DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 17 July 2025.
Claims 1-6 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 8 have been added.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 5 recite “the service”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the service vehicle”.
Appropriate correction is 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 server apparatus…receiving… acquiring… adjusting… transmitting… selecting…. controlling… and… controlling…” in claim 6.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 6 is drawn to a method. As such, claims 1-6 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
receive request data requesting a service to dispatch a service vehicle to a parking position of a user vehicle and supply an energy source to the user vehicle, the request data including data indicating a desired dispatch time and a desired return time, the desired dispatch time corresponding to a desired time when the service vehicle arrives at the parking position of the user vehicle, and the desired return time corresponding to a desired time when the service vehicle completes charging or replacement of a battery of the user vehicle;
acquire, from the service vehicle, status data indicating a status of the service vehicle, the status including a current position of the service vehicle, and the service vehicle including a mobile charging vehicle and a mobile battery replacement vehicle;
adjust a fee for the service according to the status indicated by the acquired status data;
transmit fee data indicating the adjusted fee;
automatically select a type of the service from a battery charging service and a battery replacement service based on a positional relationship between the current positions of the mobile charging vehicle and the mobile battery replacement vehicle and the parking position of the user vehicle, the battery charging service being a service in which the mobile charging vehicle travels to the parking location of the user vehicle and charges the battery of the user vehicle, and the battery replacement service being a service in which the mobile battery replacement vehicle travels to the parking position of the user vehicle and replaces the battery of the user vehicle with another battery;
in response to selecting the battery charging service, control, by transmitting a first instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time, the mobile charging vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and charge the battery of the user vehicle by the desired return time; and
in response to selecting the battery replacement service, control, by transmitting a second instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time, the mobile battery replacement vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and replace the battery of the user vehicle with the another battery by the desired return time.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to calculating a fee for supplying energy to a vehicle. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a business activity of calculating a cost, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a first controller; a first communication interface configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus comprising a second controller and a second communication interface. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 1 also recites in response to selecting the battery charging service, control, by transmitting a first instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile charging vehicle, the mobile charging vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and charge the battery of the user vehicle by the desired return time; and in response to selecting the battery replacement service, control, by transmitting a second instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile battery replacement vehicle, the mobile battery replacement vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and replace the battery of the user vehicle with the another battery by the desired return time. These additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application because it is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity because it is mere data gathering because the controlling of the vehicles are merely just a transmission of data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of a first controller; a first communication interface configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus comprising a second controller and a second communication interface merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional element of in response to selecting the battery charging service, control, by transmitting a first instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile charging vehicle, the mobile charging vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and charge the battery of the user vehicle by the desired return time; and in response to selecting the battery replacement service, control, by transmitting a second instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile battery replacement vehicle, the mobile battery replacement vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and replace the battery of the user vehicle with the another battery by the desired return time is merely just receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer activities (see “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” in MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). Therefore, the additional elements do not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 7-8 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefore claim(s) 2-5 and 7-8 are ineligible.
Claim 6 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 6 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 6 recites the following additional elements: processor, a communication interface configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus and a controller. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 20180339682 A1) in view of Choi (US 20240010094 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a server apparatus comprising:
a first controller; (Paragraph [0044] “data processing hub in the building 106 preferably includes a computer running specialized software to carry out its functions”) and
a first communication interface configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus comprising a second controller and a second communication interface,(Paragraph [0046] “The data processing hub is configured to receive fleet data from each mobile fuel station 110 in the fleet over the wireless network.”) wherein the first controller is configured to:
receive, from the terminal apparatus via the first communication interface, request data requesting a service to dispatch a service vehicle to a parking position of a user vehicle and supply an energy source to the user vehicle, (Paragraph [0059] “the vehicle driver just initiates the appropriate app when he notices his vehicle is running low on fuel. In this embodiment, the customer's app preferably transmits the fuel request, along with other data including location and vehicle identification information to the data processing hub.”; Paragraph [0063] “The customer can choose to receive fuel at […] the parking lot 802 or garage of his workplace (See FIG. 8).”)
acquire, from the service vehicle via the first communication interface, status data indicating a status of the service vehicle, the status including a current position of the service vehicle, and the service vehicle including a mobile charging vehicle and a mobile battery replacement vehicle; (Paragraph [0046] “The data processing hub is configured to receive fleet data from each mobile fuel station 110 in the fleet over the wireless network. The fleet data should include […] the location for each mobile fuel station.”; Paragraph [0072] “other mobile fuel stations in that same system may carry batteries to charge batteries in electric vehicles or replace spent battery packs.”)
adjust a fee for the service according to the status indicated by the acquired status data; (Paragraph [0069] “the price for each type of fuel may vary depending on certain factors. For example, the price could vary based on the distance the MFS needs to travel to get to the fueling location. In this case, the system could automatically add to the unit price of the fuel purchased or could add or increase a delivery charge.”; Examiner notes the price is adjusted by the distance between the location of the MFS (i.e. status) and the fueling location.)
transmit fee data indicating the adjusted fee to the terminal apparatus via the first communication interface; (Paragraph [0069] “In all cases, the system preferably shows the price, including any delivery charges, to the customer at the time the order is placed.”)
automatically select a type of the service from a battery charging service and a battery replacement service based on a positional relationship between the current positions of the mobile charging vehicle and the mobile battery replacement vehicle and the parking position of the user vehicle, the battery charging service being a service in which the mobile charging vehicle travels to the parking location of the user vehicle and charges the battery of the user vehicle, and the battery replacement service being a service in which the mobile battery replacement vehicle travels to the parking position of the user vehicle and replaces the battery of the user vehicle with another battery; (Paragraph [0042] “the order, which preferably includes […] vehicle fuel type and amount requested”; Paragraph [0049] “The dispatching, namely which mobile fuel station is sent to which vehicle for fueling, should be based on at least three of the factors in group including […] (b) a vehicle fuel request, (c) vehicle fueling location, […] and (g) mobile fuel station location […] the analysis of these several factors and the dispatching “decision” is made by a computer running an algorithm to insure efficiency.”; Paragraph [0072] “not all mobile fuel stations are alike […] other mobile fuel stations in that same system may carry batteries to charge batteries in electric vehicles or replace spent battery packs […] In these embodiments where not all of the mobile fuel stations are the same, the data processing hub takes that into account in making dispatching decisions”)
in response to selecting the battery charging service, control, by transmitting a first instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time (Paragraph [0079] “FIG. 5A, a simulated screenshot of the MFS driver's app, illustrates how the app provides the dispatch information to the MFS driver, including the fueling location, the distance and time estimated to travel to the fueling location,[…] The MFS driver receives navigation guidance from the app once the “Begin Route” button is pressed.”; “time of arrival” of Fig. 5A) and
in response to selecting the battery replacement service, control, by transmitting a second instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time (Paragraph [0079] “FIG. 5A, a simulated screenshot of the MFS driver's app, illustrates how the app provides the dispatch information to the MFS driver, including the fueling location, the distance and time estimated to travel to the fueling location,[…] The MFS driver receives navigation guidance from the app once the “Begin Route” button is pressed.”; “time of arrival” of Fig. 5A)
Hall does not teach:
receive, from the terminal apparatus via the first communication interface, request data requesting a service to dispatch a service vehicle to a parking position of a user vehicle and supply an energy source to the user vehicle, the request data including data indicating a desired dispatch time and a desired return time, the desired dispatch time corresponding to a desired time when the service vehicle arrives at the parking position of the user vehicle, and the desired return time corresponding to a desired time when the service vehicle completes charging or replacement of a battery of the user vehicle;
in response to selecting the battery charging service, control, by transmitting a first instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile charging vehicle via the first communication interface, the mobile charging vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and charge the battery of the user vehicle by the desired return time; and
in response to selecting the battery replacement service, control, by transmitting a second instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile battery replacement vehicle via the first communication interface, the mobile battery replacement vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and replace the battery of the user vehicle with the another battery by the desired return time.
However, Choi teaches:
the request data including data indicating a desired dispatch time and a desired return time, the desired dispatch time corresponding to a desired time when the service vehicle arrives at the parking position of the user vehicle, and the desired return time corresponding to a desired time when the service vehicle completes charging or replacement of a battery of the user vehicle; (Paragraph [0046] “When a request for a charging service including a charging completion request time is input from a customer's terminal to a service server using an application (app), a website, an audio/video/navigation (AVN) system, or the like, the service server determines the requested charging service using information about […] an estimated arrival time”; Paragraph [0023] “arrival time of the power transmitting electric vehicle and a target time of charging completion requested to the vehicle-to-vehicle charging service server”)
This operation of Choi is applicable to the system of Hall as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using vehicles to charge other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the request data of Hall to incorporate a desired dispatch time and desired return time as taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hall in order for a power transmitting electric vehicle (power transmitting EV) of the charging service provider to move to a location of a power receiving electric vehicle according to a request from a customer's terminal, and perform vehicle-to-vehicle charging (see paragraph [0041] of Choi).
Choi further teaches:
transmitting a first instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile charging vehicle via the first communication interface, the mobile charging vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and charge the battery of the user vehicle by the desired return time; (Paragraph [0047] “the info controller no transmits a charging control request including the information on the power transmitting electric vehicle and a charging completion target time to the vehicle controller 140.”; Paragraph [0048] The information on the power transmitting electric vehicle includes information about […] an estimated arrival time of the power transmitting electric vehicle.”) and
transmitting a second instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the vehicle via the first communication interface, the vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and perform a task by the desired return time. (Paragraph [0047] “the info controller no transmits a charging control request including the information on the power transmitting electric vehicle and a charging completion target time to the vehicle controller 140.”; Paragraph [0048] The information on the power transmitting electric vehicle includes information about […] an estimated arrival time of the power transmitting electric vehicle.”)
This operation of Choi is applicable to the system of Hall as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using vehicles to charge other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second instruction data of Hall to incorporate data indicating the desired return time and perform a task based on the return time as taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hall in order for a power transmitting electric vehicle (power transmitting EV) of the charging service provider to move to a location of a power receiving electric vehicle according to a request from a customer's terminal, and perform vehicle-to-vehicle charging (see paragraph [0041] of Choi).
Regarding claim 2, Hall in view of Choi teaches the server apparatus according to claim 1. Hall further teaches:
the first controller is configured to adjust the fee for the service according to closeness between the current position of the service vehicle and the parking location of the user vehicle. (Paragraph [0069] “the price for each type of fuel may vary depending on certain factors. For example, the price could vary based on the distance the MFS needs to travel to get to the fueling location. In this case, the system could automatically add to the unit price of the fuel purchased or could add or increase a delivery charge.”)
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is directed to a method for improving travel mobility as a service (MaaS). Claim 6 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above in claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Claim 6 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Hall in view of Choi teaches the server apparatus according to claim 1. Hall further teaches:
wherein the first controller is configured to further adjust the fee for the service depending on which day of the week and which time of day the desired time is (Paragraph [0069] “the price could vary based on the time of day the fueling is requested. In this case, the unit price or delivery charge could be increased if the fueling is requested late at night or during rush hour traffic.”; Examiner notes days with rush hour traffic would have a different price.)
Hall does not teach:
the desired dispatch time and the desired return time.
However, Choi teaches:
the desired dispatch time and the desired return time. (Paragraph [0023] “arrival time of the power transmitting electric vehicle and a target time of charging completion requested to the vehicle-to-vehicle charging service server”)
This operation of Choi is applicable to the system of Hall as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using vehicles to charge other vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustment of the fee based on the desired time of Hall to use a desired dispatch time and desired return time as taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hall in order for a power transmitting electric vehicle (power transmitting EV) of the charging service provider to move to a location of a power receiving electric vehicle according to a request from a customer's terminal, and perform vehicle-to-vehicle charging (see paragraph [0041] of Choi).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 20180339682 A1) in view of Choi (US 20240010094 A1) in further view of Liu (US 20180225796 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hall in view of Choi teaches the server apparatus according to claim 1. Hall in view of Choi does not teach:
wherein the status includes whether the service vehicle is in operation, and
the first controller is further configured to set the fee for the service lower when the service vehicle is not in operation than when the service vehicle is in operation.
However, Liu teaches:
wherein the status includes whether the service vehicle is in operation, (Paragraph [0016] “The network system 130 selects a provider from a set of providers, such as based on the provider's current location and status (e.g., offline, online, available, etc.)”) and
the first controller is further configured to set the fee for the service lower when the service vehicle is not in operation than when the service vehicle is in operation. (Paragraph [0025] “the geo monitoring module 150 computes the price multiplier for a geo based, at least in part, on […] the number of available providers located in the geo. […] the geo monitoring module 150 applies progressively higher price multipliers as the ratio of trip requests to available providers increases.”; Examiner notes if all drivers are occupied the price will be higher.)
This operation of Liu is applicable to the system of Hall as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to calculating a price to provide a vehicle related service to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hall to incorporate setting the fee based on the operation status as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hall in order to ensure a more efficient allocation of resources among different geographic regions and a higher rate of user conversion (see paragraph [0003] of Liu).
Regarding claim 4, Hall in view of Choi teaches the server apparatus according to claim 1. Hall in view of Choi does not teach:
wherein the first controller is further configured to:
predict demand for the service in a plurality of periods; and
set a fee for the service in a non-congested period prior to a congested period in which the predicted demand exceeds a threshold, among the plurality of periods, lower than a fee for the service in the congested period.
However, Liu teaches:
wherein the first controller (Paragraph [0058] “processor 502” of Liu) is further configured to:
predict demand for the service in a plurality of periods; (Paragraph [0030] “In response to predicting that a period of user demand in a geo will be over a threshold volume…” of Liu) and
set a fee for the service in a non-congested period prior to a congested period in which the predicted demand exceeds a threshold, among the plurality of periods, lower than a fee for the service in the congested period. (Paragraph [0030] “In response to predicting that a period of user demand in a geo will be over a threshold volume, the demand prediction module 155 sends an instruction to the geo selection module 160 to query the geo data store 188 for the price multipliers of geos”; Paragraph [0025] “if the ratio of requested trips to available providers is over a threshold, the geo monitoring module 150 computes a price multiplier based on the ratio and applies it to the geo. In some embodiments, the geo monitoring module 150 applies progressively higher price multipliers as the ratio of trip requests to available providers increases.” of Liu)
This operation of Liu is applicable to the system of Hall as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to calculating a price to provide a vehicle related service to a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hall to incorporate predicting a demand and setting a fee based on the demand as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hall in order to ensure a more efficient allocation of resources among different geographic regions and a higher rate of user conversion (see paragraph [0003] of Liu).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 20180339682 A1) in view of Choi (US 20240010094 A1) in further view of Yu (US 20240170967 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hall in view of Choi teaches the server apparatus according to claim 1. Hall in view of Choi does not teach:
wherein the first controller is further configured to:
predict demand for the service in a plurality of periods;
generate proposal data proposing in which period the service should be used, among the plurality of periods, with reference to an obtained prediction result and schedule data indicating a schedule of a user of the terminal apparatus; and
transmit the generated proposal data to the terminal apparatus via the first communication interface.
However, Yu teaches:
wherein the first controller (Paragraph [0024] “processors” of Yu) is further configured to:
predict demand for the service in a plurality of periods; (Paragraph [0028] “At operation 304, the HEMS controller 212 predicts an energy demand of the HEE in the future time period corresponding to the predicted energy price as received.” of Yu)
generate proposal data proposing in which period the service should be used, among the plurality of periods, with reference to an obtained prediction result and schedule data indicating a schedule of a user of the terminal apparatus (Paragraph [0028] “At operation 304, […] the HEMS controller 212 may predict the energy demand based on […] a planned trip of the vehicle 112 to determine an amount of charge for charging the vehicle 112 and time when the charging needs to complete. […] At operation 306, the HEMS controller 212 determines a cumulative energy amount sufficient to satisfy the power demand during the future timeframe”; Paragraph [0029] “operation 312 […] the HEMS controller 212 […] determines the energy scheme using the cumulative energy amount. […] the HEMS controller 212 implements the energy scheme by performing charging and discharging at the corresponding time.”; operations 304, 306, and 312 of Fig. 3 of Yu)
transmit the generated proposal data to the terminal apparatus via the first communication interface. (Paragraph [0029] “the HEMS controller 212 implements the energy scheme by performing charging and discharging at the corresponding time”; Paragraph [0020] “control signals may be transferred over CAN or discrete signals. The vehicle network may include any hardware and software components that aid in transferring signals and data between modules.” of Yu)
This operation of Yu is applicable to the system of Hall as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to charging a vehicle battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hall to predict demand for a service, generate proposal data based on the demand, and transmit the proposal data as taught by Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hall in order to coordinating electric energy storage between various entities (see paragraph [0001] of Yu).
Regarding claim 7, Hall in view of Choi in further view of Yu teaches the server apparatus according to claim 5. Hall in view of Choi does not teach:
wherein the proposal data proposes a charging plan that avoids combinations of days and times when use of the service is concentrated.
However, Yu teaches:
wherein the proposal data proposes a charging plan that avoids combinations of days and times when use of the service is concentrated. (Paragraph [0022] “the EVSE 138 may be configured to draw electric power from the vehicle 112 and the HES 208 to power the components of the house 202 during peak hours when the electricity price is high to avoid paying a premium to the utility company.”; Paragraph [0028] “the HEE 200 is preferably configured to accumulate the energy when the energy price is below the threshold and use the accumulated energy when the price is above the threshold.” of Yu. Examiner notes paragraph [0022] shows the price of electricity is based on the demand such that the price is higher during peak hours. Paragraph [0028] shows that the energy scheme is generated such that price is minimized. Therefore, the energy scheme will pull energy when the demand for energy is lower.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Hall is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page(s) 8 and 9, “Claim interpretation”, filed 17 July 2025 with respect to the 112(f) invocation(s) of claim(s) 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claim(s) 1. The cited “first controller” provides the structure needed for the second prong of the 3 prong test. Paragraph [0028] of the instant specification recite “The controller 21 includes at least one processor, at least one programmable circuit, at least one dedicated circuit, or any combination thereof.” A processor is a structure. Therefore, the 112(f) invocation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page(s) 8 and 9, “Claim interpretation”, filed 17 July 2025 with respect to the 112(f) invocation(s) of claim(s) 6 have been fully considered but are moot due to the amendments of claim(s) 6. The cited “server apparatus for improving travel mobility as a service (MaaS)” does not pass the three prong test because there is no structure as required by prong 2 of the 3 prong test. Claim 6 recites a generic term (i.e. apparatus) with a function (i.e. for improving travel mobility as a service) but does not have a structure such as a processor for performing the task. Therefore the 112(ff) invocation is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 17 July 2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 6 has been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments of claim 6. The 112(b) rejection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 9-11, filed 17 July 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it meaningfully limits the abstract idea of calculating a fee for supplying vehicle energy to real-world control of an operation of a service vehicle. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described by the claim the control of the service vehicle is described at a high level. The claim recites:
in response to selecting the battery charging service, control, by transmitting a first instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile charging vehicle via the first communication interface, the mobile charging vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and charge the battery of the user vehicle by the desired return time; and
in response to selecting the battery replacement service, control, by transmitting a second instruction data including the data indicating the desired dispatch time and the desired return time to the mobile battery replacement vehicle via the first communication interface, the mobile battery replacement vehicle to travel to the parking position of the user vehicle by the desired dispatch time and replace the battery of the user vehicle with the another battery by the desired return time.
The transmission of data happens at a very high level. As claimed this can include simply sending instructions to be displayed for the driver of the mobile charging/mobile battery vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The data in the claim is being transmitted from one device to another at a high level. The simple transmission of data from one device to another to perform a task does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page(s) 12-13, filed 17 July 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 have been fully considered but are moot due to the Examiner relying on new references not previously used for the newly amended limitation of claim 1 and 6. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards Liu in view of Valas, however, the Examiner is relying on prior art, Hall in view of Choi, to teach the amended features from the arguments. The Examiner maintains the 35 USC § 103 claim rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 6 under Hall in view of Choi. With regards to claims 2-5 and 7-8 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence on claim 1. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1. Therefore, claims 2-5 and 7-8 remain rejected.
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 DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628