DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received on December 1, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claim 5 has been cancelled and amendments to 1-4 have been entered. Therefore, claims 1-4 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant submits that at least these additional features of amended claim 1 integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical method that, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment adds an extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. The claims fail provide technical interplay between the receiving, calculating and payment execution steps and is recited as a post-solution activity. The addition of the final step of dispatching a power supply vehicle to a position of the first vehicle, after receiving payment and location further the sales activities between a driver and an energy supplier and does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of receiving payment for electric charge. The claims stand rejection under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 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.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
receiving a charging request from a user terminal, the charging request specifying an expected travel distance of a first target vehicle;
calculating a charging amount and a charging cost required to charge the first target vehicle sufficiently to travel the expected travel distance from electricity consumption data associated with a user of the user terminal;
transmitting information indicating the charging amount and the charging cost to the user terminal; and
receiving a payment request for the charging cost from the user terminal and executing payment; and
dispatching a power suppling vehicle to a position of the first target vehicle.
The steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers commercial interactions such as sales activities or a business relationship between a user and a vehicle charging entity, which would include requesting an amount of charge for a vehicle, calculating an amount of charge required for a vehicle and payment for the requested amount, for example, sales activity between a user and an electricity supplier.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers advertising or
marketing or sales activities or a business relationship, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not
recite an additional element. As such, there is nothing recited that can be considered a practical
application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
To the extent that a user terminal may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a sending or receiving data), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. The receiving steps include a user terminal, which is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of transmitting and receiving data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, 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. Similarly, a
user terminal would not be 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 a user terminal amounts to no 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. The claim is patent ineligible.
The dispatching step is interpreted as extra-solution activity by dispatching a vehicle to a first position post payment and lacks the technical underpinning to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
A similar analysis has been applied to claims 4 and 5 which recites essentially the same
abstract idea as in claim 1. Claim 4 includes the additional elements of a processor, memory storing executable instructions. However, the control unit is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Similarly, 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 elements of the control unit and non-transitory storage medium that stores a program amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception
using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considering the claim
as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 are also patent ineligible. For example, claims 2-3 further describes the abstract ideas with limitations drawn to collecting driving history and data from a different vehicle previously registered by the user, which further describes the commercial interaction between the user and a charging entity.
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(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0228877 in view of Yu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0281613 further in view of 片野田 智也 (Tomoya Katanoda) Japanese Patent Publication JP 6551332, hereinafter Katanoda.
As per Claim 1, Feldman et al. discloses an information processing method performed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising:
receiving a charging request from a user terminal, the charging request specifying an expected travel distance of a first target vehicle (pg.1, ¶ [0017] discusses The charging station authorization system may determine one or more routes for the trip that include use of charging stations owned or operated by Charge Point Operators (CPOs) during the trip and fit within the constraints);
calculating a charging amount and a charging cost required to travel the expected travel distance electricity consumption data associated with a user of the user terminal (pg.4, ¶ [0038] discusses the relationship data and the operator data together may thus be understood to useable together to generate cost data for one or more charging stations to be used along a route that is particular to the use of the eMSP 102 by the EV 116);
transmitting information indicating the charging amount and the charging cost to the user terminal (pg.4, ¶ [0043] discusses The eMSP 102 may send options for charging stations 108, 110, 112, 114 (which may include details such as distance, cost, charging time, wait time, etc.).
Feldman teaches pg.9, ¶ [0085] discusses receiv[ing] payments for charging usage of the EV 116. However, Feldman fails to explicitly state receiving a payment request for the charging cost from the user terminal and executing payment and dispatching a power suppling vehicle to a position of the first target vehicle.
Yu et al. teaches receiving a payment request for the charging cost from the user terminal and executing payment (Figure 8, depicts a user interface that allows a user to provide payment for vehicle charging).
Yu et al. further teaches dispatching a power suppling vehicle to a position of the first target vehicle (pg.6, ¶ [0090] discusses selecting whether the rescue order is accepted or not by the driver of the electric vehicle…¶ [0092] discusses in the process of rescue, acquiring the GPS information of the charging rescue vehicle in real time and pushing to the rescued vehicle APP by a rescue vehicle monitoring module of the rescue platform, and knowing a position, a speed and expected arrival time of the charging rescue vehicle by the driver of the electric vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to receive payment and information for a vehicle that needs charging and sending a rescue vehicle to charge a requesting vehicle as in the improvement discussed in Yu et al. in the system executing the method of the Feldman-Wild combination. As in Yu et al., it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to dispatch a rescue vehicle to an electric vehicle requesting a charge with the predicted result of sending a rescue vehicle to provide charge to a requesting vehicle as needed in the Feldman combination.
Feldman et al. and Yu et al. are both within the same field of endeavor, i.e. providing charge services to electric vehicles.
Feldman pg.8, ¶ [0071] discusses the vehicle SoC estimation uses one or more of a trip distance, route, terrain information, time of day, day of the week, traffic, road condition, vehicle information, weather, and/or vehicle user driving behavior. Thereby utilizing consumption data to calculate the state of a battery.
Yu et al. pg.5, ¶ [0087] teaches estimating rescue cost and time according to the GPS information of the charging rescue vehicle accepting the order by the rescue platform.
The combination teaches receiving a charge request, calculating a charge amount, cost, executing a payment and dispatching a vehicle to a requesting vehicle.
However, the Feldman-Yu combination fails to explicitly state calculating a charging amount and a charging cost required to charge the first target vehicle sufficiently to travel the expected travel distance based on electricity consumption data associated with a user of the user terminal.
Katanoda teaches calculating a charging amount required to charge the first target vehicle sufficiently to travel the expected travel distance based on electricity consumption data associated with a user of the user terminal (pg.5-6, discusses the server 300 calculates the electricity cost when traveling the traveling route of the vehicle 1 this time, based on the usage ratio set in S140. More specifically, as shown in the following equation (1), the travel route of the vehicle 1 is divided into a plurality of links L i (i is a natural number). For each link L i , the power consumption E1 of the vehicle 1 in the link L i is multiplied by the usage ratio R1 of the data D1, and the power consumption E2 of the other vehicle in the link L i is multiplied by the usage ratio R2 of the data D2. The sum of the two is calculated as the electricity cost
Q i .Q i = E1 × R1 + E2 × R2 (1)
For example, when the usage ratio is set to R1: R2 = 10%: 90% as described in FIG. 4B, the electricity cost E1 of the vehicle 1 for the k-th (k is a natural number) link L k and when electric power consumption E2 of the other vehicle was respectively 6.0 (km / kWh) and 8.0 (km / kWh), the electric power consumption Q k for the link L k .sub.is, Q k = 6.0 × 0. It is calculated that 10 + 8.0 × 0.90 = 7.8 (km / kWh). In this way, the power consumption Q i of all the links Li included in the travel route of the vehicle 1 is calculated… server 300 calculates the travelable distance of vehicle 1 using the SOC of power storage device 230 acquired from vehicle 1 in S130 and the power consumption calculation result in S230. More specifically, the arithmetic unit 100, for each link .sub.L i included in the travel route of the vehicle 1, the length of the link .sub.L I [Unit: miles] link electricity cost in .L iQ i [Unit: miles / kWh ] and based, power consumption in the link L i [unit: calculates the kWh]. Arithmetic device 100 then converts the SOC of power storage device 230 into a remaining power amount, and the remaining power amount of power storage device 230 reaches a predetermined specified value (lower limit) along the travel route from the current location of vehicle 1. It calculates an integrated value of the length of the link L i to a point as the travel distance of the vehicle 1.The server 300 transmits the calculated travelable distance to the computing device 100).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing energy to vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Feldman-Yu combination to include the ability to calculate electricity cost for a travelable distance based on power consumption as taught by Katanoda to provide an electric consumption efficiency calculation unit that calculates the efficiency of electric consumption by dividing the travel distance by a difference in a power residual amount between before and after traveling. Abstract
As per Claim 2, Feldman et al. discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising collecting a driving history of the user and acquiring the electricity consumption data of the first target vehicle from the driving history (Figure 5, depicts driver profile 506 and pg.8, ¶[0070] discusses the historical data may include one or more of distance traveled on one or more previous trips, mileage per kWh for one or more previous trips, vehicle energy use from operating air conditioning or heating for one or more previous trips, weather conditions from one or more previous trips, vehicle energy expenditure for one or more previous city driving trips, vehicle energy expenditure for one or more previous highway and/or freeway driving trips, and the like).
As per Claim 3, Feldman et al. discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the electricity consumption data includes electricity consumption data acquired from a second target vehicle different from the first target vehicle, the second target vehicle having been previously registered by the user (pg.10, ¶ [0091] discusses the vehicle driver profile 506 includes information describing two vehicles. Vehicle 1 data 502 may include information describing a commuter vehicle with a primary preference for price, a 402 mile range, and a charging capacity of 100 KWh, among other information. Vehicle 2 data 504 may include information describing a vacation vehicle with a primary preference for highways, a 500 mile range, and a 150 KWh charging capacity…¶ [0091] discusses a commuter vehicle and a vacation vehicle, which are two different vehicles).
As per Claim 4, Feldman et al. discloses an information processing device comprising:
a processor (Figure 11, Processor 1102); and
a memory storing executable instructions that cause the processor to (Memory 1106 and Instructions 1104):
receiving, from a user terminal, a charging request specifying an expected travel distance of a vehicle (pg.1, ¶ [0017] discusses The charging station authorization system may determine one or more routes for the trip that include use of charging stations owned or operated by Charge Point Operators (CPOs) during the trip and fit within the constraints);
calculating a charging amount and a charging cost required to travel the expected travel distance from electricity consumption data associated with a user of the user terminal (pg.4, ¶ [0038] discusses the relationship data and the operator data together may thus be understood to useable together to generate cost data for one or more charging stations to be used along a route that is particular to the use of the eMSP 102 by the EV 116);
transmitting information indicating the charging amount and the charging cost to the user terminal (pg.4, ¶ [0043] discusses The eMSP 102 may send options for charging stations 108, 110, 112, 114 (which may include details such as distance, cost, charging time, wait time, etc.).
Feldman teaches pg.9, ¶ [0085] discusses receiv[ing] payments for charging usage of the EV 116. However, Feldman fails to explicitly state receiving a payment request for the charging cost from the user terminal and executing payment and dispatching a power suppling vehicle to a position of the first target vehicle.
Yu et al. teaches receiving a payment request for the charging cost from the user terminal and executing payment (Figure 8, depicts a user interface that allows a user to provide payment for vehicle charging).
Yu et al. further teaches dispatching a power suppling vehicle to a position of the first target vehicle (pg.6, ¶ [0090] discusses selecting whether the rescue order is accepted or not by the driver of the electric vehicle…¶ [0092] discusses in the process of rescue, acquiring the GPS information of the charging rescue vehicle in real time and pushing to the rescued vehicle APP by a rescue vehicle monitoring module of the rescue platform, and knowing a position, a speed and expected arrival time of the charging rescue vehicle by the driver of the electric vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to receive payment and information for a vehicle that needs charging and sending a rescue vehicle to charge a requesting vehicle as in the improvement discussed in Yu et al. in the system executing the method of the Feldman-Wild combination. As in Yu et al., it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to dispatch a rescue vehicle to an electric vehicle requesting a charge with the predicted result of sending a rescue vehicle to provide charge to a requesting vehicle as needed in the Feldman combination.
Feldman et al. and Yu et al. are both within the same field of endeavor, i.e. providing charge services to electric vehicles.
Feldman pg.8, ¶ [0071] discusses the vehicle SoC estimation uses one or more of a trip distance, route, terrain information, time of day, day of the week, traffic, road condition, vehicle information, weather, and/or vehicle user driving behavior. Thereby utilizing consumption data to calculate the state of a battery.
Yu et al. pg.5, ¶ [0087] teaches estimating rescue cost and time according to the GPS information of the charging rescue vehicle accepting the order by the rescue platform.
The combination teaches receiving a charge request, calculating a charge amount, cost, executing a payment and dispatching a vehicle to a requesting vehicle.
However, the Feldman-Yu combination fails to explicitly state calculating a charging amount and a charging cost required to charge the first target vehicle sufficiently to travel the expected travel distance based on electricity consumption data associated with a user of the user terminal.
Katanoda teaches calculating a charging amount required to charge the first target vehicle sufficiently to travel the expected travel distance based on electricity consumption data associated with a user of the user terminal (pg.5-6, discusses the server 300 calculates the electricity cost when traveling the traveling route of the vehicle 1 this time, based on the usage ratio set in S140. More specifically, as shown in the following equation (1), the travel route of the vehicle 1 is divided into a plurality of links L i (i is a natural number). For each link L i , the power consumption E1 of the vehicle 1 in the link L i is multiplied by the usage ratio R1 of the data D1, and the power consumption E2 of the other vehicle in the link L i is multiplied by the usage ratio R2 of the data D2. The sum of the two is calculated as the electricity cost
Q i .Q i = E1 × R1 + E2 × R2 (1)
For example, when the usage ratio is set to R1: R2 = 10%: 90% as described in FIG. 4B, the electricity cost E1 of the vehicle 1 for the k-th (k is a natural number) link L k and when electric power consumption E2 of the other vehicle was respectively 6.0 (km / kWh) and 8.0 (km / kWh), the electric power consumption Q k for the link L k .sub.is, Q k = 6.0 × 0. It is calculated that 10 + 8.0 × 0.90 = 7.8 (km / kWh). In this way, the power consumption Q i of all the links Li included in the travel route of the vehicle 1 is calculated… server 300 calculates the travelable distance of vehicle 1 using the SOC of power storage device 230 acquired from vehicle 1 in S130 and the power consumption calculation result in S230. More specifically, the arithmetic unit 100, for each link .sub.L i included in the travel route of the vehicle 1, the length of the link .sub.L I [Unit: miles] link electricity cost in .L iQ i [Unit: miles / kWh ] and based, power consumption in the link L i [unit: calculates the kWh]. Arithmetic device 100 then converts the SOC of power storage device 230 into a remaining power amount, and the remaining power amount of power storage device 230 reaches a predetermined specified value (lower limit) along the travel route from the current location of vehicle 1. It calculates an integrated value of the length of the link L i to a point as the travel distance of the vehicle 1.The server 300 transmits the calculated travelable distance to the computing device 100).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing energy to vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Feldman-Yu combination to include the ability to calculate electricity cost for a travelable distance based on power consumption as taught by Katanoda to provide an electric consumption efficiency calculation unit that calculates the efficiency of electric consumption by dividing the travel distance by a difference in a power residual amount between before and after traveling. Abstract
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 ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627