Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/532,302

INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Dec 07, 2023
Examiner
BARNES-BULLOCK, CRYSTAL JOY
Art Unit
2117
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
578 granted / 672 resolved
+31.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -13% lift
Without
With
+-13.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
686
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§103
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 672 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
DETAILED ACTION The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-5 are pending in this application 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 27 November 2024 and 7 December 2023. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s), in part, receiving an electric power feed request for a vehicle from a user terminal; determining an installer to perform installation work of a charger for electric power feed, from the electric power feed request, and transmitting installation work information indicating at least a charging location and an installation time to an installer terminal; and determining, from the electric power feed request, a retriever to perform retrieval work of the charger, and transmitting retrieval work information indicating at least the charging location and a retrieval time to a retriever terminal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims are directed to abstract ideas of . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims are directed to abstract ideas and extra-solution activities that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as mere data gathering, insignificant application, and/or mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. The following is an analysis based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). Step 1, Statutory Category? Claims 1-5 are directed to an information processing method performed by an information processing device. Claims 1-5 are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A, Prong One, Judicial Exception Recited? Claims 1-5 are directed to abstract ideas of concepts performed in the human mind (mental process -- receiving an electric power feed request for a vehicle from a user terminal; determining an installer to perform installation work of a charger for electric power feed, from the electric power feed request; and determining, from the electric power feed request, a retriever to perform retrieval work of the charger) given the broadest reasonable interpretation. As per claim 1, this claim similarly recites the limitations of “receiving an electric power feed request for a vehicle from a user terminal; determining an installer to perform installation work of a charger for electric power feed, from the electric power feed request; and determining, from the electric power feed request, a retriever to perform retrieval work of the charger) given the broadest reasonable interpretation.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. As per claim 2, this claim similarly recites the limitations of “receiving information indicating a chargeable period from the user terminal; extracting, from a storage unit, one or more installers that can perform the installation work during the chargeable period; and extracting, from the storage unit, one or more retrievers that can perform the retrieval work during the chargeable period.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. As per claim 3, this claim similarly recites the limitations of “monitoring the charger that is portable, using at least one of location information of the charger, communication information of the charger, and a captured image of the charger captured by a camera.” As drafted, these limitations encompass concepts performed in the human mind. Examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Claims 4 and 5 further elaborate upon the recited abstract ideas in claim 1. Claims 1-5 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-5 are directed to abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind). Step 2A, Prong Two, Integrated into a Practical Application? The claims recite the following additional limitations: As per claim 1, this claim similarly recites the limitations of “a user terminal, an installer terminal, and a retriever terminal.” As per claim 2, this claim similarly recites the limitations of “the user terminal and a storage unit.” As per claim 3, this claim similarly recites the limitations of “a terminal installed at a charging station.” As per claim 4, this claim similarly recites the limitation of “the user terminal.” As per claim 5, this claim similarly recites the limitations of “the installer terminal and the retriever terminal.” As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than merely using a terminal as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Claims that amount to nothing more than merely using a terminal as a tool to perform an abstract idea do not render an abstract idea eligible. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite merely using a terminal as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do not provide integration into a practical application because they do no more than merely invoke terminals or machinery as tools to perform an existing process. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and claims in their entirety do not provide integration into a practical application. The additional claim limitations, claim elements together and claims in their entirety do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The concept described in the claim(s) is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in the claims describes the concept identified as an abstract idea (data gathering, data outputting and data transmission). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Claims 1-5 do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. Step 2B, Inventive Concept (Significantly More)? When considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements and elements of claims 1-5 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional elements of outlined in Step 2A performing functions as designed simply accomplish execution of the abstract ideas. The additional limitations identified as no more than merely using a terminal as a tool to perform an abstract idea above are carried over and they also do not provide significantly more. As per claims 1-5, these claims similarly recite the limitations of “receiving an electric power feed request for a vehicle from a user terminal; determining an installer to perform installation work of a charger for electric power feed, from the electric power feed request, and transmitting installation work information indicating at least a charging location and an installation time to an installer terminal; and determining, from the electric power feed request, a retriever to perform retrieval work of the charger, and transmitting retrieval work information indicating at least the charging location and a retrieval time to a retriever terminal.” As drafted, these limitations encompass no more than merely using a terminal as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible. Claims 1-5 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2022-152896 A to KOJI reference. As per claim 1, the KOJI reference discloses an information processing method performed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising: receiving an electric power feed request (see page 3, “reservation information”) for a vehicle (see page 2, “rental car 40”) from a user terminal (see page 3, “terminal 31”); determining an installer to perform installation work (“desired date and time (desired rental date and time, desired return date and time)”) of a charger (see page 2, “charger 2”) for electric power feed (“electric power”), from the electric power feed request (“reservation information”), and transmitting installation work information (“desired date and time (desired rental date and time, desired return date and time)”) indicating at least a charging location (“installation location”) and an installation time (see page 4, “charge start command”) to an installer terminal (“terminal 32, terminal 33”); and determining, from the electric power feed request (“reservation information”), a retriever to perform retrieval work (“desired date and time (desired rental date and time, desired return date and time)”) of the charger (“charger 2”), and transmitting retrieval work information (“desired date and time (desired rental date and time, desired return date and time)”) indicating at least the charging location (“installation location”) and a retrieval time (see page 5, “full charge time”) to a retriever terminal (“terminal 32, terminal 33”). As per claim 2, the KOJI reference discloses receiving information indicating a chargeable period (see page 6, “charging time”) from the user terminal (“terminal 31”); extracting, from a storage unit (see page 3, “DB 42, administrator map”), one or more installers that can perform the installation work information (“desired date and time (desired rental date and time, desired return date and time)”) during the chargeable period (“charging time”); and extracting, from the storage unit (“DB 42, administrator map”), one or more retrievers that can perform the retrieval work (“desired date and time (desired rental date and time, desired return date and time)”) during the chargeable period (“charging time”). As per claim 5, the KOJI reference discloses the installer (see page 3, “rental car company 20, administrator 30”) and the retriever (“rental car company 20, administrator 30”) are the same (see page 7, “same location”), and the installer terminal (“terminal 32, terminal 33”) and the retriever terminal (“terminal 32, terminal 33”) are the same (“same location”). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to electrical vehicle charging in general: US 10647214 B2 to Solomon JP 7535921 B2 JP 2011227541 A to YASUO et al. JP 2011107929 A to YASUO et al. WO 2021219669 A1 to ABU DAQQA et al. CN 109080487 B to ZHANG et al. KR 20200034245 A to JUNG KR 20200031222 A to KIM KR 20200031221 A to KIM KR 20180100987 A to JUNG KR 20180100986 A to JUNG Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J Barnes-Bullock whose telephone number is (571)272-3679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm. 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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. /CRYSTAL J BARNES-BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117 20 February 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603510
REVERSE FLOW POWER CONTROL DEVICE AND REVERSE FLOW POWER CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595141
DOCK DOOR AUTOMATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584646
Drive Through Window Energy Saving System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12560346
BUILDING CONTROL SYSTEMS WITH OPTIMIZATION OF EQUIPMENT LIFE CYCLE ECONOMIC VALUE WHILE PARTICIPATING IN IBDR AND PBDR PROGRAMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12548443
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE FOR MANAGING OPERATION OF AN ON-DEMAND BUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR MANAGING OPERATION OF AN ON-DEMAND BUS, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM FOR MANAGING OPERATION OF AN ON-DEMAND BUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (-13.1%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 672 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month