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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 1/05/2026. Claims 1, 4, and 5-6 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed on 1/05/2026 are under consideration. Claims 1, 4, and 5 are amended. Claim 6 is newly added.
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, 4, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 4 and 5-6 are directed to a method for generating a delivery plan for an electrified vehicle that delivers a package using a computer (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1, 4 and 5-6 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity,
and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (mental process)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility configured to generate renewable energy; selecting, based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility, by the processor, an electrified vehicle including a battery configured to store power for driving from among the electrified vehicles,; obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle, three-dimensional map information, specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle, and position information on a delivery destination for the package; receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility; calculating, by the processor, for each of candidate delivery routes, a predicted SOC value at arrival at the target power supply facility, based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information derived from the three-dimensional map information, vehicle specifications, and delivery destination position; selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time; and
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “selecting … an electrified vehicle including a battery configured to store power for driving from among the electrified vehicles” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining which EV among the plurality available will get to store power, which can be done with a human’s mental ability as this is simply determining which vehicle needs to be charged based on viewing the SOC of the EV. Another example being, “calculating… for each of candidate delivery routes, a predicted SOC value at arrival at the target power supply facility” in the context of this claim is performing an mathematical equation in order to determine the level of charge of the vehicle by the time it gets to the charging station which can be done with a human’s mental ability with the aid of pen and paper. Lastly, “selecting… a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time;” in the context of this claim is simply selecting which route to guide the EV vehicle along while calculating a minimized version of the variables listed above in which can be done by a human mental ability with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility configured to generate renewable energy; selecting, based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility, by the processor, an electrified vehicle including a battery configured to store power for driving from among the electrified vehicles,; obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle, three-dimensional map information, specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle, and position information on a delivery destination for the package; receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility; calculating, by the processor, for each of candidate delivery routes, a predicted SOC value at arrival at the target power supply facility, based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information derived from the three-dimensional map information, vehicle specifications, and delivery destination position; selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time; and
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of, “acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility configured to generate renewable energy;”, “based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility”, “obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle, three-dimensional map information, specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle, and position information on a delivery destination for the package; receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility;”, “based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information derived from the three-dimensional map information, vehicle specifications, and delivery destination position;” and “and transmitting, by the processor, a power reception instruction to the selected electrified vehicle to travel along the selected delivery route and receive power from the target power supply facility.” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use an electric vehicle (equipped with a DCM, ECU, and reception module) to perform the mental process. Each of the above cited limitations are simply further defining the mental process and explaining at what point a charge request is collected and are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving a charge request with specific information about the amount of charge and route to be taken), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally the limitations of “by a processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic computer component (processor) to perform the mental process. As the processor used has generic components and the applicant does not make an attempt to improve the functioning of a computer with specialized components. The system, is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates receiving a charge request and setting a route for the EV to take.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquiring”, “receiving”, “based on” and “transmitting” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquiring”, “receiving”, “based on” and “transmitting” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification recites that the components are all conventional computer components mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the system is anything other than what a conventional computer does within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 4-6, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional
aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional
elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 4 mentions “excluding, from candidates of the delivery route” which would fail under Step 2A Prong one as a mental process as the method is just further configured to determine which routes the EV should take based on gathered data which is something a human mind is capable of doing with pen and paper which would not make claim 4 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 5 mentions “based on the present value of the SOC;” which would fail under Step 2A Prong 2 as this is merely data gathering which would not make claim 5 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 6 mentions “prescribed distance is 1.2 times a predicted prescribed distance,” which would fail under Step 2A Prong one as a further defining the mathematical formulation of claim 1 which is something a human mind is capable of doing with pen and paper which would not make claim 6 to be considered patent eligible subject matter.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (JP2022055976A) in view of Wires (US 12,109,883 Bl) and in further view of Yushi (JP 2025-23719 A)
Regarding Claim 1 Shimada teaches A method of generating a delivery plan for an electrified vehicle that delivers a package (Pg. – [1] – “The present invention is a technology related to an electric vehicle delivery control system for making maximum use of electric vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "EV").” & See Also Pg. 1 – [2] – “delivery plan generation method that can generate a delivery plan using an electric vehicle equipped with a secondary battery,”) the method comprising: acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility; (Pg. 7 – [59] – “In this way, the charging power used to charge the EV depends on the SOC. Conversely, if the SOC can be controlled, the total charging power amount when charging multiple EVs can be controlled. In other words, when EV charging is expected to exceed the contracted power at the delivery base, it is possible to control the power to within the contracted power by adjusting the SOC when the EV returns.” & See Also Pg. 7 – [61 & 62] – “the method comprising: acquiring a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility. Thereby, even if the number of EVs being charged is the same, the total power consumption due to charging can be reduced. Furthermore, by controlling the variation in the SOC of EVs at the time of return, it is possible to create a delivery plan that selects EV vehicles that allow waiting time and EV vehicles that do not allow waiting time, thereby improving delivery efficiency”(equates to the method comprising: acquiring a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility as the quote shows the SOC of the EV is able to be controlled that the contracted power of the base station does not exceed a threshold amount the amount of power supplied to an EV and thus the charge of power can be done in a specific amount as to not exceed the contracted power. The second quote goes to show how the soc of the EV’s are varied via implemented control and thus the return time when each are designated to return is controlled to be at specific time. )) selecting, based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility, by the processor, an electrified vehicle including a battery configured to store power for driving from among the electrified vehicles, (Pg. 9 – [81] – “For example, even if the EVs arriving at different times are crowded due to the delivery route or loading conditions at the delivery base, the above control can control variations in the SOC of the returning EVs at the time of return, allowing waiting time” & See Also Pg. 4 – [34] – “The SOC calculation in the return SOC calculation unit 103B is calculated based on the EV power consumption formula” (equates to selecting, based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility, by the processor, an electrified vehicle including a battery configured to store power for driving from among the electrified vehicles as the first quote shows the delivery routes of a plurality of EV’s being considered and subsequently the return of each of the ev’s to the delivery base in which the battery to store power for the selected ev may be chosen based on the soc value and thus modulate which vehicle is returning to the home base first. )) ;obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle, (Pg. 9 – [81] – “For example, even if the EVs arriving at different times are crowded due to the delivery route or loading conditions at the delivery base, the above control can control variations in the SOC of the returning EVs at the time of return, allowing waiting time” & See Also Pg. 4 – [34] – “The SOC calculation in the return SOC calculation unit 103B is calculated based on the EV power consumption formula” (equates to obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle as the quotes show the determination of the soc of each EV in the system being monitored.)), specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle, (Pg. 1 – [2] – “vehicle information acquisition unit that acquires vehicle information, an SOC acquisition unit that acquires the SOC of a secondary battery installed in an electric vehicle” (equates to specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle as the quote shows the attaining of the soc or a specification of the device within the ev wherein the device may be a battery.)) and position information on a delivery destination for the package; (Pg. 1 – [2] – “delivery destination information acquisition unit that acquires delivery destination information of a package” ) calculating, by the processor, for each of candidate delivery routes, a predicted SOC value at arrival at the target power supply facility, based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information (Pg. 9 – [81] – “For example, even if the EVs arriving at different times are crowded due to the delivery route or loading conditions at the delivery base, the above control can control variations in the SOC of the returning EVs at the time of return, allowing waiting time” & See Also Pg. 4 – [34] – “The SOC calculation in the return SOC calculation unit 103B is calculated based on the EV power consumption formula”), vehicle specifications, (Pg. 4 – [35] – “the electric power Pｄ required for driving is determined by the following equation (1): running resistance R, vehicle speed Vｓ , EV powertrain efficiency (gear efficiency ηｇｅａｒ , motor efficiency ηｍ , battery efficiency” ) and delivery destination position; (Pg. 1 – [7] – “discloses a delivery plan generation unit that formulates a delivery plan from information on a travelable distance calculated from information on a delivery destination and the remaining battery level of a delivery EV”) selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level (Pg. 3 – [31] – “The return time calculation section 103A is a section that calculates the return time of a plurality of EVs to a delivery base based on the delivery route selected by the EV delivery selection section 102, and the return time SOC calculation section 103B is a section that calculates the return time of a plurality of EVs to a delivery base based on the delivery route selected by the EV delivery selection section 102. This is the part that calculates the SOC upon return to the delivery base.” & See Also Pg. 8 – [61] – “which shows the concept of σｓｏｃ control of the SOC during EV return, control is performed to reduce the peak of σｓｏｃ” (equates to selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level as the quote shows the selection of the delivery route among a plurality of routes and vehicle with prescribed routes in which the SOC is calculated for each vehicle within the grouping. The second quote shows the SOC specifically being reduced for certain Ev’s to decrease overall power being used at once by EV’s going to the same charging station.) ) while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time; (Pg. 1 – [2] – “is described that the vehicle includes a calculation unit that calculates the travelable distance of the electric vehicle based on the SOC of the battery, and a delivery plan generation unit that generates a delivery plan using delivery destination information and the calculated travelable distance” & See Also Pg. 4 – [34] – “The SOC calculation in the return SOC calculation unit 103B is calculated based on the EV power consumption formula” & See Also Pg. 4 – [33] – “Based on this information, the return time calculation unit 103A and the return SOC calculation unit 103B calculate the delivery time and the SOC at that time. This makes it possible to determine the scheduled time of return to the delivery base and the SOC at that time” (equates to while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time; as the first quote shows the calculation unit considering the travel distance, the second quote showing the calculation unit that uses the SOC for delivery destination including the power consumption of the vehicle, and the third quote showing the time of return for the delivery to happen being done by the calculation unit as well.) ) and transmitting, by the processor a power reception instruction to the selected electrified vehicle to travel along the selected delivery route and receive power from the target power supply facility (Pg. 9 – [81] – “For example, even if the EVs arriving at different times are crowded due to the delivery route or loading conditions at the delivery base, the above control can control variations in the SOC of the returning EVs at the time of return, allowing waiting time. It is possible to create a delivery plan that selects EV vehicles that are allowed and EV vehicles that are not allowed, and delivery efficiency can be improved. Furthermore, since EVs with different SOCs can be combined when charging is controlled at the delivery base, power demand during charging can be controlled, and bias in charging power to delivery EVs can be suppressed.” (equates to transmitting a power reception instruction to travel along the set delivery route and receive power from the target power supply facility to the electrified vehicle as the quote shows a plurality of ev’s under control wherein each vehicle can have their individual route set and each can be sent get charged at a delivery base.))
Yet Shimada fails to teach configured to generate renewable energy; three-dimensional map information, receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility; derived from the three-dimensional map information; that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy,
Wires teaches three-dimensional map information, (Pg. 25. – Col. 38 – lines 1-8 – “The 3D maps may provide numerous operation parameters that have terrain aspects of the driving environment in that the terrain aspects include characteristics of the driving environment that are associated with the geometry of the segment of the roadway as well as other aspects of the terrain surrounding the electric delivery truck 110 as the electric delivery truck 110 maneuvers along the segment of the roadway.” (equates to includes three-dimensional map information as the quote shows an electric vehicle having access to3D maps that allow for easy navigation when traversing roads.)) derived from the three-dimensional map information; (Pg. 11 – Col. 9 – - lines 22-27 – “The hub motor parameters may also provide insight as to the electric power consumption of the electric delivery truck 110 such as but not limited to the current voltage of the drive battery, acceleration relative to amount of Amps being drawn to support the speed of the electric delivery truck 110, state of charge of the drive battery” & See Also pg. 25 – Col. 38 – lines 14-18 – “For example, the operation parameter controller 305 may also identify the current speed limit of the segment of the roadway that the electric delivery truck 110 is currently operating as provided by the 3D maps as well as any changes in the posted speed limit provided by the 3D maps” & See Also Pg. 25 – [Col. 37 – lines 1-2] – “The operation parameter controller 305 may then automatically adjust the torque level applied by each hub motor” (equates to derived from the three-dimensional map information; as the first quote shows the state of charge being estimated via the hub parameters and the thirds showing the relation being the hub parameters and the operation parameter controller and the second quote showing the operational parameter controller being based on the 3d map provided by the system. ) )
Yet Shimada-Wires fails to teach configured to generate renewable energy; receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility; that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy,
Yushi teaches configured to generate renewable energy; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “To appropriately control charging and discharging of a storage battery mounted on a vehicle when the storage battery is used while connected to a power grid. [Solution] When generation of surplus renewable energy power is predicted” (equates to configured to generate renewable energy; as the quote shows the grid to which the EV would charge into being one of renewable energy.) ) receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility (Pg. 1 – [abstract] - “To appropriately control charging and discharging of a storage battery mounted on a vehicle when the storage battery is used while connected to a power grid. [Solution] When generation of surplus renewable energy power is predicted from prediction information”) the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility (Pg. 1 – [abstract] – “then charges the storage battery with power supplied from the power grid during the period when generation of the surplus power is predicted.” (equates to the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility as the quote shows the charging of an EV being done when the time period for surplus renewable power is expected.) ) that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy (Pg. 1 – [Abstract] – “storage battery is equal to or greater than an SOC reference value, the charge and discharge control system discharges an amount of power required to compensate for the predicted value of the surplus power amount based on the prediction information, and then charges the storage battery with power supplied from the power grid during the period when generation of the surplus power is predicted” (equates to that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy as the quote shows the specific SOC of the vehicle being considered and the vehicle being designated a particular time slot to charge during the time of surplus renewable energy being available.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shimada-Wires to include configured to generate renewable energy; receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility; that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, as these limitations allow for specific time slot designations to be prescribed to the plurality of EV’s in the delivery system allowing for charging to be specifically coordinated with excess power supplies ensuring charged vehicle and energy that does not go to waste.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include configured to generate renewable energy; receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility; that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy as these limitations allow for renewable energy to specifically be used to charge vehicles allowing for sustainable practices of power consumption to be attained and ensure time slot designation of delivery vehicles is coordinated within the delivery system.
Regarding Claim 5 Shimada-Wires-Yushi teaches The method of generating a delivery plan according to claim 1, wherein the selected electrified vehicle a vehicle predicted by the processor to be able to receive power in the specified power amount when the selected electrified vehicle arrives at the target power supply facility based on the present value of the SOC, (Pg. 9 – [73] – “control unit 106 determines whether the total value of the charging output PＥＶ and the power Pｏｔｈｅｒ other than charging the EV is smaller than the contract power Pｍａｘ (step S807). If it is determined in this step S807 that the total value is smaller than the contract power Pｍａｘ , a route is determined (step S803), and the process is completed” (equates to wherein the selected electrified vehicle a vehicle predicted by the processor to be able to receive power in the specified power amount when the selected electrified vehicle arrives at the target power supply facility based on the present value of the SOC as the quote shows the soc of the ev being considered as well as the contracted power of the delivery base and if both are allowing the contracted power to not exceed a threshold value then the charging of the ev to the desired amount is allowed to continue))
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada-Wires-Yushi and in view of (Kanata et al. (US 2022/0147921 Al)).
Regarding Claim 4 Shimada-Wires-Yushi teaches (Shimada discloses the following limitations:) The method of generating a delivery plan according to claim 1, further comprising excluding by the processor, a route for which the power consumption amount in exceeds a prescribed power amount, (Pg. 6 – [52] – “Furthermore, when the delivery reselection determination unit 105 determines that reselection is necessary, the σｔｉｍｅ , σｓｏｃ control unit 106 determines whether the power consumption exceeds the contracted power at the delivery base, and determines whether the power consumption exceeds the contract power at the delivery base. When it is determined that this is the case, the delivery route is corrected to increase the standard deviation σｓｏｃ” (equates to further comprising excluding, a route for which a power consumption amount in the delivery route exceeds a prescribed power amount as the quote shows a power consumption being taken into account and reselecting the delivery route if the power consumption exceeds the threshold and thus excluding the first route in which the power consumption exceeded the threshold.))
Yet Shimada fails to teach further comprising excluding by the processor, from the candidate delivery routes, a route for which the travel distance exceeds a prescribed distance, and a route for which the delivery time exceeds a prescribed time.
Kanata teaches further comprising excluding by the processor, from the candidate delivery routes, a route for which the travel distance exceeds a prescribed distance, (Pg. 11 – [0047] – “As an example, the resetting section 44 of the present exemplary embodiment also resets the delivery route to prompt a rest break in cases in which a continuous travel time of the delivery vehicle 14 is a predetermined duration or longer, and the distance to the next receiving destination is a predetermined distance or greater. For example, in cases in which what would have been the next receiving destination has been eliminated from the delivery route by the delivery acceptance availability determination section 42, the delivery route is reset so as to head toward the receiving destination of what was previously scheduled as the second to-next delivery.” (equates to excluding, from candidates of the delivery route, a route for which a travel distance in the delivery route exceeds a prescribed distance, as the quote shows a distance being greater than threshold distance and pushing the delivery route unto the next day and thus excluding it for the traveling it is able to do in the current moment.)) and a route for which a delivery time in the delivery route exceeds a prescribed time. (Pg. 11 – [0047] – “As an example, the resetting section 44 of the present exemplary embodiment also resets the delivery route to prompt a rest break in cases in which a continuous travel time of the delivery vehicle 14 is a predetermined duration or longer, and the distance to the next receiving destination is a predetermined distance or greater. For example, in cases in which what would have been the next receiving destination has been eliminated from the delivery route by the delivery acceptance availability determination section 42, the delivery route is reset so as to head toward the receiving destination of what was previously scheduled as the second to-next delivery.” (equates to and a route for which a delivery time in the delivery route exceeds a prescribed time as the quote shows a preset time in which the delivery would take along a current route being excluded for another day of deliveries and thus excluding the path from the current route.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shimada to include further comprising excluding, from candidates of the delivery route, a route for which a travel distance in the delivery route exceeds a prescribed distance, and a route for which a delivery time in the delivery route exceeds a prescribed time as these limitations ensure the vehicle is specifically routed to not exceed prescribed thresholds ensuring the charging station is not overloaded when the vehicles are eventually sent back for charging and thus increases the price of charging.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include further comprising excluding, from candidates of the delivery route, a route for which a travel distance in the delivery route exceeds a prescribed distance, and a route for which a delivery time in the delivery route exceeds a prescribed time as these limitations ensuring proper arrival times of the vehicles to home bases or delivery destination and ensure the vehicle is not too depleted when returning to the charging station causing more stress on the charging station when needed to ‘refuel’.
Regarding claim 6 Shimada-Wires-Yushi teaches (Shimada discloses the following limitations:) The method of generating a delivery plan according to claim 4, the prescribed power amount is 1.2 times a predicted power amount, (Pg. 6 – [52] – “Furthermore, when the delivery reselection determination unit 105 determines that reselection is necessary, the σｔｉｍｅ , σｓｏｃ control unit 106 determines whether the power consumption exceeds the contracted power at the delivery base, and determines whether the power consumption exceeds the contract power at the delivery base. When it is determined that this is the case, the delivery route is corrected to increase the standard deviation σｓｏｃ”)
Yet Shimada-Wires-Yushi fails to teach wherein the prescribed distance is 1.2 times a predicted prescribed distance and the prescribed time is 1.2 times a predicted time. ()
Katana teaches wherein the prescribed distance is 1.2 times a predicted prescribed distance Pg. 11 – [0047] – “As an example, the resetting section 44 of the present exemplary embodiment also resets the delivery route to prompt a rest break in cases in which a continuous travel time of the delivery vehicle 14 is a predetermined duration or longer, and the distance to the next receiving destination is a predetermined distance or greater. For example, in cases in which what would have been the next receiving destination has been eliminated from the delivery route by the delivery acceptance availability determination section 42, the delivery route is reset so as to head toward the receiving destination of what was previously scheduled as the second to-next delivery.”) and the prescribed time is 1.2 times a predicted time. (Pg. 11 – [0047] – “As an example, the resetting section 44 of the present exemplary embodiment also resets the delivery route to prompt a rest break in cases in which a continuous travel time of the delivery vehicle 14 is a predetermined duration or longer, and the distance to the next receiving destination is a predetermined distance or greater. For example, in cases in which what would have been the next receiving destination has been eliminated from the delivery route by the delivery acceptance availability determination section 42, the delivery route is reset so as to head toward the receiving destination of what was previously scheduled as the second to-next delivery.”)
Shimada-Katana does not teach the a prescribed threshold from either the distance, time, or power consumption of the delivery vehicle to be over a 1.2 times threshold.
Shimada is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Shimada teaches vehicle delivery control system for making maximum use of electric vehicles wherein the design incentive of applying a specific 1.2 times buffer to the power consumption to rule out a delivery route would have prompted a predictable variation of Shimada-Katana by applying Shimada’s known principle of a power consumption amount exceeding a predefined threshold.
Katana is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Katana teaches The delivery support device includes: a reception destination information acquisition section configured to acquire reception destination information for a package for delivery wherein the design incentive of applying a specific 1.2 times buffer to the travel distance and delivery time to rule out a delivery route would have prompted a predictable variation of Shimada-Katana by applying Katana’s known principle of delivery vehicle is a predetermined duration or longer and next receiving destination is a predetermined distance or greater and making each threshold specified to be 1.2 times the time or distance travelled metric.
In view of the design incentives to rule out delivery routes that exceed power consumption levels, delivery time thresholds, and distance travelled metrics one skilled in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Shimada-Katana.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1- 5 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 1-3, “The Office Action rejects claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, asserting that... As an initial matter, in view of the cancellation of claims 2 and 3, the rejection with respect to the cancelled claims has been rendered moot. The Office Action states that the limitation "setting a delivery route ... at the target power supply facility" in original claim 1 constitutes a "mental process." The applicant deletes this limitation. Further, claims 1 and 4 are amended to recite that the other processes are performed by a processor. Thus, the recited processes in claims are not mental processes. Amended claim 1 recites: acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility configured to generate renewable energy; selecting, based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility, by the processor, an electrified vehicle including a battery configured to store power for driving from among the electrified vehicles,; obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle, three-dimensional map information, specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle, and position information on a delivery destination for the package; receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility; calculating, by the processor, for each of candidate delivery routes, a predicted SOC value at arrival at the target power supply facility, based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information derived from the three-dimensional map information, vehicle specifications, and delivery destination position; selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time;” These additional limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because electric vehicles delivering packages can utilize surplus energy from renewable energy generation facilities without consuming excessive energy, while fully absorbing the surplus energy from those facilities by selecting an appropriate delivery route; i.e., the energy efficiency of the entire system, including an electrified vehicle with a battery and a power supply facility generating renewable energy, is improved. In view of the amendments to the claims, and for the reasons discussed above, the Applicant submits the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 is overcome, and respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection. ” – As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue that at Step 2A Prong 1, the amended claim provided does not show how the limitations can be reasonably performed in the human mind and that the recitation of “acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility configured to generate renewable energy;” , “ selecting, based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility, by the processor, an electrified vehicle including a battery configured to store power for driving from among the electrified vehicles,;” , “obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle, three-dimensional map information, specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle, and position information on a delivery destination for the package;” , “receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility;” , “calculating, by the processor, for each of candidate delivery routes, a predicted SOC value at arrival at the target power supply facility, based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information derived from the three-dimensional map information, vehicle specifications, and delivery destination position;” , and “ selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time;” each of the limitations precludes the claim from being reasonably performed by the human mind. In Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner considers the impact of additional elements. In this case, the limitations “acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility configured to generate renewable energy;”, “based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility, by the processor” , “obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle, three-dimensional map information, specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle, and position information on a delivery destination for the package;” , “receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility;” , and “based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information derived from the three-dimensional map information, vehicle specifications, and delivery destination position” are additional elements considered after Step 2A Prong 1. The remaining elements recite abstract ideas that fall into the mental process grouping. As previously stated the limitation “selecting… an electrified vehicle including a battery configured to store power for driving from among the electrified vehicles,;” is done by use of a human mental ability to select an EV in which the desired SOC of the EV is needed to send to the charging station and therefore, the claim does recite the judicial exception of a mental process being used. As previously stated the limitation, “calculating, by the processor, for each of candidate delivery routes, a predicted SOC value at arrival at the target power supply facility,” is done by mathematical formulation, and therefore, the claim does recite the judicial exception of a mathematics equations being used. Finally the limitation “selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time;”, is done by use of a human mental ability to select an EV in which the desired SOC of the EV is needed to send to the charging station and meet the prescribed variables being used for the mathematical formulation, and therefore, the claim does recite the judicial exception of a mental process being used. In response to ““acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility configured to generate renewable energy;”, “based on a delivery route for each of electrified vehicles and a position of the target power supply facility, by the processor” , “obtaining, by the processor, vehicle status information including a present value of a state of charge (SOC) of the battery of the selected electrified vehicle, three-dimensional map information, specifications of devices included in the selected electrified vehicle, and position information on a delivery destination for the package;” , “receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility;” , and “based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information derived from the three-dimensional map information, vehicle specifications, and delivery destination position” the examiner submits that this is an insignificant extra solution activity merely amounting to data gathering and thus is considered in Step 2A Prong 2 as not integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1,2, and 5 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 3-5, “The Office Action rejects claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Shimada, JP2022-55976 (hereinafter "Shimada"). As an initial matter, in view of the cancellation of claim 2, the rejection with respect to cancelled claim 2 has been rendered moot. The Applicant submits that Shimada fails to anticipate the subject matter of claim 1 for at least the reasons discussed below. Shimada discloses that the delivery route and the electric vehicle for transportation are selected based on the SOC of the battery of the electric vehicle ([0027]). Shimada discloses that the delivery route is determined from traffic information at that time and map data based on the delivery time and delivery location ([0032]). Shimada discloses that the delivery route is modified based on the contracted power Pmax at the delivery base ([0079]).
Shimada does not disclose the following limitations of amended claim 1 (emphasis added): "acquiring, by a processor, a charge request that requests charge of power in a specified power amount in a specified time period from a target power supply facility configured to generate renewable energy; receiving, by the processor, renewable energy surplus information from the target power supply facility, the renewable energy surplus information indicating a time period during which a surplus renewable energy is available at the target power supply facility; calculating, by the processor, for each of candidate delivery routes, a predicted SOC value at arrival at the target power supply facility, based on the present value of the SOC and consumption information derived from the three-dimensional map information, vehicle specifications, and delivery destination position; selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time."
Thus, Shimada does not disclose all the limitations recited in amended claim 1. Because at least one claimed element is not present in Shimada, the subject matter of amended claim 1 is not anticipated by Shimada.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and thus includes all of the features of amended claim 1. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 5 is not anticipated by Shimada for at least the same reasons as discussed above. In view of the amendments to the claims, and for the reasons discussed above, the Applicant submits the rejection of claims 1 and 5 is overcome, and respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.” – As to Point B , Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6, “The Office Action presents the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: 1. Claim 3 over the combined teachings of Shimada and Wires, US 12,109,883 (hereinafter "Wires"); and Claim 4 over the combined teachings of Shimada and Kanata, US2022/147921 (hereinafter "Kanata"). As an initial matter, in view of the cancellation of claim 3, the rejection with respect to cancelled claim 3 has been rendered moot.
The Applicant submits that the subject matter of amended claim 4, would not have been obvious over the teachings of Shimada and Kanata for at least the reasons discussed below.
Shimada does not disclose all the limitations of amended claim 1, as discussed in the above section "Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102."”
Kanata discloses "A delivery support device, comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: ... determine whether or not it will be possible to hand over the package for delivery based on the delivery acceptance availability status; and eliminate the reception destination from the delivery route and reset the delivery route in cases in which determination has been made that it will not be possible to hand over the package for delivery." See claim 1 of Kanata. However, Kanata does not disclose or teach "selecting, by the processor, a delivery route from among the candidate delivery routes, the selected delivery route being configured to reduce the SOC of the battery to a level that enables charging of the specified power amount at the target power supply facility during the time period of the surplus renewable energy, while satisfying prescribed constraints on travel distance, power consumption amount, and delivery time," as recited in amended claim 1. Thus, Kanada does not cure the deficiencies of Shimada. Therefore, the Applicant submits the rejection of claim 4 that dependent from amended claim 1 is overcome, and respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.” – In response to Point C see Point B
Applicant argues on page 6, “New claim 6 ultimately depends from amended claim 1 and, thus, includes all the features recited in amended claim 1. Accordingly, claim 6 would not have been anticipated by or obvious over the art of record for at least the same reasons as discussed with regard to amended claim 1.” – In response to Point D see Point B
Applicant argues on page 7 – “Because the dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as the claim(s) from which they depend, the Applicant submits that further remarks regarding the asserted relationship between any of the claims and the cited references are not necessary in view of their allowability. The Applicant's silence as to the Office Action's comments is not indicative of being in acquiescence to the stated grounds of rejection.” – In response to Point E see Point B
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2020054085A. - A problem to be solved is to construct a power supply system configuration that contributes to planned power generation that minimizes risk, and to consider the generation of prediction errors that are included in the solar radiation amount prediction technology and the storage battery management technology. It means that the optimization of the plan has not been done so far. According to one aspect of the present invention, a consignment plan for electric power is formulated based on a predicted value of surplus power based on a difference between a predicted value of power generated by renewable energy and a predicted value of power demand, and the surplus power is also included
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/31/26
Prosecution Insights