DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 7/29/2026. Claims 1, 3-8 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments- Specification/35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments-35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are directed towards extra-solution activity (data storage, data gathering and data output) and the mental steps of performing calculation and estimation. The claims have been amended to recite controlling to output to a display screen, which is mere data output – see MPEP 2106.05(g). The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments-35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the filed amendments. The rejection has been modified to reflect the amended claim language.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, page 2, line 2 recites the word “for.” which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1, 3-8, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claim 1 claims a device. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
An electric vehicle comparison device comprising:
an electric vehicle information storage device configured to store electric vehicle information about traveling performance of a plurality of electric vehicles with each electric vehicle of the plurality of electric vehicles having a respective vehicle type;
a map information storage unit configured to store map information including road information; and
one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the simulation device to:
perform travel information acquisition to acquire travel information from an internal combustion engine vehicle equipped with an internal combustion engine, the travel information including a travel history of the internal combustion engine vehicle;
perform electric energy calculation on a set of comparison vehicles from the plurality of electric vehicles, each comparison vehicle from the set of comparison vehicles having a different vehicle type, to calculate electric energy required in a case where each comparison vehicle is used for a round trip between a storage location of the internal combustion engine vehicle and a destination based on the travel information, based on the electric vehicle information and the travel information acquired during a predetermined period (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
perform area estimation on each comparison vehicle from the set of comparison vehicles to estimate a charging required area for each comparison vehicle in which the comparison vehicle needs to be charged during the round trip, based on the calculated electric energy, the electric vehicle information, and the map information (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion); and
control an information terminal of a user of the internal combustion engine vehicle to output, to a display screen thereof, the charging required area for each comparison vehicle.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves calculating energy and estimating a charging required area. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “An electric vehicle comparison device” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “an electric vehicle information storage device configured to store” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “a map information storage unit configured to store” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer- executable instructions to cause the simulation device to” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “perform travel information acquisition to acquire travel information from an internal combustion engine vehicle equipped with an internal combustion engine” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.05(g)), “control an information terminal of a user of the internal combustion engine vehicle to output, to a display screen thereof” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea and data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “an electric vehicle information storage device configured to store”, “a map information storage unit configured to store map information”, “perform travel information acquisition to acquire travel information”, “control an information terminal of a user of the internal combustion engine vehicle to output, to a display screen” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting and data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 3-8.
Claims 3-8 further describe concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claims involve calculating energy and estimating a charging required area. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components or insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea and data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that claim elements are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data storing, data collecting and data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional. See above cited court cases.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230160708 A1 (“Sugiyama”) in view of US 20230160708 A1 (“Sugiyama”) further in view of US 20190179980 A1 (“Osgood”).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama teaches:
An electric vehicle comparison device (Sugiyama: para [0010], “FIG. 1 is a view showing an overview of a charging simulation system to which an information processing device according to this disclosure is applied”) comprising:
an electric vehicle information storage device configured to store electric vehicle information about traveling performance of an electric vehicle having a vehicle type (Sugiyama: para [0024], “As a solution, an information processing device according to this disclosure presents a user of an internal combustion engine vehicle …Specifically, in the information processing device according to this disclosure, a control unit acquires an operation history of the internal combustion engine vehicle for the first period. The first period is, for example, one day, one week, or a period specified by the user of the internal combustion engine vehicle. The operation history is data in which driving states of the internal combustion engine vehicle during the first period and positions of the internal combustion engine vehicle during the first period are recorded in chronological order so as to be associated with each other. This data shows an actual operation schedule of the internal combustion engine vehicle during the first period (e.g., a parking start time, parking end time, parking position, travel start time, travel start position, travel”; para [004], “The first BEV used for this simulation may be a BEV of which the size class is the same or similar to that of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10, a BEV of which the price is similar to that of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10, a BEV manufactured by the same manufacturer as the internal combustion engine vehicle 10, or a BEV specified by the user of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10 (e.g., a BEV to which the user is considering switching from the internal combustion engine vehicle 10)”);
a map information storage device configured to store map information including road information (Sugiyama: para [0070], “In the map information database D310, map data of roads and charging stations is registered. As the map data registered in the map information database D310, data in a commonly known form can be used. For example, the map data registered in the map information database D310 may include a plurality of map meshes corresponding to a plurality of areas divided by the latitude and the longitude. Each map mesh may include a road link showing a road passable for an automobile, information for locating the position of each road link on the map (e.g., the latitude and the longitude or the address), and information for locating the position of each charging station on the map (e.g., the latitude and the longitude or the address)”); and
one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory,
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the simulation device (Sugiyama: Fig. 2) to:
perform travel information acquisition to acquire travel information from an internal combustion engine vehicle equipped with an internal combustion engine, the travel information including a travel history of the internal combustion engine vehicle (Sugiyama: para [0006], “acquiring an operation history of an internal combustion engine vehicle for a first period”);
perform electric energy calculation on a electric vehicle, each vehicle having a different vehicle type, to calculate electric energy required in a case where each comparison vehicle is used for a round trip between a storage location of the internal combustion engine vehicle and a destination based on the travel information, based on the electric vehicle information and the travel information acquired during a predetermined period;for (Sugiyama: Fig. 4, “Traveling from storage place to Facility A”, “Traveling from Facility A to storage place”; para [0131], “In step S201, the simulation unit F320 determines a charging time. The charging time here is a recommended charging time in the first charging station determined in step S107. To determine the charging time, the simulation unit F320 first obtains the length of the distance of a section of the travel route determined in the virtual schedule that is the section the first BEV travels after the battery is charged in the first charging station (hereinafter also referred to as a “first length of distance”). The simulation unit F320 obtains the remaining battery charge required for the first BEV to cover the first length of distance (hereinafter also referred to as a “target remaining battery charge”). The target remaining battery charge is calculated based on the power consumption rate of the first BEV and the first length of distance. The simulation unit F320 obtains the battery charging amount per unit time in the first charging station. The battery charging amount per unit time in the first charging station is determined according to the type, the rating, etc. of the charger installed in the first charging station. The simulation unit F320 calculates the charging time based on the target remaining battery charge and the battery charging amount per unit time in the first charging station. For example, the simulation unit F320 calculates the charging time by dividing the target remaining battery charge by the battery charging amount per unit time in the first charging station. The charging time thus obtained corresponds to the “third length of time” according to this disclosure”; ”; para [004], “The first BEV used for this simulation may be a BEV of which the size class is the same or similar to that of the internal combustion engine
vehicle 10, a BEV of which the price is similar to that of the internal combustion engine vehicle
10, a BEV manufactured by the same manufacturer as the internal combustion
engine vehicle 10, or a BEV specified by the user of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10
(e.g., a BEV to which the user is considering switching from the internal combustion
engine vehicle 10)”).
perform area estimation on each vehicle to estimate a charging required area for each comparison vehicle in which the electric comparison vehicle needs to be charged during the round trip, based on the calculated electric energy, the electric vehicle information, and the map information (Sugiyama: para [0031], “The first information according to this disclosure may further include information about a first charging station that is a charging station suitable to charge the battery of the first BEV. In this case, the control unit of the information processing device according to this disclosure may specify a travel route of the first BEV on the assumption that the first BEV is operated according to the first operation schedule. The control unit may specify a point on the specified travel route at which a timing of charging comes. The control unit may determine, as the first charging station, a charging station that is located on the travel route within a predetermined distance from the point at which the timing of charging comes. The predetermined distance here is, for example, a distance that the first BEV can travel with a remaining battery charge equivalent to the aforementioned threshold value. Thus, the user of the internal combustion engine vehicle can predict a charging place of the first BEV in addition to the timing of charging of the first BEV in the case where the user uses the first BEV in the same manner as the internal combustion engine vehicle during the first period”); and
control an information terminal of a user of the internal combustion engine vehicle to output, to a display screen thereof, the charging required area for each comparison vehicle (Sugiyama: para [0026], “The control unit outputs the generated first information through a first terminal. The first terminal is, for example, an on-board terminal installed in the internal combustion engine vehicle or a user terminal used by the user of the internal
combustion engine vehicle. Here, when the information processing device according to this disclosure is a server device on a network, the control unit may transmit, to the first terminal, a command for making the first terminal output the first information. Further, the control unit may have the first information output (displayed) through a Web browser of the first terminal”).
Sugiyama does not teach but Osgood does teach:
a plurality of electric vehicles with each electric vehicle of the plurality of electric vehicles having a respective vehicle type (Osgood: para [0087], “Vehicle parameters may be available for a range of vehicles, for example a range of different electric vehicles”; para [0151], “the system may determine that there are four different types of second vehicle 500 which may suitable for use by the user based on the determined energy consumption profile for the vehicles, the user's routine and lifestyle... The information relating to the vehicles may include the vehicle's price, its maximum range, average charge time, rated power, the time it takes to reach a given speed, the number of passenger seats in the vehicle, the storage volume of the vehicle”);
a set of comparison vehicles from the plurality of electric vehicles, each comparison vehicle from the set of comparison vehicles having a different vehicle type (Osgood: para [0087], “Vehicle parameters may be available for a range of vehicles, for example a range of different electric vehicles”; para [0151], “the system may determine that there are four different types of second vehicle 500 which may suitable for use by the user based on the determined energy consumption profile for the vehicles, the user's routine and lifestyle... The information relating to the vehicles may include the vehicle's price, its maximum range, average charge time, rated power, the time it takes to reach a given speed, the number of passenger seats in the vehicle, the storage volume of the vehicle”),
each comparison vehicle from the set of comparison vehicles (Osgood: para [0087], “Vehicle parameters may be available for a range of vehicles, for example a range of different electric vehicles”; para [0151], “the system may determine that there are four different types of second vehicle 500 which may suitable for use by the user based on the determined energy consumption profile for the vehicles, the user's routine and lifestyle... The information relating to the vehicles may include the vehicle's price, its maximum range, average charge time, rated power, the time it takes to reach a given speed, the number of passenger seats in the vehicle, the storage volume of the vehicle”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Sugiyama (directed to electric energy calculation of electric vehicles) and Osgood (directed to a plurality of differing vehicles) and arrived at energy calculation of electric vehicles of a plurality of differing vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for determining a predicted energy usage of a vehicle based on data relating to journeys taken in another vehicle” (Osgood: para [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Sugiyama and Osgood teach:
The electric vehicle comparison device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire charging equipment information about whether or not charging equipment is installed in the storage location (Sugiyama: para [0029], “The information processing device according to this disclosure may estimate the remaining battery charge taking into account that the battery of the first BEV is charged in a storage place, such as a parking space at the home of the user. In this case, in the information processing device according to this disclosure, the control unit may specify a first length of time for which the first BEV is parked in the storage place on the assumption that the first BEV is operated according to the first operation schedule”); and
in a case where the charging equipment is installed in the storage location, the charging required area is estimated in the area estimation assuming that the electric vehicle is in a fully charged state at time of departure from the storage location (Sugiyama: para [0029], “The information processing device according to this disclosure may estimate the remaining battery charge taking into account that the battery of the first BEV is charged in a storage place, such as a parking space at the home of the user”; para [0031], “The control unit may specify a point on the specified travel route at which a timing of charging comes. The control unit may determine, as the first charging station, a charging station that is located on the travel route within a predetermined distance from the point at which the timing of charging comes. The predetermined distance here is, for example, a distance that the first BEV can travel with a remaining battery charge equivalent to the aforementioned threshold value. Thus, the user of the internal combustion engine vehicle can predict a charging place of the first BEV in addition to the timing of charging of the first BEV in the case where the user uses the first BEV in the same manner as the internal combustion engine vehicle during the first period”).
Regarding claim 4, Sugiyama and Osgood teach:
The electric vehicle comparison device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
acquire charging equipment information about whether or not charging equipment is installed in the storage location (Sugiyama: para [0029], “The information processing device according to this disclosure may estimate the remaining battery charge taking into account that the battery of the first BEV is charged in a storage place, such as a parking space at the home of the user”); and
in a case where the charging equipment is installed in the storage location, the charging required area is estimated in the area estimation assuming that each of the electric vehicles is in a fully charged state at time of departure from the storage location (Sugiyama: para [0031], “The control unit may specify a point on the specified travel route at which a timing of charging
comes. The control unit may determine, as the first charging station, a charging station that is located on the travel route within a predetermined distance from the point at which the timing of charging comes. The predetermined distance here is, for example, a distance that the first BEV can travel with a remaining battery charge equivalent to the aforementioned threshold value. Thus, the user of the internal combustion engine vehicle can predict a charging place of the first BEV in addition to the timing of charging of the first BEV in the case where the user uses the first BEV in the same manner as the internal combustion engine vehicle during the first period” ).
Regarding claim 5, Sugiyama and Osgood teach:
The electric vehicle comparison device according to claim 1, wherein the map information includes, together with the road information, charging facility information including a position of a charging facility in which the electric vehicle is charged during the round trip (Sugiyama: Fig. 11), and the one or more processors are configured to:
estimate the charging required area in the area estimation and determine the position of the charging facility available in the charging required area based on the map information and the travel information acquired during the predetermined period (Sugiyama: Fig. 11; para [0120], “FIG. 11 is a view showing one example of the road map of the first area. In the example shown in FIG. 11, there are two charging stations within the range of the predetermined distance from the first point Pom (Cs7 and Cs8 in FIG. 11). Of these two charging stations Cs7 and Cs8, the charging station Cs7 can be used at no cost and the charging stand Cs8 can be used at cost”; para [0031]); and
cause the information terminal to superimpose and output the position of the charging facility available in the charging required area, on the charging required area (Sugiyama: Fig. 11; para [0120], “In the example shown in FIG. 11, as in the example shown in FIG. 8 described above, the charging station Cs7 determined as the first charging station is located on a route that the first BEV travels before the first point Pom. Therefore, the simulation unit F320 may correct the timing of charging to a time of day when the first BEV travels the position of the charging station Cs7”).
Regarding claim 6, Sugiyama and Osgood teach:
The electric vehicle comparison device according to claim 1, wherein the map information includes, together with the road information, charging facility information including a position of a charging facility in which each of the electric vehicles is charged during the round trip (Sugiyama: Fig. 11), and the one or more processors are configured to:
estimate the charging required area in the area estimation and determine the position of the charging facility available in the charging required area based on the map information and the travel information acquired during the predetermined period (Sugiyama: Fig. 11; para [0120], “In the example shown in FIG. 11, as in the example shown in FIG. 8 described above, the charging station Cs7 determined as the first charging station is located on a route that the first BEV travels before the first point Pom. Therefore, the simulation unit F320 may correct the timing of charging to a time of day when the first BEV travels the position of the charging station Cs7”); and
cause the information terminal to superimpose and output the position of the charging facility available in the charging required area, on the charging required area (Sugiyama: Fig. 11; para [0120], “FIG. 11 is a view showing one example of the road map of the first area. In the example shown in FIG. 11, there are two charging stations within the range of the predetermined distance from the first point Pom (Cs7 and Cs8 in FIG. 11). Of these two
charging stations Cs7 and Cs8, the charging station Cs7 can be used at no cost and the charging
stand Cs8 can be used at cost. When there are such a free charging station Cs7 and a non-free charging station Cs8 within the range of the predetermined distance from the first point Pom, the simulation unit F320 of the server device 300 determines the free charging
station Cs7 as the first charging station. When there is more than one free charging station within the range of the predetermined distance from the first point Pom, a charging station among these charging stations that is closest from the first point Pom may be determined as the first charging station. When all the charging stations located within the range of the predetermined distance from the first point Pom are non-free charging stations, a charging
station among these charging stations that is closest from the first point Pom may be determined as the first charging station. In the example shown in FIG. 11, as in the example shown in FIG. 8 described above, the charging station Cs7 determined as the first charging
station is located on a route that the first BEV travels before the first point Pom. Therefore, the simulation unit F320 may correct the timing of charging to a time of day when the first BEV travels the position of the charging station Cs7.\”).
Regarding claim 7, Sugiyama and Osgood teach:
The electric vehicle comparison device according to claim 3, wherein the map information includes, together with the road information, charging facility information including a position of a charging facility in which the electric vehicle is charged during the round trip (Sugiyama: Fig. 11), and the one or more processors are configured to:
estimate the charging required area in the area estimation and determine the position of the charging facility available in the charging required area based on the map information and the travel information acquired during the predetermined period (Sugiyama: Fig. 11, “Determined as first charging station”; para [0120], “FIG. 11 is a view showing one example of the road map of the first area. In the example shown in FIG. 11, there are two charging stations within the range of the predetermined distance from the first point Pom (Cs7 and Cs8 in FIG. 11). Of these two charging stations Cs7 and Cs8, the charging station Cs7 can be used at no cost and the charging stand Cs8 can be used at cost”); and
cause the information terminal to superimpose and output the position of the charging facility available in the charging required area, on the charging required area (Sugiyama: Fig. 11, “Determined as first charging station”; para [0120], “FIG. 11 is a view showing one example of the road map of the first area. In the example shown in FIG. 11, there are two charging
stations within the range of the predetermined distance from the first point Pom (Cs7 and Cs8 in FIG. 11). Of these two charging stations Cs7 and Cs8, the charging station Cs7 can be used at no cost and the charging stand Cs8 can be used at cost” ).
Regarding claim 8, Sugiyama and Osgood teach:
The electric vehicle comparison device according to claim 4, wherein the map information includes, together with the road information, charging facility information including a position of a charging facility in which each of the electric vehicles is charged during the round trip (Sugiyama: Fig. 11), and the one or more processors are configured to:
estimate the charging required area in the area estimation and determine the position of the charging facility available in the charging required area based on the map information and the travel information acquired during the predetermined period (Sugiyama: Fig. 11, “Determined as first charging station”; para [0120], “FIG. 11 is a view showing one example of the road map of the first area. In the example shown in FIG. 11, there are two charging
stations within the range of the predetermined distance from the first point Pom (Cs7 and Cs8 in FIG. 11). Of these two charging stations Cs7 and Cs8, the charging station Cs7 can be used at no cost and the charging stand Cs8 can be used at cost” ); and
cause the information terminal to superimpose and output the position of the charging facility available in the charging required area, on the charging required area (Sugiyama: Fig. 11).
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 NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
