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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 3 is replete with blank boxes (add text, legend, symbols to provide meaning in the drawing itself)
40 and 41 of Fig. 4 have blank boxes (add text, legend, symbols to provide meaning in the drawing itself)
70 and 71 of Fig. 7 (add text, legend, symbols to provide meaning in the drawing itself)
[105, 104, 52, 60, 102, 101, 103] of Fig. 15 have blank boxes (add text, legend, symbols to provide meaning in the drawing itself)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. Remove “that” from the first sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of mathematical calculations [determination of ratios and priority] and mental process [selection of best option based on the ratios and priority] without significantly more. The claims recite
A management system with a processor and memory [general purpose computer components] with the intended use to be used for a power receiving facility which is intended to be used to exchange power with vehicles in a contactless manner
A mental process of selecting a vehicle
An insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering the state of charge/storage amounts [SOC] of the vehicles and their respective limit/reference values
Mathematical calculations of the differences and ratios between the SOCs gathered
Mathematical calculations of the hierarchy/priorities of the vehicles based on the ratios between the SOCs gathered
Mental process of selecting a vehicle based on the mathematically calculated priority.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because besides the intended use claimed in the preamble, the applicant has only claimed a computer performing a simple mathematical computer program. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer program has not directed the vehicle to begin the power transfer, only that the vehicle has been selected. Applicant has also not clearly defined the meaning of “based on”. The term is very broad and so is not improving the demonstration of a practical application.
It is suggested the applicant move much of the preamble into the body of the claim, and claim not only the management system, but also the vehicle and power receiving facility as well.
As for the dependent claims, they serve to further define the abstract idea. Claim 3 is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering from the user. Claims 2 and 4 are further mathematical operations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hara (USPGPN 20120109409) in view of Ando et al (USPGPN 20210284039)
Independent Claim 1, Hara discloses management system to be used for a power receiving facility, the power receiving facility (marriam-webster.com defines facility as “something that is established to serve a particular purpose”, where a vehicle meets that definition) being configured to receive electricity in a contactless manner from an electrified vehicle driving in a power transmission zone, the management system being configured to select a power transmission vehicle from an electrified vehicle group of electrified vehicles driving in a determination zone, the determination zone including at least a part of the power transmission zone, the power transmission vehicle being selected as an electrified vehicle which is to be allowed to transmit electricity in a contactless manner (Figs. [1, 2, 10-13, esp. 2, 11, 13]), the management system (server components [20, 25, 30, 40] in cited Figs. above;
Noted that the contactless manner of power transfer is only described in the preamble, where limitations in preamble only are not given patentable weight: [When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “transmit electricity in a contactless manner” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.];
Furthermore, it is noted that the applicant’s recitation of these components are simply their intended use: [A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The applicant has only claimed a management system with a controller and memory are capable of/configured to calculation ratios and priority, and select which device to use];
Nevertheless, ¶[117] does seem to imply that contactless power transfer is conceived for Hara in “ The end connections 1180 a and 1180 b may be connected to the vehicles 10 a and 10 b, respectively, via contact connectors or non-contact connectors”;
Where the zone can be defined by Figs. [3, 4, 6-8, 14, 15, esp. 4, 6, 14, 15] to define the location whereby a vehicle is chosen to meet the vehicle being charged due to the relative locations between the two vehicles/facilities) comprising:
a controller comprising a processor and a memory which are coupled to each other so as to communicate with each other (esp. 20 in Fig. 2 and 25 in Fig. 13), the controller being configured to select the power transmission vehicle from the electrified vehicle group (130 of Fig. 2, 1304/1300 of Fig. 13),
wherein a storage amount of an electricity storage device loaded in each electrified vehicle forming the electrified vehicle group is to increase or decrease between a maximum storage amount of the electricity storage device and a minimum storage amount of the electricity storage device (inherent to a battery 280 charge level), and
wherein, the controller is configured to, when
the maximum storage amount is set to a first storage amount,
a current storage amount currently stored in the electricity storage device is set to a second storage amount (s304 of Fig. 3, s1402 of Fig. 14),
a reference storage amount which is set between the maximum storage amount and the minimum storage amount is set to a third storage amount (s308 of Fig. 3),
a surplus storage amount obtained by subtracting the third storage amount from the second storage amount is set to a fourth storage amount (s310 & s312 of Fig. 3, see further ¶’s [42, 68, 71-73, 76, 95] describes a surplus being the difference in values) and
a ratio of the fourth storage amount to the first storage amount is set to a surplus storage amount ratio (this ratio is inherently present, and it is noted that the applicant did not even describe this value is calculated, only that it exists, nevertheless, this value is described explicitly in ¶[95: “a ratio of the amount of available power to be supplied to the amount of fully charged power can be used as an index of the degree of a surplus…”]),
determine a rank of each electrified vehicle forming the electrified vehicle group in descending order of the surplus storage amount ratio and select the power transmission vehicle from the electrified vehicle group based on the rank of each electrified vehicle regarding the surplus storage amount ratio (¶’s [94, 95] demonstrates that the fuller icon is displayed/ranked due to it having a higher surplus, meaning the system demonstrates that it is able to provide more power, where the smaller surplus has smaller icon, therefore, it has been ranked,
where applicant has only claimed that it is based upon the ranked value, not that the vehicle chosen is only based on this ranking of the icons, and Hara describes this ranked value as a consideration in the decision).
Or in the alternative, while Hara seems to describes wireless power transfer, it is less clear than could be.
Ando teaches an analogous system (Figs. 1-3, ¶[173] describes contactless/wireless power transfer, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that wireless power transfer can be easier to provide [less difficult connection] and safer [no live leads] than wired power transfer). Ando analogously also provides Vehicle to Vehicle/grid/facility prioritized by the state of charge (state of charge being analogous to the ratio of Hara and the present application, abstract, ¶’s [145, 168-172, esp. 145, 168, 169], Figs. [5-7, 9, 10])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hara with Ando to provide improved ease and safety.
Dependent Claim 2, Hara discloses the reference storage amount is a storage amount which is sufficiently large for the each electrified vehicle forming the electrified vehicle group to drive a distance until a destination (¶’s [66-68]).
Dependent Claim 3, Hara discloses the reference storage amount is a storage amount which is set by a driver who drives the each electrified vehicle forming the electrified vehicle group (¶’s [66-68], user inputs the destination, destination calculated to the storage amount).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (USPGPN 20120109409), or in the alternative Hara in view of Ando et al (USPGPN 20210284039)
Dependent Claim 4, Hara teaches a fuel tank is loaded in one of the electrified vehicles forming the electrified vehicle group, a storage amount converted from an amount of fuel in the fuel tank is set to a fifth storage amount, and a surplus storage amount obtained by subtracting the third storage amount from a total amount of the second storage amount and the fifth storage amount is set to the fourth storage amount (¶[128] describes the vehicle can be a hybrid car with an engine [i.e. inherently including a fuel tank] or a fuel cell vehicle with a hybrid engine [i.e. also inherently including a fuel tank], where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the range of ¶’s [66-68] would include considerations of the fuel tank in order to determine how much reserve capacity is required for reaching destination, for several reasons, including the ability of the driver/owner to recoup more funds by further discharging the battery if the fuel is able to provide the extra power [i.e. if a 10MAh battery can provide 5MAh without any fuel to reach their destination, and receive $500, while when having fuel the battery can provide 8MAh and receive $800, it would be more advantageous for the owner to receive the $800 if they are short on cash]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ehara et al (USPGPN 20230246447) analogously has wireless power transfer (abstract), along with selection of a fleet (Fig. 1) by a management system (700, 600) to be able to provide power to a stationary facility (PG) and priority (Figs. 4-8)
Analogous to Ando, US-20160075247-A1 OR US-20230234464-A1 OR US-9987940-B2 OR US-11858371-B2 OR US-12491783-B2
Analogous to Hara and Ehara, US-20230231387-A1 OR US-11901736-B2 OR US-12444949-B2 OR US-9233620-B2
Similar Art from applicant: US-20230214946-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights