DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 2/24/2026 submission filed in Application 18/618189. Claims 1-20 are now presented.
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 filed 2/24/2026 with respect to the prior art have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant argues “In particular, the number and placement of power-feeding equipment, together with the route information indicating a drivable path set on a map, affects the working machine's non-working time (e.g., travel and waiting associated with power feeding), thereby impacting the utilization rate computed for each condition. For example, fewer or more distant power-feeding equipment locations generally increase travel and waiting time and reduce utilization, whereas additional or closer equipment locations can reduce such time but involve different installation configurations. These limitations, taken as a whole, are not reasonably characterized as managing human behavior or as a mere mental process, but rather as a computer-implemented technical simulation that produces condition-specific utilization-rate-based operation-plan information prior to installation and movement for evaluating alternative physical power-supply configurations.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations above are directed to generating a work plan to maximize utilization and then providing the plan to users. This amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including following rules or instructions) which is abstract. Further, there is nothing in the precludes the determining that fewer or more distant power-feeding equipment locations generally increase travel and waiting time and reduce utilization, whereas additional or closer equipment locations can reduce such time but involve different installation configurations from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
The Applicant further argues “Even assuming arguendo that claim 1 involves an abstract idea, the claim as a whole integrates any such idea into a practical application. The amended claim requires outputting, for each condition, the generated operation-plan information before (i) the working machine moves to the working location and (ii) the power-feeding equipment is installed. This limitation makes clear that the output is not a mere presentation of results, but is an integral part of a pre-installation simulation used to compare alternative physical configurations (number and location) of power-feeding equipment. The claimed system thereby applies the computation in a meaningful way to improve the technical field of operation planning for an electrically driven working machine under power-supply constraints, rather than merely collecting data and displaying an analysis. Also, because the output is expressly required before installation/movement, it is part of the claimed solution for configuration selection, not a report of a completed analysis.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites “an output unit which outputs. for each of the plurality of conditions, the information indicating the operation plan generated by the operation plan generation unit before the working machine moves to the corresponding working location and the power- feeding equipment is installed in the corresponding work location”. The determination of the operation plan generated by the operation plan generation unit for each of the plurality of conditions is an analysis that can be performed mentally. The claims does not state any particular way that the information is output. As such, this broadly recited output amounts to insignificant post solution activity and well-known and conventional information output which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Applicant further argues “Applicant traverses the Examiner's Official Notice that 'outputting the result of an analysis is well-known and conventional'. The amended claim requires "outputting, for each of a plurality of equipment-configuration conditions", "the operation plan information before the machine moves and before the equipment is installed," i.e., as a pre-installation simulation output for configuration selection. The Office Action does not provide evidence that this particular ordered combination and timing is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, as explained above, the features added to the claims are not "well understood, routine, and conventional" in the cited prior art references. The additional elements are sufficient to constitute significantly more than the judicial exception.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of determining the information indicating the operation plan generated by the operation plan for each of the plurality of conditions can be performed mentally and is as such abstract. Further, determining an operation plan also amounts to an abstract method or organizing human activity. The fact the operation plan is output does not save the claims merely outputting the result of an analysis is well-known and conventional. As requested by the Applicant the Examiner has cited several references in the 101 rejection below as evidence that the broadly recited outputting of information is well-known and conventional.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 has a typo. The work working is misspelled. Appropriate correction us required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first information acquisition unit; a second information acquisition unit; an operation plan generation unit; an output unit in claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15-16, 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Para. 122 of the specification states “A specific step and each unit may be implemented by a dedicated circuit, a programmable circuit supplied with computer-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium, and/or a processor supplied with computer-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium. The dedicated circuit may include a digital and/or analog hardware circuit, or may include an integrated circuit (IC) and/or a discrete circuit.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3, 9-10, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 13-17, 21-22 are directed toward operation plan generation device which generates information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power. Claim 19 is directed to An operation plan generation method for generating information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power. Claim 20 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program, the program being for generating information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of generating information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power to perform a predefined work by the working machine which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
generating information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power to perform a predefined work by the working machine, the operation plan generation device comprising:
an operation plan generation unit which, based on the working location information and a plurality of conditions different from each other, generates information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions;
wherein the plurality of conditions include combinations of different values of a number of pieces of the power-feeding equipment and different locations of the power-feeding equipment,
wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes utilization rate information indicating a ratio of a time during which the working machine actually engages the work to an entire work period and,
determining for each of the plurality of conditions, the information indicating the operation plan generated by the operation plan generation unit before the working machine moves to the corresponding working location and the power- feeding equipment is installed in the corresponding work location.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
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 (2012) ("‘[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).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
The instant claims recite mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. For example, the steps of
generating information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power to perform a predefined work by the working machine, the operation plan generation device comprising:
based on the working location information and a plurality of conditions different from each other, generates information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions;
wherein the plurality of conditions include combinations of different values of a number of pieces of the power-feeding equipment and different locations of the power-feeding equipment,
wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes utilization rate information indicating a ratio of a time during which the working machine actually engages the work to an entire work period and,
determining for each of the plurality of conditions, the information indicating the operation plan generated by the operation plan generation unit before the working machine moves to the corresponding working location and the power- feeding equipment is installed in the corresponding work location.
are directed to mental processes. There is nothing in the claims that preclude these steps from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
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, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
In the instant case, the limitations of
generating information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power to perform a predefined work by the working machine, the operation plan generation device comprising:
based on the working location information and a plurality of conditions different from each other, generates information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions;
wherein the plurality of conditions include combinations of different values of a number of pieces of the power-feeding equipment and different locations of the power-feeding equipment,
wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes utilization rate information indicating a ratio of a time during which the working machine actually engages the work to an entire work period and,
determining for each of the plurality of conditions, the information indicating the operation plan generated by the operation plan generation unit before the working machine moves to the corresponding working location and the power- feeding equipment is installed in the corresponding work location.
are directed to generating a work plan which is provided to users which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including following rules or instructions) which is abstract.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
An operation plan generation device;
a first information acquisition unit which acquires working location information including route information indicating a drivable path set on a map for the working machine in a working location where the working machine engages a work;
a second information acquisition unit which acquires information indicating a condition regarding power-feeding equipment that can feed electrical power to the working machine installed in the working location;
an operation plan generation unit
an output unit which outputs the result of the analysis
However, the units are disclosed in the specification as being implemented by generic processors. This amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the processors to implement that abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
In the instant case, the claims do not provide any particular way that the data is acquired. As such, the broadly recited acquisition of data amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity.
Similarly the outputs information indicating the operation plan amounts to merely displaying the result of an analysis which is insignificant post solution activity.
Viewing the generic data gathering and output in combination with the generic processor does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the processing circuitry in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide and inventive concept.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the retrieving of data is anything other than conventional. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."” Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) also states that creating output data has been identified as conventional (see Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017)).
Further, the Examiner takes official notice that outputting the result of an analysis is well-known and conventional. This is evidenced by:
Kumar US 2024/0086811 A1 para 80 The method further comprises an action S5 of providing information 105 relating to the planned at least one task to be presented via the at least one user interface 7. The information 105 may hence be transmitted to the user interface 7. The information may be adapted to the user 6 depending on a user category of the user 6. For example, when the user 6 is a vehicle operator, information that enables presentation of at least the planned travel path 5 to the vehicle operator may be provided. The information can be presented graphically to the user 6 via the user interface 7, such as in the form of a visualising map displayed on a screen of the user interface 7. Hence, the vehicle operator will receive information including a route map of the site 2 and the travel path 5 for navigating within the site 2. The vehicle operator may also be provided with information relating to, e.g., a remaining distance to empty, and/or a maximum power expected to be required while the goods are transported according to the geography and/or topography of the site.
Perry US 2018/0281612 A1 Para. 57 teaches Referring back to step 216, if the user input is not a selection of the messaging option (e.g., “no”), the method 200 may continue to step 226. At step 226, the processor displays, on a vehicle display, a map showing a location of the charging station associated with the selected information, in response to the user input received at step 214. The operator of the first vehicle may use the map to pinpoint an exact location of the selected charging station (e.g., if there are multiple charging spaces in one area) and/or the vehicle occupying that charging station. In some embodiments, the processor may also display directions to the charging station from the current location of the first vehicle. The method 200 may end upon completion of step 226, or upon completion of step 224.
Baum US 2024/0094017 A1 Para. 379 In FIG. 8V, a user input 803v is received requesting directions from the current location to Destination 1. As described above with respect to method 700, in response to user input 803v, device 500 displays one or more suggested routes. In some embodiments, suggested route 887-1 and/or suggested route 887-2 include one or more suggested stops to refuel and/or recharge Vehicle 1. As shown in FIG. 8W, the current charge level of Vehicle 1 is such that Vehicle 1 has a 20 mile range. In some embodiments, the map application receives the current driving range information from the Vehicle 1 app (e.g., 20 mile range) and/or receives the current charge information from the Vehicle 1 app (e.g., 5% charge). Based on the received information, device 500 determines that a charging stop is required and includes a charging stop on one or more of the suggested routes. In some embodiments, the charging stop that is selected is within the charging network that was selected above in FIG. 8U (e.g., that is optionally provided by the Vehicle 1 app) and that is compatible with the plug type of Vehicle 1 (optionally with or without using one of the available adapters). In some embodiments, the location and existence of charging stops is received from the Vehicle 1 app or from a database other than the Vehicle 1 app. In some embodiments, if the user had selected a different set of adapters and/or had selected a different charging network, then the suggested routes and/or suggested stops provided by device 500 can be different than those shown herein, based on whether particular charging stations are compatible with particular adapters and/or based on whether a particular charging station is within the selected charging network.
Harpour US 2024/0301658 A1The site map 134 can indicate locations of boundaries of the worksite 100, terrain types and/or grades at the worksite 100, locations of defined routes or paths at the worksite 100 that can be traversed by machines 102, locations of machines 102 at the worksite 100, locations of crushers 108 and/or other elements of the processing plants 106 at the worksite 100, locations of fueling stations and/or battery charging stations at the worksite 100, locations and/or identities of obstacles at the worksite 100, and/or other information associated with the worksite 100. The fleet management controller 112 may use machine operational data 128 associated with individual machines 102 to update the site map 134 over time, for instance to update information indicating locations of individual machines 102. The fleet management controller 112 can also use the site map 134 to generate machine instructions 114, for instance to dispatch machines 102 to travel between locations indicated by the site map 134 and/or along routes indicated by the site map 134.
Wirola US 2025/0162441 A1 Para. 58 For example, geographic data may be compiled (such as into a platform specification format (PSF) format) to organize and/or configure the data for performing navigation-related functions and/or services in an event of a predicted vehicle's charging needs, such as route calculation, route guidance, map display, speed calculation, distance and travel time functions, and other functions, by a navigation device, such as by the apparatus 102 or by the mobile device 108. The navigation-related functions may correspond to vehicle navigation, pedestrian navigation, or other types of navigation to avoid a zone where the vehicle accident has been predicted by the apparatus 102. The compilation to produce the end user databases may be performed by a party or entity separate from the map developer. For example, a customer of the map developer, such as a navigation device developer or other end user device developer, may perform compilation on a received map database in a delivery format to produce one or more compiled navigation databases.
Medisetty US 2023/0153720 A1 [0052] In some examples, the user interface can present an estimated earnings amount for performing the item pickup tasks and subsequently delivering the items (312). The user interface can further indicate that the tasks are to be performed during charging of the EV 186 (314). In various examples, the EV driver can accept or decline the task invitations. In the example where the EV driver accepts the task invitations (315), the computing system 100 can assign the EV driver to one or more rideshare requests that have pickup and drop off locations that progress the EV driver to the EV charging station, and/or that have a final end point proximate to the EV charging station (320). Upon the EV 186 arriving at the EV charging station, the computing system 100 can transmit content data 132 to the computing device 180 of the EV driver, cause the computing device 180 to display a task interface presenting the item pickup tasks proximate to the charging station (325).
Viewing the well-known and conventional data gathering and display in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do provide and inventive concept.
Further, Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 13-17, 21-22 further limit the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity already rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 3, 9-10, 13-17, 21-22 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a computer program product, or method for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 19, 20 are also rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 18, 19, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar US 20240086811 A1 in view of Chatterjee US 2025/0279649 A1 in view of Ramont US 2020/0104965 A1.
As per Claim 1 Kumar teaches an operation plan generation device which generates information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power to perform a predefined work by the working machine, the operation plan generation device comprising: (see Kumar par. 47).
a first information acquisition unit which acquires working location information including route information indicating a drivable path set on a map for the working machine in a working location where the working machine engages a work; Kumar para. 71 teaches the method further comprises an action S4 of planning the at least one task by using at least the request 101, the geographic location data 102, and the site data 103 as input data to a prediction model 120. The prediction model 120 is used for the planning of the at least one task. The planning comprises at least planning of a travel path 5 within the evolving site 2 from the starting location 3 to the target location 4. Further, para. 78 teaches the tuning of the prediction model 120 to a desired accuracy depends on the amount and quality of data available. For example, when the site data 103 gives the dimensions of the site 2 and coordinates of the structures and machinery within the site 2 that have a high correlation with the problem of navigating vehicles 1 within the site 2, a shortest path algorithm such as Dijkstra's algorithm may be applied to find the best travel 5 path to navigate. Further, para. 80 teaches the vehicle operator will receive information including a route map of the site 2 and the travel path 5 for navigating within the site 2. The vehicle operator may also be provided with information relating to, e.g., a remaining distance to empty, and/or a maximum power expected to be required while the goods are transported according to the geography and/or topography of the site.
a second information acquisition unit which acquires information indicating a condition regarding power-feeding equipment that can feed electrical power to the working machine installed in the working location; Kumar para. 68 teaches when the task involves charging of an electric energy storage system, ESS, of the vehicle 1, the method may further comprise an action S33 of obtaining charging station data 108 comprising information relating to a location and a status of at least one charging station 8 within the evolving site 2. Such charging station data 108 may in some cases be included within the site data 103 obtained from the BIM 110, but at least part of the charging station data 108 may be provided separately, such as by identifying, based on vehicle data from other vehicle(s) within the site 2, that another vehicle 1 is currently located at the charging station 8. Alternatively, information relating to a charging infrastructure may be excluded from the BIM 110 altogether, and hence be received from a different source such as a central server or a system of the charging station 8. The charging station 8 may be a mobile charging station or a stationary charging station. The site may comprise a combination of mobile and stationary charging stations 8. The planning of the charging task may include determining a suitable location of a mobile charging station 8 comprised in a first vehicle, for charging of a second vehicle using vehicle-to-vehicle charging technology. When the charging is combined with loading/unloading of goods, the planning may comprise identifying a suitable vehicle parking location and/or orientation at a storage location 12, at which space is available for the first vehicle containing the mobile charging station 8 as well as for the second vehicle 1 which is to collect or leave goods.
an operation plan generation unit which, based on the working location information and a plurality of conditions different from each other; and Kumar para. 68 teaches when the task involves charging of an electric energy storage system, ESS, of the vehicle 1, the method may further comprise an action S33 of obtaining charging station data 108 comprising information relating to a location and a status of at least one charging station 8 within the evolving site 2. Such charging station data 108 may in some cases be included within the site data 103 obtained from the BIM 110, but at least part of the charging station data 108 may be provided separately, such as by identifying, based on vehicle data from other vehicle(s) within the site 2, that another vehicle 1 is currently located at the charging station 8. Alternatively, information relating to a charging infrastructure may be excluded from the BIM 110 altogether, and hence be received from a different source such as a central server or a system of the charging station 8. The charging station 8 may be a mobile charging station or a stationary charging station. The site may comprise a combination of mobile and stationary charging stations 8. The planning of the charging task may include determining a suitable location of a mobile charging station 8 comprised in a first vehicle, for charging of a second vehicle using vehicle-to-vehicle charging technology. When the charging is combined with loading/unloading of goods, the planning may comprise identifying a suitable vehicle parking location and/or orientation at a storage location 12, at which space is available for the first vehicle containing the mobile charging station 8 as well as for the second vehicle 1 which is to collect or leave goods.
an output unit which outputs for each of the plurality of conditions, the information indicating the operation plan generated by the operation plan generation unit before the working machine moves to the corresponding working location and the power- feeding equipment is installed in the corresponding work location. Kumar para. 80 teaches The method further comprises an action S5 of providing information 105 relating to the planned at least one task to be presented via the at least one user interface 7. The information 105 may hence be transmitted to the user interface 7. The information may be adapted to the user 6 depending on a user category of the user 6. For example, when the user 6 is a vehicle operator, information that enables presentation of at least the planned travel path 5 to the vehicle operator may be provided. The information can be presented graphically to the user 6 via the user interface 7, such as in the form of a visualising map displayed on a screen of the user interface 7. Hence, the vehicle operator will receive information including a route map of the site 2 and the travel path 5 for navigating within the site 2. The vehicle operator may also be provided with information relating to, e.g., a remaining distance to empty, and/or a maximum power expected to be required while the goods are transported according to the geography and/or topography of the site. A user higher up in the hierarchy, such as a vehicle fleet manager, may be presented with information relating to charging intervals, amount of goods transported within the site 2, a number of vehicles within the site 2, a number of vehicles about to reach the site 2, and a number of vehicles that has left the site.
Kumar teaches efficient use of available charging stations and vehicles within the site but does not disclose wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes utilization rate information indicating a ratio of a time during which the working machine actually engages the work to an entire work period and,However, Chatterjee para. 41 teaches the load metrics can include one or more measurements corresponding to a demand in power at the worksite. The demand can indicate an increase or decrease in demand at the worksite. For example, a worksite may have a high demand. The high demand indicates there is a significant increase in power consumption at the worksite. In another example, a worksite may have a low demand. The low demand indicates that is a significant decrease in power consumption at the worksite. The increase in power can correspond to the use of the machines 108. For example, a first machine 108A, a second machine 108B, a third machine 108C, a fourth machine 108D, and a fifth machine 108E perform various activities (e.g., power consuming activities) at one or more locations at the worksite. Since there are multiple machines 108 active, the demand can increase during a period of time in which any number of such machines are actively charging (e.g., via the corresponding chargers 106). The one or more measurements can associate with the machines 108 during an activity associated with the worksite. The one or more measurements can include machine 108 utilization, machine 108 downtime, energy consumption, fuel consumption, worksite traffic, task completion time, and equipment health monitoring, among others. For example, a load metric can be a combination of machine 108 utilization, energy consumption of the machine 108, and machine 108 downtime. The load metrics can be stored in memory 118 for reference during a future time period. Both Kumar and Chatterjee are directed to charging plans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar to include wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes utilization rate information indicating a ratio of a time during which the working machine actually engages the work to an entire work period as taught by Chatterjee to increase efficiency while reducing costs at a worksite. (see para. 23).
Kumar does not explicitly disclose generates information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions wherein the plurality of conditions include combinations of different values of a number of pieces of the power-feeding equipment and different locations of the power-feeding equipment
However, Ramot para. 174 teaches Battery-charge module 920 may include software instructions for receiving current battery-charge data for an electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle. The data may be related to the remaining charge of the battery powering the vehicle and/or an estimated time until depletion of the battery as captured by a power sensor in the vehicle for determining the current charge level of the battery. The power sensor may transmit the data to a remote server over a wireless channel or to vehicle routing module to select a charging station, based on the current battery charge level. The power sensor may be configured to continuously monitor and transmit data related to the current battery charge level. The power sensor may also monitor the current battery charge level and transmit data when the charge level is less than a predetermined threshold level.
Para. 182 teaches In embodiments where battery-charge module 920 determines the driving duration and/or distance in which the electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle can operate before recharging based on the current battery-charge data, ride request module 930 may assign the electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle to pick-up the plurality of users based on the determined driving duration and/or distance. For example, ride request module 930 may determine, based on the estimated driving duration, that the electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle has enough battery charge to transport the users and then reach a charging station.
Para. 187 teaches FIG. 10 illustrates an example of selection between a first and second route in response to an indicator of the current charge level of a battery. As depicted in FIG. 10, a first route 1010 may allow for pick-up and drop off of a first passenger and of a second passenger and then terminate at a charging station. On the other hand, a second route 1020 may also allow for pick-up and drop off of a first passenger and of a second passenger without terminating at a charging station. In some examples, route 1020 may be faster and/or of shorter distance than route 1010, e.g., due to higher speed limits on a least a portion of route 1020 compared to route 1010, more direct roads on at least a portion of route 1020 compared to route 1010, improved traffic conditions on at least a portion of route 1020 compared to route 1010, or the like. Nonetheless, embodiments of the present disclosure may select route 1010 over route 1020 based on one or more variables, such as current battery-charge of the vehicle, desired destinations of passengers currently riding the vehicle, and stored locations of charging stations, current occupancy data for the charging stations, and the like. Accordingly, embodiments of the present disclosure may sub-optimize an individual vehicle, e.g., by selecting route 1010 over route 1020, in order to ensure the vehicle is charged and/or to improve efficiency of a fleet in which the vehicle is one member.
Para. 191 teaches In some embodiments, the plurality of electrically-powered ridesharing vehicles traveling within the geographic area may include short-distance type vehicles and long-distance type vehicles with a battery capacity greater than a battery capacity of the short-distance vehicles. In such embodiments, ride request module 930 may assign a long-distance type vehicle for picking up a user based on a desired destination of the user. For example, if the desired destination is beyond a threshold distance (whether as the crow flies or a route-based distance) and/or a threshold travel time (whether ideal travel time or a travel time accounting for real-time traffic), ride request module 930 may assign a long-distance type vehicle.
Para. 202 teaches Embodiments of the present disclosure may provide a ridesharing algorithm to account for battery charging stops. For example, as electric vehicles make their way into ridesharing fleets, ridesharing systems may select and customize routes based on a determined battery charge level and schedule pick-ups and drop-offs based on a determined location of charging stations. Both the combination of Kumar and Chatterjee and Ramot are directed to managing charging of work vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar in view of Chatterjee to include generates information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions wherein the plurality of conditions include combinations of different values of a number of pieces of the power-feeding equipment and different locations of the power-feeding equipment as taught by Ramot to optimize a fleet of electric vehicle (see para. 140-141)
As per Claim 3 Kumar teaches the operation plan generation device according to claim 1, wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes number-of-machine information indicating a number of the working machines required to perform the predefined work. Kumar para. 22 teaches Optionally, the method further comprises: [0023] obtaining vehicle data relating to a vehicle weight and/or a vehicle payload capacity of the one or more vehicles, wherein the vehicle data is used as input data for the planning of the loading and/or unloading of goods. In this way, the most suitable vehicle(s) for performing the at least one task may be identified, and/or a number of vehicles necessary for performing the task(s) may be determined, and/or a time consumption for completing the task may be predicted based on the vehicle weight and/or vehicle payload capacity.
As per Claim 18 Kumar teaches the operation plan generation device according to claim 1, wherein the first information acquisition unit acquires the route information set by a user on the map displayed on a user terminal. Kumar [0080] The method further comprises an action S5 of providing information 105 relating to the planned at least one task to be presented via the at least one user interface 7. The information 105 may hence be transmitted to the user interface 7. The information may be adapted to the user 6 depending on a user category of the user 6. For example, when the user 6 is a vehicle operator, information that enables presentation of at least the planned travel path 5 to the vehicle operator may be provided. The information can be presented graphically to the user 6 via the user interface 7, such as in the form of a visualizing map displayed on a screen of the user interface 7. Hence, the vehicle operator will receive information including a route map of the site 2 and the travel path 5 for navigating within the site 2.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons. Further Kumar teaches an operation plan generation method for generating information indicating an operation plan for a working machine (see Kumar Abstract)
Claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons Further Kumar teaches
anon-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a program, the program being for generating information indicating an operation plan for a working machine which drives using electrical power to perform a predefined work by the working machine, wherein the program, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform operations comprising the recited steps (see para 1).
As per Claim 21 Kumar teaches The operation plan generation device according to claim 1, wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes estimate information for a number of the working machines required. Kumar para. 22 teaches Optionally, the method further comprises: [0023] obtaining vehicle data relating to a vehicle weight and/or a vehicle payload capacity of the one or more vehicles, wherein the vehicle data is used as input data for the planning of the loading and/or unloading of goods. In this way, the most suitable vehicle(s) for performing the at least one task may be identified, and/or a number of vehicles necessary for performing the task(s) may be determined, and/or a time consumption for completing the task may be predicted based on the vehicle weight and/or vehicle payload capacity.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar US 20240086811 A1 in view of Chatterjee US 2025/0279649 A1 in view of Ramont US 2020/0104965 A1 as applied to claim 3 and in further view of Thakur US 2016/0109251 A1.
As per Claim 14 Kumar does not teach the operation plan generation device according to claim 3, wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes information indicating a total drive time during which the working machine drives in order to perform the predefined work. Thakur 52 Next, at 108—user accepts the job description validation and agrees to go ahead (optional). At 109—shipment details are sent to optimization module 40 and at 110—trip origin destination information sent to mapping module. At 111—multiple route options with total drive time, driver switch locations, refuel locations and fuel cost, tolls, weather info, and substitute driver locations are sent to optimization module 40. At 112—route options are saved in user profile 20 for later access. Both Kumar and Thakur are directed to optimized routes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar to include wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes information indicating a total drive time during which the working machine drives in order to perform the predefined work as taught by Thakur to select an optimized freight route based on a plurality of factors, such as, vehicle and driver availability, vehicle operating costs, scheduling, and combinations thereof, in order to maximize asset utilization, e.g., commercial vehicle utilization in parallel with better work-life balance for drivers. (see para. 11).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar US 20240086811 A1 in view of Chatterjee US 2025/0279649 A1 in view of Ramont US 2020/0104965 A1
as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Wulf US 2023/0419208 A1.
As per Claim 9 Kumar does not teaches the operation plan generation device according to claim 1, wherein the output unit outputs information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions by associating it with the plurality of conditions. However, Wulf para. 48 teaches this optimization task may be carried out by dispatcher 212, which may receive the task information from production planner 202. The dispatcher 212 may process the task information, and send dispatch commands, e.g., task assignments 214 to various digging machines 103, loading machines 105, and/or hauling machines 107. The task assignments 214 may be specific commands for each digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 in each circuit 102 to perform a specific task. Task assignment 214 may include, for example, a destination to perform the task, a route to the destination, a speed for travel, e.g., for the trip or for various stages of the trip, a charging requirement, a dynamic charging device usage plan, an intersection priority, etc. In one instance, a dynamic charging device usage plan may include, for example, an instruction or request for travel speed, charging, travel time, or the like, for the digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 with regard to dynamic charging device 150. In one instance, an intersection priority may indicate priority for a digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 when the travel path of multiple digging machines 103, loading machines 105, and/or hauling machines 107 overlaps, and may define or facilitate modifying travel speed, pausing the travel, and/or redirecting a digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 to reduce or remove the overlap. In one instance, the digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 may be redirected to a static charging station 140. Para. 51 teaches In one instance, tasks, e.g., tasks that are in progress, may be assigned to digging machines 103, loading machines 105, and/or hauling machines 107. For example, a rate of discharge for a digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 may exceed a predicted rate, such that the digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 may be in danger of failing to complete the task. Detection of such deviance may cause dispatcher 212 to re-task the digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107, e.g., assign the digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 a new task or superseding the task to cause the digging machine 103, loading machine 105, and/or hauling machine 107 to receive charging. Both Kumar and Wulf are directed to charging plans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar to include wherein the output unit outputs information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions by associating it with the plurality of conditions as taught by Wulf to optimize the operation of the worksite for one or more goals such as total operating cost, energy consumption, material excavation rate, material loading rate, material movement rate, etc. (see para. 23).
As per Claim 10 Kumar teaches the operation plan generation device according to claim 9, wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes the utilization rate information, or the utilization rate information and number-of-machine information indicating a number of the working machines required to perform the predefined work, and. Kumar para. 22 teaches optionally, the method further comprises: obtaining vehicle data relating to a vehicle weight and/or a vehicle payload capacity of the one or more vehicles, wherein the vehicle data is used as input data for the planning of the loading and/or unloading of goods. In this way, the most suitable vehicle(s) for performing the at least one task may be identified, and/or a number of vehicles necessary for performing the task(s) may be determined, and/or a time consumption for completing the task may be predicted based on the vehicle weight and/or vehicle payload capacity.
the output unit outputs the utilization rate information or the utilization rate information and the number-of-machine information in each of the plurality of conditions by associating it with the plurality of conditions Kumar para. 22 teaches optionally, the method further comprises: obtaining vehicle data relating to a vehicle weight and/or a vehicle payload capacity of the one or more vehicles, wherein the vehicle data is used as input data for the planning of the loading and/or unloading of goods. In this way, the most suitable vehicle(s) for performing the at least one task may be identified, and/or a number of vehicles necessary for performing the task(s) may be determined, and/or a time consumption for completing the task may be predicted based on the vehicle weight and/or vehicle payload capacity.
As per Claim 11 Kumar teaches The operation plan generation device according to claim 9, wherein the output unit outputs the information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions regarding a number of pieces of the power-feeding equipment by associating it with the plurality of conditions regarding the number of pieces of the power-feeding equipment. Kumar para. 69-70 teaches Planning of charging may also include planning of the ESSs of mobile charging stations at stationary charging stations, using grid-to-vehicle charging technologies. The status of the charging station 8 may, e.g., be indicated as “functional”, “occupied”, “free”, etc. Furthermore, the charging station data 108 may comprise information relating to a type of charging interface, an expected charging time, etc.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar US 20240086811 A1 in view of Chatterjee US 2025/0279649 A1 in view of Ramont US 2020/0104965 A1
as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Thakur US 20160109251 A1.
As per Claim 13 Kumar does not teach the operation plan generation device according to claim 1, wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes information indicating a total drive time during which the working machine drives in order to perform the predefined work. Thakur 52 Next, at 108—user accepts the job description validation and agrees to go ahead (optional). At 109—shipment details are sent to optimization module 40 and at 110—trip origin destination information sent to mapping module. At 111—multiple route options with total drive time, driver switch locations, refuel locations and fuel cost, tolls, weather info, and substitute driver locations are sent to optimization module 40. At 112—route options are saved in user profile 20 for later access. Both Kumar and Thakur are directed to optimized routes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar to include wherein the information indicating the operation plan includes information indicating a total drive time during which the working machine drives in order to perform the predefined work as taught by Thakur to select an optimized freight route based on a plurality of factors, such as, vehicle and driver availability, vehicle operating costs, scheduling, and combinations thereof, in order to maximize asset utilization, e.g., commercial vehicle utilization in parallel with better work-life balance for drivers. (see para. 11).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar US 20240086811 A1 in view of Chatterjee US 2025/0279649 A1 in view of Ramont US 2020/0104965 A1
as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Sada US 2025/0033516 A1.
As per Claim 15 Kumar teaches the operation plan generation unit, based on the working location information, the plurality of conditions different from each other, and the working machine information, generates information indicating the operation plan in each of the plurality of conditions . Kumar para. 22 teaches optionally, the method further comprises: obtaining vehicle data relating to a vehicle weight and/or a vehicle payload capacity of the one or more vehicles, wherein the vehicle data is used as input data for the planning of the loading and/or unloading of goods. In this way, the most suitable vehicle(s) for performing the at least one task may be identified, and/or a number of vehicles necessary for performing the task(s) may be determined, and/or a time consumption for completing the task may be predicted based on the vehicle weight and/or vehicle payload capacity.
Kumar does not teach the operation plan generation device according to claim 1, wherein the second information acquisition unit further acquires working machine information including an electricity consumption and an battery capacity of the working machine, and However, Sada teaches 51 the predicted distribution creation unit 112 can, for example, estimate an electricity consumption amount due to traveling for a day by multiplying the electric cost of each battery pack 2 by the travel distance per day, and estimate the DOD of each battery pack 2 per day based on the estimated electricity consumption amount and the full charge capacity of each battery pack 2. If the SOC at the start of use and the SOC at the end of use of the battery packs 2 per day are recorded in the use history holding unit 121, the DOD for the day can be estimated from the difference between the two. Both Kumar and Sada are directed to optimized routes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar to include wherein the second information acquisition unit further acquires working machine information including an electricity consumption and an battery capacity of the working machine as taught by Sada to optimize the charging start time, the charging end time, and the charge rate in addition to the charging end SOC of the plurality of battery packs (see para. 63)
Claim(s) 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar US 20240086811 A1 in view of Chatterjee US 2025/0279649 A1 in view of Ramont US 2020/0104965 A1
in view of Sada US 2025/0033516 A1 as applied to claim 15 and in further view of Pfander US 2024/0022076 A1.
As per Claim 16 Kumar does not teach the operation plan generation device according to claim 15, wherein the working machine information further includes a standby power consumption amount, which is a consumed power amount per unit time the working machine consumes on standby. However Pfander 129-130 teaches In order to operate efficiently, the energy supply station 1 can put hardware components not currently required for supplying electrical power to the consumer connections, such as the power converters or DC/DC or DC/AC controllers, into a sleep mode and/or switch them off in order to reduce their standby consumption. If the function of the device that has been put to sleep is required again, it can be started up again in dependence on the determined energy demand. Conversely, the storage unit control unit 20 may, for example, send data such as enabled power, fault data, diagnostic information, status (state of charge, standby, ready, state of charge warning, . . . ), . . . to the corresponding consumer. Both Kumar in view Sada and Prancer are directed to charging plans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar to include wherein the information indicating the operation plan further includes total standby power consumption amount information indicating a sum value of standby power consumption amounts the working machine consumes on standby as taught by Pfander optimizes the power flows based on predicted work processes of the construction machines with regard to power consumption via the supply connection and the storage states of the different storage units (see para. 108).
As per Claim 17 Kumar does not teach the operation plan generation device according to claim 16, wherein the information indicating the operation plan further includes total standby power consumption amount information indicating a sum value of standby power consumption amounts the working machine consumes on standby. However Pfander 129-130 teaches In order to operate efficiently, the energy supply station 1 can put hardware components not currently required for supplying electrical power to the consumer connections, such as the power converters or DC/DC or DC/AC controllers, into a sleep mode and/or switch them off in order to reduce their standby consumption. If the function of the device that has been put to sleep is required again, it can be started up again in dependence on the determined energy demand. Conversely, the storage unit control unit 20 may, for example, send data such as enabled power, fault data, diagnostic information, status (state of charge, standby, ready, state of charge warning, . . . ), . . . to the corresponding consumer. Both Kumar in view Sada and Pfander are directed to charging plans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar to include wherein the information indicating the operation plan further includes total standby power consumption amount information indicating a sum value of standby power consumption amounts the working machine consumes on standby as taught by Pfander optimizes the power flows based on predicted work processes of the construction machines with regard to power consumption via the supply connection and the storage states of the different storage units (see para. 108).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar US 20240086811 A1 in view of Chatterjee US 2025/0279649 A1 in view of Ramont US 2020/0104965 A1
as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Calabro US 2024/0217387 A1.
As per Claim 22 Kumar does not teaches The operation plan generation device according to claim 1, wherein the estimate information includes information from which the required number of the worldng machines when a condition to install the power-feeding equipment is set and the required number of the working machines when a condition not to install the power- feeding equipment is set are to be compared. However, Calabro para. 111 teaches Once the transit system (with attendant data collection, transmission, and analysis) is operational, the collected data may be used to determine if 1) additional charger(s) are required, 2) fewer chargers are needed, or 3) chargers may be decommissioned and moved to another site to better serve the transit fleet in meeting total cost of travel goals. Both Kumar and Calabro are directed to power feeding equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Kumar to include The operation plan generation device according to claim 1, wherein the estimate information includes information from which the required number of the worldng machines when a condition to install the power-feeding equipment is set and the required number of the working machines when a condition not to install the power- feeding equipment is set are to be compared as taught by Calabro to optimize cost in a fleet of electric vehicles (see para. 58).
Relevant Art Not Relied Upon in a Rejection
FESCIOGLU-UNVER US 20250053906 A1 [0049] The decision maker (7.1) sends two different scenarios to the system module (7.2). The first scenario is that the empty charger (2) is assigned to the high priority vehicle class. The second scenario is the scenario where the empty charger (2) is assigned to the low priority vehicle class. The system module (7.2) calculates the average waiting times for high priority (HP) vehicle and low priority (LP) vehicle classes, which will occur for both scenarios, and transmits them to the decision maker (7.1). The decision maker (7.1) calculates which scenario will bring the electric vehicle charging station (1) closer to the “waiting time rate” target announced by the electric vehicle charging station and directs the next vehicle of the class it has chosen to the charging unit (2).
Chadha US 20220001763 A1 {005] This disclosure addresses certain electric vehicle and other equipment charging system inefficiencies by utilizing an intelligent charging strategy for a plurality of such vehicles and/or equipment in an ecosystem environment. Vehicle and/or other equipment uptime and ecosystem costs related to the batteries and/or other rechargeable power sources and/or charging resources can be optimized. For example, in a closed ecosystem such as a warehouse yard or ship port, repetitive natures of the electric equipment may be exploited, along with information of the other agents in the ecosystem, to determine the appropriate charging strategy for the equipment.
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights