DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/21/25 wherein:
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are currently pending; and
Claim 4 is cancelled.
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 Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“receives information requesting a service. . . from a terminal device” (claim 1)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification, at [0013] describes a terminal device as “an information processing device equipped with a communication function” and provides examples including a smartphone, a tablet, and a PC.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a device and therefore, falls into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
a server device comprising:
a communication unit; and
a control unit comprising a processor and a memory that stores instructions executed by the processor performing communication through the communication unit, wherein
the processor is configured to
receive, via the communication unit, a request for a service that is to be provided along with power supply to a power-supplied vehicle from a terminal device located within a predetermined range including the power-supplied vehicle, the service including at least one selected from the group consisting of inspection, maintenance, and ride sharing; and
in response to the request, instruct a power supply vehicle that is configured to supply power to the power-supplied vehicle and to provide the service, to move to a location performing the power supply and the service
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a server device comprising a communication unit and a control unit, the control unit comprising a processor and memory, and a terminal device. The server and terminal device (interpreted as computing devices, in accordance with the Specification) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): 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 a computer to perform the claimed steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-8 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1, however none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 states, “instruct the power supply vehicle to move to the boarding position after completing the power supply, and instruct the power supply vehicle to move based on the information” which is repetitive and confusing. It implies that either this step takes place a second time or the second instruction is somehow different from the first one, even though they seem to state the same thing when “the information” is considered. However, when the Specification is reviewed at [0053], this step appears to take place only once, and it does not imply that there is any difference between the first “instruct” step and the second “instruct” step. This appears to be merely a typographical error introduced when the claims were amended. For the purposes of further examination, the claim language will be considered to be referring to the same step. Amendment for clarification is required. Examiner suggests deleting the second “instruct” step.
Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz et al. (US 20220122213), in view of Shah et al. (US 10553119).
Referring to claim 1:
Ortiz discloses a server device comprising: a communication unit; and a control unit comprising a processor and a memory that stores instructions executed by the processor performing communication through the communication unit {Ortiz [0065][0101][0102]; an electric vehicle rescue system 100 as described herein that can be provided via a network of independent providers 230 that can be connected to stranded EV customers 220 using a mobile application accessed by providers and customers alike, and the provider and customer matching and transaction are managed by an RS (Remote Server) 1300 via a data network 1400 [0065]}, wherein
the processor is configured to receive, via the communication unit, a request for a service that is to be provided along with power supply to a power-supplied vehicle from a terminal device [located within a predetermined range including the power-supplied vehicle] {Ortiz [0059] [0065][0127]; an electric vehicle rescue system 100 as described herein that can be provided via a network of independent providers 230 that can be connected to stranded EV customers 220 using a mobile application accessed by providers and customers alike, and the provider and customer matching and transaction are managed by an RS (Remote Server) 1300 via a data network 1400 and matching can be based on physical location (e.g., GPS, or triangulation based on cellular network towers 250) of the independent providers and the stranded customer making a request [0065] where the customer makes a request for service, as in [0127] and Ortiz does not explicitly disclose that the customer must be within a predetermined range, as indicated by the brackets, above (although Ortiz does consider the customer’s location); however, this feature is addressed below}, the service including at least one selected from the group consisting of inspection, maintenance, and ride sharing {Ortiz [0058][0061][0065][0074]; A systems analysis module 130 can also be included in association with the electric vehicle rescue system 100 for testing of the functionality of systems and components of the EV 105 [0058] and the electric vehicle rescue system 100 can include the ability to carry passengers from with the disabled EV 105 as the disabled EV 105 is being transported, charged, and/or analyzed by the rescue vehicle [0061]}; and
in response to the request, instruct a power supply vehicle that is configured to supply power to the power-supplied vehicle and provide the service, to move to a location performing the power supply and the service {Ortiz [0115][0127] [0136]; The selected service provider can accept the request and the rescue vehicle 110 can be dispatched to the location of the requester [0127]}.
Ortiz discloses a system for electric vehicle rescue (abstract). Ortiz does not disclose where the service is requested within a predetermined range including the power-supplied vehicle.
However, Shah discloses a similar system for roadside assistance (abstract). Shah discloses where the service is requested within a predetermined range including the power-supplied vehicle {Shah 16:23-47; the roadside assistance server 201 may communicate with a map service server to determine roadside service companies that are within a threshold distance of the user's or vehicle's location [16:23-47]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Ortiz to incorporate requesting a service within a predetermined range as taught by Shah because this would provide a manner for determining service providers that are able to provide roadside assistance to the requester (Shah 16:23-47), thus aiding the user by providing needed assistance.
Referring to claim 2:
Ortiz, as modified by Shah, discloses wherein the service is the maintenance or the inspection of the power-supplied vehicle that is to be performed during power supply time of the power-supplied vehicle {Ortiz [0058][0129][0140]; a data processing apparatus can be provided that can analyze and test the functionality of systems and components of the electric vehicle [0058]}; and
the processor is configured to receive, from the terminal device, information indicating a power supply time, and determine the power supply vehicle that is able to provide the service during the power supply time based on the received information {Shah 12:28-49 and 13:40-58; A user may enter information . . . The information may include the location of the vehicle [12:28-49] and The roadside assistance system 200 may send a service request to the service provider that is closest by driving time to the user or vehicle making the request. The system may send a service request to multiple service provider devices and may choose the service provider that is able to provide assistance to the vehicle or user at the earliest time. The roadside assistance system 200 may select a service provider based on a combination of distance, driving time, and how early the service provider is able to provide assistance to the vehicle 202 or user [13:40-58] where the power supply time is the time at which power supply should start, specified by the user of the power-supplied vehicle, as stated in the Specification at [0042] and where the user’s location indicates a power supply time, as the user’s location indicates how long it will take for the service provider to reach the disabled vehicle}.
Referring to claim 3:
Ortiz, as modified by Shah, discloses wherein the service is the ride sharing provided to a user {Ortiz [0061]; the electric vehicle rescue system 100 can include the ability to carry passengers from with the disabled EV 105 as the disabled EV 105 is being transported, charged, and/or analyzed by the rescue vehicle. For example, the mobile platform 111 can be integrated or installed onto the back of a heavy duty, four door truck 107 (e.g., crew cab) that can also function as a shuttle for transporting the paying passengers (i.e., the passenger and/or driver of the disabled EV 105) [0061]}; and
the processor is configured to receive, from the terminal device, information indicating a boarding position of the user requesting the ride sharing, and instruct the power supply vehicle to move to the boarding position [after completing the power supply], and instruct the power supply vehicle to move based on the information {Ortiz [0065][0075][0114] [0115]; the server can determine the requester's location and locate service providers near the requester. This determination of the requester's location may be based on geographical location (e.g., GPS signal) associated with the requester's mobile device [0075] and The rescue vehicle 110, which in this scenario may also be an autonomous vehicle with a passenger or passengers, can be dispatched to the location of the disabled vehicle 105 [0115]}.
Ortiz does not disclose where the instruction that the power supply vehicle move to the boarding position is after completing the power supply. However, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)). MPEP 2144.04. Here, the order of completing the power supply and providing the instruction does not provide any new or unexpected results; therefore, the order is prima facie obvious.
Ortiz, as modified by Shah, discloses within the predetermined range {Shah 16:23-47; the roadside assistance server 201 may communicate with a map service server to determine roadside service companies that are within a threshold distance of the user's or vehicle's location [16:23-47]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Ortiz, as modified by Shah, discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate billing information based on the service and power supply provided by the power supply vehicle {Ortiz [0057][0076]; Then, as described at block 350, the service provider can bill the requester (e.g., the user or customer) upon completion of services including one or more of EV charging, EV transportation, and EV analysis [0076]}.
transmit the billing information to the terminal device of the user {Ortiz [0066][0074]-[0076] and Fig. 3; As indicated at block 310, a customer/user can connect to a remote server via a mobile application or “app” to request vehicle rescue services (e.g., roadside assistance) [0074] and Then, as described at block 350, the service provider can bill the requester (e.g., the user or customer) upon completion of services including one or more of EV charging, EV transportation, and EV analysis [0076] where although Ortiz does not explicitly state that that the billing information is transmitted to the terminal device of the user, in [0074]-[0076], Ortiz describes a flow chart of steps for the rescue of the electric vehicle, which commences with, and seems to continue to assume, connection and exchange of information through an app – no other way for communicating the billing information is indicated in [0074]-[0076], and therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continue to communicate with the user through the app}.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz et al. (US 20220122213), in view of Shah et al. (US 10553119), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20210284043).
Referring to claim 6:
Ortiz, as modified by Shah, discloses wherein the server is configured to select, as the power supply vehicle, a candidate whose [(i) remaining battery capacity is at least equal to a required power-supply amount of the power-supplied vehicle, and] (ii) position is within a distance that allows arrival at a power-supply position in a preset time {Shah 13:40-58; The system may send a service request to multiple service provider devices and may choose the service provider that is able to provide assistance to the vehicle or user at the earliest time [13:40-58] where the “earliest time” is the preset time and where Ortiz, as modified by Shah, does not disclose the portion of the claim in brackets and this is addressed below}.
Ortiz, as modified by Shah, discloses a system for electric vehicle rescue (abstract). Ortiz, as modified by Shah, does not disclose wherein the server is configured to select, as the power supply vehicle, a candidate whose (i) remaining battery capacity is at least equal to a required power-supply amount of the power-supplied vehicle.
However, Wang discloses a similar system for on-the-go entity-to-entity charging for battery-powered entities (abstract). Wang discloses wherein the server is configured to select, as the power supply vehicle, a candidate whose (i) remaining battery capacity is at least equal to a required power-supply amount of the power-supplied vehicle {Wang [0117][0139]; cause the apparatus to at least receive current charge level data for a plurality of mobile battery-powered entities, determine, based at least on the current charge level data, one or more mobile battery-powered entities of the plurality of mobile battery-powered entities to be charged, determine, based at least on the current charge level data, one or more other mobile battery-powered entities of the plurality of mobile battery-powered entities to be caused to charge the one or more mobile battery-powered entities [0117]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Ortiz and Shah to incorporate selecting a vehicle with at least the required capacity as taught by Wang because this would provide a manner for governing charging transactions (Wang [0117]), thus aiding the user by providing the needed charge.
Referring to claim 7:
Ortiz, as modified by Shah and Wang, discloses wherein, in a case where a plurality of candidates satisfy the (i) and the (ii), the processor prioritizes the candidates in order of (a) proximity to the power-supply position and (b) remaining battery capacity {Shah 13:40-58; The roadside assistance system 200 may select a service provider based on a combination of distance, driving time, and how early the service provider is able to provide assistance to the vehicle 202 or user [13:40-58] where Shah indicates the selection is based on the vehicle in nearest proximity}.
Referring to claim 8:
Ortiz, as modified by Shah and Wang, discloses wherein the processor is further configured to transmit, to the terminal device, service-provision information that lists service items the candidate power supply vehicle can perform during the power-supply time of the power-supplied vehicle and corresponding fees {Ortiz [0053][0057][0065][0074]-[0076]; Retrieval, transport, charging, and analysis are features that can be offered to disabled vehicles as part of a roadside assistance program [0053] and A customer (e.g., the user of the EV 105) may be charged separately for charging and transportation, depending on the elected service [0057]}.
Response to Arguments
Application Status and Disposition of the Claims
Examiner appreciates Applicant providing support for the amendments.
Priority under 35 USC 119
The priority documents are acknowledged as received.
Specification
The amendments to the Specification are entered.
35 USC 112(f)
Examiner notes that no rejection was given under 35 USC 112(f); the Claim Interpretation portion of the Office Action is for clarity only. However, if Applicant does not want the “terminal device” interpreted under 112(f), Examiner suggests including structure for said device in the claims. The inclusion of structure for the control unit does not affect the 112(f) interpretation of the “terminal device.”
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to “a machine, not an abstract idea.” For all of the reasons above, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations identified above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Claim 1 is not limited to a machine, but includes abstract ideas, such as receiving requests and in response, providing instructions to vehicles to perform a service.
Applicant then argues that the claims “are grounded in specific automative technology” which transforms the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e). Applicant has not provided evidence of any of these considerations. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field.
Applicant then argues that the claims incorporate significantly more than the abstract idea by providing a solution to a technical problem – enabling condition-dependent coordination of power supply and services for vehicles in need. Remarks 6. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged problem is actually a business problem, not a technical problem.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues that Ortiz and Shah do not disclose a server that coordinates both power supply and supplementary services. Remarks 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to concede that Ortiz discloses dispatching a rescue vehicle to supply power, so it appears that Applicant is arguing that the prior art does not disclose the supplementary services coordination. However, Ortiz discloses this at [0058][0061][0065][0074] (see above for further details).
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626