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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/3/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the conditional optimization of charging recommendations is a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea of generating an objective function, computing a solution to the objective function, and generating a recommendation cannot provide the improvement, as an abstract idea cannot provide the improvement (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant argues that the claimed operations cannot be performed mentally. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person in a car can predict future traffic conditions based on looking at data of a graph or by looking outside his window in a car. Solving the objective function using integer programming or linear programming can be done mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. It is noted that the timeframe within which the steps must be performed are very broad, so a human can perform these calculations.
Applicant argues that the mathematical techniques are integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that outputting the recommendation via a vehicle user interface is insignificant post solution activity in the form of displaying data, so it does not provide a practical application.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn
Please see allowable subject matter section below for reasons.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 21, “road segment is predicted decrease or remain” should read “road segment is predicted to decrease or remain”.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
“An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non- transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to:
obtain, using a map database, traffic congestion information on a road segment on which a vehicle is traversing or is planning to traverse;
predict a traffic congestion status on the road segment based on the traffic congestion information, wherein the traffic congestion status indicates whether traffic congestion on the road segment is predicted to increase, decrease, or remain stagnant over a period;
responsive to the traffic congestion status indicating that the traffic congestion on the road segment is predicted decrease or remain stagnant over the period, generate an objective function based on the traffic congestion status;
compute a solution of the objective function using an integer programming or a linear programming;
generate a recommendation for charging the vehicle at a charging point based on the solution; and
output the recommendation to a driver of the vehicle via a user interface”.
The limitation of predicting a traffic congestion status, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by an apparatus, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the apparatus predicting a traffic congestion status in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of looking out of his car and predicting a traffic congestion based on traffic congestion information in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of generating an objective function, computing a solution of the objective function, and generating a recommendation, as drafted, are also processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by an apparatus, nothing in the claim precludes the generating and computing from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by an apparatus language, the claim encompasses the user thinking and generating mathematical functions, computing math, and generating a recommendation in his mind. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes or mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using an apparatus to perform obtaining, predicting, generating, computing, and outputting. The apparatus in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic apparatus performing a generic computer function of obtaining, predicting, generating, computing, and outputting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites obtaining traffic congestion information from a map database. This additional task is an extra-solution activity in the form of data transmission and receiving, which are well understood, routine, and conventional functions and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional elements of an apparatus, a processor, a memory, a map database, a vehicle, and a user interface to perform obtaining, predicting, generating, computing, and outputting amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim additionally recites outputting the recommendation. This additional task is an extra-solution activity in the form of displaying/outputting data. Displaying data using known techniques does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Electric Power Group LLC. v. Alstom, S.A, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 22-27 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a charging point, an electric vehicle charging unit, which amount to generic computer components. The dependent claims additionally recite outputting the second recommendation and outputting the recommendation. These additional tasks are extra-solution activity in the form of displaying/outputting data. Displaying data using known techniques does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Electric Power Group LLC. v. Alstom, S.A, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 21-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
“An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non- transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to:
obtain, using a map database, traffic congestion information on a road segment on which a vehicle is traversing or is planning to traverse;
predict a traffic congestion status on the road segment based on the traffic congestion information, wherein the traffic congestion status indicates whether traffic congestion on the road segment is predicted to increase, decrease, or remain stagnant over a period;
responsive to the traffic congestion status indicating that the traffic congestion on the road segment is predicted decrease or remain stagnant over the period, generate an objective function based on the traffic congestion status;
compute a solution of the objective function using an integer programming or a linear programming;
generate a recommendation for charging the vehicle at a charging point based on the solution; and
output the recommendation to a driver of the vehicle via a user interface”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Iwamura (US 20150298565 A1, cited in a previous office action) teaches generating an objective function based on the traffic congestion status (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0233-0236) "S=A1×T1+A2×T2+A3×T3"
However, Iwamura does not teach generating this function responsive to determining that the traffic congestion is going to decrease or stay stagnant.
Hironobu (JP 2004118735 A) teaches adding sum of squares values to the traffic volume to decrease the traffic volume, and to correct the traffic value so that the traffic calculation is more accurate (Hironobu – Paragraph 0011) “the value obtained by adding the sum of the squares of all the squares of the difference between the calculated value of the traffic volume of each link and the predicted value of the traffic volume over the predicted time period decreases. In such a case, the OD traffic may be corrected”.
However, Hironobu does not make clear that when the traffic volume is decreasing, to correct the traffic.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 1 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 1 recites allowable subject matter.
Claim 21 recites allowable subject matter because this claim recites similar allowable subject found in claim 1.
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 22-27 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from one of claims 1 and 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights