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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 06/28/2023. Claims 1-22 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2023 and 08/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 1-9,11-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-9,11-20, and 22 is/are directed to a method and a device for scheduling charging. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“collecting a plurality of charging records”
“extracting a plurality of charging time data of the charging records of which charging duration is within a predetermined time range from the charging records that are collected” and
“analyzing the charging time data by using a way of weight point to obtain a suggestion charging period”
Claim 12 recites:
“A device for scheduling charging, comprising: a memory, storing a module group; and a processor, coupled to the memory, and loading and executing the module group stored in the memory for:
“collecting a plurality of charging records”
“extracting a plurality of charging time data of the charging records of which charging duration is within a predetermined time range from the charging records that are collected”
“analyzing the charging time data by using a way of weight point to obtain a suggestion charging period”.
In regards to claim 1, the limitations of claim 1, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and the manipulation/organizing of data.
In regards to claim 12, the limitations of claim 12, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and manipulation/organizing of data but with the use of general processor.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and organizing data, but with the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “memory, storing a module group; and a processor, coupled to the memory,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and the manipulation/organizing of data.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional element “a memory, storing a module group; and a processor, coupled to the memory, and loading and executing the module group stored in the memory.
. The a memory, storing a module group; the processor, and loading and executing the module group stored in the memory in the above steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a controller to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a controller. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a controller cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For these reasons, claims 2-9,11,13-20, and 22 which are dependent upon claims 1 and 12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
To overcome the 101 rejection, Examiner recommends amending the limitations of claims 10 and 21 into claims 1 and 12 respectively.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2,10, 12-13, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 12 recites “analyzing the charging time data” which lack antecedence basis.
Examiner will examine/interpret as “analyzing the plurality charging time data“ .
Claims 2 and 13 recites “time of a day comprises a plurality of on-the-hour time points” which lack antecedence basis. Examiner will examine/interpret as “a time of a day comprising a plurality of on-the-hour time points”.
Claims 10 and 21 recites “a second predetermined time of the suggestion end charging hour” which lacks antecedent basis. Examiner will interpret as “a first predetermined time of the suggestion end charging hour”.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (b), 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 2-11 and 13-22 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 2,3,7,11,13,14,18, and 22 which recites “at which the first on-the-hour point is the highest” and at “which the second on-the-hour point is the highest” which is unclear and lack antecedent basis.
The claims does not specify what measure of unit is “the highest”. Is it the highest time? Or a highest score of a way of weight point? Or a highest priority? Examiner will interpret as “a highest priority”.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 recites “a first on-the-hour point of the on-the-hour time point corresponding to the start charging hour of each of the charging time data according to the charging date and the start charging hour of each of the charging time data” which is unclear. Claim language “according to the charging date and the start charging hour of each of the charging time data” appears redundant.
Claims 3-11 and 14-22 is/are included in this rejection due to their dependence on claims 2 and 13.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakata (US 20220383432).
As to claim 1, Sakata discloses a method for scheduling charging (Fig. 11, and [0128]-[0131]) comprising: collecting a plurality of charging records (Fig. 11 a [0128]-[0131] plurality of sets of charging timings. Generator 122c determines whether there are a plurality of sets of charging timings (S61)); extracting a plurality of charging time data of the charging records of which charging duration is within a predetermined time range from the charging records that are collected (calculates the degree to which each of the plurality of sets reduces the peak demand (S62). The charging timing indicates a timing for charging the storage battery of vehicle 110. [0047]). As such the charging timings are extracted for the calculation); and analyzing the charging time data by using a way of weight point to obtain a suggestion charging period ([0131] .. server device 120 determines the order of priority of the charging timings .. to be recommended to user).
As to claim 12, Sakata discloses a device for scheduling charging (Fig. 4 and 11 server device 120, [0128]-[0131]) comprising: a memory ([0162]-[0163] memory, RAM and ROM), storing a module group (The ROM stores a computer program) ; and a processor coupled to the memory ([0162]-[0163] processor), and loading and executing the module group stored in the memory ([0162]-[0163] The microprocessor operates in accordance with the computer program) for: collecting a plurality of charging records (Fig. 11 a [0128]-[0131] plurality of sets of charging timings. Generator 122c determines whether there are a plurality of sets of charging timings (S61); extracting a plurality of charging time data of the charging records of which charging duration is within a predetermined time range from the charging records that are collected (calculates the degree to which each of the plurality of sets reduces the peak demand (S62). The charging timing indicates a timing for charging the storage battery of vehicle 110 [0047]). As such the charging timings are extracted for the calculation); and analyzing the charging time data by using a way of weight point to obtain a suggestion charging period ([0131] .. server device 120 determines the order of priority of the charging timings .. to be recommended to user).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 13-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the claim objections, 101 and 112 rejections above..
