DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 8 July 2025.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The 112 (b) rejections for claims 1-13 have been overcome by amendments.
Claims 2-8 and 12-13 have been cancelled.
Claims 14-17 have been added.
Claims 1, 9-11, and 14-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 September 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the first office action on 9 April 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 July 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on pages 9 and 10 of their response, “As amended, independent claim 1 and newly added claims 14 and 15 include recitations of a mobile unit having a central processing unit configured to request a noncontact power supply, a ground power supply apparatus configured to supply power via a power transmission device by noncontact using a magnetic field resonant coupling to the mobile unit, and a server configured to be able to communicate with the mobile unit and the ground power supply apparatus respectively, in response to the request for the noncontact power supply, the central processing unit transmits to the server a signal requesting utilization of the noncontact power supply system, in response, the server communicates with the power transmission device to cause the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit.” The Applicant continues on page 10 of their response, “These recitations are improvements in noncontact power supply system and in transforming data between devices where the communication between devices causes the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit. These claim features are not grouped within the Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions, as alleged by the Examiner on pages 6-7 of the Office Action. Further, these recitations of the claims are not capable of being performed in the human mind as alleged by the Examiner on pages 7-8 of the Office Action.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, the Examiner notes that the Applicant references newly amended elements of claim 1 (and similarly claims 14 and 15), wherein the amended elements recite, “a mobile unit having a central processing unit configured to request a noncontact power supply, a ground power supply apparatus configured to supply power via a power transmission device by noncontact using a magnetic field resonant coupling to the mobile unit, and a server configured to be able to communicate with the mobile unit and the ground power supply apparatus respectively, in response to the request for the noncontact power supply, the central processing unit transmits to the server a signal requesting utilization of the noncontact power supply system, in response, the server communicates with the power transmission device to cause the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit.” With regards to these elements, it is noted that a mobile unit having a central processing unit, a ground power supply apparatus configured to supply power, a power transmission device, a magnetic field resonant coupling, and a server are all considered additional elements to the claims, that are analyzed in step 2A prong two and step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, and not in step 2A prong one as argued here. Second, with respect to the elements of requesting a noncontact power supply, and a server communicating a command to the power transmission device to transmit power, this is deemed merely requesting a service to be provided by a service provider, and a manager telling a server provider to provide said service, which is the management of commercial activities. Third, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that these elements, “are improvements in noncontact power supply system and in transforming data between devices where the communication between devices causes the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the Applicant has failed to provide any explanation or evidence that noncontact power supply systems are technologically improved with the recited claim elements, and instead merely asserted that this is the case. Additionally, it is noted that “transforming data” between devices is not an improvement in technology, as data transformation is not sufficient to result in a technological improvement. Instead, the mere communication of data from one source to another is merely invoking devices as tools to carry out the abstract idea, and communicate information. Notably, the Applicant has not claimed the technology or technical processes involved in actually communicating or transforming data, and as such, this is mere high level and generic recitations. Thus, the Applicant has failed to show an improvement in technology, and the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 10 of their response, “That is, the currently amended claimed subject matter of independent claim 1 and newly added claims 14 and 15 are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes. Specifically, the amended claims as a whole do not fall into any of fundamental economic principles or practices; commercial or legal interactions; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions, or cannot be performed in the human mind.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the analysis under 35 USC 101, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument that “the amended claims as a whole do not fall into any of fundamental economic principles or practices; commercial or legal interactions; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions, or cannot be performed in the human mind,” is not in scope with the requirements under 35 USC 101, as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Specifically, it is noted MPEP 2106.04(II)(a)(1) states, “Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."” (Emphasis added). Notably, this portion of the Alice/Mayo test involves determining whether the claim recites an abstract idea, not to whether the claim as a whole is directed to the abstract idea. It is also noted that MPEP 2106.04(II)(a)(2) states, “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’). For more information on how to evaluate whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2).” (Emphasis added). As shown here, step 2A prong 2 requires that the Examiner the claim as a whole, to determine if the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. With respect to the Applicant’s claims, the Examiner notes that the argued elements were previously and currently are analyzed as additional elements, and that they do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not fall into one of the categories of abstract ideas, is deemed not persuasive, as the Applicant has failed to show how the specifically identified elements in the rejection do not recite an abstract idea as identified. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on pages 10 and 11 of their response, “Additionally, while the claims recite steps such as “obtain,”, “calculate”, and “transmit,” as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the alleged Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and/or mental processes are integrated into a practical application of transforming data and improvements to noncontact power supply systems by the server is further configured to obtain information associated with the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus, the number of times of utilization is a power transmission time period during which the electric power is continuously transmitted to the mobile unit, calculate a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization and not based on amounts of transmitted electric power or received electric power, the ground power supply apparatus is further configured to transmit a notification of utilization history of the mobile unit, including a power transmission count, to the server when transmitting the electric power to the mobile unit, the server is configured to cumulatively add the power transmission count received from the ground power supply apparatus so as to calculate the number of times of utilization, and the ground power supply apparatus is configured to calculate the power transmission count based on a power transmission time period during which power is continuously transmitted to the mobile unit.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claimed elements, “’obtain,’, ‘calculate’, and ‘transmit,’ as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the alleged Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and/or mental processes are integrated into a practical application of transforming data and improvements to noncontact power supply systems,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, as noted above, transforming data is not a technology or technical process, and the Applicant has provided no evidence or reasoning as to how noncontact power supply systems are improved. Second, it is noted that the Applicant has continued in their argument to quote the remaining portions of claim 1, but failed to provide any analysis or reason as to why these elements, which is noted to recite the abstract idea, is somehow sufficient as to not recite an abstract idea. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, as it is merely conclusory, and the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 12 of their response, “The claimed subject matter applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, the Examiner notes that the Applicant refers to the claim elements, “a mobile unit having a central processing unit configured to request a noncontact power supply; a ground power supply apparatus configured to supply power via a power transmission device by noncontact using a magnetic field resonant coupling to the mobile unit, and a server configured to be able to communicate with the mobile unit and the ground power supply apparatus respectively, in response to the request for the noncontact power supply, the central processing unit transmits to the server a signal requesting utilization of the noncontact power supply system, in response, the server communicates with the power transmission device to cause the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit,” (Emphasis in original quote on page 11 of the Applicant’s response). With respect to these elements, it is noted that providing power in response to a request for service, is the commercial activity conducted by the claims (i.e. sales activities); and it is noted that a ground power supply apparatus configured to supply power via a power transmission device by noncontact using a magnetic field resonant coupling to the mobile unit, encompasses merely invoking generic machinery to perform its ordinary process. Notably MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, it is noted that the Applicant’s specification refers “a noncontact power supply system which utilizes a transmission system such as magnetic field coupling (electromagnetic induction), electric field coupling, magnetic field resonant coupling (magnetic field resonance), and electric field resonant coupling (electric field resonance) to transmit electric power from a ground power supply apparatus provided on the ground to a running vehicle by noncontact,” as being known (see paragraph 2). It is also noted that the Applicant’s specification states in paragraph 12, “The noncontact power supply system 100 is provided with a server 1, a ground power supply apparatus 2, and a vehicle 3 as one example of a mobile unit and is configured to be able to supply a running or stopped vehicle 3 obtaining permission of system use with power from the ground power supply apparatus 2 by noncontact using magnetic field resonant coupling (magnetic field resonance). Note that, in FIG. 1, as one example of installation of the ground power supply apparatus 2, the example is shown where ground power supply apparatuses 2 are installed consecutively along the road at predetermined intervals. In the following explanation, a road at which ground power supply apparatuses 2 are installed will be referred to as an "electrified road" in accordance with need.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant has recited the use of noncontact using magnetic field resonant coupling (magnetic field resonance) to transmit power wirelessly to a vehicle, just as the Applicant has disclosed is known. In this case, the Applicant has not disclosed the improvement of this technology, nor has the Applicant explained why these additional elements apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Notably, the use of these generic machine components to transfer energy in an ordinary fashion, does not use the recited abstract idea of calculating a fee for commodity consumption over a period of time and verifying the commodity transferred by totaling the time of consumption, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to the particular technological environment of wireless power supplying. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 13, “The Examiner appears conclude that because the improvements do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are allegedly generically recited.” The Applicant continues on pages 13 and 14 of their response, “Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 and newly added independent claims 14 and 15 recite an “inventive concept” and is accordingly eligible for patenting. As a whole, the recited claims provide for improvements to noncontact power supply systems and in transforming data between devices where the communication between devices causes the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit while the server is further configured to obtain information associated with the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus, the number of times of utilization is a power transmission time period during which the electric power is continuously transmitted to the mobile unit, calculate a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization and not based on amounts of transmitted electric power or received electric power, the ground power supply apparatus is further configured to transmit a notification of utilization history of the mobile unit, including a power transmission count, to the server when transmitting the electric power to the mobile unit, the server is configured to cumulatively add the power transmission count received from the ground power supply apparatus so as to calculate the number of times of utilization, and the ground power supply apparatus is configured to calculate the power transmission count based on a power transmission time period during which power is continuously transmitted to the mobile unit.” The Applicant continues on page 14 of their response, “Accordingly, Applicant asserts that the combination of elements for each claim, taken individually and as a whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. In this case, with respect to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has argued that the claims provide improvements to noncontact power supply systems and in transforming data between devices, and then recited large portions of claim 1. Notably, as addressed above, the Applicant has failed to show how noncontact power supply systems have been improved by the Applicant’s claimed invention, and instead merely made a conclusory statement here of improvement. Additionally, as noted above, the transforming of data is not a technological improvement, and would not be sufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. It is noted that MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the Applicant has failed to show that their specification sets forth an improvement in technology, and instead merely asserted that such an improvement exists in the claims. As such, the Applicant’s conclusory argument is deemed not persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 15 with respect to the newly amended elements of the claims with regards to the manner in which the number of times of utilization 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.
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 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mobile unit having a central processing unit configured to request a noncontact power supply; a ground power supply apparatus configured to supply power via a power transmission device by noncontact using magnetic field resonant coupling to the mobile unit; and a server configured to be able to communicate with the mobile unit and the ground power supply apparatus respectively, in response to the request for the noncontact power supply, the central processing unit transmits to the server a signal requesting utilization of the noncontact power supply system, in response, the server communicates with the power transmission device to control the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit, wherein the server is further configured to: obtain information associated with the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus, the number of times of utilization is a power transmission time period during which the electric power is continuously transmitted to the mobile unit, calculate a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization and not based on amounts of transmitted electric power or received electric power; the ground power supply apparatus is further configured to transmit a notification of utilization history of the mobile unit, including a power transmission count, to the server when transmitting the electric power to the mobile unit; the server is configured to cumulatively add the power transmission count received from the ground power supply apparatus so as to calculate the number of times of utilization; and the ground power supply apparatus is configured to calculate the power transmission count based on a power transmission time period during which power is continuously transmitted to the mobile unit; a ground power supply apparatus configured to be able to supply power by noncontact to the mobile unit; and a server configured to be able to communicate with the mobile unit and the ground power supply apparatus respectively, wherein the server is configured to: obtain a grasp of the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus; and calculate a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization.
The limitations of transmitting a request for utilization of the noncontact power supply system, communicating with the power transmission device to control the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit, obtaining information associated with the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit, calculating a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system based on the number of times of utilization and not based on amounts of transmitted electric power or received electric power, transmitting a notification of utilization history to the server when transmitting the electric power to the mobile unit, cumulatively adding the power transmission count received from the ground power supply apparatus, calculating the power transmission count based on a power transmission time period; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable, encompass the management of commercial activity (sales activity, business relations, price setting), and actions that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer/machine elements (mobile unit have a central processing unit, ground power supply apparatus, power transmission device, magnetic field resonant coupling, server), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, a customer requesting power from provider, and a server informing the provider to provide power, encompasses a customer requesting a service/commodity, and a managing entity telling the provider to provide the service, which is the management of commercial activity. In addition, obtaining a number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus, wherein the number of times, and calculating a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization; encompass a seller receiving the amount of consumption of a commodity (power) a customer has received, and calculating a price to charge the customer for the consumption; which is the management of commercial activity. In addition, a server receiving the usage history and adding the time of total utilization, and a power apparatus calculating the total utilization; encompasses a managing entity and a service provider calculating the amount of service/commodity provided to customers, including by totaling the time of service; which is the management of commercial activities (sales activities). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, obtaining a number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus, calculating a fee for system utilization, adding a count of utilization together; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer and machine elements (mobile unit have a central processing unit, ground power supply apparatus, power transmission device, magnetic field resonant coupling, server), as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, configuring a power supply apparatus to supply power using noncontact magnetic field resonant coupling is deemed extrasolution activity. In addition, transmitting requests, commands, and usage information to/from a server from/to a mobile unit and power apparatus, encompass extrasolution activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, configuring a power supply apparatus to supply power using noncontact magnetic field resonant coupling is deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Applicant’s specification, which describe the use of noncontact ground power supply apparatuses to supply power to vehicles as well-understood in the industry; and see at least at least paragraph 12, of the Applicant’s specification, which describe the use of a ground power supply apparatuses to supply power to vehicles at such a high level of generality, that it must be well-understood, routine, and conventional in order to satisfy 112a). In addition, transmitting requests, commands, and usage information to/from a server from/to a mobile unit and power apparatus, is deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 9-11, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite calculating the fee for the usage based on different factors; which encompasses the management of commercial activity (sales activity, business relations, price setting), and actions that can be performed in the human mind; thus the claims further fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 9-11).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mobile unit having a central processing unit configured to request a noncontact power supply; a ground power supply apparatus configured to supply power via a power transmission device by noncontact using a magnetic field resonant coupling to the mobile unit; and a server configured to be able to communicate with the mobile unit and the ground power supply apparatus respectively, in response to the request for the noncontact power supply, the central processing unit transmits to the server a signal requesting utilization of the noncontact power supply system, in response, the server communicates with the power transmission device to cause the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit, wherein the server is configured to: obtain information associated with of the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus; and calculate a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization and not based on amounts of transmitted electric power or received electric power, the mobile unit is configured to: calculate a power reception count when receiving electric power from the ground power supply apparatus; and transmit to the server the number of times of utilization calculated by cumulatively adding the power reception count, and the mobile unit is configured to calculate the power reception count based on a power reception time period during which electric power is continuously received from the ground power supply apparatus.
The limitations of transmitting a request for utilization of the noncontact power supply system, communicating with the power transmission device to control the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit, obtaining information associated with the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit, calculating a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system based on the number of times of utilization and not based on amounts of transmitted electric power or received electric power, calculating a power reception count based on the time by the mobile unit and providing it to a server; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable, encompass the management of commercial activity (sales activity, business relations, price setting), and actions that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer/machine elements (mobile unit have a central processing unit, ground power supply apparatus, power transmission device, magnetic field resonant coupling, server), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, a customer requesting power from provider, and a server informing the provider to provide power, encompasses a customer requesting a service/commodity, and a managing entity telling the provider to provide the service, which is the management of commercial activity. In addition, obtaining a number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus, wherein the number of times is based on time of consumption, and calculating a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization; encompass a seller receiving the amount of consumption of a commodity (power) a customer has received, and calculating a price to charge the customer for the consumption; which is the management of commercial activity. In addition, a server receiving time of total utilization from a mobile unit; encompasses a managing entity receiving a calculated amount of service/commodity provided to customers, including by totaling the time of service; which is the management of commercial activities (sales activities). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, obtaining a number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus, calculating a fee for system utilization, adding a count of utilization together; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer and machine elements (mobile unit have a central processing unit, ground power supply apparatus, power transmission device, magnetic field resonant coupling, server), as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, configuring a power supply apparatus to supply power using noncontact magnetic field resonant coupling is deemed extrasolution activity. In addition, transmitting requests, commands, and usage information to/from a server from/to a mobile unit and power apparatus, encompass extrasolution activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, configuring a power supply apparatus to supply power using noncontact magnetic field resonant coupling is deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Applicant’s specification, which describe the use of noncontact ground power supply apparatuses to supply power to vehicles as well-understood in the industry; and see at least at least paragraph 12, of the Applicant’s specification, which describe the use of a ground power supply apparatuses to supply power to vehicles at such a high level of generality, that it must be well-understood, routine, and conventional in order to satisfy 112a). In addition, transmitting requests, commands, and usage information to/from a server from/to a mobile unit and power apparatus, is deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mobile a ground power supply apparatus configured to supply power via a power transmission device by noncontact using a magnetic field resonant coupling to the mobile unit; and unit having a central processing unit configured to request a noncontact power supply; a server configured to be able to communicate with the mobile unit and the ground power supply apparatus respectively, in response to the request for the noncontact power supply, the central processing unit transmits to the server a signal requesting utilization of the noncontact power supply system, in response, the server communicates with the power transmission device to cause the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit, wherein the server is configured to: obtain information associated with of the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus; calculate a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization and not based on amounts of transmitted electric power or received electric power, the ground power supply apparatus is configured to calculate a power transmission count when transmitting power to the mobile unit, the mobile unit is configured to calculate a power reception count when if receiving power from the ground power supply apparatus, the server is configured to configured to calculate the number of times of utilization based on a cumulative value of the power transmission count and a cumulative value of the power reception count, the ground power supply apparatus is configured to calculate the power transmission count based on a power transmission time period during which power is continuously transmitted to the mobile unit, and the mobile unit is configured to calculate the power reception count based on a power reception time period during which electric power is continuously received from the ground power supply apparatus.
The limitations of transmitting a request for utilization of the noncontact power supply system, communicating with the power transmission device to control the power transmission device to transmit an electric power to the mobile unit, obtaining information associated with the number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit, calculating a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system based on the number of times of utilization and not based on amounts of transmitted electric power or received electric power, the power apparatus and the mobile unit calculating the transmission count based on the time of power supplied, and a server calculating a total utilization based on the calculated transmission counts; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable, encompass the management of commercial activity (sales activity, business relations, price setting), and actions that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer/machine elements (mobile unit have a central processing unit, ground power supply apparatus, power transmission device, magnetic field resonant coupling, server), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, a customer requesting power from provider, and a server informing the provider to provide power, encompasses a customer requesting a service/commodity, and a managing entity telling the provider to provide the service, which is the management of commercial activity. In addition, obtaining a number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus by the mobile unit based on information received from at least one of the mobile unit or the ground power supply apparatus, wherein the number of times, and calculating a fee for system utilization of the noncontact power supply system by the mobile unit based on the number of times of utilization; encompass a seller receiving the amount of consumption of a commodity (power) a customer has received, and calculating a price to charge the customer for the consumption; which is the management of commercial activity. In addition, the power apparatus and the mobile unit calculating the transmission count based on the time of power supplied, and a server calculating a total utilization based on the calculated transmission counts; encompasses a service provider and customer calculating the quantity of a service/commodity received, and a managing entity confirming the quantity, which is the management of commercial activity (sales activities). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, obtaining a number of times of utilization of the ground power supply apparatus, calculating a fee for system utilization, and comparing two different measurements of time consumed from two different sources; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer and machine elements (mobile unit have a central processing unit, ground power supply apparatus, power transmission device, magnetic field resonant coupling, server), as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, configuring a power supply apparatus to supply power using noncontact magnetic field resonant coupling is deemed extrasolution activity. In addition, transmitting requests, commands, and usage information to/from a server from/to a mobile unit and power apparatus, encompass extrasolution activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, configuring a power supply apparatus to supply power using noncontact magnetic field resonant coupling is