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 .
The response of 11/25/25 was received and considered. Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 7-9 are newly added. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/25/25, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and in view of the newly added claim limitations, a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 USC 103.
As per claims 2-5, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 1-5 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity, without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims are directed to a "power transmission control device." This device consists of hardware components (storage unit, acquisition unit, selection unit and transmission unit), it falls within the statutory category of a machine or apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Yes. The claim is directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity, specifically a fundamental economic practice or commercial interaction.
When you strip away the generic hardware units, the core focus of the claim is a business method:
1. Keeping a file of various contracts or certificate information pieces.
2. Finding out which company operates a specific vendor location (the power stand).
3. Picking the matching contract for that company.
4. Handing over the matching contract to the vendor.
This is analogous to a driver pulling up to a gas station, looking at the brand on the pump, opening their wallet to select that specific brand's loyalty or fleet card, and presenting it to the cashier. Automating this administrative process of credential matching constitutes an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Limiting an abstract idea to a specific technological environment (field-of-use) does not integrate it into a practical application.
• Field of Use: The preamble and claim body restrict the process to "an electrified vehicle," a "secondary battery," and a "power stand." However, the claim does not explain how the physical charging process is improved. It merely uses the EV environment as the setting for the administrative task of contract selection.
• Functional Claiming: The device elements are recited purely in functional terms: a "storage unit" for storing data, an "acquisition unit" for getting data, a "selection unit" for processing data, and a "transmission unit" for sending data. These are generic computing functions that do not provide a specific technological improvement to the functioning of the device itself.
Step 2B:
To pass Step 2B, the claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, must add "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.
• The recited "units" are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components used for their basic purposes (storing, acquiring, selecting, and transmitting information).
• The ordered combination simply recites the standard sequence of operations required to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer system. There is no unconventional technological arrangement or specialized hardware that transforms the nature of the claim.
As per claims 2-5 and 7-9:
While these dependent claims add specificity regarding when and how the contract information is selected, the additions consist entirely of data gathering steps, routine computer functions (like location tracking), and conditional logic. Under the Alice framework, these types of additions generally do not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claims 2 and 3 (Location/Destination Triggers): These claims add triggers based on navigation data—specifically, setting a destination (claim 2) or coming within a predetermined distance of a power stand (claim 3). The courts have consistently held that gathering data (such as GPS location or navigation inputs) to dictate when to apply an abstract idea is "insignificant extra-solution activity." It does not change the fact that the claim is directed to an abstract concept.
Claim 4 (Historical Data): This claim uses past transaction history at a nearby location to select the contract. Looking up past history to make an administrative decision is a classic mental process or fundamental business practice.
Claim 5 (Conditional Logic): This claim introduces an "if/then" ruleset: if within distance and ID is available, use the ID; if within distance and ID is not available, fall back to historical data. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly ruled that adding conditional logic or algorithmic rules to an abstract idea simply creates a more specific abstract idea, rather than a practical application of one.
Claim 7 introduces a fallback mechanism: if the system cannot find a contract specifically issued by the company affiliated with the power stand, it defaults to a "highest priority" contract. Under the Alice framework, adding a hierarchical or default business rule does not rescue a claim directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8 (Physical Location): This claim specifies that the "storage unit" is located "within the electrified vehicle." The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have consistently held that limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., inside a car) does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claim 9 (Proximity Trigger and Data Exchange): This claim adds a geographic trigger ("within a predetermined distance") to initiate a request for information, and dictates what information is received in response (ID plus contract info). As analyzed in claims 2 and 3, using location data as a trigger is considered "insignificant extra-solution activity" (a mere data-gathering step). Furthermore, the act of requesting and receiving data over a network is a fundamental communication practice that does not alter the abstract nature of the underlying contract-matching scheme.
Claims 2-5 and 7-9 merely add a specific physical environment for generic hardware and routine, proximity-based data communication steps to the underlying abstract idea, they do not supply the inventive concept required to overcome a § 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea (matching a contract to a vendor) and executes that idea using generic, functional computer components in a specific field of use (EV charging), the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "suits", line 9, renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "suits the power stand"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-5 also use the term “suit” and are rejected under the same rational. Claims 7-9 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGOKA US2023/0402854 and further in view of JP 2023009486 A, hereinafter “MIHO”.
Regarding claim 1, NAGOKA teaches power transmission control device that controls power transmission (Fig. 3, charging control apparatus 10) including at least one of charging and discharging of a secondary battery of an electrified vehicle (Fig. 1, electric vehicle 1. Paragraph 0017: The charging system has an electric vehicle 1 and charging equipment (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment, EVSV) 2 that supplies electric power to a battery (also referred to as a “secondary battery” or a “storage battery”) of the electric vehicle 1. Fig. 3, battery 19), the power transmission control device comprising:
a storage unit that stores a plurality of pieces of contract certificate information about the power transmission (fig. 3, external memory 13 and paragraph 0018: when the electric vehicle 1 is shipped from the manufacturer or the distributer, the V2G ROOT certificate issued by at least one certificate authority CA1 is stored in a memory (e.g., an external memory 13 of FIG. 3) of the electric vehicle 1.);
an acquisition unit that acquires predetermined information about a power stand that executes the power transmission with the electrified vehicle (Fig. 3, powerline communicator 16B. 0038: The power line communicator 16B transmits/receives the signal to/from a power line communicator 26B. That is, the power line communicator 16B performs power line communications (PLC) with the charging equipment 2. The power line communicator 16B may have inside a CPU, a memory, an input/output interface, a communication interface, and the like. In this embodiment, the charging control apparatus 10 communicates with the charging equipment 2 using the external communicator 16A or the power line communicator 16B and makes a charging request and performs a billing process.),
wherein information includes information about a company with which the power stand is affiliated (0032: when it is determined that a confirmation of the certificate chain is necessary, or regularly, the charging business company and the business operator that operates the charging equipment make a confirmation request of each certificate to the OCSP responder, and receives a response of a confirmation result. By such a procedure, the charging business company and the business operator that operates the charging equipment recognize and understand the validity of the certificate chain. 0051: The Contract certificate is a certificate that indicates the details of the contract between the business operator (referred to as a mobility service provider) that supplies electric power and a user of the electric vehicle 1. The electric vehicle 1 requests the charging equipment 2 to show the billing method by a PaymentDetailReq, for example, by specifying the Contract certificate. In reply to this request, the charging equipment 2 responds to the electric vehicle 1 by a PaymentDetailRes.);
Nagaoka, lacks or fails to expressly disclose where in the selecting the piece of contract certificate information comprises selecting a piece of contract certificate information issued by the company affiliated with the power stand.
However, discloses MIHO
a selection unit that selects a piece of [contract certificate] information that suits the power stand, among the pieces of [contract certificate] information, based on the acquired predetermined information (“a presentation unit 75 that presents the incentive set to the user who uses the electric vehicle 10 . Accordingly, by setting an incentive for each charging/discharging spot 20, the user can select the charging/discharging spot 20 in consideration of the content of the incentive when charging/discharging the electric vehicle 10. FIG. Therefore, use of the charging/discharging spot 20 can be promoted according to the content of the incentive.” AND “A distance incentive is an incentive set according to the distance from a predetermined location on the electric vehicle 10 to the distance charging/discharging spot 20B. Here, the predetermined place for the electric vehicle 10 may be, for example, a place registered in the garage certificate of the electric vehicle 10, or may be the user's address or whereabouts. Also, the predetermined location for the electric vehicle 10 may be the current location of the electric vehicle 10 .”),
wherein the selecting the piece of [contract certificate] information comprises selecting a piece of [contract certificate] information issued by the company affiliated with the power stand (“increasing opportunities to visit stores and commercial facilities. Therefore, the manager of the charging/discharging spot 20 wants to increase the frequency of using the charging/discharging spot 20 and increase the frequency of visiting stores and commercial facilities. Therefore, in the present embodiment, an incentive associated with the charging/discharging spot 20 is set for each charging/discharging spot 20, and the incentive is given to the user who uses the charging/discharging device 22 installed at the charging/discharging spot 20. do. This can promote the use of the charging/discharging spot 20 managed by the administrator.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagaoka with MIHO to include a selecting information issued by the company affiliated with the power stand, in order to increase use of a particular charging spot, as taught by MIHO, abstract.
Nagaoka, as modified above, furth teaches using a contract certificate issued by the company affiliated with the power stand (0051: the Contract certificate is a certificate that indicates the details of the contract between the business operator (referred to as a mobility service provider) that supplies electric power and a user of the electric vehicle 1.);
a transmission unit that transmits the selected piece of contract certificate information to the power stand (the charging control apparatus 10 communicates with the charging equipment 2 using the external communicator 16A or the power line communicator 16B. 0044: TLS handshake, the electric vehicle 1 notifies the charging equipment 2 of the V2G ROOT certificate stored by the electric vehicle 1. On the other hand, the charging equipment 2 returns a response to a message including the V2G ROOT certificate received from the electric vehicle 1. In the TLS handshake, the electric vehicle 1 and the charging equipment 2 eventually share the secret key each other by the request from the electric vehicle 1 to the charging equipment 2 and the response from the charging equipment 2 to the electric vehicle 1. Using the secret key, the following V2G communication is performed.).
Regarding claim 2, NAGOKA, as modified above, further teaches the power transmission control device according to claim 1, wherein: when the power stand is set as a destination, the acquisition unit acquires identification information on the power stand set as the destination as the predetermined information; and the selection unit selects a piece of contract certificate information that suits the power stand set as the destination based on the identification information (0059: the charging control apparatus 10 stores a media access control (MAC) address of the charging equipment 2 (a step S6). This MAC address is identification information of the charging equipment 2 in which problems with billing by the PnC arise. Thus, in next and subsequent charging, it is determined whether or not the MAC address stored by the charging control apparatus 10 matches the MAC address of the charging equipment 2 as a connection destination in the next charging (a step S7). When the MAC address stored by the charging control apparatus 10 matches the MAC address of the charging equipment 2 as the next connection destination, the charging control apparatus 10 determines that the problems with billing by the PnC arise in the charging equipment 2 as the next connection destination.).
Regarding claim 3, NAGOKA lacks or fails to disclose a predetermined distance. However MIHO teaches wherein: when a distance between the electrified vehicle and the power stand is within a predetermined distance, the acquisition unit acquires identification information on the power stand located within the predetermined distance as the predetermined information (Fig. 1 and according to the distance from a predetermined location on the electric vehicle 10 to the distance charging/discharging spot 20B); and the selection unit selects a piece of contract certificate information that suits the power stand located within the predetermined distance based on the identification information (Fig. 1 and the predetermined place for the electric vehicle 10 may be, for example, a place registered in the garage certificate of the electric vehicle 10, or may be the user's address or whereabouts. Also, the predetermined location for the electric vehicle 10 may be the current location of the electric vehicle 10 .). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify NAGOKA with MIHO to teach wherein the power stand is within a predetermined distance in order to determine if the vehicle is at a registered location, as taught by MIHO, FIG. 1.
Regarding claim 4, NAGOKA lacks or fails to disclose a predetermined distance. However MIHO teaches wherein: when a distance between the electrified vehicle and the power stand is within a predetermined distance, the acquisition unit acquires history information on a past history of the power transmission at the power stand located within the predetermined distance as the predetermined information; and the selection unit selects a piece of contract certificate information that suits the power stand located within the predetermined distance based on the history information (For example, the charge/discharge management system 50 can set a tour incentive. This cyclic incentive is an incentive given when charging and discharging is performed at a plurality of predetermined charging/discharging spots 20 (hereinafter referred to as cyclic charging/discharging spots 20A (see FIG. 1)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify NAGOKA with MIHO to teach wherein the power stand is within a predetermined distance in order to determine if the vehicle is at a registered location, as taught by MIHO, FIG. 1.
Regarding claim 5, NAGOKA lacks or fails to disclose a predetermined distance. However MIHO teaches wherein: power transmission control device according to claim 1, wherein the selection unit is configured to: when a distance between the electrified vehicle and the power stand is within a predetermined distance and identification information on the power stand located within the predetermined distance is obtainable by the acquisition unit in a situation in which the power stand is not set as a destination, select a piece of contract certificate information that suits the power stand located within the predetermined distance based on the identification information; and when the distance between the electrified vehicle and the power stand is within the predetermined distance and the identification information is not obtainable by the acquisition unit in a situation in which the power stand is not set as the destination, select a piece of contract certificate information that suits the power stand located within the predetermined distance using history information on a past history of the power transmission at the power stand located within the predetermined distance (For example, the charge/discharge management system 50 can set a tour incentive. This cyclic incentive is an incentive given when charging and discharging is performed at a plurality of predetermined charging/discharging spots 20 (hereinafter referred to as cyclic charging/discharging spots 20A (see FIG. 1)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify NAGOKA with MIHO to teach wherein the power stand is within a predetermined distance in order to determine if the vehicle is at a registered location, as taught by MIHO, FIG. 1.
Regarding claim 7, NAGOKA lacks or does not expressly disclose a highest priority piece of contract certificate information. However, MIHO teaches in response to the piece of contract certificate information issued by the company affiliated being absent from the storage unit, select from among the plurality of pieces of contract certificate information a highest priority piece of contract certificate information (“the distance incentive is set higher as the distance from the predetermined location on the electric vehicle 10 to the distance charging/discharging spot 20B increases. In other words, the distance incentive is set lower as the distance from the predetermined place to the distance charge/discharge spot 20B is shorter. Here, a high distance incentive refers to an incentive that provides a greater sense of value. For example, if the distance incentive is points, the higher the distance incentive, the more points are awarded.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify NAGOKA with MIHO to include a high priority piece of information in order to provide a great sense of value, as taught by MIHO.
Regarding claim 8, NAGOKA, as modified above, further teaches power transmission control device according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit is within the electrified vehicle (Fig. 3 memory 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 9, NAGOKA, as modified above, further teaches power transmission control device according to claim 1, wherein when a distance between the electrified vehicle and the power stand is within a predetermined distance (taught above in combination with MIHO), the acquisition unit requests identification information of the power stand; and the acquisition unit receives, in response to the request, identification information for the power stand including a piece of contract certificate information among the plurality of pieces of contract certificate information (Fig. 5, S4-S9: comparing MAC address).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 2434