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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on October 13, 2025, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C § 112(b): Applicant’s amendments to the specification in reference to terminology in claims 1-5 have rendered those claims not indefinite, thus rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) for those claims is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the two-stage stochastic programming-based vehicle-to-grid (V2G) scheduling method controls the charging and discharging of the in-agreement EVs constitutes a practical application, after accounting for the out-of-agreement EVs. Specification [0032] acknowledges that out of agreement EVs are not controlled by the scheduling center.
The Examiner notes that the specification summarizes the invention as a “V2G
scheduling method for operator revenue maximization,” [0006], and “this model effectively
enhances the V2G scheduling process by specifying and quantifying expected revenue of a V2G
scheduling system, comprehensively optimizing operating states of in-agreement EVs involved
in V2G scheduling…” [0014]. The Examiner did not find in the method a description of
controlling any aspect of the charging operation, but rather providing schedule recommendations to an operator. “The V2G operator is the revenue subject of the model and is responsible for managing charging and discharging of in-agreement EVs,” [0004]. A later statement that “A significant proportion of the total time period is dedicated to the scheduling of a cluster of EVs, approaching nearly 100%, which proves that the scheduling model effectively controls the charging and discharging states of the in-agreement EVs and satisfy the objective of maximizing the service revenue of the scheduling center,” [0073]. The Examiner notes that the specification does describe “control” at any point, and concludes that the scheduling model optimizes the scheduling of the timing of the charging and discharging states, and provides this schedule to the operator to manage (and likely control) the operation by his current means. The specification correctly summarizes, “A two-stage stochastic programming-based V2G scheduling method is provided…”, [0008]. Thus, optimal scheduling is provided by the invention, but the application of the knowledge is applied by the operator.
The Examiner finds the arguments for a practical application not compelling and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Amendment to
the Specification provided on October 13, 2025 included a replacement paragraph for the original specification. That amendment states “Please replace paragraph [0086] with the following amended paragraph:” The Examiner notes that the last paragraph in the specification is numbered [0077]. It is not clear which existing paragraph is requested for replacement.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-5 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-5 are directed to a process (method), which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-5 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of scheduling an energy system of electric vehicles, charging and discharging stations, and a power grid.
Claim 1: A two-stage stochastic vehicle-to-grid (V2G) scheduling method, which is used for an energy system, the method comprising:
obtaining a day-ahead parameter set of EVs within an operator's service area, issuing scheduling invitation agreements to EVs within the service area, and classifying EVs accepting the scheduling invitation agreements as in-agreement EVs and EVs not responding to or refusing the scheduling invitation agreements as out-of-agreement EVs; (economic principles and practices calculating costs, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
establishing a random scenario set based on the day-ahead parameter set of EVs within the service area, conditions of the in-agreement EV s and the out-of-agreement EVs, wherein when a predetermined random charging demand for the out-of-agreement EVs is met, optimal charging and discharging scheduling of the in-agreement EVs is performed; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mathematical concepts, formulas or equations)
in consideration of random factors being independent of one another, establishing a final random scenario combining a V2G scheduling resource and renewable energy power generation, and establishing a V2G two-stage nonlinear stochastic programming model based on the final random scenario; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
controlling charging and discharging of the in-agreement EV s based on the V2G two-stage nonlinear stochastic programming model, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations define a random scenario set including V2G scheduling, comprising a random scenario of an initial state of charge (SOC) using a log-normal distribution model, a V2G service station resource using a homogeneous Poisson model and a scenario of load uncertainty on a power supply side or demand side, (mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations; following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation judgement, opinion – claim 2), a random scenario of wind power generation using Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) according to a Weibull distribution model and a fitting model, and photovoltaic power generation using historical data and random sampling, (mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations; following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation judgement, opinion – claim 3), combining four random scenarios to calculate a probability of a scenario combination, (mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations; following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation judgement, opinion – claim 4) and a V2G two-stage nonlinear stochastic model with an objective function to maximize total revenue of the V2G operator, and a series of constraints to bound the problem using a series of formulas and calculations. Constraints include, charging and discharge exclusion, constraints on charging constraint of EVs, discharging constraints on EVs, the maximum number of charging and discharging switching times for EVs, initial state constraints of EVs during grid connection, constraints on a maximum number of in-service vehicles at V2G nodes, charging and discharging capacity constraints of EVs, SOC constraints of EVs, power balance constraint of EVs, constraints on charging and discharging climbing of EVs, maximum V2G service capacity constraints at nodes, constraints on power balance of network nodes, and conversion of non-linear terms in order to improve model solution quality and computational speed, (mathematical concepts, formulas, or equations; following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation judgement, opinion – claim 5).
Each of these claimed limitations employ: organizing human activity in the form of fundamental economic principles and practices based on mitigating risk and calculating costs, following rules or instructions, performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion; and applying mathematical concepts using mathematical formulas, equations, or calculations.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-5 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-5 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a programming-based model, electronic vehicles (EVs), electric vehicle charging and discharging stations, and a power grid, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-5 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights