PNG
media_image1.png
387
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner thanks attorney O’Sullivan for the amendment to advance prosecution
AIA
Status of claim Set 2
Claims 1-6 examined in response to 10/15/2025 amendment/remarks.
Dependents from rejected claims are necessarily rejected.
Amended 1-6
New none
Canceled none
Pub: US20240310180 03/05/2024, claims priority to JP 2023-042107, filed 03/16/2023
Response to Remarks
Applicant amendment remarks fully considered but unfortunately not fully persuasive.
103 amendment prompts new art addressing your display switch amendment
101 display switch for grasping can grasping by a user, and thus organizing human activity.
Objection
One could say grasp (a person grasps information), or one has got a grip on some situation. Since the context is not grasp, grip, pinch, compression, tension, shear, torsion, etc. then to ‘particularly point out and distinctly claim’ under 112b, one might reword. The display is for a user. Understood might be something to consider.
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
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) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1
The claims and their dependents are directed to one of the statutory classes (1 machine 6 process). (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2a Prong 1
The claim(s) is/are directed to
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR,
and
MENTAL STEPS.
Independent claims 1, 6 similar
1. A vehicle substitute simulation device, comprising:
O a memory configured to store a program and electric vehicle performance information relating to a travel performance of an electric vehicle that includes a motor driven by electricity
O a processor configured to execute the program and control the vehicle substitute simulation device to:
O acquire movement information that includes a transition-over-time of position information from an information [ terminal ] carried by a user;
O acquire, from the movement information acquired in a predetermined period, ride information that includes at least movement distance information and waypoint information on an internal combustion engine vehicle driven by the user and including an internal combustion engine;
O calculate, from the electric vehicle performance information and the ride information, a remaining amount of electric power (SoC (State of Charge)) of the electric vehicle as SoC information for each waypoint for a case in which the user switches to the electric vehicle; and
O an [ output unit ] configured to output, to the information[ terminal ] of the user, the SoC information for each waypoint in the waypoint information
O wherein the information displays, for a case in which the internal combustion engine vehicle is switched to the electric vehicle, what kind of power consumption is necessary for each waypoint so that it can be grasped based on the SoC information for each waypoint calculated by the vehicle substitute simulation device
EPG (CAFC 2016)
PNG
media_image2.png
639
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Abstract
Idea
of
Simulation
+
Collect info
Analyze it
Display results
abstract idea
Additional element beyond the idea [ generic limitation generally applied ]
The claim is simulating for targeted marketing
In light of the 7 January 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims steps set forth
Mental Processes such as
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
In claims 1, 6 applicant is simulating which is
MENTAL PROCESS, Concepts Relating To Data Comparisons That Can Be Performed Mentally Or Are Analogous To Human Mental Work
LONG STANDING COMMERCIAL PRACTICE
ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
This simulation is no different in principle than to, before you leave, to check whether you have enough provisions to take the trip. All throughout human history, such provisions have been taken stock of before leaving and include sufficient water, food, petrol, wind and weather in case of sailing, etc.
The claim is an abstract idea simulation plus acquiring for abstract idea (Collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of collecting/analyzing (Electric Power Group V Alstom (CAFC 2016)).
Alice
clearinghouse
implemented by computer
Here
simulation
implemented by computer
Bilski
hedge
implemented by computer
The broadest reasonable interpretation of simulating is running through a trial of what might happen.
Simulating can be done without a device (Merriam-Webster 3a, below).
Or with a simulating device (Merriam-Webster (3b, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
436
759
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims = idea itself + generic elements generally applied
2 (description of information in determining waypoint,
3 gather more data such as vibration,
4 generic storing data, analyzing data, acquiring more data,
5 generic memory and math ie calculating)
Collecting information, analyzing it, displaying certain results of collecting/analyzing (Electric Power Group V Alstom (CAFC 2016)).
CLAIM 2
2. The vehicle substitute simulation device according to claim 1, wherein
O in a case in which the transition of the position information is at a position within a predetermined range for a predetermined time or longer, the processor determines that the position is one waypoint.
Examiner
Idea itself, survey to simulate advertising including collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results using generic tool. In other words, idea + EPG.
CLAIM 3
3. The vehicle substitute simulation device according to claim 1, wherein
O the processor further acquires vibration information on the information terminal, and the processor determines, based on the vibration information, whether or not the internal combustion engine vehicle moves and then acquires the movement distance information.
Examiner
Idea itself, description of data stored, analyzing to simulate including collecting info, using generic tool. In other words, idea + EPG.
CLAIM 4
4. The vehicle substitute simulation device according to claim 1,
O wherein the memory stores map information that includes information on a public transit system, and the processor determines, based on the map information, whether the transition of the position information is movement by the internal combustion engine vehicle or movement by the public transit system and then acquires the movement distance information.
Examiner
Idea itself, description of data stored, analyzing to simulate including collecting info, using generic tool. In other words, idea + EPG.
CLAIM 5
5. The vehicle substitute simulation device according to claim 1, wherein
O the memory further stores the electric vehicle performance information for each vehicle model of a plurality of electric vehicles, and the processor calculates the SoC information for each waypoint for each vehicle model of the plurality of electric vehicles.
Examiner
Idea itself, description of data stored, analyzing (calculate) survey to simulate including collecting info, using generic tool. In other words, idea + EPG.
Thus, the claims is “recite” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong 1=Yes).
Additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to: bracketed above. Other steps do not present significantly more or integrate the idea into a practical application.
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. The claims in ordered combination are just the abstract idea implemented on a computer, the ordered combination spelling out how to do computer implement. The specification has the computer as any machine that performs the functions (Applicant’s Spec). The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke. Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Prong 1 answered “YES”, the next question in Prong 2 is whether there is an integrated practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – bracketed above to perform the claim steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, general linking of idea to generic element. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2b
Display (output) is generic and insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05g and Electric Power Group
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, medium do something unconventional such that Applicant has improved computer functionality. Applicant presents an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas (a plurality of exceptions December 16, 2014 Interim Guidance p 74625, Fed Register Vol 79 No 241) and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is conventional (device, ad inventory, computer program product, medium). There is not improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a business problem (targeted marketing), not a technical problem.
The claim limitations alone or in ordered combination do not improve upon the technical field to which the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of any device itself.
The additional elements alone or in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generic linking use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are generic activities previously known to the industry. Moreover, these generic limitations do not lead to an integrated practical application because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to an integrated practical application. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself.
Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers"(citing Bilski 561 US at 610).
Moreover, mere recitation of a machine or medium in the preamble does not make a claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101, as seen in the Board of Patent Appeals Informative Opinion Ex Parte Langemyr (Appeal 2008-1495). Moreover, mere mention of a piece of a computer or processing device does not confer patentability. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank International ("Alice Corp") 573 US __ (2014). Incorporating the two-step test espoused in its recent decision in Mayo v. Prometheus 566 U.S. ___ (2012), the Court describes a first inquiry as to whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court requires a second inquiry as to whether the elements, individually or in combination, “transform” the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible invention. The Court described this second step as a search for an inventive concept, “i.e., an element or combination sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic elements that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, medium do something to improved hardware functionality.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is generic. There is no improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a business problem (targeted marketing), not a technical problem.
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, in ordered combination the claim limitations spell out the steps of calculating a number using generic technology
In addition to these indisputably generic features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces a result that overrides the generic use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We must thus conclude that the claims fail step two as well.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abstract idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, storage do something nongeneric such that Applicant has improved computer functionality. Applicant presents an idea for which computers are invoked as a tool.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
-Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48
-Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, they spell out the steps of an algorithm for organizing human behavior implemented with generic technology. In addition to these indisputably conventional features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces “a result that overrides the routine and conventional” use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly conventional” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We must thus conclude that the claims fail step two as well.
Claims dependent from the independent claims do not cure the deficiencies and are rejected.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
MPEP 2123: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983) A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).”
Claims rejected as obvious over 35 USC 103 over Sugiyama US 20230160708 in view of Gaspard US 20180188051
CLAIM 1-2 4-6
CLAIM 1 6
A vehicle replacement simulation [ device ] comprising:
O a memory configured to store a program and electric vehicle performance information relating to a travel performance of an electric vehicle that includes a motor driven by electricity
O a processor configured to execute the program and control the vehicle substitute simulation device to:
PNG
media_image4.png
859
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sugiyama US 20230160708 ¶ 4-8 24-38
Abstract
…, a control unit acquires an operation history of an internal combustion engine vehicle for a first period. On the assumption that a first BEV is operated according to an operation schedule shown by the acquired operation history, the control unit determines whether the battery needs charging during travel of the first BEV. When it is determined that the battery needs charging during travel of the first BEV, the control unit generates first information including information about a timing of charging and a charging place and outputs the generated first information through a first terminal.
O acquire movement information that includes a transition-over-time of position information from an information [ terminal ] carried by a user
Sugiyama US 20230160708 Fig 3 & text
Although Sugiyama doesn’t use term position information aquisition, the ≈ is in Fig 3 and 4 & text
PNG
media_image5.png
775
601
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sugiyama US 20230160708 Abstract ¶ 4-8 24-25, Fig 1, 3 9-10 & text
O acquire, from the movement information acquired in a predetermined period, ride information that includes at least movement distance information and waypoint information on an internal combustion engine vehicle driven by the user and including an internal combustion engine
Fig 3 F310 aquisition
Sugiyama US 20230160708 Fig 3 & text
O calculate, from the electric vehicle performance information and the ride information, a remaining amount of electric power (SoC State of Charge) of the electric vehicle as SoC information for each waypoint for a case in which the user switches to the electric vehicle and
Sugiyama US 20230160708 Fig 1-5 & text
PNG
media_image6.png
733
572
media_image6.png
Greyscale
O output, to the information [ terminal ] of the user, the SoC information for each waypoint in the waypoint information
Abstract Fig 1 & text
Abstract
…, a control unit acquires an operation history of an internal combustion engine vehicle for a first period. On the assumption that a first BEV is operated according to an operation schedule shown by the acquired operation history, the control unit determines whether the battery needs charging during travel of the first BEV. When it is determined that the battery needs charging during travel of the first BEV, the control unit generates first information including information about a timing of charging and a charging place and outputs the generated first information through a first terminal.
PNG
media_image7.png
874
472
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
748
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sugiyama
“Map information database to which the map data on the road
PNG
media_image9.png
442
789
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Sugiyama
PNG
media_image10.png
22
316
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
384
642
media_image11.png
Greyscale
NOT EXPLICT IN Sugiyama
O wherein the information displays, for a case in which the internal combustion engine vehicle is switched to the electric vehicle, what kind of power consumption is necessary for each waypoint so that it can be grasped based on the SoC information for each waypoint calculated by the vehicle substitute simulation device
Gaspard US 2018018051 at least ¶ 5 114 132 149
[0149] All these planning/simulation exercises can be combined with interactive graphical simulations of an impact of a change in energy consumption mode, speed and/or time of departure or arrival, as displayed on FIG. 4. They can also be combined with graphical simulations of an impact of a change in traffic conditions, weight of payload and/or wind direction and/or speed. Thanks to these improvements according to the invention the planning and optimization capability of an automotive vehicle energy management system may be greatly improved.
It would have been obvious to combine the references.
A person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Sugiyama and its modes would have been motivated to consult the works of colleagues and find Gaspard’s display switch between modes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
And applying display mode switch is obvious Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations; the point of having modes is to switch between them and know the advantage of one versus another at different travel positions or states or waypoints.
CLAIM 2
2. The vehicle substitute simulation device according to claim 1, wherein
O in a case in which the transition of the position information is at a position within a predetermined range for a predetermined time or longer, the processor determines that the position is one waypoint.
Rejected as claim 1
See ¶ 24 41 47 49 50
Fig 1-4 & text ¶ 70 – 80 85 91-94 97 101 107-134
CLAIM 4
4. The vehicle replacement simulation device according to claim 1, wherein the
O memory stores map information that includes information on a public transit system and the processor determines, based on the map information, whether the transition of the position information is movement by the internal combustion engine vehicle or movement by the public transit system and then acquires the movement distance information.
Rejected as claim 1
Sugiyama Fig 3 & text
Also ¶ 30-36
[0042] The server device 300 generates first information based on the operation history received from the on-board terminal 100. The first information is information about a timing of charging the battery of the first BEV on the assumption that the first BEV is operated according to the operation schedule shown by the operation history. Specifically, the first information includes information showing whether the battery needs charging during travel of the first BEV on the assumption that the first BEV is operated according to the operation schedule of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10 during the first period, information showing a timing of charging when the battery needs charging, and information showing a charging place (charging station) when the battery needs charging.
[0070] In the map information database D310, map data of roads and charging stations is registered. As the map data registered in the map information database D310, data in a commonly known form can be used. For example, the map data registered in the map information database D310 may include a plurality of map meshes corresponding to a plurality of areas divided by the latitude and the longitude. Each map mesh may include a road link showing a road passable for an automobile, information for locating the position of each road link on the map (e.g., the latitude and the longitude or the address), and information for locating the position of each charging station on the map (e.g., the latitude and the longitude or the address).
[0076] When the ignition switch of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10 is off and the position information of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10 matches the position of the facility A during the period from time T1 to time T2 in the operation history acquired by the acquisition unit F310, the simulation unit F320 determines that the internal combustion engine vehicle 10 has been parked in the facility A during the period from time T1 to time T2. Accordingly, the simulation unit F320 assumes that the first BEV is parked in the facility A during the period from time T1 to time T2. In this case, the simulation unit F320 specifies the length of the parking time from time T1 to time T2. Further, the simulation unit F320 ascertains whether there is a charging station in the facility A based on the map data in the map information database D310.
[0081] The solid lines in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 show changes over time in the remaining battery charge in the case where a charging station is installed in the facility A, and the long dashed short dashed lines in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 show changes over time in the remaining battery charge in the case where a charging station is not installed in the facility A. “Threshold value” in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 is a remaining battery charge by which it is determined that the battery needs charging when the remaining battery charge has decreased to this threshold value, and is, for example, a remaining battery charge of about 10% to 20%. While in reality the remaining battery charge cannot fall below 0%, here changes in the remaining battery charge below 0% are also shown.
[0083] When the changes over time in the remaining battery charge during the period from time Ts to time T0 are obtained, the simulation unit F320 simulates changes over time in the remaining battery charge during the period from time T0 to time T1. During this period, the first BEV travels from the storage place toward the facility A, and therefore the remaining battery charge decreases with time. This is because, during the period from time T0 to time T1, the distance traveled by the first BEV increases as time passes and the remaining battery charge decreases accordingly. Therefore, the simulation unit F320 obtains the changes over time in the remaining battery charge during this period by repeatedly performing a process of subtracting a battery consumption amount per unit distance (e.g., 1 km) from the remaining battery charge as the travel distance increases.
[0085] When the changes over time in the remaining battery charge during the period from time T0 to time T1 is obtained, the simulation unit F320 simulates changes over time in the remaining battery charge during the period from time T1 to time T2. During this period, the first BEV is parked at the facility A. When a charging station is installed in the facility A, this period can be allocated for charging the battery of the first BEV. Therefore, when a charging station is installed in the facility A, the simulation unit F320 obtains the changes over time in the remaining battery charge during this period by integrating the remaining battery charges per unit as time passes. As a result, as indicated by the solid lines in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, the remaining battery charge increases as time passes. In this case, the facility A corresponds to the “first place” according to this disclosure. The length of the parking time from time T1 to time T2 corresponds to the “second length of time” according to this disclosure. The battery charging amount from time T1 to time T2 corresponds to the “second charging amount” according to this disclosure. The battery charging amount per unit time may be set according to the type, the rating, etc. of a charger installed in the facility A. Information about the type, the rating, etc. of the charger installed in the facility A may be stored in the map information database D310 along with information for locating the position of each charging station on the map, or may be stored in a database separate from the map information database D310.
[0086] When a charging station is not installed in the facility A, the battery of the first BEV cannot be charged using this period, and therefore the simulation unit F320 does not increase or decrease the remaining battery charge during the period from time T1 to time T2. As a result, as indicated by the long dashed short dashed lines in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, the remaining battery charge during this period remains substantially constant (the same as the remaining battery charge at time T1).
[0087] When the changes over time in the remaining battery charge during the period from time T1 to time T2 are obtained, the simulation unit F320 simulates changes over time in the remaining battery charge during the period from time T2 to time T3. During this period, the first BEV travels from the facility A toward the storage place, and therefore the remaining battery charge decreases with time. Therefore, the simulation unit F320 obtains the changes over time in the remaining battery charge during this period by repeatedly performing a process of subtracting the battery consumption amount per unit distance from the battery capacity as the travel distance increases. Also in this case, the battery consumption amount per unit distance on the assumption that the first BEV travels under condition under which the power consumption rate is highest is used.
[0090] When the simulation result as indicated by the long dashed short dashed line in FIG. 5 is obtained, it is estimated that the remaining battery charge decreases to the threshold value during travel from the facility A to the storage place (at time T21 in FIG. 5). Therefore, the simulation unit F320 determines that battery needs charging during travel of the first BEV when the first BEV travels according to the virtual schedule. When this determination result is obtained, the simulation unit F320 determines time T21 during travel from the facility A to the storage place as the timing of charging. Further, the simulation unit F320 determines a first charging station. The first charging station is a charging station suitable to charge the battery of the first BEV at the timing of charging or at a timing before or after the timing of charging.
[0091] Here, one example of the method of determining the first charging station will be described based on FIG. 7. FIG. 7 is a view showing a road map of a first area. The first area is a region, such as a city, a ward, a town, or a village, including a first point (Pom in FIG. 7). The first point Pom is a traveling position on the travel route of the first BEV at the time of day when the timing of charging comes. In the simulation result indicated by the long dashed short dashed line in FIG. 5, the traveling position of the first BEV at time T21 in FIG. 5 corresponds to the first point Pom. Reference signs Cs1, Cs2, and Cs3 in FIG. 7 denote charging stations inside the first area.
[0092] To specify the first charging station, the simulation unit F320 first specifies the first point Pom. Specifically, the simulation unit F320 specifies the traveling position of the first BEV at time T21 based on the virtual schedule. As another method, the simulation unit F320 may extract the position information of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10 at time T21 from the operation history of the internal combustion engine vehicle 10 and set the position shown by the extracted position information as the first point Pom.
[0093] The simulation unit F320 accesses the map information database D310 and specifies the first area including the first point Pom. The simulation unit F320 extracts, from the map information database D310, charging stations that are located on the travel route of the first BEV (Cs1, Cs2, and Cs3 in FIG. 7) among charging stations located in the first area. The simulation unit F320 selects a charging station that is located within a predetermined distance from the first point Pom from among the extracted charging stations. The simulation unit F320 determines the selected charging station as the first charging station.
[0094] As shown in FIG. 8, a case where there is more than one charging station located within the predetermined distance from the first point Pom (e.g., Cs2 and Cs4 in FIG. 8) is also conceivable. In this case, the simulation unit F320 may determine, as the first charging station, a charging station among these charging stations that is located at a position closest from the first point Pom (e.g., Cs4 in FIG. 8). In the example shown in FIG. 8, the charging station Cs4 determined as the first charging station is located on a route that the first BEV travels before the first point Pom. In such a case, the simulation unit F320 may correct the timing of charging to a time of day when the first BEV travels the position of the charging station Cs4. When there is no charging station on the travel route within the predetermined distance from the first point Pom, the simulation unit F320 may determine, as the first charging station, a charging station that is not located on the travel route and that is located within the predetermined distance from the first point Pom. As another method, when there is no charging station on the travel route within the predetermined distance from the first point Pom, the simulation unit F320 may determine, as the first charging station, a charging station that is located on a route that the first BEV travels before the travel route within the predetermined distance from the first point Pom and that is closest from the first point Pom.
[0095] When the simulation results as indicated by the solid line and the long dashed short dashed line in FIG. 6 are obtained, it is estimated that the remaining battery charge decreases to the threshold value during travel from the storage place to the facility A (at time T01 in FIG. 6). Therefore, the simulation unit F320 determines that the battery needs charging when the first BEV travels according to the virtual schedule. When this determination result is obtained, the simulation unit F320 determines time T01 during travel from the storage place to the facility A as the timing of charging. Further, the simulation unit F320 determines the first charging station. The method of determining the first charging station is the same as the method described in the description of FIG. 7 and FIG. 8.
[0096] The simulation result of the case where the first BEV travels according to the virtual schedule and the determination result about whether the battery needs charging are transferred from the simulation unit F320 to the generation unit F330. When it is determined that the battery needs charging, in addition to the simulation result and the determination result, information about the timing of charging and the first charging station (charging place) is also transferred from the simulation unit F320 to the generation unit F330.
[0097] Here, the description of FIG. 3 will be resumed. The generation unit F330 generates first information based on the information received from the simulation unit F320. In the case where it is determined by the simulation unit F320 that the battery does not need charging, the generation unit F330 generates first information including information showing the virtual schedule, information showing the simulation result, and information showing that the battery does not need charging. In the case where it is determined by the simulation unit F320 that the battery needs charging, the generation unit F330 generates first information including information showing the virtual schedule, information showing the simulation result, information showing that the battery needs charging, information showing the timing of charging, and information on the position of the first charging station. The information on the position of the first charging station may be information on the position of the first charging station indicated on a map. The first information generated by the generation unit F330 is transferred from the generation unit F330 to the provision unit F340.
[0103] In step S103, the simulation unit F320 simulates changes over time in the remaining battery charge of the first BEV on the assumption that the first BEV is operated according to the virtual schedule generated in step S102. As described above in the description of FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, this simulation is performed based on the length of the parking time at the storage place, the battery charging amount in the storage place, the battery consumption amount during travel, the parking time in a place to be visited (e.g., the facility A in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6), whether there is battery charging equipment in the place to be visited, etc. Thus, the simulation unit F320 derives a simulation result like the one shown in FIG. 5 or FIG. 6. After executing the process of step S103, the simulation unit F320 executes the process of step S104.
[0105] When it is determined in the affirmative in step S105, the simulation unit F320 executes the process of step S106. In step S106, the simulation unit F320 determines the timing of charging. The timing of charging is a timing when the battery needs charging during travel of the first BEV when the first BEV travels according to the virtual schedule, and is a timing when the remaining battery charge decreases to the threshold value. Here, in the case where the remaining battery charge decreases to the threshold value at time T21 during travel from the facility A to the storage place as in the simulation result indicated by the long dashed short dashed line in FIG. 5, the simulation unit F320 determines time T21 as the timing of charging. In the case where the remaining battery charge decreases to the threshold value at time T01 during travel from the storage place to the facility A as in the simulation result indicated by the long dashed short dashed line in FIG. 6, the simulation unit F320 determines time T01 as the timing of charging. After executing the process of step S106, the simulation unit F320 executes the process of step S107.
[0106] In step S107, the simulation unit F320 determines the first charging station.
[0107] The first charging station is a charging station (charging place) suitable to charge the battery of the first BEV at the timing of charging or at a timing before or after the timing of charging. To determine such a first charging station, the simulation unit F320 first determines the traveling position (e.g., Pom in FIG. 7 and FIG. 8) of the first BEV at the time of day when the timing of charging comes (e.g., time T21 in FIG. 5 or time T01 in FIG. 6), and specifies this traveling position as the first point Pom.
[0108] When the first point Pom is specified, the simulation unit F320 accesses the map information database D310 and specifies a first area including the first point Pom. When the first area is specified, the simulation unit F320 extracts charging stations located in the first area (Cs1 to Cs3 in FIG. 7 or Cs1 to Cs4 in FIG. 8) from the map information database D310.
[0109] When the charging stations located in the first area are extracted, the simulation unit F320 selects a charging station that is located within the predetermined distance from the first point Pom from among the extracted charging stations. The simulation unit F320 determines the selected charging station as the first charging station. When there is more than one charging station within the predetermined distance from the first point Pom as shown in FIG. 8 described above (e.g., Cs2 and Cs4 in FIG. 8), the simulation unit F320 determines a charging station that is located at a position closest from the first point Pom (e.g., Cs4 in FIG. 8) as the first charging station. When the first charging station is located on a route that the first BEV travels before the first point Pom, the simulation unit F320 may correct the timing of charging to a time of day at which the first BEV travels the position of the first charging station.
[0110] After executing the process of step S107, the simulation unit F320 transfers the virtual schedule generated in step S102, the result of the simulation executed in step S103, the determination result of step S105, the timing of charging specified in step S106 (or the timing of charging corrected in step S107), and the first charging statio