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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I and Subspecies I (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated 10/10/2025) in the reply filed on 2/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant argues that Species I-III stand in parallel relationship as an apparatus, method, and computer readable medium. This is not persuasive because each claim has their own unique aspects such as integer/linear programming, attributes associated with a set of charging points, and a machine learning model (See restriction dated 10/10/2025).
Applicant argues that no serious search burden exists for the restriction of Species I-III as the species are a combination of the apparatus, method, and computer readable medium. This is not persuasive as each species has their own unique limitations as explained above, requiring three distinct searches.
Applicant argues that there is no serious search burden for Subspecies I and II. This is not persuasive as Subspecies I can be classified under Class 701 Subclass 465. Subspecies II can be classified under Class 320 Subclass 138.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Species II-III and Subspecies II (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated 10/10/2025), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/6/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 9, 11-13, “the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the vehicle” to mean any vehicle.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-7, these claims depend from one of claims 2 and 4 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as one of claims 2 and 4 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of one of claims 2 and 4 noted above.
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 and 8-13 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.
Claim 1 is 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;
predict a traffic congestion status on the road segment based on the traffic congestion information;
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 based on the solution; and
output the recommendation”.
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 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using an apparatus to perform 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 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 additional elements of an apparatus, a processor, a memory, and a map database, 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)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-13 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 vehicle, a charging point, an electric vehicle charging unit, and a user interface, 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.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to an improvement in the charger management technological field or controlling movement of a vehicle based on the recommendation. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura (US 20150298565 A1) in view of Swartz (US 20240167831 A1).
Claim 1
Iwamura teaches:
obtain, using a map database, traffic congestion information on a road segment (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0091, 0093-0094, 0098) “The data distribution analysis unit 209 detects a traffic congestion portion”
predict a traffic congestion status on the road segment based on the traffic congestion information (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0186) “the data distribution analysis unit 209 analyzes traffic conditions”
generate an objective function based on the traffic congestion status (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0233-0236) “a period during which the EV gets involved in the traffic congestion”
compute a solution of the objective function using an integer programming or a linear programming (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0233-0236 ) “The charging station data selection unit 154 calculates an evaluation value S for setting the priority on the basis of a preference parameter of the EV user, stored in the preference DB 157, through the following linear Formula (6)”
generate a recommendation based on the solution (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0061, 0223-0225) “the guidance path to the charging station is determined”
and output the recommendation (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0061, 0223-0228, 0351, 0356) “The search result of the geographical information processing unit 212 is transmitted to the EV guidance application system 140 through the common interface 213”
Iwamura does not teach:
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.
However, Swartz teaches:
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 (Swartz - Paragraph 0190-0196) “program modules, being executed by a computer system”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Iwamura with an apparatus, memory, and program code of Swartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Iwamura and Swartz are both in the field of EV routing and charging stations. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves hardware for EV charging station routing (Swartz – Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Claim 2
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
the objective function corresponds to maximization in a duration for charging the vehicle (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0202, 0246) “determines whether the estimated charging time can be secured in the used charging station candidate”
wherein the recommendation is associated with the duration (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0202, 0246) “the charging time can be secured is set as a selected charging station candidate”
Claim 3
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
the objective function is subjected to a set of constraints, and wherein the set of constraints comprises at least one of: a travel time constraint, a charging point distance constraint, a charging point availability constraint, and an elapsed time constraint (Iwamura - Paragraph 0200-0206) “searches for all the available charging stations within a predetermined distance from the travel path of the EV”
Claim 4
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
the objective function is a first objective function (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0233-0236) “The charging station data selection unit 154 calculates an evaluation value S for setting the priority on the basis of a preference parameter of the EV user, stored in the preference DB 157, through the following linear Formula (6)”
wherein the recommendation is a first recommendation (Iwamura - Paragraph 0061, 0223-0225) “the guidance path to the charging station is determined”
Iwamura does not teach:
Program code when executed by an apparatus, receiving a user input associated with a selection of optimization parameters, generating a second objective function based on the user input, generating a second recommendation based on the second objective function, and outputting the second recommendation.
However, Swartz teaches:
and wherein the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to (Swartz - Paragraph 0190-0196) “program modules, being executed by a computer system”
receive a user input associated with a selection of an optimization parameter among a set of optimization parameters, wherein the set of optimization parameters comprises (Swartz - Paragraph 0064) “The presentation may request the entity prioritize the preferences 166”
a first optimization parameter associated with a delay in navigation towards a charging point (Swartz - Paragraph 0053,0072) “Preferences may include one or more of at least proximity (i.e. travel time or travel distance to a charging location)”
a second optimization parameter associated with an availability of the charging point, or a combination thereof (Swartz - Paragraph 0053) “availability (i.e. current queue size, number of charging stations at the location, etc)”
generate a second objective function based on the user input, wherein the second objective function is associated with the optimization parameter (Swartz - Paragraphs 0073-0075, 0086) “select a charging location of one or more charging locations based on the one or more modified preferences”
generate a second recommendation for charging the vehicle based on a solution of the second objective function (Swartz - Paragraphs 0073-0075) “select a charging location of one or more charging locations based on the one or more modified preferences”
and output the second recommendation (Swartz - Paragraphs 0073-0075) “the server 120 may select a charging location based on the modified preferences, and transmit the charging location 132 to the vehicle processor 160”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Iwamura with program code when executed by an apparatus, receiving a user input associated with a selection of optimization parameters, generating a second objective function based on the user input, generating a second recommendation based on the second objective function, and outputting the second recommendation of Swartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Iwamura and Swartz are both in the field of EV routing and charging stations. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves user experience based on their preferences (Swartz – Paragraph 0053).
Claim 5
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
each optimization parameter of the set of optimization parameters is associated with a set of constraints, and wherein the set of constraints is associated with at least one of: a delay constraint and a charging point distance constraint (Iwamura - Paragraph 0200-0206) “searches for all the available charging stations within a predetermined distance from the travel path of the EV”
Claim 6
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.
Iwamura does not teach:
The user input is associated with a selection of the first optimization parameter, and the second objective function corresponds to a minimization of the delay in navigation towards the charging point.
However, Swartz teaches:
the user input is associated with a selection of the first optimization parameter (Swartz - Paragraph 0053, 0064) “Preferences may include one or more of at least proximity (i.e. travel time or travel distance to a charging location)”
and wherein the second objective function corresponds to a minimization of the delay in the navigation towards the charging point (Swartz - Paragraph 0053, 0072) “a charging location having a minimal difference (i.e., either distance and/or time)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Iwamura with the user input is associated with a selection of the first optimization parameter, and the second objective function corresponds to a minimization of the delay in navigation towards the charging point of Swartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Iwamura and Swartz are both in the field of EV routing and charging stations. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves user experience based on their preferences (Swartz – Paragraph 0053).
Claim 10
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
the traffic congestion status indicates a duration of a traffic congestion on the road segment (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0037, 0270) “predict the required traveling time of the guidance target EV based on the state of traffic”
Claim 12
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
determine a need for an electric vehicle charging unit (EVCU) at a location proximate to the road segment based on the traffic congestion information, one or more geographical attributes of the location, one or more weather conditions associated with the location, or a combination thereof (Iwamura - Paragraph 0200) “Upon determining that the power runs out, the control center 1 searches for all the available charging stations within a predetermined distance from the travel path of the EV”
wherein the EVCU is equipped with a power supply configured to charge the vehicle (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0043-0045, 0069) It is further obvious that the charging stations all have power supplies in order to supply power to the vehicle.
and responsive to the need satisfying a threshold, transmit a request for the EVCU at the location (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0062, 0068, 0200-0202) “The information control system 110 transmits reservation information set by the charging station use application system 150 to the charging station control system 180”
Iwamura does not teach:
the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to.
However, Swartz teaches:
the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to (Swartz - Paragraph 0190-0196) “program modules, being executed by a computer system”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Iwamura with an apparatus and program code of Swartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Iwamura and Swartz are both in the field of EV routing and charging stations. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves hardware for EV charging station routing (Swartz – Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Claim 13
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
(i) output the recommendation on a user interface associated with the vehicle (Iwamura - Paragraph 0351, 0356) “the recommended guidance path 106C is displayed on the information terminal installed in the EV 103G”
Iwamura does not teach:
the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to.
However, Swartz teaches:
the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to (Swartz - Paragraph 0190-0196) “program modules, being executed by a computer system”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Iwamura with an apparatus and program code of Swartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Iwamura and Swartz are both in the field of EV routing and charging stations. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves hardware for EV charging station routing (Swartz – Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura and Swartz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pullagurla (US 20250054389 A1).
Claim 8
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
extract a set of features based on the road segment and the traffic congestion information (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0101, 0106) “The attribute data on the road segment includes, for example, data indicating a traffic congestion section, data for identifying a one way road, data for identifying a place where the road is closed, and the like”
Iwamura does not teach:
the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to.
However, Swartz teaches:
the computer program code instructions are configured to, when executed, cause the apparatus to (Swartz - Paragraph 0190-0196) “program modules, being executed by a computer system”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Iwamura with an apparatus and program code of Swartz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Iwamura and Swartz are both in the field of EV routing and charging stations. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves hardware for EV charging station routing (Swartz – Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Iwamura does not teach:
Predicting the traffic congestion status based on applying a first machine learning model on the extracted set of features.
However, Pullagurla teaches:
apply a first machine learning (ML) model on the extracted set of features (Pullagurla - Paragraphs 0073, 0081) “artificial intelligence models that detect or predict current traffic conditions using perception data”
and predict the traffic congestion status on the road segment based on the application of the first ML model on the extracted set of features (Pullagurla - Paragraphs 0073, 0081) “artificial intelligence models that detect or predict current traffic conditions using perception data”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Iwamura with predicting the traffic congestion status based on applying a first machine learning model on the extracted set of features of Pullagurla with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Iwamura and Pullagurla discuss navigating to charging stations based on traffic congestion. It would have been obvious to combine as this addresses the problem of traffic congestion (Pullagurla – Paragraph 0002).
Claim 9
The combination of Iwamura, Swartz, and Pullagurla teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as seen above.
Iwamura further teaches:
the set of features is associated with: a functional class of the road segment, a cause of traffic congestion on the road segment, a delay in an estimated time of arrival of the vehicle, a timestamp, or a combination thereof (Iwamura - Paragraphs 0101, 0106) “The attribute data on the road segment includes, for example, data indicating a traffic congestion section, data for identifying a one way road, data for identifying a place where the road is closed, and the like”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamura and Swartz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng (US 20240416794 A1).
Claim 11
The combination of Iwamura and Swartz teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Iwamura does not teach:
the recommendation indicates a duration for charging the vehicle at a charging point.
However, Tseng teaches:
the recommendation indicates a duration for charging the vehicle at a charging point (Tseng - Paragraphs 0017, 0035) “the system 115 recommends an optimum amount of energy to charge the vehicle battery along with the optimum time (which may be, for example, at an SOC level at which the vehicle battery may enable fast charging)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Iwamura with the recommendation indicating a duration for charging the vehicle at a charging point of Tseng with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Iwamura and Tseng are both in the field of EV charging station recommendations. One would have been motivated to combine as this minimizes charging time and reduces unplanned charging stops (Tseng – Paragraphs 0001-0003).
Conclusion
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