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 2, Although the prior art discloses a method for scheduling charging, comprising: collecting a plurality of charging records; extracting a plurality of charging time data of the charging records of which charging duration is within a predetermined time range from the charging records that are collected; and analyzing the charging time data by using a way of weight point to obtain a suggestion charging period, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“wherein the suggestion charging period comprises a suggestion start charging hour and a suggestion end charging hour, each of the charging time data comprises a charging date, a start charging hour and an end charging hour, time of a day comprises a plurality of on-the-hour time points, and analyzing the charging time data by using the way of weight point to obtain the suggestion charging period comprises: accumulating, by using the way of weight point, a first on-the-hour point of the on-the-hour time point corresponding to the start charging hour of each of the charging time data according to the charging date and the start charging hour of each of the charging time data; taking the on-the-hour time point at which the first on-the-hour point is the highest as the suggestion start charging hour; accumulating, by using the way of weight point, a second on-the-hour point of the on-the-hour time point corresponding to the end charging hour of each of the charging time data according to the charging date, the start charging hour and the end charging hour of each of the charging time data; and taking the on-the-hour time point at which the second on-the-hour point is the highest as the suggestion end charging hour.”
Regarding dependent claim 13, Although the prior art discloses a device for scheduling charging, comprising: a memory, storing a module group; and a processor, coupled to the memory, and loading and executing the module group stored in the memory for: collecting a plurality of charging records; extracting a plurality of charging time data of the charging records of which charging duration is within a predetermined time range from the charging records that are collected; and analyzing the charging time data by using a way of weight point to obtain a suggestion charging period, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“wherein the suggestion charging period comprises a suggestion start charging hour and a suggestion end charging hour, each of the charging time data comprises a charging date, a start charging hour and an end charging hour, and time of a day comprises a plurality of on-the-hour time points, the processor accumulates, by using the way of weight point, a first on-the-hour point of the on-the-hour time point corresponding to the start charging hour of each of the charging time data according to the charging date and the start charging hour of each of the charging time data, the processor takes the on-the-hour time point at which the first on-the-hour point is the highest as the suggestion start charging hour, the processor accumulates, by using the way of weight point, a second on-the-hour point of the on-the-hour time point corresponding to the end charging hour of each of the charging time data according to the charging date, the start charging hour and the end charging hour of each of the charging time data, the processor takes the on-the-hour time point at which the second on-the-hour point is the highest as the suggestion end charging hour.”
As to claims 3-11 and 14-22, is also objected to as they include the allowable subject matter in claims 2 and 13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion and Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakata et al (US 20220383432) is cited for having recommendation information including information indicating the order of priority of the plurality of sets of charging timings ([0152]).
BACARELLA et al (US 20180115170) is cited for having the power service generating a separate recommended charging time for each of the battery enabled devices at the power sources according to each separate priority level and the predicted usage.
HAO et al (CN 120725315) is cited for having historical charging data of the vehicle includes: the battery power, the endurance mileage, the charging speed, the charging time length, the charging station information and the charging solution is actively recommended for the user so as to improve the charging efficiency in the long-term use process of the vehicle and realize the optimization of the charging time,. However HAO is published after the effective filing date.
IWAMA (US 20250115154) is cited for having ECU 150 uses the charging time indicated by the charging history information and the vehicle activation time indicated by the use history information to determine the recommended charging start time (first charging start timing) of power storage device. However IWAMA is filed after the effective filing date.
Wang (US 20140035514) is cited for having [0018] Step 11, recording a respective time that previous trickle charging of a device battery was carried out by a user. The battery management program allows the user to select the charging voltage and charging time for the trickle charging within recommended voltage and charging time ranges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESE V MCDANIEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6579. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9am to 530pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYNESE V MCDANIEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights