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 is a Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 18/434,999.
Claims 1-20 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 have been examined and fully considered, and are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments/Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 2/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) of pending application.
I. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Regarding claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and persuasive. The claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 112 has been withdrawn. However, new 35 USC § 112 issues has been raised.
II. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Per remarks, Applicant states that “claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Applicant has amended the claims to previous claim set. Per remarks, Applicant states “Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 step (c): "output, via the station controller, a congestion-mitigation control signal ...," which describes practical control; claim 2 step (b): "in step (b), by the processors ...," which describes actor/step alignment. In addition, claim 9/10 and 19/20 is amended to recite modeling "selected from the group consisting of ..." which describes a closed group.
Claim 1 is amended to integrate any alleged exception into a practical application by positively reciting control outputs that change real-world station operations. Specifically, the non- limiting embodiment of claim 1 outputs, via the station controller, a congestion-mitigation control signal to the station management server; and the non-limiting embodiment of claim 11 transmits, via a station controller, a congestion-mitigation control or redirection instruction.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the step directed to step
“outputs, via the station controller, a congestion-mitigation control signal to the station management server” is determined to be an additional element, which merely amounts to post-solution activity. The amendment is not claiming the use the generic components sever, processor where “outputting…a congestion-mitigation control signal to the station management server” utilized for implementing said abstract idea (i.e. does not improve the computing technology or the transportation technology, e.g., the operation of automobile, etc.) , at best the data is being “displayed”, however, this does not represent an integration of said abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35 USC § 101 rejection of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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(s) 1, and 11 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
For the claim feature "a network interface", where there is no clear structure in the specification referring this specifically. After review of the specification, there is no clear distinction in the specification detailing what is "a network interface" are referred to as, therefore making the claim indefinite.
For the claim feature "a charging-station management server", where there is no clear structure in the specification referring this specifically. After review of the specification, there is no clear distinction in the specification detailing what is "a charging-station management server" are referred to as, therefore making the claim indefinite.
For the claim feature "reservation database", where there is no clear structure in the specification referring this specifically. After review of the specification, there is no clear distinction in the specification detailing what is "reservation database" are referred to as, therefore making the claim indefinite.
For the claim feature " a station controller", where there is no clear structure in the specification referring this specifically. After review of the specification, there is no clear distinction in the specification detailing what is " a station controller " are referred to as, therefore making the claim indefinite.
All dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to their dependency of the rejected claim(s) 1 and 11.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a system (machine or manufacture), and a method (process), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those indicated in bold below:
A computer-implemented system for predicting the level of congestion at a charging station, the system comprising:
one or more processors; a memory storing instructions; a network interface configured to communicate with a charging-station management server and chargers; and a station controller coupled to a queue and reservation database;
wherein execution of the instructions by the one or more processors causes the system to:
(a) collect, via the network interface, information on the number of vehicles waiting at a charging station for charging during a predetermined period of time and ;
(b) calculate, by the processors, the variance in the number of vehicles waiting at a prediction time based on the number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time at which the predicted value is calculated and that at a predetermined past time; and
(c) correct, by the processors, the predicted value by giving a weight to each of the predicted value and the actual number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time based on the variance in the number of waiting vehicles calculated in (b), and output, via the station controller, a congestion-mitigation control signal to the charging- station management server.
Claim 11 recite abstract limitations analogous to those identified above with respect to claim 1.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, other than reciting “ a computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements that are underlined below:
A computer-implemented system for predicting the level of congestion at a charging station, the system comprising:
one or more processors; a memory storing instructions; a network interface configured to communicate with a charging-station management server and chargers; and a station controller coupled to a queue and reservation database;
wherein execution of the instructions by the one or more processors causes the system to:
(a) collect, via the network interface, information on the number of vehicles waiting at a charging station for charging during a predetermined period of time and by the processors, a predicted value for the number of vehicles waiting at a predetermined future time point based on the number of waiting vehicles and the factors affecting the number of waiting vehicles;
(b) calculate, by the processors, the variance in the number of vehicles waiting at a prediction time based on the number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time at which the predicted value is calculated and that at a predetermined past time; and
(c) correct, by the processors, the predicted value by giving a weight to each of the predicted value and the actual number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time based on the variance in the number of waiting vehicles calculated in (b), and output, via the station controller, a congestion-mitigation control signal to the charging- station management server.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the functions of the “computer-implemented system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “network interface”, “a charging-station management server” “chargers”; “a station controller”, and “reservation database” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. In addition, each of these additional limitations indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally and/or alternatively, the transmitting/receiving/displaying/printing/storing functions of the “computer-implemented system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “network interface”, “a charging-station management server” “chargers”; “a station controller”, and “reservation database” are considered extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitations of “correct, by the processors, the predicted value by giving a weight to each of the predicted value and the actual number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time based on the variance in the number of waiting vehicles calculated in (b), and output, via the station controller, a congestion-mitigation control signal to the charging- station management server” these limitations mount to post-solution activity.
