DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/075,680 filed on January 30, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-24 are still pending, with claims 1, 11 and 19 being currently amended, and claims 21-24 being newly added. Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
On pages 1-2 of the remarks filed October 1, 2025, Applicant argues:
The Office Action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter. Without conceding the propriety of these assertions, Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to more clearly and positively recite a specific technical implementation that is integrated into a practical application..
As amended, claims 1 and 11 require processing vehicle, charging station, and power distribution information using a deep reinforcement learning algorithm, forming a diamond-shape polyhedron that provides feasibility checks for solutions produced by the deep reinforcement learning algorithm, and routing a vehicle based only on solutions that satisfy feasibility checks derived from voltage and/or current flow limits of the power distribution system. These limitations meaningfully tie the claimed subject matter to the physical operation of a power distribution system by enforcing real-world voltage and current constraints on charging and routing actions. The diamond-shape polyhedron is not a mere mathematical construct, but a feasibility structure derived from physical power distribution limits and used to constrain operational decisions in real time.
Accordingly, the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by controlling and constraining electric vehicle charging and routing in a manner that ensures compliance with physical grid limitations. This is consistent with USPTO guidance and Federal Circuit precedent recognizing that claims directed to enforcing physical constraints in the operation of a real-world system constitute a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Moreover, even if the claims were viewed as reciting an abstract idea, the additional elements recited in amended claims 1 and 11 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The use of a deep reinforcement learning algorithm in combination with a diamond-shape polyhedron that provides feasibility checks tied to voltage and current flow limits represents an unconventional arrangement of elements that improves the technical operation of coordinated vehicle charging and power distribution management. As described in the specification, this approach addresses deficiencies of conventional optimization techniques by ensuring feasible, grid-safe operation without requiring real-time power flow computation.
For at least these reasons, claims 1–20 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that though the claims have been amended to include claim 8, which was not rejected over prior art the claims still recite the abstract ideas of organizing human activity and mathematical calculations. Applicant argues that the limitations are “tied” to “the physical operation of a power distribution system”, however, none of the limitations result in an actual physical operation being performed. The steps in order access vehicle location (gather data), access charging station locations (gather data), access power distribution information (gather data), process with a deep reinforcement learning algorithm (manipulate data using mathematical calculations), form a diamond-shape polyhedron for the algorithm (mathematical calculations) and route a vehicle based on the solution (outputting data, organizing human activity (commercial interactions). Applicant argues that the voltage/current limits tie the solution to the physical distribution system, but Examiner notes that those limits are merely accessed, not controlled.
Applicant argues that the diamond-shaped polyhedron is not a mathematical construct, however, Applicant’s specification indicates that the polyhedron involves using mathematical tools to find a region in a data set that satisfies constraints which involves mathematical tools like comparisons, geometry and multivariable calculus (see paragraphs 25-26)
Applicant argues the abstract idea is tied into practical application by "controlling/constraining charging" but the claim doesn’t recite controlling charging, rather it just instructs or suggests that a vehicle reports to a charging station. The claims recite an idea similar to claim 2 of Example 47 of the USPTO’s eligibility examples gathering data, manipulating the data via mathematical constructs and then transmitting the data to a particular location (similar to transmitting the determined routing decision to the vehicle). Thus, Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea for the reasons indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas which amount to mental processes and organizing human activity.
The Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test requires a two-part framework to determine whether a claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In the first step, it is determined whether the claim is to a “process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”. Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle charging scheduling/routing system, which is a machine and thus the test passes the first step. Claim 11 is directed to a vehicle charging scheduling/routing method, which is a process and thus the test passes the first step. Claim 17 is directed to a computer-executed charging scheduling method, which is a machine and process and thus the test passes the first step.
Next, it is determined whether the claims recite a judicial exception (step 2A, prong 1, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54-55 (Jan. 7, 2019)), and if so, whether that judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A, prong 2, see id. at 56).
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a charging scheduling/routing system/method which takes EV and charging station data , converts it into another form of data, manipulates the data by extracting certain data from it via analysis (‘the routing”) and transmits the manipulated data to other devices (the act of “routing”). This could be considered both organizing human activity since scheduling a service is a commercial interaction (MPEP 2106.04(a)(II)(2)(B), as well as a mathematical concept since finding a solution for a multivariable problem, using a reinforcement learning algorithm based on particular limits (current, voltage, battery charge level, etc.) is a type of mathematical calculation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)(2)(C)).
Essentially, claims 1 and 11describes a describes a computer implementation (“computer-readable memory”) of gathering and manipulating data (receiving data, extracting and analyzing features, comparing data and storing results) an idea that has been recognized by the courts as abstract in the similar cases of Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data analysis of electric variables), Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (collecting and comparing known information), SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical analysis), In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979) (an algorithm to determine the optimum number of client visits). The step regarding routing vehicles to particular charging stations is similar to the idea of offer-based price optimization recognized by the courts as abstract in OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Thus, claim 1, indeed discloses a judicial exception. The nominal recitation of a computer-readable storage medium and computer processors does not take the claim beyond a computer-implemented method of a mental process or organizing human interactions. Though the claim recites the data is for routing a vehicle this merely is a field of use for the data analysis and used to provide the routine data gathering for the system.
With respect to prong 2 of 2A, the claim must be considered as to whether it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Again, though the claim recites providing “coordinated operation of power distribution”, the physical transformation is not positively recited nor is it integrated with the data analysis. The claim as recited does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied with a particular type of machine or computer, does not cause a transformation of matter from one state to another (the charging does not always occur) and does not apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way besides a general link to the technology of electric vehicle charging. The transmission of data is recited at a high degree of generality and the electric vehicles are not recited as part of the system, nor are the charging stations. The courts have held that use of a generic computer to automate a mental process does not amount to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. See BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to Step 2B, the claim must be considered as to whether the claim includes additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 fails to meet this test since the claim as a whole generally applies the concept of analyzing, comparing and transmitting vehicle charging data in a computer environment, essentially taking a mathematical calculation or method of organizing human activity and “applying it” using a computer. The indication that the data is related to power distribution and vehicle charging is merely a field of use. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The same analysis of claim 1 applies to claim 11 as well.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-16 and 21-24 recite basic additional analyzing steps all representing steps of a mathematical calculation or organizing commercial activity that could be performed on a generic computer. Dependent claims 2 and 12 indicate that the instructions are to configure a computer to display a map, but do not claim the display itself. Regardless, use of a generic computer to perform an abstract idea does not go beyond the judicial exception.
Looking at the dependent claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859