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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS forms 1449 are attached to the instant Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/31/2022. It is noted that applicant has filed a certified copy of the parent Application No. PCT/JP2022/016779 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, Applicant has failed to provide a certified English translation.
Status of Claim
This action is in response to application filed on 27 of September 2024.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim should be written in independent form as non-transitory computer-readable medium type claim instead of a claim that is dependent on a system claim as currently written. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The examiner will treat claim 7 as an independent claim for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a memory: and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive charging reservation information for a plurality of electric transportation devices and a first prediction value that is a prediction value of suppliable power in a power source; calculate a second prediction value that is a prediction value of electric power required for charging the plurality of electric transportation devices on the basis of the charging reservation information; determine whether to implement control on the basis of the first prediction value and the second prediction value; and implement, when the processor determines that the control is performed, the control so that a concentration of power demand relating to charging of the electric transportation device is reduced”. Claims 6 and 7 disclose similar limitations as Claim 1, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 1 is directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 6, and 7 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or 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 judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claim 1, 6, and 7 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 6, and 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least in ¶22 “The charging reservation control device 100 is, for example, a device realized by causing a computer to execute a program. That is to say, the charging reservation control device 100 can be realized by executing a program corresponding to the processing performed by charging reservation control device 100 using hardware resources such as the CPU and the memory built into the computer. The above program can be recorded on a computer-readable recording medium (such as a portable memory) and can be stored or distributed. Furthermore, it is also possible to provide the above program through a network such as the Internet or an e-mail”.
Claims 2-5 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by US 20220012647 to Lee et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
(A) As per Claims 1, 6, and 7:
Lee expressly discloses:
a memory: and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: (Lee ¶128 the processor 1100 may be a central processing unit (CPU) or a semiconductor device that processes instructions stored in the memory 1300 and/or the storage 1600).
receive charging reservation information for a plurality of electric transportation devices and a first prediction value that is a prediction value of suppliable power in a power source; (Lee ¶107, 118 as such, when a power of the electric vehicle 10 for driving to a destination is insufficient, the electric vehicle 10 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may automatically request the charging station management server 200 to reserve a charging station. For example, when three vehicles are reserved for charging at charging station A, the amount of power demand of charging station A may be predicted according to the charging request amount of each of the 3 vehicles).
calculate a second prediction value that is a prediction value of electric power required for charging the plurality of electric transportation devices on the basis of the charging reservation information; (Lee ¶107 the charging station management server 200 may share information in real time with the power grid management server 300 to predict an amount of power demand in real time and determine a power supply plan and a power fee).
determine whether to implement control on the basis of the first prediction value and the second prediction value; implement, when the processor determines that the control is performed, the control so that a concentration of power demand relating to charging of the electric transportation device is reduced; (Lee ¶124-125 When the amount of power supply of the charging station 460 is reduced and when the amount of power demand is increased, the power grid management server 300 may change a rechargeable amount and a fee for the charging station 460 as shown in FIG. 9. Referring to FIG. 9, it may be seen that a fee and a rechargeable amount for each charging station terminal of the charging station 460 are changed. The power grid management server 300 may provide information about the changed amount of power supply and the changed fee to a charging station terminal 461 via a power provider 540. The charging station terminal 461 may provide a charging station management server 200 with the information about the changed amount of power supply and the changed fee).
Lee teaches a method for reserving a charging station in an electric vehicle in ¶79 and a computer-readable medium (e.g. a memory) in ¶65.
(B) As per Claim 3:
Lee expressly discloses:
wherein the power source is a power plant which supplies power to all consumers connected to a power network managed by the power company; the charging reservation information is reservation information for charging at a charging facility connected to the power network; (Lee ¶122 a power provider 540 may receive power from a power plant 500 or a wind turbine 600 and may supply power to a charging station 460 and city A).
(C) As per Claim 4:
Lee expressly discloses:
wherein the power source is a charger at a specific charging facility; (Lee ¶110 the power provider 510 may supply power to city A and charging station A 420, and the power provider 520 may supply power to city B and charging station B 430).
the charging reservation information is reservation information for charging at the specific charging facility; (Lee ¶112 in FIG. 6, when power demand of city A and charging station A 420 is low and when power demand of city B and charging station B 430 is high, and when an electric vehicle 10 requests the charging station management server 200 to reserve a charging station, the charging station management server 200 may reserve charging station A 420 with low power demand and may notify the electric vehicle 10 of the reservation).
(D) As per Claim 5:
Lee expressly discloses:
wherein the processor prompts a user who has made a charging reservation to change a charging time or a charging facility or changes the charging time or the charging facility relating to the charging reservation and notifies the user who made the charging reservation of the change; (Lee ¶75 the processor 240 may automatically change or cancel the reservation of the charging station depending on one of a destination, a road environment, traffic volume, a vehicle path, a battery state, an estimated time of arrival, a charging type, information about the charging station, fee information, or a payment type. In other words, the processor 240 may communicate with the electric vehicle 10 on a real-time basis or on a periodic basis to identify a change in the destination, a change in the estimated time of arrival, a change in the road environment, a change in the traffic volume, a change in the vehicle path, a change in the battery state, a change in the charging type, a change in the payment type, or the like and may change the reserved charging station to another charging station or may cancel the reservation).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20220012647 to Lee et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”) in view of US 20220393465 to Endo et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Endo”) and in further view of WO2016059708 to Matsumoto (hereinafter referred to as “Matsumoto”).
(A) As per Claim 2:
Although Lee teaches a charging station management server and a reservation method, it doesn’t expressly disclose calculating a power prediction surplus based on demand, however Endo teaches:
calculate a surplus prediction power of the suppliable power in the power source on the basis of the first prediction value and the power demand prediction…; (Endo ¶26-27 a surplus power amount in a first period, in which supply of the power exceeds demand, in the next section or later may be calculated based on the supply and demand prediction of the power in the next section or later, and an upper limit value of the final charge state in the section may be determined to be a value obtained by subtracting a numerical value corresponding to the surplus power amount from a use range upper limit of the energy storage apparatus. In this configuration, at the starting time point of the next section, the reserve power (free capacity) for charging the surplus power of the grid can be secured in the energy storage apparatus).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Lee’s the charging station management server 200 may share information in real time with the power grid management server and have a surplus power amount in a first period, in which supply of the power exceeds demand of Endo as both are analogous art which teach solutions to predicting an amount of power demand in real time and determine a power supply plan and a power fee as taught in Lee and have a section calculated based on the supply and demand prediction of the power in the next section or later, and an upper limit value of the final charge state in the section may be determined to be a value obtained by subtracting a numerical value corresponding to the surplus power amount from a use range upper limit of the energy storage apparatus as taught in Endo.
Although Lee in view of Endo teaches a charging station management server and a reservation method, it doesn’t expressly disclose calculating a threshold value by multiplying the surplus prediction value by a coefficient and determining the prediction value exceeds the threshold, however Matsumoto teaches:
…and calculate a threshold value by multiplying the surplus prediction value by a coefficient; wherein the processor determines whether the second prediction value exceeds the threshold value at a certain time in time future; (Matsumoto PAGE 7 the series power supply voltage distribution control unit 530 includes a subtracting unit 531, a single power distribution coefficient calculating unit 532, a distribution coefficient upper limit holding unit 533, a series power distribution coefficient calculating unit 534, a measured charge / discharge power calculating unit 535, A subtracting unit 536, a discharge allowable threshold value holding unit 537, a discharge excess determination unit 538, and a series power distribution coefficient correction unit 539 are included. The discharge allowable threshold holding unit 537 holds “0” as a threshold set for determining over discharge. The excess discharge determination unit 538 determines that the secondary battery 20 does not deteriorate when the excess discharge amount output from the subtraction unit 536 is equal to or less than the threshold value of the discharge allowable threshold value holding unit 537, and sets zero (0). The data is output to the series power distribution coefficient correction unit 539. On the other hand, the excess discharge determination unit 538 determines that the secondary battery 20 is deteriorated when the excess discharge amount is larger than the threshold, and outputs the excess discharge amount from the subtraction unit 536 to the series power distribution coefficient correction unit 539).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Lee in view of Endo’s the charging station management server 200 may share information in real time with the power grid management server and have the series power supply voltage distribution control unit 530 includes a subtracting unit 531, a single power distribution coefficient calculating unit 532, a distribution coefficient upper limit holding unit 533, a series power distribution coefficient calculating unit 534, a measured charge / discharge power calculating unit 535 of Matsumoto as both are analogous art which teach solutions to predicting an amount of power demand in real time and determine a power supply plan and a power fee as taught in Lee and have the excess discharge determination unit 538 determines that the secondary battery 20 is deteriorated when the excess discharge amount is larger than the threshold, and outputs the excess discharge amount from the subtraction unit 536 to the series power distribution coefficient correction unit as taught in Matsumoto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 12/22/2025