In addition, each of these aforementioned additional elements indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the data processing functions of the “computer-implemented system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “network interface”, “a charging-station management server” “chargers”; “a station controller”, and “reservation database” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). As discussed above, each of these additional limitations amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the functions of the transmitting/receiving/outputting functions of the “computer-implemented system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, “network interface”, “a charging-station management server” “chargers”; “a station controller”, and “reservation database” are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. The Versata and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
In addition, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
With respect to claim11, the method steps of the invention lack any recitation of a machine, let alone a recitation which creates a substantial tie so as to impose meaningful limitations on the claims scope. Accordingly, the method steps can be performed entirely manually
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, data processing functions of the computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors, amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-10, and 12-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations and introduce additional mental processes without reciting any further additional elements beyond those identified with respect to the analysis of the independent claims above. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 further recites the provision of the aforementioned abstract variables to machine learning algorithms. The functions of the machine learning algorithms are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 10 further recites the provision of the aforementioned abstract variables to recurrent neural network. The functions of the machine learning algorithms are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 19 further recites the provision of the aforementioned abstract variables to machine learning algorithms. The functions of the machine learning algorithms are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 20 further recites the provision of the aforementioned abstract variables to recurrent neural network. The functions of the machine learning algorithms are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b), however, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to the independent claim(s) 1, the claim features below are rendered to be novel and non-obvious. In light of the prior art of record, either individually, in combination and/or dependently on other prior art does not teach the claim features
A computer-implemented system for predicting the level of congestion at a charging station, the system comprising:
one or more processors; a memory storing instructions; a network interface configured to communicate with a charging-station management server and chargers; and a station controller coupled to a queue and reservation database;
wherein execution of the instructions by the one or more processors causes the system to:
(a) collect, via the network interface, information on the number of vehicles waiting at a charging station for charging during a predetermined period of time and
(b) calculate, by the processors, the variance in the number of vehicles waiting at a prediction time based on the number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time at which the predicted value is calculated and that at a predetermined past time; and
(c) correct, by the processors, the predicted value by giving a weight to each of the predicted value and the actual number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time based on the variance in the number of waiting vehicles calculated in (b), and output, via the station controller, a congestion-mitigation control signal to the charging- station management server.
With respect to the independent claim(s) 11, the claim features below are rendered to be novel and non-obvious. In light of the prior art of record, either individually, in combination and/or dependently on other prior art does not teach the claim features
A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors for predicting the level of congestion at a charging station, the method comprising:(a)calculating, by the processors, a predicted value, where information on the number of vehicles waiting at a charging station for charging during a predetermined period of time is collected via a network interface, and a predicted value for the number of vehicles waiting at a predetermined future time point is calculated based on the number of waiting vehicles and the factors affecting the number of waiting vehicles;(b)_calculating, by the processors, variance, where the variance in the number of vehicles waiting at a prediction time is calculated based on the number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time at which the predicted value is calculated and that at a predetermined past time; and (c) correcting, by the processors, the predicted value, where the predicted value is corrected by giving a weight to each of the predicted value and the actual number of vehicles waiting at the prediction time based on the variance in the number of waiting vehicles calculated in (b), and transmitting, via a station controller, a congestion-mitigation control or redirection instruction determined from the corrected predicted value the calculating of variance.
Relative Prior Art
Kumar et al. (Pub . No .: US 2021/0276447) -A system for configuring an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, the apparatus comprising. The system receives user direction and inputs regarding a custom EV charging infrastructure , submits the data an optimal planning module which is configured for performing optimization based on objectives in view of a set of constraints; and generates a recommendation from the optimal planning module for a custom EV charging infrastructure based on charging needs and behavior of the consumers toward defer ring upgrades in electric infrastructure without compromising energy required for electrical transportation.
Dong Hongzhi (CN110543967A) A method for predicting the distribution of electric vehicle waiting time in a short time under the environment of a network connection charging station comprises the following specific steps: step 1, calculating a charging requirement; and 2, predicting the distribution of the waiting time. The method comprehensively considers the influence factors of the user selecting the charging stations, and calculates the charging requirements of the charging stations; and solving a charging waiting time distribution function of the electric automobile by adopting an M/G/n queuing model and utilizing real-time information of the network connection charging station, so as to realize short-time prediction of the charging waiting time distribution of the electric automobile.
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 BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663