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 .
Claim Objections
In claim 9, “a transferable electric power amount that can transferred from the …” should be “a transferable electric power amount that can be transferred from the ….” Appropriate correction is required.
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:
In claim 1,
Claim 1 recites “acquisition unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “acquire information …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed acquisition of information. Acquisition functions are described in paragraphs [0043]-[0044], and [0055] and Figs. 3 and 4 with respect to acquisition unit 310, which is part of processing unit 300 of the integrated management apparatus 50. Accordingly, “acquisition unit” is interpreted as acquisition unit 310 and equivalents.
Claim 1 recites “selection unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “select a vehicle with a smaller difference …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed selection. The selection functions are described in paragraphs [0043], [0045]-[0046], [0071]-[0079], [0089], [0092], and [0094], and Figs. 3-4 and 7-10 with respect to selection unit 330, which is part of processing unit 300 of the integrated management apparatus 50. Accordingly, “selection unit” is interpreted as selection unit 330 and equivalents.
In claim 2,
Claim 2 recites “classification unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “classify the plurality of vehicles …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed classification. The classification functions are described in paragraphs [0043], [0046]-[0048], [0071], and [0075]-[0079, and Figs. 3-4 and 8 with respect to classification unit 340, which is part of processing unit 300 of the integrated management apparatus 50. Accordingly, “classification unit” is interpreted as classification unit 340 and equivalents.
In claims 3 and 5,
Claims 3 and 5 each recite “classification unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “classify the plurality of vehicles …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed classification. The classification functions are described in paragraphs [0043], [0046]-[0048], [0071], and [0075]-[0079, and Figs. 3-4 and 8 with respect to classification unit 340, which is part of processing unit 300 of the integrated management apparatus 50. Accordingly, “classification unit” is interpreted as classification unit 340 and equivalents.
In claims 4 and 6-8,
Claims 4 and 6-8 each recite “classification unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “classify the plurality of vehicles …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed classification. The classification functions are described in paragraphs [0043], [0046]-[0048], [0071], and [0075]-[0079, and Figs. 3-4 and 8 with respect to classification unit 340, which is part of processing unit 300 of the integrated management apparatus 50. Accordingly, “classification unit” is interpreted as classification unit 340 as equivalents.
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.
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
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the following reasons:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while independent claim 1 falls within a statutory class of a machine (i.e., claim 1 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “an acquisition unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire information indicating a required electric power amount …, and information indicating a transferable electric power amount … [and] a selection unit that uses the at least one processor to select a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others ….” The claimed “acquires information” and/or the claimed “selects a vehicle” are abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally and/or are mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, II. Here, the claimed “acquires information” can be performed mentally by a human, for example, by viewing a display with the claimed information and recording the information using a pen and paper (note: the claim does not require determining the claimed information) and/or the claimed “selects a vehicle” can be performed mentally by a human by using a mathematical relationship between the “required electric power amount” and the “transferable electric power amount.”
Further, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of “acquires information” and/or “selects a vehicle” into a practical application. The claimed processor does no more than implement the judicial exception at issue (i.e., it is no more than a recitation of the words “apply it”) and thus does not overcome the § 101 rejection. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). For example, claim 1 does not positively recite that the selected vehicle actually performs the electric power transfer with the electric power network and thus does not integrate the claimed selecting into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. While the claim recites “selects a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others,” the selection using a smaller difference does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Finally, claim 1 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 1 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that “select a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others” is a new idea, this selection is still an abstract idea, as discussed above, and thus does not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while dependent claim 2 falls within a statutory class of a device (i.e., claim 2 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 2 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04.
Specifically, claim 2 recites “a classification unit that uses the at least one processor to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and the transferable electric power amount.” The claimed “classifies” is an abstract idea because it can be performed mentally. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I. Here, the claimed “classify” can be performed mentally by a human, for example, by viewing a display with the claimed state of charge and the claimed transferable electric power amount and classifying the vehicles into groups using a pen and paper (note: the claim does not require determining the claimed state of charge and the claimed transferable electric power amount).
Further, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of “classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups” into a practical application. The claimed processor does no more than implement the judicial exception at issue (i.e., it is no more than a recitation of the words “apply it”) and thus does not overcome the § 101 rejection. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). For example, claim 2 does not positively recite that the vehicle selected from among the vehicles classified into groups actually performs the electric power transfer with the electric power network and thus does not integrate the claimed classification into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. The claimed “classify” does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Finally, claim 2 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 2 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed “classify” is a new idea, it is still an abstract idea and thus does not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while dependent claim 3 falls within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claim 3 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 3 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 3 recites “a classification unit that uses the at least one processor to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of (i) a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and (ii) a time interval between a time at end of a period in which electric power is to be supplied from the battery to the electric power network and a scheduled time at which use of each of the plurality of batteries is to be started.” The claimed “classify” is an abstract idea because it can be performed mentally. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I. Here, the claimed “classify” can be performed mentally by a human, for example, by viewing a display with the claimed state of charge and the claimed time interval and classifying the vehicles into groups using a pen and paper (note: the claim does not require determining the claimed state of charge and the claimed time interval).
Further, claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of “classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups” into a practical application. The claimed processor does no more than implement the judicial exception at issue (i.e., it is no more than a recitation of the words “apply it”) and thus does not overcome the § 101 rejection. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). For example, claim 3 does not positively recite that the vehicle selected from among the vehicles classified into groups actually performs the electric power transfer with the electric power network and thus does not integrate the claimed classification into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. The claimed “classify” does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Finally, claim 3 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 3 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed “classify” is a new idea, it is still an abstract idea, as discussed above, and thus does not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while dependent claim 4 falls within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claim 4 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 4 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 4 recites “a classification unit that uses the at least one processor to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of (i) a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and (ii) a time interval between a time at end of a period in which electric power is to be supplied from the electric power network to the battery and a scheduled time at which use of each of the plurality of batteries is to be started.” The claimed “classify” is an abstract idea because it can be performed mentally. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I. Here, the claimed “classify” can be performed mentally by a human, for example, by viewing a display with the claimed state of charge and the claimed time interval and classifying the vehicles into groups using a pen and paper (note: the claim does not require determining the claimed state of charge and the claimed time interval).
Further, claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of “classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups” into a practical application. The claimed processor does no more than implement the judicial exception at issue (i.e., it is no more than a recitation of the words “apply it”) and thus does not overcome the § 101 rejection. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). For example, claim 4 does not positively recite that the vehicle selected from among the vehicles classified into groups actually performs the electric power transfer with the electric power network and thus does not integrate the claimed classification into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. The claimed “classify” does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Finally, claim 4 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 4 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed “classify” is a new idea, this selection is still an abstract idea, as discussed above, and thus does not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Claim 5 recites the same limitation as discussed above with respect to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reasons similar to those given above with respect to claim 3.
Claims 6-8 recite the same limitation as discussed above with respect to claim 4 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reasons similar to those given above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while independent claim 9 falls within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claim 9 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1, claim 9 fails Steps 2A and 2B of the § 101 analysis and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while claim 10 falls within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claim 10 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), claim 10 fails under Steps 2A and 2B of the § 101 analysis for the reasons given above with respect to claim 2. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while claims 11 and 13 fall within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claims 11 and 13 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), claims 11 and 13 fail under Steps 2A and 2B of the § 101 analysis for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while claims 12 and 14-16 fall within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claims 12 and 14-16pass Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), claims 12 and 14-16 fail under Steps 2A and 2B of the § 101 analysis for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program. The elements performed by the claimed program are the same as those recited in claim 1. Thus, while independent claim 17 falls within a statutory class of a machine (i.e., claim 17 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1, claim 17 fails Steps 2A and 2B of the § 101 analysis and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 18, which is dependent on claim 17, recites elements that are the same as those recited in claim 2. Thus, while claim 18 falls within a statutory class of a machine (i.e., claim 18 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), for the reasons given above with respect to claim 2, claim 18 fails Steps 2A and 2B of the § 101 analysis and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 19, which is dependent on claim 17, recites elements that are the same as those recited in claim 3. Thus, while claim 19 falls within a statutory class of a machine (i.e., claim 19 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3, claim 19 fails Steps 2A and 2B of the § 101 analysis and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 20, which is dependent on claim 17, recites elements that are the same as those recited in claim 4. Thus, while claim 20 falls within a statutory class of a machine (i.e., claim 20 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4, claim 20 fails Steps 2A and 2B of the § 101 analysis and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Publication No. CN113067370 to Shanghai Envision Innovation Intelligent Technology Co Ltd Envision Digital International Pte Ltd. (“SEIIT”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0136899 to Alex Mashinsky (“Mashinsky”).
Regarding claim 1,
A system (See SEIIT at par. [0001].) comprising:
at least one processor (Server 700 includes CPU 701. See SEIIT at pars. [0046], and [0285]-[0286] and Fig. 7.);
an acquisition unit that uses the at least one processor to acquire information indicating a required electric power amount by which transfer of electric power is required between a battery included in a vehicle and an electric power network (SEIIT discloses a charging control strategy for V2G charging station to minimize power grid fluctuations. The server acquires real-time power consumption of the V2G charging station and the total power of the electric vehicles to develop a charging control strategy that supports charging and discharge of the electric vehicles. See, e.g., SEIIT at pars. [0005], [0042]-[0046], [0050], [0087]-[0088], and [0094]-[0103] and Figs. 2 and 3.), and
information indicating a transferable electric power amount that can be transferred from the battery to the electric power network or transferred from the electric power network to the battery (Server calculates the current SOC of a vehicle (SOCNOW) and determines, based at least in part on the SOC needed for departure (SOCDEP), if the vehicles need to be charged from the grid, can be used for discharging to the grid, or are waiting to leave. See SEIIT at pars. [0105]-[0114], [0205] and [0213]-[0221] and Figs. 3 and 5. The difference between SOCNOW and SOCDEP corresponds to “transferable electric power amount.”
a selection unit that uses the at least one processor to select a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority among a plurality of vehicles as a vehicle including a battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network (SEIIT discloses that the server selects vehicles with SOCNOW less than the SOCDEP needed for departure for charging and selects vehicles with current SOCNOW greater than the SOCDEP needed for departure for discharging to the grid. See SEIIT at pars. [0105]-[0114], [0205] and [0213]-[0221] and Figs. 3 and 5. However, SEIIT does not explicitly disclose that the server selects vehicles with “a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others.” In a same field of endeavor, power management of vehicle batteries (and thus analogous art), Mashinsky discloses that it is beneficial to reduce the number of charging cycles and discharging cycles of a battery. See Mashinsky at claims 21 and 31. Because, prior to its departure, SEIIT’s server selects and discharges a vehicle when the SOCNOW is greater than SOCDEP, to limit the number of discharge cycles (as taught by Mashinsky), it would have been obvious to a select a vehicle with excess energy (SOCNOW – SOCDEP) that closely matches the required amount for the grid. Similarly, because, prior to its departure, SEIIT’s server selects and charges a vehicle when the SOCNOW is less than SOCDEP, to limit the number of charge cycles (as taught by Mashinsky), it would have been obvious to a select a vehicle that has deficient energy (SOCDEP – SOCNOW) that closely matches the amount to transfer from the grid. Accordingly, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the server in SEIIT to select vehicles with excess and deficient energies that closely match the respective transfer to or transfer from the grid in order reduce the number of charge/discharge cycles so as to extend the usable life of the vehicle battery. See Mashinsky at claims 21 (“PMS controls the power transfer … to reduce the number of charge cycles needed by the second electrical storage device to thereby extend the usable life of the second electrical storage device”) and claim 31 (“the PMS controls the transfer … to reduce the number of discharge cycles needed by the second electrical storage device to thereby extend the usable life of the second electrical storage device.”). Because both SEIIT and Mashinsky relate to power management systems for vehicle batteries, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.)
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1:
a classification unit that uses the at least one processor to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and the transferable electric power amount (SEIIT discloses that the server obtains charging demand information from the vehicles and uses the information to classify the demand type of the electric vehicle as “a dischargeable type, a to-be-charged type, and a to-be-departed type” (“plurality of groups”) based on SOCNOW (“state of charge of a battery”) and the difference between SOCNOW and SOCDEP (“transferable electric power amount”). See SEIIT at [0102]-[0113].),
wherein the selection unit selects the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network from among vehicles classified into a group which is selected based on information indicating whether electric power supply from the battery to the electric power network is required and the required electric power amount among the plurality of groups classified by the classification unit (SEIIT discloses selection of vehicles for receiving energy from the grid (charging) or transmitting power to the grid (discharging) according to various power control strategies based on the classification (discussed above) in order to improve reliability of grid operation (“perform electric power transfer with the electric power network”). See, e.g., SEIIT at pars [0065]-0067] [0154]-[0157], [0174]-[0179], and [0196]-[0202] and Fig. 2 and 3; see also SEIIT at pars. [0203]-[0267] and Fig. 5.).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1:
a classification unit that uses the at least one processor to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of (i) a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and (ii) a time interval until a departure time (As discussed above, SEIIT discloses a classification system in which electric vehicles (“vehicles”) are categorized as: 1) “dischargeable” if the current SOC, SOCnow, (“state of charge of a battery”) of the vehicle is greater than the SOC, SOCdep, needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep (“time interval until a departure time”) is greater than 15 minutes; 2) as “waiting to-be-leaved” if the current SOC, SOCnow, of the vehicle is greater than the SOC, SOCdep, needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep is less than or equal to 15 minutes; and 3) as “waiting to-be-charged” if the current SOC, SOCnow, of the vehicle is less than the SOC, SOCdep, needed for departure. (Note: see par. 113 which provides context to the “waiting” categories of par. 111.) Thus, SEIIT discloses the claimed “classification unit.” See, e.g., Abstract and pars. [0045], [0050], and [0111]-[0113].)
wherein when electric power is to be supplied from the battery to the electric power network, the selection unit selects a vehicle classified into a group having the time interval that is longer than others among the plurality of groups classified by the classification unit by priority as the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network (As discussed above, SEIIT discloses a classification system in which electric vehicles (“vehicles”) are categorized as: 1) “dischargeable” if the SOCnow (“state of charge of a battery”) of the vehicle is greater than the SOCdep needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep (“time interval until a departure time”) is greater than 15 minutes; 2) as “waiting to-be-leaved” if the current SOCnow of the vehicle is greater than the SOCdep needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep is less than or equal to 15 minutes; and 3) as “waiting to-be-charged” if the current SOCnow of the vehicle is less than the SOCdep needed for departure. (Note: see par. 113 which provides context to the “waiting” categories of par. 111.) Because the time period for the “waiting to-be-leaved” vehicles (“others”) is less than the time period for the “discharging” vehicles, a vehicle from the “discharging” category corresponds to “a vehicle classified into a group having the time interval that is longer than others.” Thus, SEIIT discloses the claimed “when electric power is to be supplied from the battery to the electric power network, the selection unit selects a vehicle classified into a group having the time interval that is longer than others among the plurality of groups classified by the classification unit by priority as the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network.” See, e.g., SEIIT at Abstract and pars. [0045], [0050], [0111]-0113].).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
a classification unit that uses the at least one processor to classify the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of (i) a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and (ii) a time interval until a departure time (As discussed above, SEIIT discloses a classification system in which electric vehicles (“vehicles”) are categorized as: 1) “dischargeable” if the SOCnow (“state of charge of a battery”) of the vehicle is greater than the SOCdep needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep (“time interval until a departure time”) is greater than 15 minutes; 2) as “waiting to-be-leaved” if the SOCnow of the vehicle is greater than the SOCdep needed for departure and the time for vehicle departure tdep is less than or equal to 15 minutes; and 3) as “waiting to-be-charged” if the SOCnow of the vehicle is less than the SOCdep needed for departure. (Note: see par. 113 which provides context to the “waiting” categories of par. 111.) Thus, SEIIT discloses the claimed “classification unit.” See, e.g., Abstract and pars. [0045], [0050], and [0111]-[0113].)
wherein when electric power is to be supplied from the electric power network to the battery, the selection unit selects a vehicle classified into a group having the time interval that is shorter than others among the plurality of groups classified by the classification unit by priority as the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network (SEIIT discloses that vehicles classified as “waiting to-be-charged” (i.e., vehicles with a SOCnow greater than the SOCdep) can be further classified using the demand urgency ratio α, which prioritizes charging of vehicles based on at least the departure time tdep. Vehicles with a ratio α that is greater than or equal to 1 need to start charging “as soon as possible” and vehicles with a α that is less than 1 “can wait for a period of time.” Thus, vehicles with a ratio α that is less than 1 correspond to “others,” and vehicles with a ratio α that is greater than or equal to 1 correspond to “a group having the time interval that is shorter than others.” See, e.g., pars. [0111], [0113], and [0114]-[0126].).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 2, claim 5 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 3 and thus claim 5 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 2, claim 6 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 6 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 3, claim 7 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 6 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 5, claim 8 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 6 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 9,
A method performed by at least one processor (Server 700 includes CPU 701 that perform the claimed method. See SEIIT at pars. [0001], [0046], and [0285]-[0286] and Fig. 7.), and comprising:
acquiring information indicating a required electric power amount by which transfer of electric power is required between a battery included in a vehicle and an electric power network, and information indicating a transferable electric power amount that can transferred from the battery to the electric power network or transferred from the electric power network to the battery; and selecting a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority among a plurality of vehicles as a vehicle including a battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network (The remaining recited features are the same as those in claim 1 and rendered obvious for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 9:
classifying the plurality of vehicles into a plurality of groups based on a combination of a state of charge of a battery included in each of the plurality of vehicles and the transferable electric power amount, wherein in the selecting the vehicle with the smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority as the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network, the vehicle including the battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network is selected from among vehicles classified into a group which is selected based on information indicating whether electric power supply from the battery to the electric power network is required and the required electric power amount among the plurality of groups classified in the classifying the plurality of vehicles into the plurality of groups (The recited features are the same as those in claim 2 and thus rendered obvious for the reasons given above with respect to claim 2.).
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 9, claim 11 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 3 and thus claim 11 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 9, claim 12 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 12 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 10, claim 13 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 3 and thus claim 13 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on claim 10, claim 14 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 14 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on claim 11, claim 15 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 15 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on claim 13, claim 16 recites features that are the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 16 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 17:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program (SEIIT discloses non-transitory memory (e.g., a RAM or ROM) that stores at least one instruction executable by a processor to implement its V2G charging control method. See SEIIT at pars. [0285]-[0286].), the program causing a computer to function as:
an acquisition unit that uses the computer to acquire information indicating a required electric power amount by which transfer of electric power is required between a battery included in a vehicle and an electric power network, and information indicating a transferable electric power amount that can be transferred from the battery to the electric power network or transferred from the electric power network to the battery; and a selection unit that uses the computer to select a vehicle with a smaller difference between the transferable electric power amount and the required electric power amount than others by priority among a plurality of vehicles as a vehicle including a battery which is to perform electric power transfer with the electric power network (These features are rendered obvious for the reasons given in claim 1.)
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 17, claim 18 recites features that are substantively the same as those recited in claim 2 and thus claim 18 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 17, claim 19 recites features that are substantively the same as those recited in claim 3 and thus claim 19 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 17, claim 20 recites features that are substantively the same as those recited in claim 4 and thus claim 20 would have been obvious over SEIIT in view of Mashinsky for the reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the objections to the specification and drawings.
Applicant's amendments/arguments with respect to the § 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to recite “at least one processor” and argues that “the claimed specific technical feature of ‘a selection unit that uses the at least one processor to select a vehicle …’ is not an abstract idea.” See Response at p. 16. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment amounts to no more than using a general-purpose computer to implement the judicial exception at issue (i.e., it is no more than a recitation of the words “apply it”) and thus does not overcome the § 101 rejection. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claims do not transform the judicial exceptions into a practical application. For example, the claims do not positively recite that the selected vehicle actually performs the electric power transfer with the electric power network, which could integrate the claimed selecting into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 102/§ 103 rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights