CTNF 18/616,038 CTNF 93532 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. Claims 1-20 filed on 3/25/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on 3/25/2024 has been reviewed and considered by this office action. Drawings The drawings filed on 3/25/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable. Specification The specification filed on 3/25/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “ determining a time for utilizing stored energy at a location, from at least one of an electric vehicle (EV) battery or an energy storage unit; ”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes a simple determination for when to utilize stored energy which can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further recites, “ in response to a cost of the stored energy being below a first threshold, shifting a source of energy to the location using the at least one of the EV battery or the energy storage unit at the time; ”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, recites shifting a source of energy in response to a specific condition, however, it is unclear what “ shifting ” actually entails and can be reasonably interpreted to include actions which simple modify data which would just merely apply the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, claim 1 recites, “ providing a value indicator to the location, based on an environmental goal related to the shifting being above a second threshold. ”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, describes receiving a notification for reaching a goal which just simply links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering value indicator data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”). Independent claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale. Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19, each include additional limitations of “determining” various features which could all be reasonably performed in the human mind, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2, 9, and 16, each include limitations of “shifting ” of sources, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just mere apply the use of the judicial exception as generally recited (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19, each include limitations of monitoring data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, add insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 6, 13, and 20, include limitations describing conditional data regarding the threshold introduced in the independent claim, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering value indicator data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”). ***Examiner’s Note: amending the independent claims to include ALL elements of claims 7 and 14 would demonstrate physical structure used to control/perform the power switching as described in the independent claims and thus create a nexus that would demonstrate significantly more than the abstract idea and overcome the current rejection.*** Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 recites, “ A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions…” , which review of the specification, at least paragraph [0031] states that, “The computer-readable storage medium may be a non-transitory computer readable medium or a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. ” (emphasis added). Per the specification, the computer-readable storage medium may be non-transitory, which allows for situations in which the storage medium could be interpreted as transitory signals per se and thus not eligible. Please amend claims 15-20 to recite, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium …”, such that there is no question the claims do not encompass transitory signals per se. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US PGPUB 20120153888) in view of Murakami et al. (US PGPUB 20170330294) . Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15 ; Jung teaches; A method, comprising: determining a time for utilizing stored energy at a location, from at least one of an electric vehicle (EV) battery or an energy storage unit; (Jung; at least Fig. 3; paragraph [0012]; disclose a system and method for controlling charging/discharging of a battery and wherein the system determines a time to discharge the battery to the grid based on pricing information) in response to a cost of the stored energy being below a first threshold, shifting a source of energy to the location using the at least one of the EV battery or the energy storage unit at the time; (Jung; at least paragraphs [0012] and [0016]; disclose wherein the system and method includes monitoring pricing of electricity of a system, and in response to the cost being higher than a threshold (i.e. wherein this is analogous to cost of the stored energy being lower than the grid price), discharging/selling the stored energy to an electric grid). Jung appears to be silent on; providing a value indicator to the location, based on an environmental goal related to the shifting being above a second threshold. However, Murakami teaches; providing a value indicator to the location, based on an environmental goal related to the shifting being above a second threshold. (Murakami; at least paragraphs [0039]-[0041]; disclose a system and method for monitoring a battery storage of a consumer (i.e. the solar panel/battery storage system of Jung) wherein the consumer is provided an expectation value (i.e. threshold for an environmental goal) for reducing power purchase from a main grid, wherein the consumer receives incentives (i.e. value indicator) by discharging the battery power to achieve the expectation value). Jung and Murakami are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, power supply control systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of providing rewards/incentives for reaching environmental goals as taught by Murakami with the disclosed invention of a battery power charging/discharging control system as taught by Jung in order to provide a method for reducing power consumption from the grid as taught by Murakami (paragraph [0017]). Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20 ; the combination of Jung and Murakami teach; The method of claim 1, wherein the cost of the stored energy being below the first threshold comprises the cost being lower than a cost of obtaining the stored energy from one or more of an energy provider or an electrical grid. (Jung; at least paragraphs [0012]-[0016]) . Allowable Subject Matter The office would first like to mention that the identified claims have an outstanding 101 rejection that must be resolved prior to being considered for allowance. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Son et al. (US PGPUB 20110282513): disclose a system and method for controlling the charging/discharging of an electric vehicle battery connected to a home, wherein based upon pricing information, charging/discharging the battery to power the home. Nakajima et al. (US PGPUB 20110178959): disclose a charging/discharging control unit for a vehicle battery that performs charging based upon electricity pricing being above/below user set thresholds. Sinha et al. (US PGPUB 20190217739): disclose a building energy optimization system and method which provides a plurality of optimization algorithms for determining an optimal charging/discharging of batteries in a building for optimizing a cost function. Lu et al. (US PGPUB 20150042286): disclose a system and method for monitoring real-time electricity pricing information and providing notifications to a mobile terminal to charge/discharge a battery based upon the current pricing rate. Tinio et al. (US PGPUB 20200387981): disclose a system and method for forecasting electricity pricing information in 30 minute increments, and based upon anticipated pricing falling above/below thresholds, setting up charging/discharging of battery storage systems. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 2 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 3 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 4 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 5 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 6 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 7 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 8 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 9 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/616,038 Page 10 Art Unit: 2117
Prosecution Insights