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 .
Status
This action is in response to applicant’s arguments filed on 12/17/2025. Claims 11-14, 16-20 are pending. Claim 11 is amended. No claims are currently added. Claims 15 is currently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the previous 101 rejection. The applicant has argued “As shown above, the Applicant has amended claim 11 to clarify which hardware elements are performing the elements of the claims and to include the element that the energy market platform is used to control, at the specific time point, based on the determined respective energy associated with the respective at least partially electrically operated motor vehicle assuming the specific energy volume, an energy flux to or from the multiplicity of motor vehicles. These elements should not be interpreted broadly enough to encompass activity that occurs in the human mind and the newly added controlling element cannot be performed in the human mind. The Applicant requests reconsideration.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s amendment merely adds generic technology to perform the recited steps. However, attributing the performance of abstract steps to a generic computer or platform does not transform those steps into patent-eligible subject matter. The abstract idea underlying the claims specifically determining energy data, comparing supply with demand, and coordinating energy distribution among electric vehicles remains the same regardless of whether those steps are attributed to an "electronic computing device" or an "energy market platform." The hardware attribution amendments add no technical specificity to how the computer implements the claimed functions.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea specifically, a method of organizing human activity in the form of energy trading and market coordination. Claim 11 is directed to operating an energy market platform for energy trading. These are economic and commercial activities specifically energy trading, market matching of supply and demand, and commercial coordination among aggregators and energy system operators. These activities have been performed by energy market participants long before the advent of computers or electric vehicles. The claim automates these market coordination functions using generic computing infrastructure, but the underlying concept remains abstract.
The newly amended controlling step does not supply significantly more than the abstract idea. The applicant argues that the added controlling step cannot be performed in the human mind and therefore overcomes the mental processes characterization. Although the controlling step involves a physical action the presence of one physical step in an otherwise abstract claim does not automatically confer patent eligibility. The controlling step is recited at a high level of functional generality without specifying any particular technical mechanism, protocol, hardware configuration, or unconventional approach by which the energy market platform exercises that control. The step amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract idea and then do something with the result. The claim does not recite any specific technical mechanism by which the energy market platform improves upon conventional energy management systems, grid coordination technology, or electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The claim recites the generic functions determining, comparing, providing, controlling without specifying the technical architecture, algorithms, protocols, or unconventional approaches that would constitute a technical improvement. The specification would need to identify a specific technical problem and explain an unconventional technical solution reflected in the claim. The previous 101 rejection has been updated to reflect applicant’s amendments.
The applicant has argued the previous 103 rejection of claim 11 in view of applicant’s amendments. An updated search and rejection can be seen below.
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 11-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 11-14, 16-18 are directed to a method, claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claims 20 is directed to a computing device. Therefore, claims 11-14, 16-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) (mathematical relationships/formulas, mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically the independent claims recite:
mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitations of determining an energy potential, comparing a trade energy request, proving vehicles, determining a respective energy, and controlling which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an electronic computing device,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “using an electronic computing device” language, the claim encompasses a user manually with pen and paper determining a respective energy at a specific point. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computing device appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process.
certain methods of organizing human activity: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for a method of organizing human activity in the form of energy trading and market coordination which is commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12-14, 16-18 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 11, 19, 20, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 11 is “operating an energy market platform for an energy trade for at least one aggregator using an electronic computing device, wherein a time period is specified for the energy trade is subdivided into a multiplicity of time units…according to at least one energy system… providing a multiplicity of at least partially electrically operated motor vehicles… controlling, using the energy market platform …at least partially electrically operated motor vehicle.” Claim 19 is “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions operable, when executed by one or more computing systems.” Claim 20 is “An electronic computing device for operating an energy market platform for an energy trade for at least one aggregator, wherein the electronic computing device is configured to.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to determine, compare, and provide data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “stipulating the specific energy volume by a user of a respective motor vehicle and/or the specific energy volume in accordance with a future energy consumption of a respective motor vehicle.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 13 introduces the additional element of “issuing a visual warning to the aggregator on the energy market platform.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 14 introduces the additional element of “wherein the energy market platform is operated such that, during the stipulated time period, any injection into the energy system, or tap-off from the energy system are mutually compensated.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 16 introduces the additional element of “determining a respective time-dependent energy potential of a respective motor vehicle; and summing the respective time-dependent energy potentials of the motor vehicles to determine the respective energy potential per unit of time for the energy system.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 17 introduces the additional element of “executing a determination of energy flexibility based on a charging strategy for the respective motor vehicle.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 18 introduces the additional element of “communicating a future employment of the respective motor vehicle to the energy market platform.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 11, 19, and 20 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 11 is “operating an energy market platform for an energy trade for at least one aggregator using an electronic computing device, wherein a time period is specified for the energy trade is subdivided into a multiplicity of time units…according to at least one energy system… providing a multiplicity of at least partially electrically operated motor vehicles… controlling, using the energy market platform … at least partially electrically operated motor vehicle.” Claim 19 is “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions operable, when executed by one or more computing systems.” Claim 20 is “An electronic computing device for operating an energy market platform for an energy trade for at least one aggregator, wherein the electronic computing device is configured to.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to determine, compare, and provide data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “stipulating the specific energy volume by a user of a respective motor vehicle and/or the specific energy volume in accordance with a future energy consumption of a respective motor vehicle.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 13 introduces the additional element of “issuing a visual warning to the aggregator on the energy market platform.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 14 introduces the additional element of “wherein the energy market platform is operated such that, during the stipulated time period, any injection into the energy system, or tap-off from the energy system are mutually compensated.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 16 introduces the additional element of “determining a respective time-dependent energy potential of a respective motor vehicle; and summing the respective time-dependent energy potentials of the motor vehicles to determine the respective energy potential per unit of time for the energy system.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 17 introduces the additional element of “executing a determination of energy flexibility based on a charging strategy for the respective motor vehicle.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 18 introduces the additional element of “communicating a future employment of the respective motor vehicle to the energy market platform.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Therefore, this limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 11-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. (US 20180205230 A1) in view of Forbes et al. (US 20170358041 A1) in view of Kempton et al. (US 20070282495 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kudo teaches a method for operating an energy market platform for an energy trade for at least one aggregator using an electronic computing device (¶ 52, 55, 64, 66, discloses the use of an aggregator in a power trading market. ¶ 19, 21, disclose an electronic computing device), wherein a time period is specified for the energy trade is subdivided into a multiplicity of time units (¶ 12, 21, 24, 52, 55, 57, discloses markets broken into time periods, See also Fig. 5-7);
determining, with the electronic computing device, a respective energy potential for each of the time units according to at least one energy system (¶ 10, 24, 48, discloses power prediction with time units. ¶ 63-64);
comparing, with the electronic computing device, a time-unit-dependent trade energy request with the corresponding energy potential using an input by the aggregator (¶ 10, 24, 48, discloses power prediction with time units. Power demand and supply prediction. ¶ 51-55, 63-64, discloses an energy request in view of demand and supply. ¶ 52, 54, 62-63, 66, the aggregator sets the degree of contribution);
providing, using an energy system, a multiplicity of at least partially electrically operated motor vehicles (¶ 56-59, disclose the use of a number of electronic vehicles);
determining, using the energy market platform, the respective energy such that, at a specific time point, a respective at least partially electrically operated motor vehicle assumes a specific energy volume (¶ 21, In a time period in which there is a margin in the power supply amount with respect to the power demand amount, when the electricity storage unit of the charging/discharging device is charged, the stability of the power system is improved. ¶ 53-54, discloses the time it takes to fully charge a battery. ¶ 59, 63, 65, discloses charge time period.).
Kudo does not specifically teach wherein the respective energy potential is represented so as to be visible to the aggregator on the energy market platform
However, Forbes teaches the electronic computing device represents the respective energy potential so as to be visible to the aggregator on the energy market platform (¶ 182, discloses an app for electronic vehicle charging. ¶ 211, 212, disclose a vendor/aggregator view interface. ¶ 206, disclose production potential. See also Fig. 64-67). Forbes also teaches the trade energy request input by the aggregator ¶ 199, 224-225.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kudo to include/perform represented so as to be visible to the aggregator on the energy market platform, as taught/suggested by Forbes. This known technique is applicable to the system of Kudo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to EV charging platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Forbes would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Forbes to the teachings of Kudo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such visible representation features into similar systems. Further, applying represented data so as to be visible to the aggregator on the energy market platform would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the aggregator to see and control the asset, the owner can monetize their energy flexibility.
The combination of Kudo and Forbes disclose multiple motor vehicles but does not specifically teach an energy flux.
However, Kempton teaches controlling, using the energy market platform, at the specific time point, based on the determined respective energy associated with the respective at least partially electrically operated motor vehicle assuming the specific energy volume, an energy flux to or from the multiplicity of motor vehicles (abstract, ¶ 23, 24, 94, 95, discloses an energy flux. ¶ 9-11, disclose multiple vehicles and their energy capacity during specific time periods. ¶ 35, 48, 56, discloses use during peak power. ¶ 68-70, discloses features of the power markets. ¶ 128, 129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kudo to include/perform controlling an energy flux to or from the multiplicity of motor vehicles using the energy market platform, as taught/suggested by Kempton. This known technique is applicable to the system of Kudo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to charging systems and platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kempton would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kempton to the teachings of Kudo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such flux features into similar systems. Further, applying controlling an energy flux to or from the multiplicity of motor vehicles using the energy market platform would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would enable the regulating the flow of energy to the vehicle from the grid and optimizing the internal energy usage of the vehicle itself.
Regarding claim 12, Kudo teaches stipulating the specific energy volume by a user of a respective motor vehicle and/or the specific energy volume in accordance with a future energy consumption of a respective motor vehicle (¶ 20, 25, 63, discloses energy volume in view of future energy consumption. See Fig. 5-8).
Regarding claim 14, Kudo teaches wherein the energy market platform is operated such that, during the stipulated time period, any injection into the energy system, or tap-off from the energy system are mutually compensated (¶ 56, 64, disclose compensation for the amount of power discharged while charging are made. Fig. 5-8).
Regarding claim 16, Kudo teaches determining a respective time-dependent energy potential of a respective motor vehicle; and summing the respective time-dependent energy potentials of the motor vehicles to determine the respective energy potential per unit of time for the energy system (¶ 10, 24, 48, discloses power prediction with time units. Power demand and supply prediction. ¶ 51-55, 63-64, discloses an energy request in view of demand and supply. ¶ 52, 54, 62-63, 66, the aggregator sets the degree of contribution).
Regarding claim 18, Kudos teaches communicating a future employment of the respective motor vehicle to the energy market platform, temporally in advance of the energy trade (¶ 35-37, 41, 45-47, 54, 63, disclose a V2G system. Communicating a motor vehicle's future employment to an energy market platform, known as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) or Vehicle-Grid Integration (VGI), offers benefits for vehicle owners, grid operators, and the environment.)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kudo and Forbes teaches the limitations of claim 11. Kudo does not specifically teach but Forbes further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions operable, when executed by one or more computing systems, to: perform the method of claim 11 (¶ 133, 145-148, 153, disclose the use of a computer readable medium and a computing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kudo to include/perform a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions operable, as taught/suggested by Forbes. This known technique is applicable to the system of Kudo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to EV charging platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Forbes would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Forbes to the teachings of Kudo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such computer-readable features into similar systems. Further, applying a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions operable would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for long-term data retention and preservation, reliable and accessible data, and the ability to back up critical information.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kudo and Forbes teaches the limitations of claim 11. Kudo does not specifically teach but Forbes further teaches an electronic computing device for operating an energy market platform for an energy trade for at least one aggregator, wherein the electronic computing device is configured to execute the method (¶ 133, 145-148, 153-157, disclose the use of a computing device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kudo to include/perform an electronic computing device for operating an energy market platform for an energy trade for at least one aggregator, as taught/suggested by Forbes. This known technique is applicable to the system of Kudo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to EV charging platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Forbes would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Forbes to the teachings of Kudo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such computing device features into similar systems. Further, applying an electronic computing device for operating an energy market platform for an energy trade for at least one aggregator would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for long-term data retention and preservation, reliable and accessible data, and the ability to back up critical information.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. (US 20180205230 A1) in view of Forbes et al. (US 20170358041 A1) in view of Kempton et al. (US 20070282495 A1) in further view of Einfalt et al. (US 20160363918 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kudo and Forbes teaches the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Kudo and Forbes does not specifically teach when an overshoot of a trade energy request for a respective energy potential, issuing a visual warning to the aggregator on the energy market platform.
However, Einfalt teaches when an overshoot of a trade energy request for a respective energy potential, issuing a visual warning to the aggregator on the energy market platform (abstract, ¶ 20, 25-28, 37, discloses informing a network operator of an overshoot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kudo to include/perform when an overshoot of a trade energy request for a respective energy potential, issuing a visual warning to the aggregator on the energy market platform, as taught/suggested by Einfalt. This known technique is applicable to the system of Kudo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to charging systems and platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Einfalt would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Einfalt to the teachings of Kudo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such overshoot alert features into similar systems. Further, applying when an overshoot of a trade energy request for a respective energy potential, issuing a visual warning to the aggregator on the energy market platform would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would enable the aggregator to respond quickly to market changes and help mitigate risks, improve decision-making.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. (US 20180205230 A1) in view of Forbes et al. (US 20170358041 A1) in view of Kempton et al. (US 20070282495 A1) in further view of Andre et al. (US 20210276434 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kudo and Forbes teaches the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Kudo and Forbes does not specifically teach an energy flux.
However, Andre teaches executing a determination of energy flexibility based on a charging strategy for the respective motor vehicle (Fig. 3, abstract, ¶ 18-21, discloses charging flexibility as well as selecting a charging strategy. ¶ 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kudo to include/perform executing a determination of energy flexibility based on a charging strategy for the respective motor vehicle, as taught/suggested by Andre. This known technique is applicable to the system of Kudo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to charging systems and platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Andre would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Andre to the teachings of Kudo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such flexibility features into similar systems. Further, applying executing a determination of energy flexibility based on a charging strategy for the respective motor vehicle would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would enable the user flexibility when charging and provide flexibility to the power grid.
Other pertinent prior art includes Steven et al. (US 8892264 B2) which discloses energy-related revenue available to the energy customer over a time period is based at least in part on a wholesale electricity market. Bain et al. (US 20190372345 A1) which discloses a user interface through which a consumer accesses an energy marketplace. Pavlak et al. (US 20180219374 A1) discloses model predictive control (MPC) to optimize energy usage and to more effectively participate in grid markets.
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 JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625