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 Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 12/29/2025, Applicant on 03/30/2026, amended Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, added Claims 11-13, and canceled Claims 2,6,7,10. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments necessitate new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as outlined below.
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action.
Applicants’ amendments render moot the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action in view of new and updated grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments, as set forth below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that even if the claims involve an abstract idea, which Applicant disputes, the claims are integrated into a practical application and additionally represent significantly more per Step 2B of the analysis because while some steps may arguably recite an abstract idea, in the claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to MPEP 2106, in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04.
Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106.05.
That is, only after determining whether the claims recite limitations that, individually or in combination, that fall within one of the enumerated subject matter groups of abstract ideas in the first prong of Step 2B, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the steps referred to by Applicant are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but rather, for the reason detailed in the following paragraphs, the limitations referred to by Applicant are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea because they are recitations of mental
processes that can be practically performed mentally and merely use generic computer components as a tool (i.e., “a communication device: a memory storing instructions; and processing circuitry”) to implement the mental processes.
As set forth in the MPEP, mere automation of a manual or mental process or a business method being applied on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Merely requiring that the claims use generic computer components, such as the memory or processing circuitry, to implement the recited abstract idea does not make the claims directed to an improvement in technology or otherwise transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
The steps referred to by Applicant do not recite a significant improvement in technology, but rather, the steps referred to by Applicant are recitation of mental processes that can be practically performed mentally and merely use a generic computer components as a tool (i.e., the constituent “memory…processing circuitry” in Claim 1) to implement the mental process. In fact, aside from the generic component used as a tool to implement the steps, the steps referred to by Applicant are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, but, as noted above, they are recitations of mental processes that recite an abstract idea.
Viewing the limitations in combination per the pen and paper test recited in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(iii), a human can mentally observe data pertaining to a request for help, mentally observe the relevant information on stored energy associated with the help request, mentally perform a judgment to check the observed data against certain heuristics, and mentally form a schedule on how to optimally supply help by aid of pen and paper. Note the resemblance to Electric Power Group, where it was ruled that “vi. Components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that generate new data [do not necessarily show an improvement in technology], Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);”. Which is effectively to say, it is improper to deem the mere observance of data related to technology to be outside the bounds of an abstract idea and/or an improvement to technology. In combination, these steps do not reflect an improvement in computer technology, but rather a mental process of generating a schedule.
As detailed below with respect to the second prong of Step 2A, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical Application because the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea merely use generic computer components as a tool to apply the recited abstract idea.
As set forth in the MPEP, mere automation of a manual or mental process or a business method being applied on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Merely requiring that the claims use generic computer components, such as the generically recited server hardware components, to implement the recited abstract idea does not make the claims directed to an improvement in technology or otherwise transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
Like in Electric Power Group, the claims are not focused on a specific improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas that simply use computers as tools. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A,, et al., No. 2015-1778, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016); MPEP 2106.05(a).
Further, a mere data transmission, as recited in Claim 1, “transmit the aid schedule to the mobile vehicle” is insufficient to link the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Citing MPEP 2106, “ 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”. As the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims encompasses the transmission of the data with the intent to guide the behavior of a human operator, it is expressly a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity.
Similarly, the limitations referred to by Applicant in Claims 3-5, 8-9, 11-13 are merely recitations of mental processes that can be performed by a human mentally performing a mental evaluation and judgement using the observed information.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been updated to address the amendments and maintained below.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant firstly draws a distinction between “energy information on stored energy” vs. Ohira’s “contract amount”. Examiner respectfully notes that this argument is rendered moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant further argues under “Vehicle energy determination” that De Blasio fails to teach the limitation regarding ‘’post-movement energy”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In [0133], “In particular, it is checked that the charging vehicle 2 presents an amount of charge in the accumulators 51 which is sufficient to meet the requirements of the requesting electric vehicle 4”. In [0134], “Then it is also verified whether the charging vehicle has its own sufficient electric charge available to reach the electric vehicle 4 to be charged and to return to the charging base”. The breadth of the claim language, “a post-movement amount of energy of the mobile vehicle” includes an amount of energy to be supplied to the facility”. De Blasio’s energy storage in a mobile vehicle can be viewed as the sum of the charge in the accumulators and its own sufficient electric charge available to reach the electric vehicle to be charged and then return to the charging base. Applicant’s distinction would be relevant if the limitation specified that there is a unitary energy storage location from which the support vehicle both discharges and draws upon to move, but that is not what is supported by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As the energy of the mobile vehicle constitutes both the accumulator-stored energy and the support vehicle’s battery, De Blasio discloses this limitation.
Applicant further draws a distinction between the “round trip” calculation of the claims and De Blasio’s “energetic autonomy”. In [0154], “Moreover, the availability (working hours remaining) of the driver of the identified available charging vehicle 2 is detected, determining and taking account also of the sufficient autonomy (in kWh and hours) to subsequently return to the station”. It is implicit that autonomy to subsequently return to a charging station from an aid site would consider cost to arrive at said aid destination. For purpose of clarification, note [0156] regarding order assignment, “In particular, the main control unit 110, on the basis of the geographical position of the request(s) received by one or more access peripherals 150, calculates the optimal route (for distances and traffic conditions), kWh and autonomy, residual working hours, and decides to which system and when (on the basis of requests received up to that moment) to issue the request for the execution of the charging order”. When we execute an aid dispatch, the cost of travelling to the destination as well as energy remaining after is factored into the decision to execute.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ohira fails to teach Aid time forecasting, Examiner notes the modified scope of the limitations as they have been incorporated into Claim 1, notably the removal of “at least one of…”. Accordingly, said arguments are rendered moot in view of new grounds.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that De Blasio lacks integration with multiple facilities and aid cycles, Examiner notes the altered scope of independent Claim 1. As Claim 9 itself lacks the supply amount and round-trip/tour computations across multiple facilities and aid cycles, Examiner respectfully points to the updated grounds of rejections below.
Finally, as to the point of schedule generation vs assignment, Examiner notes the altered scope of limitations as they have been integrated into Claim 1, and notes the updated rejections below.
Applicants' amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action. Therefore, these rejections have been updated to address the amendments and are maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8 and 9 depend from cancelled Claims 6 and 2 respectively. As these claims have been cancelled, it is unclear which claim they are intended to depend from. Accordingly, said claims lack antecedent basis and are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
For purpose of examination, Claims 8 and 9 will be understood as depending from independent Claim 1.
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, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or 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 and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
An aid management server that manages a mobile vehicle and a facility to be aided, the aid management server comprising: a communication device; a memory storing instructions; and processing circuitry configured by the instructions to: in response to receiving an aid request from the facility to be aided, acquire, via the communication device, location information and energy information on stored energy of the mobile vehicle and location information and energy information on stored energy of the facility to be aided; determine whether a first condition is satisfied, the first condition indicating that a post-movement amount of energy of the mobile vehicle includes an amount of energy to be supplied to the facility to be aided; determine whether a second condition is satisfied, the second condition indicating that an amount of energy stored in the facility to be aided does not reach a predetermined state at a timing immediately before the mobile vehicle is scheduled to start a subsequent supply of energy to the facility to be aided, wherein the determination of whether the second condition is satisfied is based on an aid time and the amount of energy stored in the facility to be aided, the aid time including a time in which the mobile vehicle moves between an energy supply location and the facility to be aided, and a time in which energy is supplied to the facility to be aided: and generate, based on the first condition and the second condition being satisfied, an aid schedule as control for performing aid, the aid schedule including data specifying an aid order of one or more facilities to be aided, and an amount of energy to be supplied to each of the one or more facilities to be aided, and transmit the aid schedule to the mobile vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity.
“determine whether a first condition is satisfied, the first condition indicating that a post-movement amount…determine whether a second condition is satisfied, the second condition indicating that an amount of energy stored…does not reach a predetermined state…” recites an abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract.
“generate…an aid schedule as control for performing aid…” recites a certain method of organizing human activity – namely, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. As it is not prescribed that the mobile vehicle is controlled autonomously, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, we understand this to encompass directing a human driver to operate the mobile vehicle and deliver aid to the facility.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites at least one abstract idea by virtue of presenting substantially similar limitations.
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 11-12 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception 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, such as 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”):
An aid management server that manages a mobile vehicle and a facility to be aided, the aid management server comprising: a communication device; a memory storing instructions; and processing circuitry configured by the instructions to: in response to receiving an aid request from the facility to be aided, acquire, via the communication device, location information and energy information on stored energy of the mobile vehicle and location information and energy information on stored energy of the facility to be aided; determine whether a first condition is satisfied, the first condition indicating that a post-movement amount of energy of the mobile vehicle includes an amount of energy to be supplied to the facility to be aided; determine whether a second condition is satisfied, the second condition indicating that an amount of energy stored in the facility to be aided does not reach a predetermined state at a timing immediately before the mobile vehicle is scheduled to start a subsequent supply of energy to the facility to be aided, wherein the determination of whether the second condition is satisfied is based on an aid time and the amount of energy stored in the facility to be aided, the aid time including a time in which the mobile vehicle moves between an energy supply location and the facility to be aided, and a time in which energy is supplied to the facility to be aided: and generate, based on the first condition and the second condition being satisfied, an aid schedule as control for performing aid, the aid schedule including data specifying an aid order of one or more facilities to be aided, and an amount of energy to be supplied to each of the one or more facilities to be aided, and transmit the aid schedule to the mobile vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “an aid management server…a communication device; a memory storing instructions; and processing circuitry configured by the instructions”, “via the communication device”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Claim 13 does not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning.
Claim 11 additionally recites “transmit the navigation data”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application by virtue of analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 12 do not further recite additional elements beyond those found in claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Claim 13 does not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning.
Claim 11 additionally recites “transmit the navigation data”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by virtue of analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 12 do not further recite additional elements beyond those found in claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 3-4, 8-9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhisa(JP2017112806A) in view of Gaither(US 20210046829 A1) in further view of De Blasio(US 20210129695 A1).
Claims 1, 13
As to Claim 1, Kazuhisa teaches:
An aid management server that manages a mobile vehicle and a facility to be aided, the aid management server comprising: a communication device; a memory storing instructions; and processing circuitry configured by the instructions to: in response to receiving an aid request from the facility to be aided, acquire, via the communication device, location information and energy information on stored energy of the mobile vehicle and location information … of the facility to be aided;
In [0011], "The disaster power supply system of the second invention is characterized in that, in the first invention, the evacuation facility information acquisition means acquires location information regarding the location of the evacuation facility as the evacuation facility information, the vehicle information acquisition means acquires vehicle position information regarding the current position of the power supply vehicle as the vehicle information, and the power supply destination determination means determines the evacuation facility to which each of the power supply vehicles will supply power based on the acquired vehicle position information of each of the power supply vehicles and the location information of each of the evacuation facility".
facility
See the setting of the invention above in [0011].
and an amount of energy to be supplied to each of the one or more facilities to be aided,
In [0044], “In step S13, based on the building size information, power receiving capacity information, evacuee information, and damage information for each shelter 11 read in step S12, the amount of electricity required to be supplied to each shelter 11 is calculated.
In this case, the calculated amount of electricity required for each evacuation center 11 (electricity requirement information) is acquired as evacuation center information for each evacuation center 11.”.
and transmit … to the mobile vehicle
The means for communicating to mobile vehicles are described in [0045], “To acquire this information, the communication unit 22 sends a request signal to each power supply vehicle 12”.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
De Blasio teaches:
determine whether a first condition indicating that a post-movement amount of energy of the mobile vehicle includes an amount of energy to be supplied to the facility to be aided;
In [0133], “In particular, it is checked that the charging vehicle 2 presents an amount of charge in the accumulators 51 which is sufficient to meet the requirements of the requesting electric vehicle 4”. In [0134], “Then it is also verified whether the charging vehicle has its own sufficient electric charge available to reach the electric vehicle 4 to be charged and to return to the charging base”. The breadth of the claim language, “a post-movement amount of energy of the mobile vehicle” includes an amount of energy to be supplied to the facility”. De Blasio’s energy storage in a mobile vehicle can be viewed as the sum of the charge in the accumulators and its own sufficient electric charge available to reach the electric vehicle to be charged and then return to the charging base. Applicant’s distinction would be relevant if the limitation specified that there is a unitary energy storage location from which the support vehicle both discharges and draws upon to move, but that is not what is supported by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As the energy of the mobile vehicle constitutes both the accumulator-stored energy and the support vehicle’s battery, De Blasio discloses this limitation.
and generate, based on the first condition and the second condition being satisfied, an aid schedule as control for performing aid, the aid schedule including data specifying an aid order of one or more facilities to be aided,
In [0156], “in step 206, the assignment of the order is carried out. In particular, the main control unit 110, on the basis of the geographical position of the request(s) received by one or more access peripherals 150, calculates the optimal route (for distances and traffic conditions), kWh and autonomy, residual working hours, and decides to which system and when (on the basis of requests received up to that moment) to issue the request for the execution of the charging order”.
and … the aid schedule to the mobile vehicle
Note the assignment would implicitly require some form of communication to the mobile vehicle in order for the mobile vehicle to act as described in [0156].
Kazuhisa discloses a system for providing power supply to a plurality of facilities via electric mobile delivery vehicles. De Blasio discloses a system meant to facilitate the discharge of power to requestors via mobile power delivery vehicles. Each reference discloses utilizing and managing mobile power delivery vehicles to a plurality of supply destinations. Extending the facility logistics determination as recorded in De Blasio to the system of Kazuhisa is applicable as they share the common field of endeavor of power supply via mobile power delivery vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the facility logistics determination as taught in De Blasio and apply that to the system as taught in Kazuhisa. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said logistics would enable users to intelligently assess and monitor facility need for more intelligent prioritization.
Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Gaither teaches:
energy information on stored energy of the … to be aided;
In [0021], “The determination is made at the beginning of a trip based on a current state of charge (SOC), a current load, a location, an ambient temperature, an operating temperature, and power estimation for the remaining route and traffic. The EV 104 may request a charge bot 106. The time for the charge bot 106 to arrive at the moving location of the electric vehicle 104 is determined. In other words, the time needed for the charge bot 106 to arrive to an estimated location of the EV 104 is determined. The estimated location of the EV 104 is determined based on a planned route and current traffic conditions. The request is sent before the charge is depleted and factoring the determined time’.
determine whether a second condition is satisfied, the second condition indicating that an amount of energy stored in the … to be aided does not reach a predetermined state at a timing immediately before the mobile vehicle is scheduled to start a subsequent supply of energy to the … to be aided, wherein the determination of whether the second condition is satisfied is based on an aid time and the amount of energy stored in the … to be aided, the aid time including a time in which the mobile vehicle moves between an energy supply location and the … to be aided, and a time in which energy is supplied to the … to be aided:
In [0021], “The determination is made at the beginning of a trip based on a current state of charge (SOC), a current load, a location, an ambient temperature, an operating temperature, and power estimation for the remaining route and traffic. The EV 104 may request a charge bot 106. The time for the charge bot 106 to arrive at the moving location of the electric vehicle 104 is determined. In other words, the time needed for the charge bot 106 to arrive to an estimated location of the EV 104 is determined. The estimated location of the EV 104 is determined based on a planned route and current traffic conditions. The request is sent before the charge is depleted and factoring the determined time’. Note that we dispatch the charge bot in a way that factoring aid travel time, we can intercept the electrical vehicle and supply charge before depletion.
Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio discloses a system for providing power supply to a plurality of facilities via electric mobile delivery vehicles. Gaither discloses a system meant to facilitate the on demand discharge of power via mobile power delivery vehicles. Each reference discloses utilizing and managing mobile power delivery vehicles. Extending the control logistics as recorded in Gaither to the system of Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio is applicable as they share the common field of endeavor of power supply via mobile power delivery vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the control logistics as taught in Gaither and apply that to the system as taught in Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said control logistics would enable users to intelligently assess the need and state of relevant facilities and power delivery vehicles.
Claim 13 is rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 3
As to Claim 3, Kazuhisa combined with Gaither and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa combined with Gaither does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 2, wherein the post-movement amount of energy is calculated on the basis of a round- trip distance the vehicle travels between an energy supply location of the mobile vehicle and the facility to be aided.
In [0024], "evaluate the charge state of the charging apparatus installed on the identified available charging vehicle; detect the availability in remaining working hours of the driver of the charging vehicle of the identified available mobile charging unit, determining and also taking account of the energetic autonomy of said charging vehicle to later return to a charging station".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the facility logistics determination of De Blasio and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa combined with Gaither. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 4
As to Claim 4, Kazuhisa combined with Gaither and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 2, wherein, when there are a plurality of facilities to be aided; the plurality of facilities to be aided
In [0008], "In order to solve the above problem, the disaster power supply system of the first invention is characterized by comprising: a plurality of power supply vehicles that are pre-registered to supply power to a plurality of evacuation facilities set up in an area when a power shortage occurs at the plurality of evacuation facilities due to a disaster".
Kazuhisa combined with Gaither does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
the post-movement amount of energy is calculated on the basis of a distance over which the mobile vehicle returns from an energy supply location of the mobile vehicle to the energy supply location
In [0024], "evaluate the charge state of the charging apparatus installed on the identified available charging vehicle; detect the availability in remaining working hours of the driver of the charging vehicle of the identified available mobile charging unit, determining and also taking account of the energetic autonomy of said charging vehicle to later return to a charging station".
to the energy supply location via the plurality of ... to be aided.
In [0154-0156], ""if the charging vehicle 2 is available, in step 204 the charge state (in kWh) of the charging apparatus 3 installed on the identified available charging vehicle 2 is assessed. Moreover, the availability (working hours remaining) of the driver of the identified available charging vehicle 2 is detected, determining and taking account also of the sufficient autonomy (in kWh and hours) to subsequently return to the station". in step 205 a check is performed to verify whether all the requirements have been met and the system 100, in particular the main control unit 110 decides which charging vehicle 2, with respect to the request received, is capable of delivering the charge; in step 206, the assignment of the order is carried out. In particular, the main control unit 110, on the basis of the geographical position of the request(s) received by one or more access peripherals 150, calculates the optimal route (for distances and traffic conditions), kWh and autonomy, residual working hours, and decides to which system and when (on the basis of requests received up to that moment) to issue the request for the execution of the charging order;" Notably, see 206 in Fig. 7. It is depicted that a plurality of charging order assignments correspond to a given delivery machine, and therefore the requirements check would encompass said plurality of facilities.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the facility logistics determination of De Blasio and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa combined with Gaither. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 8
As to Claim 8, Kazuhisa combined with Gaither and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Gaither teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry determines whether the second condition is satisfied by comparing an amount of energy consumed in the facility to be aided based on the aid time with the amount of stored energy.
In [0021], “The determination is made at the beginning of a trip based on a current state of charge (SOC), a current load, a location, an ambient temperature, an operating temperature, and power estimation for the remaining route and traffic. The EV 104 may request a charge bot 106. The time for the charge bot 106 to arrive at the moving location of the electric vehicle 104 is determined. In other words, the time needed for the charge bot 106 to arrive to an estimated location of the EV 104 is determined. The estimated location of the EV 104 is determined based on a planned route and current traffic conditions. The request is sent before the charge is depleted and factoring the determined time’. Note that we dispatch the charge bot in a way that factoring aid travel time, we can intercept the electrical vehicle and supply charge before depletion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the logistics of Gaither and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 9
As to Claim 9, Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio and Gaither teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry determines whether the first condition is satisfied in consideration of an amount of energy consumed through movement of the mobile vehicle as the first condition.
In [0154], "if the charging vehicle 2 is available, in step 204 the charge state (in kWh) of the charging apparatus 3 installed on the identified available charging vehicle 2 is assessed. Moreover, the availability (working hours remaining) of the driver of the identified available charging vehicle 2 is detected, determining and taking account also of the sufficient autonomy (in kWh and hours) ".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the facility logistics determination of De Blasio and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa combined with Gaither. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 11
As to Claim 11, Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio and Gaither teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
transmit … data to the mobile vehicle
The means for communicating to mobile vehicles are described in [0045], “To acquire this information, the communication unit 22 sends a request signal to each power supply vehicle 12”.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate navigation data based on the aid schedule; … navigation data to the mobile vehicle as the aid schedule.
In [0156], “in step 206, the assignment of the order is carried out. In particular, the main control unit 110, on the basis of the geographical position of the request(s) received by one or more access peripherals 150, calculates the optimal route (for distances and traffic conditions), kWh and autonomy, residual working hours, and decides to which system and when (on the basis of requests received up to that moment) to issue the request for the execution of the charging order;”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the logistics of De Blasio and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhisa(JP2017112806A) in view of Gaither(US 20210046829 A1) in further view of De Blasio(US 20210129695 A1) in further view of Raikar(US 20180262024 A1).
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Kazuhisa combined with Gaither and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
of the first condition…determine whether the first condition … satisfied
In [0133], “In particular, it is checked that the charging vehicle 2 presents an amount of charge in the accumulators 51 which is sufficient to meet the requirements of the requesting electric vehicle 4”. In [0134], “Then it is also verified whether the charging vehicle has its own sufficient electric charge available to reach the electric vehicle 4 to be charged and to return to the charging base”. The breadth of the claim language, “a post-movement amount of energy of the mobile vehicle” includes an amount of energy to be supplied to the facility”. De Blasio’s energy storage in a mobile vehicle can be viewed as the sum of the charge in the accumulators and its own sufficient electric charge available to reach the electric vehicle to be charged and then return to the charging base. Applicant’s distinction would be relevant if the limitation specified that there is a unitary energy storage location from which the support vehicle both discharges and draws upon to move, but that is not what is supported by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As the energy of the mobile vehicle constitutes both the accumulator-stored energy and the support vehicle’s battery, De Blasio discloses this limitation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the logistics of De Blasio and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Gaither teaches:
and the second condition… determine whether … the second condition … satisfied
In [0021], “The determination is made at the beginning of a trip based on a current state of charge (SOC), a current load, a location, an ambient temperature, an operating temperature, and power estimation for the remaining route and traffic. The EV 104 may request a charge bot 106. The time for the charge bot 106 to arrive at the moving location of the electric vehicle 104 is determined. In other words, the time needed for the charge bot 106 to arrive to an estimated location of the EV 104 is determined. The estimated location of the EV 104 is determined based on a planned route and current traffic conditions. The request is sent before the charge is depleted and factoring the determined time’. Note that we dispatch the charge bot in a way that factoring aid travel time, we can intercept the electrical vehicle and supply charge before depletion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the control logic of Gaither and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio and Gaither does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Raikar teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry corrects the amount of energy to be supplied when one … condition is not satisfied, and determines whether …condition are satisfied again.
Regarding decreasing a charging percentage of maximum capacity in [0051], “Accordingly, in response to a rising battery temperature, one remedial action the intelligent battery charging system and method 100 may take to reduce the battery temperature is to charge the battery 110 to a percentage charge level lower than 100%. A battery 110 tends to increase in heat the longer it is continuously charged. As such, charging the battery 110 to a percentage charge level less than 100% mitigates the temperature reached by the battery 110 during charging. Alternatively or additionally, in response to a battery temperature rising to a defined level, a remedial action the intelligent battery charging system and method 100 may take to reduce the battery temperature is to charge the battery 110 to a lower voltage, e.g., 80% of the 5V set by the battery specification, as shown in Step 320”. Regarding rechecking the condition in [0052], “After the first remedial action, at Step 325, the temperature of the battery is again measured to determine if the battery temperature is unacceptably high”.
Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio and Gaither discloses a system for providing power supply to a plurality of facilities via electric mobile delivery vehicles. Raikar discloses a system meant to facilitate the management of battery charging, and therefore power supply. Each reference discloses utilizing and managing electric power supply equipment. Extending the iterative adjustment and checking as recorded in Raikar to the system of Kazuhisa combined with Gaither and De Blasio is applicable as they share the common field of endeavor of electric power supply management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the iterative adjustment and checking of Raikar and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio and Gaither. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting said iterative adjustment would enable users to dynamically respond to charging conditions.
Claim 12 additionally recites “by decreasing a value of an amount of supplied electric power indicating a percentage of charging that is to be performed”. See [0051] of Raikar as outlined above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the iterative adjustment and checking of Raikar and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa combined with De Blasio and Gaither. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected as disclosing similar limitations as Claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights