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 .
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 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to an Abstract Idea.
Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to acquiring manager information, and applicant-for-use information, determining whether a predetermined permission for use condition is established based on acquired information, and transmitting permission for use information to a user terminal when the condition is established.
These limitations collectively describe evaluating information and making a permission determination based on predefined criteria, which constitutes a mental process, as such steps can be performed by a human using mental judgment or with a pen and paper.
Additionally, the claimed subject matter is directed to organizing human activity, specifically the management and authorization of access to a privately owned charge facility, which is a fundamental activity relating to the administration of access rights between individuals.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
Claims 2 – 7 depend from claim 1 and merely further limit the abstract idea by specifying the type of information evaluated or the criteria used in the permission determination, and therefore also recite the same judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not recite any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 further recites a user terminal database, and various “sections” configured to acquire information, determine whether a permission-for-use condition is established, and transmit permission information. However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely function as generic computing components used to collect, compare and communicate information.
The claim does not recite any improvement to the functioning of a computer, network, or charging infrastructure, nor does it implement the Abstract Idea in a manner that effects a particular transformation of an article. The claim also does not recite any specific technical means, data structures, or algorithms for performing the recited functions, nor does it control or optimize the operation of the private charge facility itself.
Instead, the claim merely automates the abstract permission-granting decision using conventional computer components as tools. Limiting the Abstract Idea to the context of a private charge facility or electric vehicle charging environment does not amount to a Practical Application as such a limitation represents intended use.
Claims 2 – 6 further specify the criteria used to determine whether the permission-for-use condition is established (e.g. matching providers, identification information, attributes, geography proximity, or facility availability), but these limitations likewise do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they merely recited additional abstract decision-making rules without imposing any technical improvement.
Claim 7 recites the same Abstract steps in method from and likewise fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite multiple “sections” including but not limited to:
a manager information acquiring section;
an applicant-for-use information acquiring section;
a permission-for-charge-facility-use determining section; and
a charger facility usage situation recognizing section.
The term, “section” is a generic, non-specific term that does not denote a specific
structure and is used to describe a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.
However, the claims fail to recite and the specification fails to clearly link or associate, corresponding structure circuitry, or algorithms for performing the recited functions of these “sections.” In particular, the claims do not specify:
how the information is acquired,
how the permission-for-use condition is evaluated,
how usage situations are recognized, or
how decisions are implemented beyond functional results.
As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of
claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Therefore, claims 1 – 7 are indefinite under 35 USC §112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 –3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amano (US 20190355071).
Regarding claim 1, Amano teaches a charge support system (figure 1 item 1 defined in paragraph [0023] as an information processing system) comprising:
a manager information acquiring section that accesses a manager database that stores manager information as information regarding a manager of a private charge facility to acquire the manager information ([0024] discloses wherein the charge facility is private, such as a store, a house, company or other facility and the managers are registered (in a database) in advance. Figure 1 items 16 and 18 and paragraph [0027] disclose manager terminals 16 and management servers 18 which are used by managers. Paragraph [0029] discloses wherein the management server accesses a manager database (a data center) and processes information received and authorizes users);
an applicant-for-use information acquiring section that accesses a user database that stores applicant-for- use information as information regarding an applicant for use who wants to use the private charge facility to acquire the applicant-for-use information (figure 1 item 14 and paragraphs [0030]-[0031] discloses an applicant-for-use information, interpreted as a “use request for an electric outlet.” The use request includes information specified by the applicant or user and information for identifying the user. This information is stored for the users that request to use the private charging facility); and
a permission-for-charge-facility-use determining section that determines whether or not a predetermined permission-for-use condition is established between the applicant for use and the manager based on the applicant- for-use information and the manager information upon receipt of application-for-charge-facility-use information from a user terminal used by the applicant for use, the application-for-charge-facility-use information being for applying for use of the private charge facility, and that transmits permission-for-use information to the user terminal when the permission-for- use condition is established, the permission-for-use information being for making notification of permission for use of the private charge facility (paragraphs [0032]-[0033] discloses wherein the a permission for charge is determined by the management server transmitting an unlocking request, unlocking the electric outlet, thus granting permission to the user).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 shows a charge support system, an information processing system item 1 for authorizing charge at a private charging facility.
Regarding claim 2, Amano teaches the charge support system according to claim 1,
wherein the applicant-for-use information includes information of a provider of a first electric device that the applicant for use wants to charge with the private charge facility (paragraph [0030] – [0031] discloses wherein the applicant-for use information, interpreted as a user terminal 14 includes information identifying the user and a request to use the charging facility),
the manager information includes information of a provider of the private charge facility or a second electric device that is used by the manager (paragraph [0024] discloses wherein information of the manager is registered. Paragraph [0009] discloses wherein information, including contract information is included), and
the permission-for-use condition to the effect that the provider of the first electric device and the provider of the private charge facility or the second electric device are identical is set (paragraph [0028] discloses wherein the manager sets the conditions for permission for charging which are identical to the contract of the private charge facility).
Regarding claim 3, Amano teaches the charge support system according to claim 1, wherein the applicant-for-use information includes identification information of the applicant for use (paragraph [0030] – [0031] discloses wherein the applicant-for use information, interpreted as a user terminal 14 includes information identifying the user and a request to use the charging facility), the manager information includes identification information of a subject person that the manager has previously permitted to use the private charge facility and the permission-for-use condition to the effect that the identification information of the applicant for use coincides with the identification information of the subject person that the manager has previously permitted to use the private charge facility is set (defined in paragraph [0041] wherein users are previously permitted or authorized to use the private charge facility. Paragraph [0046] discloses wherein information is stored, such as identifying information and charging information is stored, thus a previous user may be determined as an authorized user).
Regarding claim 7, Amano teaches a charge support method executed by a computer (figure 1 item 1 defined in paragraph [0023] as an information processing system),
the method comprising: a manager information acquiring step of accessing a manager database that stores manager information as information regarding a manager of a private charge facility to acquire the manager information ([0024] discloses wherein the charge facility is private, such as a store, a house, company or other facility and the managers are registered (in a database) in advance. Figure 1 items 16 and 18 and paragraph [0027] disclose manager terminals 16 and management servers 18 which are used by managers. Paragraph [0029] discloses wherein the management server accesses a manager database (a data center) and processes information received and authorizes users);
an applicant-for-use information acquiring step of accessing a user database that stores applicant-for-use information as information regarding an applicant for use who wants to use the private charge facility to acquire the applicant-for-use information (figure 1 item 14 and paragraphs [0030]-[0031] discloses an applicant-for-use information, interpreted as a “use request for an electric outlet.” The use request includes information specified by the applicant or user and information for identifying the user. This information is stored for the users that request to use the private charging facility); and
a permission-for-charge-facility-use determining step of determining whether or not a predetermined permission-for-use condition is established between the applicant for use and the manager based on the applicant- for-use information and the manager information upon receipt of application-for-charge-facility-use information from a user terminal used by the applicant for use, the application-for-charge-facility-use information being for applying for use of the private charge facility, and of transmitting permission-for-use information to the user terminal when the permission-for- use condition is established, the permission-for-use information being for making notification of permission for use of the private charge facility (paragraphs [0032]-[0033] discloses wherein the a permission for charge is determined by the management server transmitting an unlocking request, unlocking the electric outlet, thus granting permission to the user).
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.
1. Claims 4 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano (US 20190355071) in view of Failing (US 20110302078).
Regarding claim 4, Amano teaches the charge support system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the applicant-for-use information includes an attribute of the applicant for use, the manager information includes an attribute of the manager, and the permission-for-use condition to the effect that at least one element is common to the attribute of the applicant for use and the attribute of the manager is set.
Failing teaches wherein the applicant-for-use information includes an attribute of the applicant for use, the manager information includes an attribute of the manager, and the permission-for-use condition to the effect that at least one element is common to the attribute of the applicant for use and the attribute of the manager is set (defined in paragraphs [0136] and [0138] wherein information may be collected about the an applicant (a user), manager (owner) of the charging station with attributes related to the applicant and manager stored in a database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Amano reference with the charging system of the Failing reference so that vehicle charging is more efficient and convenient for the user.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Failing reference in paragraph [0004] wherein charging is more efficient and convenient for the user.
PNG
media_image2.png
741
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Failing figure 6 shows various databases to store various information about the applicant and manager to permit charging
Regarding claim 5, Amano teaches the charge support system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the application-for-charge-facility-use information includes information of a place where the applicant for use is positioned, the manager information includes information of a place where the private charge facility is installed, and the permission-for-charge-facility-use determining section determines whether or not the permission-for-use condition is established with the private charge facility that is installed at a place within a predetermined distance from the place where the applicant for use is positioned being as a target.
Failing teaches wherein the application-for-charge-facility-use information includes information of a place where the applicant for use is positioned, the manager information includes information of a place where the private charge facility is installed, and the permission-for-charge-facility-use determining section determines whether or not the permission-for-use condition is established with the private charge facility that is installed at a place within a predetermined distance from the place where the applicant for use is positioned being as a target (defined in paragraphs [0129] and [0345] wherein the position of the applicant (user) and vehicle is determined so that permission to charge is established).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Amano reference with the charging system of the Failing reference so that vehicle charging is more efficient and convenient for the user.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Failing reference in paragraph [0004] wherein charging is more efficient and convenient for the user.
Regarding claim 6, Amano teaches the charge support system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the private charge facility is a facility for charging an electric vehicle, the system comprising a charge facility usage situation recognizing section that recognizes a usage situation of the private charge facility, wherein when the permission-for-use condition is established and the charge facility usage situation recognizing section recognizes that there is a vacant parking space for using the private charge facility, the permission- for-charge-facility-use determining section transmits the permission-for-use information to the user terminal.
Failing teaches wherein the private charge facility is a facility for charging an electric vehicle, the system comprising a charge facility usage situation recognizing section that recognizes a usage situation of the private charge facility, wherein when the permission-for-use condition is established and the charge facility usage situation recognizing section recognizes that there is a vacant parking space for using the private charge facility, the permission- for-charge-facility-use determining section transmits the permission-for-use information to the user terminal (paragraph [0258] discloses recognizing systems within the charging facility to indicate charging usage. Paragraph [0150] discloses wherein the usage situation, or availability of charge facility is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Amano reference with the charging system of the Failing reference so that vehicle charging is more efficient and convenient for the user.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Failing reference in paragraph [0004] wherein charging is more efficient and convenient for the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Us 20200130643 A1 Method For A Two-Stage Authorization Bode; Sebastian
Us 20220194250 A1 Server And Power Management Method Hamada; Shigetaka Et Al.
Us 20190315246 A1 Electric Vehicle Wireless Charging Method Li; Yingtao Et Al.
Us 20020049829 A1 Data Distribution System Miyawaki, Hiroshi
Us 20160039296 A1 Charging And Discharging Nakamura; Kenta Et Al.
Us 20190308517 A1 Center Server Nishida; Junichi
Us 20200193460 A1 Vehicle Information Management Obara; Ryohei Et Al.
Us 20150306968 A1 Electric Power Management Ohira; Yuki Et Al.
Us 20200406771 A1 Energy Display System Okumura; Akira
Us 20200384878 A1 Management Apparatus Pontefract; Thomas Stephen Et Al.
Us 20180012433 A1 Vehicle Identification Or Authentication Ricci; Christopher P.
Us 20240116393 A1 Battery Management Saito; Ryota Et Al.
Us 20210300191 A1 Contactless Charging System Sakakibara; Naoya
Us 20230114510 A1 Shopping Service Mediation System Sasaki; Kiyoto Et Al.
Us 20140247121 A1 Electric-Powered Vehicle Satake; Toshihide Et Al.
Us 20180345810 A1 Secure Charging Method Shuaib; Khaled Et Al.
Us 20210380003 A1 Wireless Electric Vehicle Charging Spiro; Daniel S.
Us 20190184836 A1 Charge Profile For An Electric Vehicle Smith; Alexander J.
Us 20220063435 A1 Charging Station Unagami; Yuji Et Al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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, 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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859