragraph [0064] “The program code may execute […] on the remote computer or server.”; step 426 of Fig. 4b) and confirming, by the server, a V2V charging contract to a second vehicle for the power for sale, (Paragraph [0042] “If it [the power seller] accepts the offer, which in a preferred embodiment is the highest offer from the most reliable buyer (440), a registration takes place (442), where it would record the unique id of the bidder, the offered price and the amount of energy required.”) wherein determining the tradable power comprises: determining a first index according to a driving behavior tendency of the first vehicle; determining a second index according to a vehicle traveling environment of the first vehicle; determining an estimated power consumption by applying the first index and the second index to an estimated mileage; and determining the tradable power based on a residual power of the first vehicle and the estimated power consumption of the first vehicle. (see at least Paragraph [0040] “the vehicle that is to sell measures the amount of energy available in its storage, that is, its remaining charge (416). If (418) the amount of energy is more than the preset threshold for selling, it would proceed to start the selling process (420)”) Basak does not teach: wherein determining the tradable power comprises: determining a first index according to a driving behavior tendency of the first vehicle; determining a second index according to a vehicle traveling environment of the first vehicle; determining an estimated power consumption by applying the first index and the second index to an estimated mileage; and determining the tradable power based on a residual power of the first vehicle and the estimated power consumption of the first vehicle. However, Kobayashi teaches: wherein determining the tradable power (see at least Paragraph [0093] “In step S607, the calculator 314 of the cloud server 210 calculates the surplus energy in the car battery 221 based on the difference between the charge energy and the necessary energy of the car battery.”; Fig. 6 of Kobayashi) comprises: determining a first index according to a driving behavior tendency of the first vehicle; (see at least Paragraph [0157] “as shown in FIG. 14, an average mileage for each individual who drives the electric vehicle 220 may be stored, and necessary energy according to a user's driving schedule may be obtained based on the average mileage of the individual.” of Kobayashi) determining a second index according to a vehicle traveling environment of the first vehicle; (see at least Paragraph [0125] “FIG. 9E shows a table 950 representing a driving record about the battery consumption of an electric vehicle of the same model as the electric vehicle 220. As a driving record about the battery consumption of model: Kato EV 2012, 7 km/KWh is shown as the mileage of the battery when driving an expressway.”; Fig. 9E of Kobayashi) determining an estimated power consumption by applying the first index and the second index to an estimated mileage; (see at least Paragraph [0127] “The determining unit 312 can determine necessary energy based on the thus accumulated driving record and driving schedule.”; Paragraph [0157] “as shown in FIG. 14, an average mileage for each individual who drives the electric vehicle 220 may be stored, and necessary energy according to a user's driving schedule may be obtained based on the average mileage of the individual.”; Fig. 9E; Fig. 14 of Kobayashi) and determining the tradable power based on a residual power of the first vehicle and the estimated power consumption of the first vehicle. (see at least Paragraph [0093] “In step S607, the calculator 314 of the cloud server 210 calculates the surplus energy in the car battery 221 based on the difference between the charge energy and the necessary energy of the car battery.”; Paragraph [0127] “The determining unit 312 can determine necessary energy based on the thus accumulated driving record and driving schedule.” of Kobayashi) This step of Kobayashi is applicable to the method of Basak as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to charging and discharging electric vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Basak to incorporate determining the tradeable power based on estimated power consumption of the vehicle as taught by Kobayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Basak in order to predict a user's action and efficiently use electricity (see paragraph [0032] of Kobayashi). Regarding claim 2, Basak in view of Kobayashi teaches the method of claim 1. Basak further teaches: performing the V2V charging between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the V2V charging contract. (Paragraph [0053] “By way of completing the transaction, once the two drivers locate each other, the two vehicles can transfer energy using wireless mechanisms or using power cables. The buyer can pay the seller by handing cash or using mobile electronic payments.”) Regarding claim 5, Basak in view of Kobayashi t eaches t he method of claim 1. Basak does not teach: wherein determining the tradable power based on the residual power of the first vehicle and the estimated power consumption of the first vehicle includes: applying at least one factor according to a predetermined efficiency margin or cumulative learning. However, Kobayashi teaches: wherein determining the tradable power based on the residual power of the first vehicle and the estimated power consumption of the first vehicle includes: applying at least one factor according to a predetermined efficiency margin or cumulative learning. (see at least Paragraph [0126] “the storage 316 further accumulates a driving record about the battery consumption of an electric vehicle having the same driving capability as the electric vehicle of the user.”; Paragraph [0156] “An average change in the mileage may thus be obtained and accumulated in the storage 316 of the cloud server 210.” of Kobayashi) The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Basak is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Basak in view of Kobayashi teaches the method of claim 1. Basak further teaches: wherein the power trading offer includes a desired selling price. (Paragraph [0041] “the vehicle broadcasts, e.g., over its wireless network a message regarding its surplus (426) along with information including […] an opening price for a given unit of energy (e.g., 1 KWH).”) Regarding claim 7, Basak in view of Kobayashi teaches the method of claim 6. Basak further teaches: continuously posting, by the server, the power for sale for a certain time after the V2V charging contract is confirmed; (see at least Paragraph [0043] “the entire process described above is repeated until all surplus energy is sold off.”; step 426 of Fig. 4b) and confirming, by the server, a second V2V charging contract according to a buying offer of a third vehicle when the buying offer of the third vehicle is at a price higher than the desired selling price while the power for sale is posted on the server. (see at least Paragraph [0041] “In starting the selling process, the vehicle broadcasts, e.g., over its wireless network a message regarding its surplus (426) along with […] an opening price for a given unit of energy (e.g., 1 KWH).”; Paragraph [0042] “If it [the seller] accepts the offer, which in a preferred embodiment is the highest offer from the most reliable buyer (440), a registration takes place (442), where it would record the unique id of the bidder, the offered price and the amount of energy required.”; Fig. 4b) Regarding claim 9, Basak in view of Kobayashi teaches the method of claim 7. Basak further teaches: wherein the post of the power for sale is immediately suspended in a case where the V2V charging contract is made at a confirmed buying price higher than the desired selling price (Paragraph [0041] “In starting the selling process, the vehicle broadcasts, e.g., over its wireless network a message regarding its surplus (426) along with […] an opening price for a given unit of energy (e.g., 1 KWH).”; Paragraph [0042] “If it [the seller] accepts the offer, which in a preferred embodiment is the highest offer from the most reliable buyer (440), a registration takes place (442), where it would record the unique id of the bidder, the offered price and the amount of energy required.”; Paragraph [0043] “the entire process described above is repeated until all surplus energy is sold off.”; Fig. 4b; Examiner notes if a buyer buys the power at a price higher than the opening price (i.e. desired selling price) and all the energy is sold, the listing process ends.) Regarding claim 10, Basak in view of Kobayashi teaches the method of claim 1. Basak further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see at least Paragraph [0061] “computer readable medium”) comprising a program (Paragraph [0060] “a computer program”) stored in memory (Paragraph [0061] “memory”) and when executed by a processor (Paragraph [0065] “a processor”) is configured to execute a method of the electrified V2V power trading according to claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basak (US 20110238519 A1) in view of Kobayashi (US 20150155715 A1) in further view of Payton (US 20080082425 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Basak in view of Kobayashi teaches the method of claim 7. Basak further teaches: charging a cancellation fee to the first vehicle according to a condition of the V2V charging contract with the second vehicle in a case where the second V2V charging contract is confirmed according to the buying offer of the third vehicle. (Paragraph [0041] “In starting the selling process, the vehicle broadcasts, e.g., over its wireless network a message regarding its surplus (426) along with […] an opening price for a given unit of energy (e.g., 1 KWH).”; Paragraph [0042] “If it [the seller] accepts the offer, which in a preferred embodiment is the highest offer from the most reliable buyer (440), a registration takes place (442), where it would record the unique id of the bidder, the offered price and the amount of energy required.”; Fig. 4b) Basak in view of Kobayashi does not teach: charging a cancellation fee to the first vehicle according to a condition of the V2V charging contract with the second vehicle in a case where the second V2V charging contract is confirmed according to the buying offer of the third vehicle. However, Payton teaches the known technique of charging a cancellation fee to a seller according to a condition of a contract with a buyer in a case where resources are needed elsewhere. (Paragraph [0063] “the owner of resources 26, by allowing resources 26 to be auctioned, automatically agrees to a canceling fee. In one embodiment, the canceling fee allows user 12 to be compensated in case the owner of resources 26 cancels the obligation in the auction. The owner of resources 26 may cancel the previous obligation, for example, if the resources 26 are needed elsewhere.” of Payton) This technique of Payton is applicable to the method of Basak as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing the sale of a product in a bidding system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the V2V energy bidding system of Payton to incorporate the known technique of charging a cancellation fee the seller (i.e. first vehicle) utilizing a bidding system when the resources are going to be used elsewhere as taught by Payton. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Basak in order to compensate the buyer that is not receiving the resource (see paragraph [0063] of Payton). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5-6, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments filed 16 March 2026. The claim objections have been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 6-9, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments to the claims do not integrate the claims into a practical application because they do not provide a technical improvement. USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. As explained in the above 101 rejection, the steps of determining the tradable power recited in the amended claim 1 are part of the abstract idea. The additional elements being used are the first and second vehicle, and the server, but their use is at a high level (i.e. transmitting and receiving information). These additional elements are being used no differently than a generic computer would be used (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Most of the claim is directed towards a calculation of tradable power. This calculation can be done by a computer in the same way as a human following instructions would have calculated it. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states: The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Following rules or instructions is considered a method of organizing human activity under the subcategory of managing personal behavior. Since determining the tradable power does not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem. The claims recite an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments, see Page(s) 8-10, filed 16 March 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 have been fully considered but are moot due to the Examiner relying on new references not previously used for the newly amended limitation of claim 1. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards Basak (arguments regarding the 102 rejection) and Basak in view of Kaneichi (arguments regarding the 103 rejection), however, the Examiner is relying on prior art, Kobayashi, to teach the amended features from the arguments. The Examiner has withdrawn the 102 rejection, however, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made under Basak in view of Kobayashi. With regards to claims 2 and 5-10 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence on claim 1. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claim 1. Therefore, claims 2 and 5-10 remain rejected. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm. 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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. /DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 2 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 3 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 4 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 5 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 6 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 7 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 8 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 9 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 10 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 11 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 12 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 13 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 14 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 15 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 16 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 17 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 17/977,201 Page 18 Art Unit: 3628
Prosecution Insights