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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A: “Per the Examiner, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant disagrees and the now claimed subject matter provides for the improved efficiency of charging infrastructure. Instant Application at Paragraph [0027].
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Methods of projecting charging station charging rate, including factoring in the presence of other vehicles and battery SOC curves, are known in the art. The additional elements (i.e. “providing for presentation….”) are claimed generically and do not integrate into practical application as recognized by the courts (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Applicant argues with respect to step 2B: “The Examiner has also noted the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the Examiner has stated the claims only recite well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity. However, by way of this amendment, the monitoring and use of vehicle battery charging curve data is now claimed. This is a practical application and serves as more than mere instructions for generic computer components.
In BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET SERVICES V. AT&TMOBILITY it was clarified that "the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces" may be considered significantly more than a judicial exception. BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET SERVICES V AT&T MOBILITY 827 F. 3d 134] (2016) at page 15S. The novelty of the now more limited claimed subject matter is discussed below and cannot be said to be conventional nor generic even if it contains some conventional pieces, thus satisfying the need for significantly more than the judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention recites conventional components arranged in a manner well understood in the art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – 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); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
determine locations of one or more electric vehicle charging stations;
determine a total power available at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations;
determine, for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations, if dynamic load balancing is used;
determine occupancy of charge points at each of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations;
calculate an available power at a charge point of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the total power available and the occupancy of the charge points for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations, wherein the available power at the charge point is determined, at least in part, based on the charging curve for at least one electric vehicle battery;
calculate an estimated time to charge a vehicle at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the available power;
and provide for presentation of an indication of the estimated time to charge the vehicle at the locations associated with the one or more electric vehicle charging stations on a map displayed on a user interface.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining station locations, determining power available at the stations, determining if load balancing is used, determining occupancy of the stations, calculating an available power at the stations, and calculating an estimated charge time. This is equivalent to a driver looking at displayed data on a map (location, power, occupancy, load balancing status, etc.) and estimating the charge time required based on that. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could estimate the charge time based on data determinations. The mere nominal recitation that the process is being executed by a computer does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
determine locations of one or more electric vehicle charging stations;
determine a total power available at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations;
determine, for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations, if dynamic load balancing is used;
determine occupancy of charge points at each of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations;
calculate an available power at a charge point of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the total power available and the occupancy of the charge points for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations, wherein the available power at the charge point is determined, at least in part, based on the charging curve for at least one electric vehicle battery;
calculate an estimated time to charge a vehicle at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the available power;
and provide for presentation of an indication of the estimated time to charge the vehicle at the locations associated with the one or more electric vehicle charging stations on a map displayed on a user interface.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps are performed by a generic computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The displaying step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the process steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 9 and 16 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are likewise ineligible for similar reasons.
The dependent claims are likewise ineligible. Most of the claims add to the mental process (claims 3-8, 11-15, and 18-20), while some add further post-solution activity (further specifying the displaying step, as in claims 2, 10, and 17). Thus, the dependent claims are likewise ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230234468 by Maeda et al. (hereinafter “Maeda”), and further in view of US20240367547 by Pettersson et al. (hereinafter “Pettersson”).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the processor, cause the apparatus to at least: see for example paragraph [0046], where the process is executed by a computer (either remotely or on a vehicle).
determine locations of one or more electric vehicle charging stations; see for example paragraph [0068]-[0069], where the system determines vehicle location and charging station locations.
determine a total power available at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations; see paragraphs [0096]-[0099], where the system determines the power available at the station based on the occupancy.
determine, for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations, if dynamic load balancing is used; see again paragraph [0096], where “The higher the occupancy of the charging entity 116, the lower the occupancy module 406 may estimate the charging speed of a charging station 112 to be,” reading on dynamic load balancing.
determine occupancy of charge points at each of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations; see again paragraphs [0096]-[0099], where the system determines the station occupancy factor.
calculate an available power at a charge point of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the total power available and the occupancy of the charge points for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations, see paragraphs [0096]-[0099], where the system determines the power available at the station based on the occupancy.
calculate an estimated time to charge a vehicle at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the available power; see paragraphs [0093]-[0095] or [0134], where the system determines the charge time required.
and provide for presentation of an indication of the estimated time to charge the vehicle at the locations associated with the one or more electric vehicle charging stations on a map displayed on a user interface. See paragraphs [0070]-[0071] or [0134], where the system displays the charging times for the stations on the map.
Maeda does not explicitly teach wherein the available power at the charge point is determined, at least in part, based on the charging curve for at least one electric vehicle battery.
However, Pettersson teaches wherein the available power at the charge point is determined, at least in part, based on the charging curve for at least one electric vehicle battery. See for example paragraph [0041], where the system predicts the charge rate at a charging station by taking into account losses due to the power demands of other vehicles there, as well as due to vehicle-centric parameters such as SOC and heat.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge time prediction system of Maeda with the battery efficiency system of Pettersson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine the best station for charging the vehicle at, improving the utility of the charging station finding application.
Claims 9 and 16 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda teaches wherein the indication of the estimated time to charge a vehicle at the locations associated with the one or more electric vehicle charging stations on the map displayed on a user interface comprises color-coded icons on the map at the locations of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations. See for example paragraph [0135], where the charging stations are displayed with icons or fonts that emphasize the charge speeds, and where text can be displayed in corresponding color, among other things.
Claims 10 and 17 have similar limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Maeda teaches wherein causing the apparatus to calculate the estimated time to charge a vehicle at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations comprises causing the apparatus to: determine a target charge level for a vehicle; and calculate the estimated time to charge the vehicle at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the target charge level and the available power. See again paragraphs [0070]-[0071] or [0134], where the system displays the charging times for the stations on the map based on the current SOC of the vehicle and charge times at each station.
Claims 11 and 18 have similar limitations to claim 3 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Maeda teaches wherein causing the apparatus to determine, for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations, if dynamic load balancing is used comprises causing the apparatus to process information associated with the one or more electric vehicle charging stations obtained from at least one of an Open Charge Point Interface, a charging station operator, a charging station owner, or a charging station service provider. See for example paragraph [0044], where the station information can be communicated via “one or more charging station business entities (e.g., charging station corporate owner).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-7, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Pettersson as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of US20200082352 by Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches wherein causing the apparatus to determine, for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations, if dynamic load balancing is used comprises causing the apparatus to: . see again paragraph [0096], where “The higher the occupancy of the charging entity 116, the lower the occupancy module 406 may estimate the charging speed of a charging station 112 to be,” reading on dynamic load balancing. That is, the system determines that charge time increases as occupancy increases.
Maeda does not explicitly teach that the system should determine historical occupancy data for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations; and analyze historical charge times during periods of relatively high occupancy and of relatively low occupancy.
However, Liu teaches that the system should determine historical occupancy data for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations and analyze historical charge times during periods of relatively high occupancy and of relatively low occupancy. See for example paragraph [0041], where the system records historical usage patterns. Then in paragraphs [0059]-[0060], the system uses historical occupancy data in order to forecast future occupancy data (based on current occupancy data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge time prediction system of Maeda, modified by the battery charge rate system of Pettersson, with the occupancy logging and prediction system of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to predict the occupancy of the system based on historical trends, better forecasting the required charging time.
Claims 12 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 4 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Maeda does not explicitly teach, but Liu does teach wherein causing the apparatus to determine occupancy of the charge points at each of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations comprises causing the apparatus to: determine occupancy of the charge points at each of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations for an estimated time of arrival at the one or more electric vehicle charging stations and for a charging duration time period after arrival. See again for example paragraph [0060], where “the usage pattern in the future, for example, in the next hours and the current usage pattern are predicted” and then “the usage pattern in the future can be adjusted in view of the real usage pattern.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge time prediction system of Maeda, modified by the battery charge rate system of Pettersson, with the occupancy logging and prediction system of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to predict the occupancy of the system based on historical trends, better forecasting the required charging time.
Claims 13 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 5 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Maeda teaches wherein causing the apparatus to calculate the available power at the charge point of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the total power available and the occupancy of charge points for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations comprises causing the apparatus to: calculate the available power at the charge point of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations based on the total power available and the occupancy of charge points for the one or more electric vehicle charging stations for the charging duration time period after arrival. See again paragraphs [0096]-[0099], where the system determines the power available at the station based on the occupancy.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Maeda does not explicitly teach, but Liu does teach wherein the occupancy of the charge points at each of the one or more electric vehicle charging stations and for a charging duration time period after arrival are determined based on historical occupancy. See again for example paragraph [0060], where “the usage pattern in the future, for example, in the next hours and the current usage pattern are predicted” and then “the usage pattern in the future can be adjusted in view of the real usage pattern.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge time prediction system of Maeda, modified by the battery charge rate system of Pettersson, with the occupancy logging and prediction system of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to predict the occupancy of the system based on historical trends, better forecasting the required charging time.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
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 JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666