DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 6/2/2023, 1/23/2024, 6/26/2025, and 1/12/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: “to perform grouping” should read “performs grouping” or “is configured to perform grouping” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each of the chargers/dischargers:” should read “each of the chargers/dischargers;” 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. Claim 1- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1-5 are a system, which is a statutory category of invention. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites “ an EV information management circuitry configured to manage charging/discharging capacity information of a plurality of electric vehicles , ” “ a schedule information management circuitry to manage schedule information of charging/discharging the electric vehicles ”, and “ a charger/discharger information management circuitry configured to manage charger/discharger information of chargers/dischargers ,” which are mental observations or evaluations and fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 1 recites specific circuits which indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements when considered individually and/or as an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) ); The electrical vehicles, charger/dischargers and related components are well understood, routine and conventional in the field of electric vehicle charging. For example, Wang et al. ( CN 109532549 A ) describes electrical vehicles (¶[4]), a plurality of chargers (120), and other related components (computer device 110, charging pile 122, information obtaining module 702, a level determination module 704, a power obtaining module 706 and a power determination module 708 ). Wang et al. is evidence that such components are well understood, routine, and conventional. Dependent claims 1-5 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 2 -5 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Step 1: Claim 6 is a method, which is a statutory category of invention. Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 6 recites “ managing schedule information ,” “ setting allocation constraints ,” and “ creating a charging/discharging plan ” which are mental observations or evaluations and fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 6 recites charger/dischargers and a plurality of electric vehicles which indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Claim 6 does not include additional elements when considered individually and/or as an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) ); The electrical vehicles, charger/dischargers and related components are well understood, routine and conventional in the field of electric vehicle charging. For example, Wang et al. ( CN 109532549 A ) describes electrical vehicles (¶[4]), a plurality of chargers (120), and other related components (computer device 110, charging pile 122, information obtaining module 702, a level determination module 704, a power obtaining module 706 and a power determination module 708 ). Wang et al. is evidence that such components are well understood, routine, and conventional. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 is indefinite because it is not clear if the grouping relies on all of the factors ( maximum charging power, maximum discharging power, charging efficiency, discharging efficiency ) or only one of the factors. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the grouping relies on only one of the factors since it does not appear that it would be possible, based on the disclosure, to group using all of the factors . 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. Claim(s) 1- 3 and 5- 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. ( CN 109532549 A ) . Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a charging/discharging control device (110) comprising: an EV information management circuitry (706, see ¶[113]) configured to manage charging/discharging capacity information of a plurality of electric vehicles (¶[78] “the computer equipment can determine the remaining charging power required by the vehicle based on the remaining battery power”); a schedule information management circuitry (706, see ¶[113]) to manage schedule information of charging/discharging the electric vehicles (¶[74] “User terminals can reserve charging guns via applications or web pages, and computer equipment can receive the user terminals' reservation information for charging guns. The reservation information may include the user information and the corresponding charging gun information”); a charger/discharger information management circuitry (704) configured to manage charger/discharger information of chargers/dischargers (¶[80] “The computer equipment determines the required output power of the charging pile group based on the reservation information, expected output power and remaining charging time”); a facility information management circuitry (710) to manage information on power rate (¶[69] “the provided charging power adjustment method further includes: obtaining the electricity price value of the mains power grid”); a charger/discharger grouping circuitry (110) to group the chargers/dischargers on the basis of the charger/discharger information (¶[46] “In one embodiment, the computer device may also preset weight values for different charging information and user information, and group the charging guns according to the weight values and scores of different information”); an allocation constraint setting circuitry to set allocation constraints for the chargers/dischargers on the basis of the schedule information, for each group of the chargers/dischargers (¶[48] “The allocatable power of a charging pile group refers to the maximum power that the charging station allows that charging pile group to output … When a charging station contains multiple charging pile groups, the allocatable power of the charging pile group can be the power obtained by evenly distributing the input power of the charging station, or it can be the power obtained by the computer equipment by dividing the input power of the charging station according to the number of charging piles in the charging pile group, the rated output power of the charging piles, etc., and is not limited to these”); and a charging/discharging plan creation circuitry (110) to create a charging/discharging plan by allocating the group of chargers/dischargers to the electric vehicles so as to reduce power cost on the basis of the allocation constraints, the charging/discharging capacity information, and the power rate information (¶[71] “By increasing the proportion of power supplied in the total power allocation when the electricity price is less than a first threshold, and increasing the proportion of energy storage power in the total power allocation when the electricity price is greater than or equal to a second threshold, the power allocation strategy of charging stations can be optimized, the accuracy of power adjustment can be improved, and the power supply cost can be reduced” ). Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches the charging/discharging control device according to claim 1. Wang further teaches wherein the charger/discharger grouping circuitry to perform grouping by similarity of the charger/discharger information (¶[46] “In one embodiment, the computer device may also preset weight values for different charging information and user information, and group the charging guns according to the weight values and scores of different information”); Regarding Claim 3, Wang teaches the charging/discharging control device according to claim 2. Wang teaches wherein the charger/discharger grouping circuitry to perform grouping by similarity in maximum charging power, maximum discharging power, charging efficiency, and discharging efficiency of the chargers/discharger s (see ¶[51] “The expected output power is the ideal output power of the charging gun, that is, one of the rated output power of the charging gun and the charging power of the vehicle” and ¶[46] “the computer device may also preset weight values for different charging information and user information, and group the charging guns according to the weight values and scores of different information”). Regarding Claim 5, Wang teaches the charging/discharging control device according to claim 1. Wang further teaches a charging/discharging performance management circuitry to manage charging/discharging performance of each of the chargers/dischargers (¶[50] “The computer equipment adjusts the output power of each charging gun based on the allocable power and priority level”): and a charger/discharger information estimation circuitry to estimate the charger/discharger information on the basis of the charging/discharging performance (¶[78] “the computer equipment can determine the remaining charging power required by the vehicle based on the remaining battery power, and divide the remaining charging power by the expected output power to obtain the remaining charging time”), wherein the charger/discharger grouping circuitry groups the chargers/dischargers on the basis of the estimated charger/discharger information (¶[46] “The correspondence between different charging information and user information and the score is as follows: remaining charging time not exceeding 10 minutes: 3 points, remaining charging time not exceeding 30 minutes: 2 points, remaining charging time exceeding 30 minutes” and “the computer device may …. group the charging guns according to the weight values and scores of different information.” Remaining charging time is estimated in the above quote (¶[78])). Regarding Claim 6, Wang teaches a charging/discharging control method, comprising: managing charging/discharging capacity information of a plurality of electric vehicles (¶[78] “the computer equipment can determine the remaining charging power required by the vehicle based on the remaining battery power”); managing schedule information of charging/discharging the electric vehicles (¶[74] “User terminals can reserve charging guns via applications or web pages, and computer equipment can receive the user terminals' reservation information for charging guns. The reservation information may include the user information and the corresponding charging gun information”); managing charger/discharger information of chargers/dischargers (¶[80] “The computer equipment determines the required output power of the charging pile group based on the reservation information, expected output power and remaining charging time”); managing information on power rate (¶[69] “the provided charging power adjustment method further includes: obtaining the electricity price value of the mains power grid”); grouping the chargers/dischargers on the basis of the charger/discharger information (¶[46] “In one embodiment, the computer device may also preset weight values for different charging information and user information, and group the charging guns according to the weight values and scores of different information”); setting allocation constraints for the chargers/dischargers on the basis of the schedule information, for each group of the chargers/dischargers (¶[48] “The allocatable power of a charging pile group refers to the maximum power that the charging station allows that charging pile group to output … When a charging station contains multiple charging pile groups, the allocatable power of the charging pile group can be the power obtained by evenly distributing the input power of the charging station, or it can be the power obtained by the computer equipment by dividing the input power of the charging station according to the number of charging piles in the charging pile group, the rated output power of the charging piles, etc., and is not limited to these”); and creating a charging/discharging plan by allocating the group of chargers/dischargers to the electric vehicles so as to reduce power cost on the basis of the allocation constraints, the charging/discharging capacity information, and the power rate information (¶[71] “By increasing the proportion of power supplied in the total power allocation when the electricity price is less than a first threshold, and increasing the proportion of energy storage power in the total power allocation when the electricity price is greater than or equal to a second threshold, the power allocation strategy of charging stations can be optimized, the accuracy of power adjustment can be improved, and the power supply cost can be reduced” ). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 109532549 A) . Regarding Claim 4, W ang teaches the charging/discharging control device according to claim 2 . Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the charger/discharger grouping circuitry to perform grouping using model numbers of the chargers/dischargers ; however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the group together chargers of the same model because they will have the same or similar output power capabilities and types of vehicles they can charge ( ¶[46] “the computer device may also preset weight values for different charging information and user information, and group the charging guns according to the weight values and scores of different information” ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AIMAN BICKIYA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0555 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 - 6 PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Julian Huffman can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2147 . 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.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2859 /JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859