DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication received on 08/01/2025 The claims 1, 4- 5, & 7- 12 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 & 7 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 10-11), filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the amended limitations against the prior arts rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the outstanding prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new prior arts and their combination with prior cited Hishida as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the amendments made to the claims to remove placeholder terms “units”, the outstanding 112(f) interpretations are rendered moot, and therefore withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The outstanding 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in light of the latest amendment made to the claim(s).
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, 4- 5, & 7- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is reproduced below for convenience.
1. a power management device comprising a processor configured to:
[a] acquire information indicating a power status of a hotel that is equipped
with a solar power generation facility, the power status being calculated based on an estimated electric power generated by the solar power generation facility;
[b] request a user of an electrified vehicle to charge or discharge a battery of the electrified vehicle via an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) based on the information, the EVSE being provided in a parking lot of the hotel;
[c] determine whether the user has checked in to the hotel earlier than
threshold check-in time and the battery of the electrified vehicle has been charged with
power supplied by the hotel through the EVSE; and
[d] in a case where the user has checked in to the hotel earlier than the threshold check-in time and the battery of the electrified vehicle has been charged with
power supplied by the hotel through the EVSE, give the user a benefit related to the
hotel.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a device with a processor, which is one of the four categories (a machine and/or manufacturer) of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations [b] to [d] that cover requesting a user of an electric vehicle to come to receive an electric charge and determining whether the user performs some requirements (advanced check-in and performs charging) before giving some (economic) benefits (such as points, coupons, discounts etc.) to the user but for the recitation of the generic computer component a processor. These limitations encompass abstract idea based Judicial Exception because they cover “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”-- namely “fundamental economic principles or practices” or “commercial or legal interactions” such as “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations”. See MPEP 2106.04. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation for the human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components as in this case, then it falls within the “abstract ideas”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, these limitations under BRI, cover requesting/advertising to the customers (vehicle drivers) to come and buy surplus power and verifying whether customers (an electric vehicle driver) are eligible or not to receive benefit (coupons, points) after they perform certain business related activities (requesting vehicle users to a parking lot to receive power, whether the users checked into the hotel earlier than a threshold check-in time and the battery of the electrified vehicle has been charged with power supplied by the hotel through the EVSE). For example, applicant’s specification in para. [037] clearly states that when “there is a surplus in the power of the accommodation facility 300”, it requests vehicles with large charging capacity to its parking lot so that the surplus power can be sold thereby providing business advantage to the accommodation facility 300 (hotel). This concept covers economic principles and sales/commercial activities of the surplus power created by the solar panels of the hotel by enticing customers (vehicle drivers) to come to buy power and also enjoy the living in the hotel. The specification shows that the claims provides business solution to a business problem but not a technical solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In the claim the limitation shown with bold emphasis above are additional elements. In particular, the claim recites an additional element in limitation [a], i.e., “a processor configured to “acquire information indicating a power status of a hotel that is equipped with a solar power generation facility, the power status being calculated based on an estimated electric power generated by the solar power generation facility” and using “a processor” to perform various limitations [a] to [d]. Here, the limitation [a] is a mere data gathering step that is recited at a high level of generality. This mere data gathering is akin to adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the problem being solved relates to increasing the use of accommodations by offering some type of reward/benefits programs (see spec, para. 045—“ granting a coupon and points available”), which is clearly a business method. Hence, additional elements individually or in combination with abstract idea cannot provide an improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a). Rather, these limitations improve the business process of a merchant (a hotel with solar power generation capacity). Mere adding of an insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide a practical application as by the limitation [a]. The claim states that the abstract idea is performed by a processor. However, the processor is recited at a high-level of generality, which amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Even considering additional elements in combination, they continue to be using computer as a tool and using of insignificant extra-solution data gathering step. Hence, additional elements cannot provide a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do 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) of limitation [a] amount(s) to no more than adding a data gathering step recited at a high level of generality even upon reconsideration. Furthermore, the limitation [a] is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect by relying on the cited references as evidence per Berkheimer memo. Put differently, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception since they are not indicative of inventive concept. The claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, this claim is also not patent eligible for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1. Here, the claimed power management system merely includes a power management device of the claim 1, and remaining limitations cover substantially similar subject matter. The claim recites “EVSE” as an additional element but it is merely used as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence, the claim 7 fails to provide a practical application and inventive step for the similar reasons as in claim 1.
Regarding claims 4-5, 8- 12, they are proper dependent claims of the claim 1, and include all the limitations required in the parent claim 1. Therefore, they recite the same abstract idea (human activities) and additional elements set forth above in claim 1. These claims also adds other new limitations. However, these added new limitations are also part of economic practices or commercial activities hence still abstract. These claims do not provide any new additional elements to provide a practical application and an inventive step. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8, & 10- 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hishida et al. (US 20210331600 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (JP 2014039398 A), and further in view of Bae (KR 20160056250 A).
The combination of Hishida, Sugiyama, and Bae is referred as HSB hereinafter. Hishida is a reference of the record.
Regarding claim 1, Hishida teaches a power management [server 40 of fig. 1 used to manage power from the power network 10 which can be implemented by the computer 200 of fig. 8. The Fig. 2 shows the additional internal details of the management server 40] comprising a processor [CPU 42/2012] configured to: (Figs. 1- 2, [028-030, 033, 044-046, 049]);
[a] acquire information [“in an area in the power network 10 where a power surplus is predicted, the vehicle 30 having the large chargeable amount can be guided to the parking lot 140”, “predicted amount of future imbalance between supply and demand”] indicating a power status [demand and supply level due to various factors such as temperature, “weather information”] of a hotel [a facility (parking lot 140b is a parking lot added to a facility 150 such as a shopping mall, an apartment, a building, and the like”) that includes parking lot 140a/b, fig. 1. PHOSITA would understand “the like” to cover even a facility like a hotel]
[b] requests [“power transmission and reception control unit 220 causes at least some of the vehicles 30 parked in the parking lot 140 to transmit and receive power to/from the power network 10 depending on the power demand in the power network 10… to charge/discharge the battery 32”, “many vehicles 30 can be guided to be connected to the power network 10’ by notifying to come and connect to the facility 20 for charging/discharging] a user [“the user 80a”] of an electrified vehicle to charge or discharge [“sell contract”] a battery of the electrified vehicle via an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) [one of the facility 20 of the parking lot 140 to connect to the vehicles 30] based on the information, the EVSE being provided in a parking lot [parking lot 140] of the hotel ([049-053, 074-078, 083], fig. 1);
[c] determine whether (c1)
vehicle connected to the facility 20 in S506 to receive sell contract] with power supplied by the hotel through the EVSE ([047, 076], figs. 4-5); and
[d] in a case [d1] discount on parking fee] related to the hotel ([047, 058, 083-084], fig. 5).
Hishida teaches using a management server 40 (figs. 1- 2) to control charging/discharging of vehicle battery 32 to balance the power supply and demand by offering incentives (e.g., parking discounts) to the selected vehicles 30 so that vehicles can be guided to the facility ([035, 037]). Hishida ensures that discounts are not provided to the vehicles that fail to connect to the charging stations. Hishida further teaches predicting surplus or shortage of the power for an area (in para. 085).
Nevertheless, Hishida fails to teach the limitations (c1) and (d1) and portion of limitation [a] as shown above with strikethrough emphasis. That is, Hishida fails to teach determining whether the user has checked in to the hotel earlier than a threshold check in time and verifying the user has checked in to the hotel to give user a benefits and acquiring information also to include a power status of a hotel that is equipped with a solar power generation facility, the power status being calculated based on an estimated electric power generated by the solar power generation facility calculated based on an estimated electric power generated by the solar power generation facility.
However, Sugiyama cures the deficiency of limitation [a] and Bae cures the deficiency of limitations [c] and [d].
Specifically, Sugiyama teaches a power management device [“EV information management device 30”] comprising a processor configured to: acquire information indicating a power status of a hotel that is equipped with a solar power generation facility, the power status being calculated based on an estimated [“predicts the amount of power generated by the solar power generation system 12”] electric power generated by the solar power generation facility and using the acquired information to make power control decision using one or more electric vehicles 20 and giving the vehicle owner discounts or other benefits so that user will actively contribute to leveling of power demand (Fig. 1, page 3, pages 5-6);
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Sugiyama and Hishida because they both related to a power management device acquiring information about status of the available power supply and (2) modify the acquired information of Hishida to indicate a power status of a hotel, the power status being calculated based on an estimated electric power generated by the solar power generation facility as in Sugiyama to help equalize the power supply and demand at the power system of Hishida (Sugiyama, page 6). Furthermore, doing so would increase accuracy of estimating of the available power in the system of Hishida before inviting vehicles to come to receive charge at the parking lot 140 of the facility 150.
Hishida in view of Sugiyama still fails to teach the limitations [c1] and [d1] as claimed.
Bae teaches a management device [“the reward providing apparatus 100”] comprising a processor to determine whether the user has checked in [“merchant C is checked in at a location 40KM away from a store “ or “the incentive is reflected in the reward when the advance check-in is performed”, “purchaser makes an advance check-in application to the merchant”] to the hotel [“merchant”] earlier than threshold check-in time and visits a hotel to make a purchase; and in a case where the user has checked in to the hotel [“the larger the difference between the check-in time and the purchase time (the transaction time recorded in the purchase information), the greater the incentive can be provided”] earlier than the threshold check-in time and the visits the hotel, give the user a benefit [“reward providing”] related to the hotel (Pages 6-7).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Bae Hishida in view of Sugiyama because they both related to allowing merchants to offer incentives to the customers to increase profits (power or merchandises) and (2) modify the system of Hishida in view of Sugiyama to consider whether the user has checked into the hotel early or not to as part of issuing parking discounts as suggested by Bae. Furthermore, doing so would motivate more users to visit the facility 150 and also makes checking in of more electric vehicles faster in the facility of Hishida in view of Sugiyama thereby reducing costs as can be clear to PHOSITA. Accordingly, the modified Hishida with Sugiyama and Bae teaches each element of the claim and renders thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 4, HSB teaches the power management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to adjust the benefit based on an amount of power received by the electrified vehicle of the user (Hishida, [049, 052], fig.5; Bae, page 6).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, HSB teaches all elements of the claim 7 for the similar reasons set forth above. Please note that the server 40 of Hishida is mapped as claimed “a power management device”, “charging/discharging facility 20” as claimed EVSE, and the system 100 of Hishida is mapped as claimed “a power management system”.
Regarding claim 8, HSB teaches the power management device according to claim 1, wherein the user of the electrified vehicle is at least one of a user who has used the hotel in the past or a user who is located within a predetermined distance [“if a merchant C is checked in at a location 40KM away from a store”] from the hotel (Bae, page 6).
Regarding claim 10, HSB teaches/suggests the power management device according to claim 1, wherein the threshold check-in time is in a range from 11 AM to 3 PM (Bae, page 7 & Hishida [030]).
Regarding claim 11, HSB teaches/suggests the power management device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether the battery [“the vehicle 30a is provided with a battery 32a.”] of the electrified vehicle has been charged with power supplied by the hotel through the EVSE [item 20, fig. 1] for more than a threshold period of time, and in a case where the battery of the electrified vehicle has been charged with power supplied by the hotel through the EVSE for more than the threshold period of time [to get the discount, the charging at least for some threshold period is required. Otherwise, mere connection for a minutes will not provide any advantages to power network.], give the user the benefit related to the hotel (Hishida fig. 1, [068, 074-077]). Thus, invention of this claim would have been obvious over HSB.
Regarding claim 12, HSB teaches/suggests the power management device according to claim 11, wherein the threshold period of time is 15 minutes [PHOSITA knows that the charging of the vehicles completion in Hishida requires at least 15 minutes. Therefore, selection of the 15 minutes would allow to fully charge the vehicles] (Hishida [0368,074-077]). Thus, the invention of this claim would have been obvious over HSB.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSB as in claim 1, in view of Lee et al. (KR 102047913 B1, Publication Date: 2019-12-02).
Regarding claim 5, HSB further teaches the power management device according to claim 1, wherein giving the benefit includes at least one of the following:
reducing [“usage fee for the parking lot 140 is discounted by connecting”] a usage fee of the hotel; providing of the parking service in discounted rate] for a predetermined service in the hotel ([037]).
HSB fails to teach/suggest giving at least one of a coupon and a point that is able to be used in at least one of the hotel or a store near the hotel.
Lee teaches a power management device [“plant management server 400”] comprising a control unit that gives benefits [“incentive information, and the like”, “providing step of providing the rewards according to the incentive information to the user terminal for supplying power”] to a user when a predetermined condition related to the power control is satisfied by the user (Abstract). Specifically, Lee teaches wherein giving the benefit includes at least one of the following: reducing a usage fee of the hotel; giving at least one of a coupon [“plant management server400 may provide a coin or coupon that can be used in a store”] and a point [“coin”] that is able to be used in at least one of the hotel and a store near the hotel; and providing a predetermined service in the hotel at less than [“a discount rate of a predetermined device from the user terminal 300,”] a normal fee corresponding to the predetermined service (Page 7, page 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Lee and HSB because they both related to a power management device offering incentives for the electric vehicle users to participate in helping to balance power supply demand in a power network by using eV batteries as a power source/load and (2) modify the system of HSB to include missing limitations from Lee. Lee teaches what other additional types of the incentives (discounts, virtual coins etc.) can be offered to the eV users to entice them to actively participate in providing/receive power to/from the power network (Lee, page 3).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSB as in claim 1, in view of Edelen (US 20170004408 A1).
Regarding claim 9, HSB teaches power management device according to claim 1 as set forth above.
HSB fails to teach but Edelen teaches a management device comprising a processor configured to:
confirm with the user whether to select the benefit from a plurality of benefits [“coupons”]; and in a case where the user does not select the benefit from the plurality of benefits, select the benefit [“prediction of an electronic coupon that may be selected and utilized by a user may be made by a personalized predictive model based on historical selection of specific electronic coupons when offered to the user as inputs.”] based on an information indicating a benefit selection of the user in the past ([032]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Edelen and HSB because they both related to using a power management device to offer incentives/benefits to a user and (2) modify the device of HSB to include missing limitation as suggested by Edelen. Doing so would allow to automatically select and provide appropriate coupons to the owners of the vehicles in HSB.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Fujimoto et al. (WO 2017013751 A1) teaches predicting power generation amount for a hotel based on generation amount of the solar panel 10 installed on the hotel’s rooftop (Page 7, page 2).
2) Carrington et al. (US 20150134522 A1) teaches that A hotel may offer early check-in, discounts, meals, free Internet, or other perks to such guests.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Thomas Lee can be reached on 571-272-3667. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115