DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Response filed on 8/12/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are now pending in this application. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 4 and 5 have been cancelled. New claims 6-8 have been added. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
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
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, on the last line, replace … on a preceding day … with … on the preceding day … for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites “scheduling charging of an electrified vehicle …”, “detecting a pre-charging operation of the electrified vehicle …”,“in a case where the pre-charging operation of the electrified vehicle is detected …. calculating a recommended value (e) of a charging amount …according to the expression … wherein …”, “calculating an upper limit value of the charging amount at the location other than the predetermined charging site based on the recommended value (e)” and “… setting the upper limit value of the charging amount …”, which can be recognized as elements that belong to the different grouping of abstract ideas, but for the recitation of generic computer components (such as a processor and a storage device). These element are either concepts that can be performed in the human mind (note the detections and value settings which can be a judgement or evaluation based on observation) and thus fall within the Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas, steps involving mathematical calculations (note the calculation of a recommended value (e) of a charging amount and the calculation of an upper limit value of the charging amount) which fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas, or steps involving scheduling events which falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the above-indicated limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, the additional element of “providing, to a user …, a request for permission …” and “in a case where permission is received …” amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and data presentation. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of … for energy management merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Thus, it is an equivalent of “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
The claim does 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 processor and a storage device to perform the method steps described above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of “providing, to a user …, a request for permission” and “in a case where permission is received …” are further considered well-understood, routine, and conventional in view of the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicating that mere collection or receipt of data over a network as well as data presentation are well-understood, routine, conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Neither can insignificant extra-solution activity nor can adding an equivalent of “apply it. All of these additional elements as generically claimed are thus considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Therefore, these limitations, taken alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more that the abstract idea.
Thus, this independent claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations of “predicting a charging preparation completion time and a charging amount of the electrified vehicle ..” (claim 3), The above-indicated additional limitation also constitutes a step involving judgement based on observation or evaluation (claims 3) which fall within the Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of specifying pre-charging operation criteria (claim 2) amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity/specifications related to the characteristics of the utilized parameters. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element of “charging the electrified vehicle at the predetermined charging site based on the charging preparation completion time and the charging amount predicted on the preceding day” (claim 3) merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Thus, it is an equivalent of “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The additional elements of providing the request for user permission via a display or terminal (claim 6) and additional messages displayed to the user (claims 7 and 8) also amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity/specifications related to the data presentation and therefore also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Neither can adding an equivalent of “apply it. All of these additional elements as generically claimed are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Therefore, these limitations, taken alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more that the abstract idea.
Thus, all of the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 would be allowable if amended and rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 3, and 6-8 would be allowable if amended and rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action (as well as to comply with the formal requirement raised for claim 3 for proper antecedent basis) and to include all of the limitations of the respective base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments in view of the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been accordingly withdrawn. Applicant is referred to the newly presented requirement in the Claim Objection section above for maintaining proper antecedent basis.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Examiner respectfully notes that the recitation of the execution of the method by a system comprising a processor and a storage device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Then, Examiner respectfully notes that the incorporation of a calculation formula based on predicted and actual energy values into the claims merely adds another recited element belonging to the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. The improvement in the abstract ideal itself cannot be an improvement in technology or a technical field.
Finally, Examiner respectfully notes that the mere request and receival of permission of a user (prior to setting a computed value) is a form of data presentation and collection which amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and data presentation and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. It has further been considered by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner. See Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, these limitations, taken alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more that the abstract idea.
Accordingly, Examiner reasserts the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172