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 .
Priority
Application 18/713,715 is a National Stage Patent Application of PCT International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2021/043628 (filed on November 29, 2021) under 35 U.S.C. 371.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 19, 2026 and August 20, 2026 were filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, and 5-22 are currently pending. Claims 1, 2, and 10-13 were amended in the reply filed July 28, 2026. Claims 14-22 were added.
Response to Arguments
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims recite “a specific, disclosed rule for computing a physical logistics outcome (how many batteries are to be transported from the hub base station to the nearby local base station, and by when) from time-bound, location-bound demand data”, which integrates any judicial exception into a practical application similar to McRO (Remarks p. 16-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike McRO, Applicant’s claims do not produce a “technical result”. A physical outcome is not the same as a technical result. Computing the number of batteries to transport between base stations is an abstract idea as described in the 101 rejection below. An improvement in computing the number of batteries to transport is an improvement only to the abstract idea. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Applicant further argues that the claimed combination of elements is not routine or conventional under Step 2B (Remarks p. 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that it is the additional elements that are analyzed to determine whether or not a claim amounts to significantly more under Step 2B and that “lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements” (see MPEP 2106.05(I)). As described in the 101 rejection below, the additional elements recited by Applicant’s claims (e.g., a transport plan generating device, a database, a terminal device) are generic devices, described a high-level of detail, performing generic computer functions (e.g. sending, receiving, and storing data, performing calculations). As such, they do not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites, “wherein the upper limit number of batteries is determined based on at least one of a maximum loading capacity of a freight vehicle and an amount of packages to be transported from the hub base station to the nearby local base station” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical error. Examiner notes that the antecedent basis for the upper limit number of batteries appears to be “an upper limit number of batteries that can be transported per one transport” as recited in claim 1 and that claim 16 refers to the upper limit similarly. For the purposes of examination, claim 17 is interpreted to read, “wherein the upper limit number of batteries that can be transported per one transport is determined based on at least one of a maximum loading capacity of a freight vehicle and an amount of packages to be transported from the hub base station to the nearby local base station” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 14 and 15 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.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the number of surplus batteries held in the nearby local base station is a minimum value of the number of surplus batteries held in the nearby local base station during a work period represented by the work plan information” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what minimum value is being used. A minimum value is derived from a comparison of two or more values. Furthermore, the claim repeats “the number of surplus batteries held in the nearby local base station” and it is unclear how a number can be a minimum of itself. For the purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted to read, “wherein the number of surplus batteries held in the nearby local base station is held during a work period represented by the work plan information” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites, “and determine, for each of the plurality of hub base stations, a number of batteries to be transported to the nearby local base station within a range of the surplus batteries of the each hub base station” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what “within a range of the surplus batteries of the each hub base station” means. Claim 1 states that a “nearby local base station” is “a local base station located near the work location”. However, claim 14 appears to describe a relationship between the location of the surplus batteries (i.e., the range) and the local base station that is unclear. Furthermore, the limitation is unclear because it references a single nearby local base station and possibly multiple (i.e., the each) hub base stations. For the purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted to read, “and determine, for each of the plurality of hub base stations, a number of batteries to be transported to the nearby local base station” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 5-22 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.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 recite, generating a transport plan for one or more batteries that are to be attached to an electric work apparatus from a hub base station where the one or more batteries are stored to local base stations where the one or more batteries are lent out to a user,
acquire work plan information, the work plan information including information representing a work location in a work plan of a use of the electric apparatus, and specify a nearby local base station out of the local base stations, which is a local base station located near the work location in the work plan of the use of the electric work apparatus, based on the work plan information by referring to information representing a location of each of the local base stations,
generate the transport plan with the nearby local base station as a transport destination,
and output transport plan information representing the transport plan to the hub base station, wherein the work plan information further includes information representing a time period in the work plan of the use of the electric work apparatus,
and derive a required number of batteries required at the work location in the work plan of the use of the electric work apparatus based on the work plan information;
determine a number of transport batteries to be transported from the hub base station to the nearby local base station based on the required number of batteries;
and generate the transport plan for transporting one or more batteries from the hub base station for the number of transport batteries to the nearby local base station by the time period in the work plan of the use of the electric work apparatus based on the work plan information.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, making transport plans for distributing rental batteries at stations is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to generate a transport plan, acquire use plan information, output transport plan information, and determining a number of batteries to be transported can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 11 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a transport plan generating device (claim 1), a work plan information database (claims 1, 10, and 11) , a database (claims 1, 10, and 11), a terminal device (claims 1, 10, and 11), a computer (claims 10 and 11), a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 11). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 5-9, 12-21, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 11. The additional element in claim 22 is discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claim 22, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claim 22 also recites the additional elements of machine learning. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claim 22, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of machine learning, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 22 is also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0100809 to Wu (Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0259043 to Koneri et al. (Koneri) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0099590 to Velderman et al. (Velderman).
As to claims 1, 10, and 11, Wu teaches, A transport plan generating device for generating a transport plan for one or more batteries that are to be attached to an electric (“… Furthermore, the swapping planning system 110 may be configured to generate a battery distribution plan for a road port by determining whether the number of available batteries at the road port meets the requirement on the number of available batteries according to the battery swapping information of this road port or not. The battery distribution plan at least may comprise information such as the number of batteries which need to be delivered to the road port. The battery distribution plan may also comprise information such as the number of batteries which need to be delivered to each battery swapping device or station 120 within the port …” [0039] Examiner notes that the “battery distribution plan” of Wu is a “transport plan”):
acquire work plan information, the work plan information including information representing a work location in a work plan of a use of the electric (“… The battery swapping relationship may be used to determine the number and/or the total capacity and/or the type of the batteries which need to be replaced at certain points (e.g., locations and/or time points) during vehicle travel along a travel path or route …” [0028-0029] Examiner notes that the “transportation plan” of Wu is a “work plan”),
generate the transport plan with the nearby local base station specified as a transport destination (“At S260, a corresponding battery distribution plan is generated based on the battery distribution path, the battery distribution time and the number of batteries for distribution at the road port …” [0081-0083] Examiner notes that the “road port” of Wu is a “nearby local base station”),
and output transport plan information representing the transport plan generated to a terminal device of the hub base station (“… and then a corresponding battery distribution plan is generated, so as to enable the available batteries after distribution to each road port to meet an actual battery swapping demand, and to ensure the accuracy of the battery distribution plan, and thus to realize automatic battery distribution to each road port during vehicle transportation …” [0081-0083]),
wherein the work plan information further includes information representing a time period in the work plan of the use of the electric (“… The battery swapping demand may be also related to a (maximum) time duration of an electric vehicle operation when the vehicle carries a certain weight of goods … The transportation history information may include information about transportation plans of the vehicle over a certain time period (e.g., last 3 or 6 months, or another time period)” and “According to the example Embodiment I, the battery swapping information of the road port may include: stopping time for battery swapping at the road port, vehicle information corresponding to the stopping time for battery swapping at the road port, and/or a power exchange amount corresponding to the stopping time for battery swapping of the road port …” and “… Battery distribution time may be a time or a time period when the batteries should be or can be delivered to the road port” [030-0032 and 0053 and 0073-0074]),
and the transport plan generating device is further configured to: derive a required number of batteries required at the work location in the work plan of the use of the electric (“… The battery swapping demand may be used to determine the number of batteries of the vehicle which need to be replaced at a certain road port” and “… The degree of battery distribution may correspond to the number of batteries which need to be delivered to a road port so that the road port has a number of batteries sufficient to perform battery replacement on the vehicles stopping at the road port …” [0029-0030 and 0077-0083]);
determine a number of transport batteries to be transported (“… The battery swapping demand may be used to determine the number of batteries of the vehicle which need to be replaced at a certain road port” and “… The degree of battery distribution may correspond to the number of batteries which need to be delivered to a road port so that the road port has a number of batteries sufficient to perform battery replacement on the vehicles stopping at the road port …” [0029-0030 and 0077-0083]);
and generate the transport plan for transporting one or more batteries for the number of transport batteries (“At S240, a battery distribution path and battery distribution time of the road port are determined according to the number of available batteries at the road port and the power exchange amount corresponding to the first stopping time for battery swapping …” [0073-0083] Examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted to mean that the one or more batteries are transported to the nearby local base station by the start time of the time period in the plan of use (see Applicant’s specification [0076 and 0095])).
While Wu teaches, a transport plan, Wu does not teach a transport plan that includes a hub base station. However, Koneri teaches a transport plan that includes a hub base station (“… Nodes can include retail stores and warehouses. Warehouses serve to store inventory and also function as distribution centers …” and “A reactive transfer or shipping injection occurs as response to a reactive demand signal from a customer order made online or a purchase made in-store. For a reactive transfer, the reactive replenishment engine 318 sends a request to the inventory management system 202, but the full order cannot be completed at a single node. Therefore, portions of the order move through the network to land at a final processing node (normally the store) for combination and final order completion …” [0022-0024 and 0071-0072]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use the hub base station, as taught by Koneri, with the transport plan of Wu. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Koneri that doing so would achieve the optimized inventory positions for items [0006].
Wu does not teach, and specify a nearby local base station out of the local base stations, which is a local base station located near the work location in the work plan of the use of the electric work apparatus, based on the work plan information by referring to a database that stores information representing a location of each of the local base stations. However, Koneri teaches, and specify a nearby local base station out of the local base stations, which is a local base station located near the work location in the work plan of the use of the (“… The online ordering system 208 will assign orders to the node which is closest to the customer, meets the promised delivery date, and has the ability to consolidate the order …” [0091-0093]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and specify a nearby local base station out of the local base stations, which is a local base station located near the work location in the work plan of the use of thefrom the teachings of Koneri that doing so would achieve the optimized inventory positions for items [0006].
While Wu in view of Koneri teaches, a work plan of the use of an electric apparatus, Wu in view of Koneri does not teach a work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus. However, Velderman teaches, a work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus (“Referring to FIG. 1, in an exemplary embodiment, a system 10 for renting, transporting, charging and discharging battery packs (e.g., for power tools [i.e., an electric work apparatus] and other electrical devices) …” and “… At step 464, the kiosk 110 places a hold on the user's account and/or credit card in to hold the reservation [i.e., a work plan]. At step 466, the central processing unit 140 stores a record corresponding to the reservation in the memory/database module 138 and/or causes the external communications module 146 to place a record of the reservation in the central server 160, thus ending the Reserve transaction at step 468 …” [0083 and 0106-0107]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus of Velderman for the work plan of the use of an electric apparatus of Wu in view of Koneri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Velderman that doing so would provide a convenient system and method for users to obtain, charge, and discharge battery packs for use with power tools and other electrical devices [0049].
Wu in view of Koneri does not teach, acquire workplan information stored in a work plan information database. However, Velderman teaches, acquire work plan information stored in a work plan information database (“… For example, based on a rental order received and/or processed in the central processing unit 140 and/or stored in the memory/database module 138, the bin dispensing module 152 may unlock a door 116 of a particular bin 114 and enable removal of the carrier 200 and battery packs 300 in that bin 114 …” and “… At step 466, the central processing unit 140 stores a record corresponding to the reservation in the memory/database module 138 and/or causes the external communications module 146 to place a record of the reservation in the central server 160, thus ending the Reserve transaction at step 468 …” [0095 and 0106]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, acquire workplan information stored in a work plan information database, as taught by Velderman with the battery distribution system of Wu in view of Koneri. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Velderman that doing so would provide a convenient system and method for users to obtain, charge, and discharge battery packs for use with power tools and other electrical devices [0049].
As to claim 2, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu does not teach, wherein the nearby local base station is a local base station closest to the location in the work plan of the use of the electric work apparatus out of the local base stations. However, Koneri teaches, wherein the nearby local base station is a local base station closest to the location in the (“… The online ordering system 208 will assign orders to the node which is closest to the customer, meets the promised delivery date, and has the ability to consolidate the order …” [0091-0093]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the nearby local base station is a local base station closest to the location in the
While Koneri teaches, a work plan of the use of an apparatus, Koneri does not teach a work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus. However, Velderman teaches, a work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus (“Referring to FIG. 1, in an exemplary embodiment, a system 10 for renting, transporting, charging and discharging battery packs (e.g., for power tools [i.e., an electric work apparatus] and other electrical devices) …” and “… At step 464, the kiosk 110 places a hold on the user's account and/or credit card in to hold the reservation [i.e., a work plan]. At step 466, the central processing unit 140 stores a record corresponding to the reservation in the memory/database module 138 and/or causes the external communications module 146 to place a record of the reservation in the central server 160, thus ending the Reserve transaction at step 468 …” [0083 and 0106-0107]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus of Velderman for the work plan of the use of an electric apparatus of Koneri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Velderman that doing so would provide a convenient system and method for users to obtain, charge, and discharge battery packs for use with power tools and other electrical devices [0049].
As to claim 5, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu further teaches, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to determine the number of transport batteries based on a difference between the required number of batteries and a number of surplus batteries held in the nearby local base station (“… The battery distribution plan at least may comprise information such as the number of batteries which need to be delivered to the road port. The battery distribution plan may also comprise information such as the number of batteries which need to be delivered to each battery swapping device or station 120 within the port …” and “… The degree of battery distribution may correspond to the number of batteries which need to be delivered to a road port so that the road port has a number of batteries sufficient to perform battery replacement on the vehicles stopping at the road port …” [0039 and 0077]).
As to claim 6, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu does not teach, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to generate the transport plan with the hub base station as a transport source, the hub base station having surplus batteries that are used for the number of transport batteries. However, Koneri teaches, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to generate the transport plan with the hub base station as a transport source, the hub base station having surplus [items] (“… Replenishment occurs by first determining, based on monitoring the inventory levels, which retail locations and distribution locations have inventory deficits and which have inventory surpluses. Transfer orders are generated and sent to distribution locations having surplus inventory or purchase orders are sent to vendors. Transportation is then arranged to take inventory from the vendor or distribution location having surplus inventory to the retail locations and distribution locations having deficits …” and “At operation 702, it is determined which retail locations and distribution locations have an inventory deficit and which have an inventory surplus …” [0006 and 0116-0118]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to generate the transport plan with the hub base station as a transport source, the hub base station having surplus [items]
While Koneri teaches transporting items, Koneri does not teach transporting batteries. However, Wu, transporting batteries (“… The battery distribution plan may include information related to the number of batteries which need to be delivered to the port, source(s) from which the batteries can be delivered to the port and a timeframe or a schedule for delivering the batteries …” [0035]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of transporting batteries of Wu for the transporting items of Koneri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wu that doing so would simplify battery distribution in road ports and improve accuracy and the high efficiency of battery distribution in road ports [0015].
As to claim 7, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Wu does not teach, wherein when there is a plurality of hub base stations each having surplus batteries for the number of transport batteries, the transport plan generating device generates the transport plan with a hub base station closest to the nearby local base station among the plurality of hub base stations as the transport source. However, Koneri teaches, wherein when there is a plurality of hub base stations each having surplus [items] (“… Replenishment occurs by first determining, based on monitoring the inventory levels, which retail locations and distribution locations have inventory deficits and which have inventory surpluses. Transfer orders are generated and sent to distribution locations having surplus inventory or purchase orders are sent to vendors. Transportation is then arranged to take inventory from the vendor or distribution location having surplus inventory to the retail locations and distribution locations having deficits …”and “… The online ordering system 208 will assign orders to the node which is closest to the customer, meets the promised delivery date, and has the ability to consolidate the order …” and “At operation 702, it is determined which retail locations and distribution locations have an inventory deficit and which have an inventory surplus …” [0006 and 0093 and 0116-0118]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to generate the transport plan with the hub base station as a transport source, the hub base station having surplus [items]
While Koneri teaches transporting items, Koneri does not teach transporting batteries. However, Wu, transporting batteries (“… The battery distribution plan may include information related to the number of batteries which need to be delivered to the port, source(s) from which the batteries can be delivered to the port and a timeframe or a schedule for delivering the batteries …” [0035]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of transporting batteries of Wu for the transporting items of Koneri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wu that doing so would simplify battery distribution in road ports and improve accuracy and the high efficiency of battery distribution in road ports [0015].
As to claim 14, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Wu further teaches, wherein the number of surplus batteries held in the nearby local base station is a minimum value of the number of surplus batteries held in the nearby local base station during a work period represented by the work plan information (“… The battery distribution plan at least may comprise information such as the number of batteries which need to be delivered to the road port. The battery distribution plan may also comprise information such as the number of batteries which need to be delivered to each battery swapping device or station 120 within the port …” and “… The degree of battery distribution may correspond to the number of batteries which need to be delivered to a road port so that the road port has a number of batteries sufficient to perform battery replacement on the vehicles stopping at the road port …” [0039 and 0077]).
As to claim 19, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu does not teach, wherein the work plan information includes a work start date, and the transport plan generating device is configured to generate the transport plan such that transport of the number of transport batteries to the nearby local base station is completed by the work start date. However, Koneri teaches, wherein the work plan information includes a work start date, and the transport plan generating device is configured to generate the transport plan such that transport of the number of transport [items] (“… A pick-up window or time is determined based on the need-by-time [i.e., work start date] and anticipated transit times, as well as the vendor hours and ship point constraints” and “… The transportation management system 206 and inventory management system 202 operate together to fill the order and deliver the ordered products to the customer in the need-by time” and “… Routes will be scheduled to coincide with normal shipping schedules as well as creating additional trips to ensure that need-by-times are met for particular items …” [0061 and 0087 and 0119-0122]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the work plan information includes a work start date, and the transport plan generating device is configured to generate the transport plan such that transport of the number of transport [items]
While Koneri teaches transporting items, Koneri does not teach transporting batteries. However, Wu, transporting batteries (“… The battery distribution plan may include information related to the number of batteries which need to be delivered to the port, source(s) from which the batteries can be delivered to the port and a timeframe or a schedule for delivering the batteries …” [0035]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of transporting batteries of Wu for the transporting items of Koneri. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wu that doing so would simplify battery distribution in road ports and improve accuracy and the high efficiency of battery distribution in road ports [0015].
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0100809 to Wu (Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0259043 to Koneri et al. (Koneri) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0099590 to Velderman et al. (Velderman), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0112290 to Ye et al. (Ye).
As to claim 8, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu in view of Koneri does not teach, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to determine a number of times of transport for transporting the number of transport batteries from the hub base station to the nearby local base station based on the number of transport batteries and an upper limit number of batteries that can be transported per one transport. However, Ye teaches, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to determine a number of times of transport for transporting the number of transport [items] from the hub base station to the nearby local base station based on the number of transport [items] and an upper limit number of [items] that can be transported per one transport (“… the transportation management module 214 validates if the total volume and the total weight corresponding to each of the one or more products is greater than the predefined threshold by comparing the total volume and the total weight corresponding to each of the one or more products with predefined threshold associated with desired trailer. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the predefined threshold may be a break-even point for loading a product in the desired trailer in order to earn profit from the transportation of the product. The predefined threshold may be less than maximum loading capacity of the desired trailer … Further, the transportation management module 214 determines number of one or more vehicles 110 required for transporting one or more products from source location to destination location and number of round trips between source location and destination location based on the determined number of one or more desired trailers, travel distance between the source location and the destination location, the one or more cost factors and desired shipping time of the one or more products …” [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to determine a number of times of transport for transporting the number of transport [items] from the hub base station to the nearby local base station based on the number of transport [items] and an upper limit number of [items] that can be transported per one transport, as taught by Ye with the battery distribution system of Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ye that doing so would help reduce shipment delays as well as reduce the overall cost of transportation [0002-0003].
While Ye teaches transporting items, Ye does not teach transporting batteries. However, Wu, transporting batteries (“… The battery distribution plan may include information related to the number of batteries which need to be delivered to the port, source(s) from which the batteries can be delivered to the port and a timeframe or a schedule for delivering the batteries …” [0035]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of transporting batteries of Wu for the transporting items of Ye. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wu that doing so would simplify battery distribution in road ports and improve accuracy and the high efficiency of battery distribution in road ports [0015].
As to claim 9, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman and in further view of Ye teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman does not teach, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to advance a time of starting transport from the hub base station to the nearby local base station as the number of times of transport increases. However, Ye teaches, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to advance a time of starting transport from the hub base station to the nearby local base station as the number of times of transport increases (“At step 308, number of one or more vehicles 110 required for transporting one or more products from source location to destination location and number of round trips between the source location and the destination location may be determined based on the determined number of one or more desired trailers, travel distance between the source location and the destination location, the one or more cost factors and desired shipping time of the one or more products …” and “… Furthermore, the one or more vehicles 110 are no longer required to wait for sorting the one or more products at the sorting centre 112. The one or more vehicles 110 may leave the sorting centre 112 as soon as the one or more desired trailers are dropped off at the sorting centre …” [0041 and 0048] Examiner notes that leaving as soon as a trailer is dropped off is the equivalent of increasing the start time of a transport in proportion to its readiness and that the readiness of a trailer is affected by the number of round trips it makes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to advance a time of starting transport from the hub base station to the nearby local base station as the number of times of transport increases, as taught by Ye with the battery distribution system of Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ye that doing so would help reduce shipment delays as well as reduce the overall cost of transportation [0002-0003].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0100809 to Wu (Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0259043 to Koneri et al. (Koneri) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0099590 to Velderman et al. (Velderman), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0367278 to Nakano et al. (Nakano) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0202910 to Venkatakrishnan et al. (Venkatakrishnan).
As to claim 12, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu further teaches, and derive the required number of batteries required at the work location in the work plan of the use of the electric (“… The above information can be provided to accurately analyze the power consumption of the vehicle during the transportation, thereby ensuring the accuracy of the battery swapping information upon stopping of the vehicle at each road port” and “… and the information such as the battery swapping number of the vehicle (the number of the vehicle batteries which need to be replaced) and, e.g., time until the next battery replacement upon or after stopping at each road port can be obtained according to the power consumption, so as to generate the transportation plan of the vehicle …” [0071-0072 and 0089-0092]).
While Wu teaches, a work plan of the use of an electric apparatus, Wu does not teach a work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus. However, Velderman teaches, a work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus (“Referring to FIG. 1, in an exemplary embodiment, a system 10 for renting, transporting, charging and discharging battery packs (e.g., for power tools [i.e., an electric work apparatus] and other electrical devices) …” and “… At step 464, the kiosk 110 places a hold on the user's account and/or credit card in to hold the reservation [i.e., a work plan]. At step 466, the central processing unit 140 stores a record corresponding to the reservation in the memory/database module 138 and/or causes the external communications module 146 to place a record of the reservation in the central server 160, thus ending the Reserve transaction at step 468 …” [0083 and 0106-0107]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus of Velderman for the work plan of the use of an electric apparatus of Wu. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Velderman that doing so would provide a convenient system and method for users to obtain, charge, and discharge battery packs for use with power tools and other electrical devices [0049].
Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman does not teach, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to: perform machine learning on past work performance data on use of the electrical work apparatus to derive a daily power consumption of the electrical work apparatus. However, Nakano teaches, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to: perform machine learning on past work performance data on use of the electrical work apparatus to derive a [unit time] power consumption of the electrical work apparatus (“… The training unit 319 uses the training information stored in the training information storage unit 318 to perform machine learning with respect to a model (to be referred to as a power consumption model) hereinafter) for estimating the power consumption per unit time …” and “… Among these, the power consumption data are used as the ground truth data (alternatively, to be also referred to as “training data”) during machine learning. Note that “unit time” refers to a predetermined length of time” and “… In step S1003, the combined data composed of the set temperature and the data correlated with the power consumption are input to the power consumption model 601 by the training unit 319 to execute the power consumption model 601 …” [0053-0056 and 0063 and 0108-0114]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the transport plan generating device is further configured to: perform machine learning on past work performance data on use of the electrical work apparatus to derive a [unit time] power consumption of the electrical work apparatus, as taught by Nakano with the battery distribution system of Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of more accurately estimating the number of batteries needed.
While Wu and Nakano teach a unit time power consumption of the electrical apparatus, Wu and Nakano do not teach a daily power consumption of the electrical apparatus. However, Venkatakrishnan teaches, a daily power consumption of the electrical apparatus (“5. Daily power consumption cost chart sent to remote device (e.g., computing device, hand held device, etc). In one embodiment the daily power consumption cost chart expresses the daily consumption of power by one or more of the accessories and/or overall consumption of the premises or home (FIG. 11)” [0130]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the daily power consumption of Venkatakrishnan for the unit time power consumption of Wu and Nakano. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Venkatakrishnan that doing so would decrease customer cost, increase flexibility, and decrease system complexity [0009 and 0014].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0100809 to Wu (Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0259043 to Koneri et al. (Koneri) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0099590 to Velderman et al. (Velderman), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0202910 to Venkatakrishnan et al. (Venkatakrishnan) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0289717 to Matsuzawa (Matsuzawa).
As to claim 13, Wu in view of Koneri teaches in view of Velderman all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu further teaches, determine [unit time] power consumption of the electric (“… The above information can be provided to accurately analyze the power consumption of the vehicle during the transportation, thereby ensuring the accuracy of the battery swapping information upon stopping of the vehicle at each road port” and “… and the information such as the battery swapping number of the vehicle (the number of the vehicle batteries which need to be replaced) and, e.g., time until the next battery replacement upon or after stopping at each road port can be obtained according to the power consumption, so as to generate the transportation plan of the vehicle …” [0071-0072 and 0089-0092]);
and derive the required number of batteries required at the (“… The above information can be provided to accurately analyze the power consumption of the vehicle during the transportation, thereby ensuring the accuracy of the battery swapping information upon stopping of the vehicle at each road port” and “… and the information such as the battery swapping number of the vehicle (the number of the vehicle batteries which need to be replaced) and, e.g., time until the next battery replacement upon or after stopping at each road port can be obtained according to the power consumption, so as to generate the transportation plan of the vehicle …” [0071-0072 and 0089-0092]).
While Wu teaches, a work plan of the use of an electric apparatus, Wu does not teach a work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus. However, Velderman teaches, a work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus (“Referring to FIG. 1, in an exemplary embodiment, a system 10 for renting, transporting, charging and discharging battery packs (e.g., for power tools [i.e., an electric work apparatus] and other electrical devices) …” and “… At step 464, the kiosk 110 places a hold on the user's account and/or credit card in to hold the reservation [i.e., a work plan]. At step 466, the central processing unit 140 stores a record corresponding to the reservation in the memory/database module 138 and/or causes the external communications module 146 to place a record of the reservation in the central server 160, thus ending the Reserve transaction at step 468 …” [0083 and 0106-0107]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the work plan of the use of an electric work apparatus of Velderman for the work plan of the use of an electric apparatus of Wu. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Velderman that doing so would provide a convenient system and method for users to obtain, charge, and discharge battery packs for use with power tools and other electrical devices [0049].
While Wu teaches a unit time power consumption of the electrical apparatus, Wu does not teach a daily power consumption of the electrical apparatus. However, Venkatakrishnan teaches, a daily power consumption of the electrical apparatus (“5. Daily power consumption cost chart sent to remote device (e.g., computing device, hand held device, etc). In one embodiment the daily power consumption cost chart expresses the daily consumption of power by one or more of the accessories and/or overall consumption of the premises or home (FIG. 11)” [0130]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the daily power consumption of Venkatakrishnan for the unit time power consumption of Wu. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Venkatakrishnan that doing so would decrease customer cost, increase flexibility, and decrease system complexity [0009 and 0014].
Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman and in further view of Venkatakrishnan does not teach, determine a storable power amount of batteries stored in the hub base station, the storable power amount of the batteries stored in the hub base station varying depending on a state of health of the batteries stored in the hub base station. However, Matsuzawa teaches, determine a storable power amount of batteries stored in the hub base station, the storable power amount of the batteries stored in the hub base station varying depending on a state of health of the batteries stored in the hub base station (“… Moreover, it should be noted that the SOH is expressed as a percentage of the amount of electrical power (Ah) of the current battery at a time of being fully charged to the amount of electrical power (Ah) of a new battery at a time of being fully charged, wherein the SOH of the new one is taken to be 100%” and “… Moreover, instead of the SOH for each of the batteries, the state of usage storage unit 42 may store the number of charging times or the number of discharging times of each of the batteries” [0025-0031 and 0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, determine a storable power amount of batteries stored in the hub base station, the storable power amount of the batteries stored in the hub base station varying depending on a state of health of the batteries stored in the hub base station, as taught by Matsuzawa with the battery distribution system of Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman and in further view of Venkatakrishnan. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Matsuzawa that doing so would provide an inventory management system which is capable of realizing both the features of enabling batteries to be used again and ensuring convenience of electrically powered products for which the batteries are used again [0004].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0100809 to Wu (Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0259043 to Koneri et al. (Koneri) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0099590 to Velderman et al. (Velderman), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0367278 to Nakano et al. (Nakano).
As to claim 22, Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman does not teach, wherein the transport plan generating device is configured to: perform machine learning on past work-performance data; and derive the required number of batteries based on a result of the machine learning. However, Nakano teaches, wherein the transport plan generating device is configured to: perform machine learning on past work-performance data; and derive the required number of batteries based on a result of the machine learning (“… The training unit 319 uses the training information stored in the training information storage unit 318 to perform machine learning with respect to a model (to be referred to as a power consumption model) hereinafter) for estimating the power consumption per unit time …” and “… Note that in the inference phase, the power consumption is inferred in the rechargeable-battery selection apparatus, and the type and the number of rechargeable batteries to be stored in the rechargeable battery storage unit 250 of the refrigerator 210 are selected based on the estimated power consumption …” [0044-0056 and 0076-0080]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the transport plan generating device is configured to: perform machine learning on past work-performance data; and derive the required number of batteries based on a result of the machine learning, as taught by Nakano with the battery distribution system of Wu in view of Koneri in view of Velderman. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of more accurately estimating the number of batteries needed.
Allowable over Prior Art
Available art, alone or in combination, fails to teach all of the limitations in dependent claims 15-18 and 20-21. Examiner notes that there is a 101 rejection for the claims as well as a 112(b) rejection for claims 14 and 15 and objection for claim 17.
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights