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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/18/2023 and 9/19/2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1, 6-9, 11 and 16-19 in the reply filed on August 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all species are directed to the same inventive concept of determining whether to sell the electricity of a vehicle and the amount of electricity available to be sold for V2G electricity trading. This is not found persuasive because the claims recite selling of electricity based on three independent factors “vehicle environment”, “driving condition” and “sales feasibility”. Each parameter requires a separate search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 6-9, 11 and 16-19 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “obtaining information for selling electricity, the information including an electricity unit cost by time; determining whether to sell electricity of a vehicle and an amount of electricity available to be sold based on the information for selling the electricity of the vehicle; and transmitting the electricity from the vehicle to a grid based on a result of whether to sell the electricity of the vehicle and the amount of the electricity available to be sold.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental steps (human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. For example, “obtaining”, “determining”, and “transmitting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually determine the amount of vehicle charge to be sold and transmitting the charge to the grid.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “server” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1 and 11 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 6-9 and 16-19, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 6-9 define how the electricity from a vehicle is sold which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 16-19 (server) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are optional. Claims 7 and 17 has 4 optional steps (“whether to sell the electricity is determined, and the profit when selling the electricity is determined based on at least one of the battery discharging efficiency, the battery charging efficiency, solar power generation efficiency, the amount of the electricity available to be sold, or a combination thereof.”), however, claims 8-9 and 18-19 define each one of the steps which makes those claims optional. Applicant is required to either cancel the claims or rewrite them in proper form, since it is unclear which option the applicant is trying to consider.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishiyama et al. referred herein as Nishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0291697).
As to claims 1 and 11, Nishi teaches a method and a system comprising:
obtaining information for selling electricity, the information including an electricity unit cost by time; (para 86-87)
determining whether to sell electricity of a vehicle and an amount of electricity available to be sold based on the information for selling the electricity of the vehicle; (para 55 and 68)
transmitting the electricity from the vehicle to a grid based on a result of whether to sell the electricity of the vehicle and the amount of the electricity available to be sold. (para 96-97)
As to claims 6 and 16, Nishi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Nishi further teaches:
wherein the determining of whether to sell the electricity of the vehicle and the amount of the electricity available to be sold further includes determining whether to sell the electricity based on sales feasibility parameters, and wherein the sales feasibility parameters includes at least one of battery discharging efficiency, battery charging efficiency, discharging efficiency by solar power generation, or a combination thereof. (para 39 and 66)
As to claims 7-9 and 17-19, Nishi teaches all the limitations of claims 6 and 16 as discussed above.
Nishi further teaches:
wherein, in the determining of whether to sell the electricity of the vehicle and the amount of the electricity available to be sold, a profit when selling the electricity is determined based on the sales feasibility parameters, and based on a result of determining the profit, whether to sell the electricity is determined, and the profit when selling the electricity is determined based on at least one of the battery discharging efficiency, the battery charging efficiency, solar power generation efficiency, the amount of the electricity available to be sold, or a combination thereof. (para 66-67)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights