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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on March 19, 2026. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been newly added. Thus, claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 21 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered and persuasive because they are directed toward the newly added claim limitations. Thus, the rejection has been withdrawn in light of the newly added claim limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim, as amended, obtains data (EV location, charging need, charging power values over time, predicted arrival time); analyze data (detect modulation patterns in delivered charging power to infer dynamic power sharing, then compute an availability indicator) and store data (update a database record). A process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results is directed to an abstract idea. The amended claim does not provide an improvement to the charging hardware itself. The charging infrastructure is unchanged and the analysis of the charging infrastructure’s data is new. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claim 10 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 1 is 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 (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising: obtaining an indication of at least a first location of an electric vehicle and charging need data of the electric vehicle;
obtaining charging data for one or more electric vehicle charge points proximate to the first location of the electric vehicle, wherein the charging data includes respective delivered charging power values for at least two charging connectors associated with at least one of the electric vehicle charge points over a time interval;
determining a dynamic power sharing availability indicator based, at least in part, on the charging need data of the electric vehicle and a predicted arrival time for the electric vehicle at the one or more electric vehicle charge points proximate to the first location of the electric vehicle, wherein determining the dynamic power sharing availability indicator comprises detecting, based on the respective delivered charging power values over the time interval, modulation of delivered charging power among the charging connectors indicative of dynamic power sharing; and
updating at least one database record with the determined dynamic power sharing availability indicator.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or organizing human activity. Specifically, the “obtaining” step encompasses gathering data. Furthermore, the “determining” step encompasses analyzing the data. The “updating” step encompasses organizing the data. 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”):
1. A method comprising: obtaining an indication of at least a first location of an electric vehicle and charging need data of the electric vehicle;
obtaining charging data for one or more electric vehicle charge points proximate to the first location of the electric vehicle, wherein the charging data includes respective delivered charging power values for at least two charging connectors associated with at least one of the electric vehicle charge points over a time interval;
determining a dynamic power sharing availability indicator based, at least in part, on the charging need data of the electric vehicle and a predicted arrival time for the electric vehicle at the one or more electric vehicle charge points proximate to the first location of the electric vehicle, wherein determining the dynamic power sharing availability indicator comprises detecting, based on the respective delivered charging power values over the time interval, modulation of delivered charging power among the charging connectors indicative of dynamic power sharing; and
updating at least one database record with the determined dynamic power sharing availability indicator.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional recitations of “electric vehicle” and “electric vehicle charge points”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the recitations perform conventional computer functions, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 limitations 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 Revised Guidance, 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.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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 because the claims fail to amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claims 10-20 and 21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 for at least the same reasons of claims 1-13.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-3965. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights