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) were submitted on 10/10/2024 and 12/06/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are acknowledged and have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“an acquisition unit” and “a control unit” in Claims 1, 2, 5, 10
“a vehicle energy determining unit” in Claims 2, 5 9
“a facility energy determining unit” in Claims 2, 6, 8
Because these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
“an acquisition unit” and “a control unit” in Claims 1, 2, 5, 10
“a vehicle energy determining unit” in Claims 2, 5 9
“a facility energy determining unit” in Claims 2, 6, 8
The implementation and hardware of recited “units” are left unspecified in the specification and the language of the claims. There is no mention of any computing components or otherwise that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement or use said “units”.
In view of the above, Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under
112(a) as being indefinite for failing to contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same,
Claims 3-4, 7 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency from rejected Claims 2 and 6 respectively.
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“an acquisition unit” and “a control unit” in Claims 1, 2, 5, 10
“a vehicle energy determining unit” in Claims 2, 5 9
“a facility energy determining unit” in Claims 2, 6, 8
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The implementation and hardware of recited “units” are left unspecified in the specification and the language of the claims. There is no mention of any computing components or otherwise that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement or use said “units”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In view of the above, Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under
112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as
the invention.
Claims 3-4, 7 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency from rejected Claims 2 and 6 respectively.
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 1-10 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: an acquisition unit configured to acquire 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; and a control unit configured to perform control such that the mobile vehicle is caused to aid the facility to be aided on the basis of the location information and the energy information.
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.
“acquire 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” 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.
“perform control such that the mobile vehicle is caused to aid the facility to be aided on the basis of the location information and the energy information” 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.
Claims 2-10 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: an acquisition unit configured to acquire 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; and a control unit configured to perform control such that the mobile vehicle is caused to aid the facility to be aided on the basis of the location information and the energy information.
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 control unit”. 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 2 further recites “a vehicle energy determining unit” and “a facility energy determining unit”.
These do not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application by virtue of analogous reasoning as above.
Claims 3-10 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 2 further recites “a vehicle energy determining unit” and “a facility energy determining unit”.
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 3-10 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhisa(JP2017112806A) in view of Ohira(US 20150306968 A1).
Claim 1
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: an acquisition unit configured to acquire location information and energy information on stored energy of the mobile vehicle and location information and energy information on ... of the facility to be aided and a control unit configured to perform control such that the mobile vehicle is caused to aid the facility to be aided on the basis of the location information and the energy information.
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".
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Ohira teaches:
energy information on stored energy of the facility to be aided
It would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the contract power of a facility, or an agreed upon maximum quantity of electricity a business commits to purchasing, would encompass energy stored on-site. In [0044], "In particular, the controller circuitry 110 receives the amount of electric power used which is notified from the power usage monitoring section 220 and determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power of the facility 200, the contract amount of electric power stored in the storing section 130".
Kazuhisa discloses a system for providing power supply to a plurality of facilities via electric mobile delivery vehicles. Ohira discloses a system meant to facilitate the discharge of power to facilities via mobile power delivery vehicles. Each reference discloses utilizing and managing mobile power delivery vehicles. Extending the control logistics as recorded in Ohira 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 control logistics as taught in Ohira 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 control logistics would enable users to intelligently assess the need and state of relevant facilities and power delivery vehicles.
Claims 2-4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhisa(JP2017112806A) in view of Ohira(US 20150306968 A1) in further view of De Blasio(US 20210129695 A1).
Claim 2
As to Claim 2, Kazuhisa combined with Ohira teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Ohira teaches:
and a facility energy determining unit configured to determine whether a second condition indicating that an amount of energy stored in the facility to be aided does not reach a predetermined state is satisfied on the basis of the energy information when the mobile vehicle starts supply of energy to the facility to be aided, wherein the control unit performs control such that the mobile vehicle is caused to aid the facility to be aided on the basis of the first condition and the second condition.
Help is distributed on the basis of electricity exceeding a threshold with respect to usage; alternatively, this can be understood as ensuring that usage does not fall below a certain threshold before help is distributed in [0044], "Moreover, the controller circuitry 110 has the function of performing control of a supply destination of the generated electric power of the power generator 410 and the stored electric power of the electricity storage device 420 of the mobile unit 400 connected to the charging and discharging device 300 and giving an instruction about the supply destination in accordance with the received mode information. In particular, the controller circuitry 110 receives the amount of electric power used which is notified from the power usage monitoring section 220 and determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power of the facility 200...Incidentally, the controller circuitry 110 determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power by making a determination as to whether or not the amount of electric power used is greater than or equal to a threshold value which is smaller than the contract amount of electric power".
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 Ohira 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 Ohira does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 1, further comprising: a vehicle energy determining unit configured to 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 is satisfied on the basis of the energy information;
Help is distributed on the basis of electricity exceeding a threshold with respect to usage; alternatively, this can be understood as ensuring that usage does not fall below a certain threshold before help is distributed in [0044], "Moreover, the controller circuitry 110 has the function of performing control of a supply destination of the generated electric power of the power generator 410 and the stored electric power of the electricity storage device 420 of the mobile unit 400 connected to the charging and discharging device 300 and giving an instruction about the supply destination in accordance with the received mode information. In particular, the controller circuitry 110 receives the amount of electric power used which is notified from the power usage monitoring section 220 and determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power of the facility 200...Incidentally, the controller circuitry 110 determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power by making a determination as to whether or not the amount of electric power used is greater than or equal to a threshold value which is smaller than the contract amount of electric power".
Kazuhisa combined with Ohira 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 combined with Ohira 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 combined with Ohira. 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.
Claim 3
As to Claim 3, Kazuhisa combined with Ohira and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa combined with Ohira 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 Ohira. 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 Ohira and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 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 Ohira 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 Ohira. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 6
As to Claim 6, Kazuhisa combined with Ohira and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Ohira teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 2, wherein the facility energy determining unit determines whether the second condition is satisfied on the basis of an aid time in the facility to be aided using the mobile vehicle and the amount of energy stored in the facility to be aided.
In [0044], "this determination can be called a determination as to whether or not the amount of electric power used is likely to exceed the contract amount of electric power or a prediction that the amount of electric power used will exceed the contract amount of electric power. ...Incidentally, the controller circuitry 110 determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power by making a determination as to whether or not the amount of electric power used is greater than or equal to a threshold value which is smaller than the contract amount of electric power.
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 Ohira 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 7
As to Claim 7, Kazuhisa combined with Ohira and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Ohira teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 6, wherein the aid time includes at least one of a time over which the mobile vehicle is supplied with energy, a time in which the mobile vehicle moves between a supply location and the facility to be aided, and a time in which energy is supplied to the facility to be aided.
It is stated that the comparison between contract, or stored energy, takes place after connection with the mobile vehicle. As it is stated that such a determination takes place on the basis of an aid time, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses the time of connection as the time of energy supply, or when the vehicle is on site and connected to the charging and discharging device in [0044], "Moreover, the controller circuitry 110 has the function of performing control of a supply destination of the generated electric power of the power generator 410 and the stored electric power of the electricity storage device 420 of the mobile unit 400 connected to the charging and discharging device 300 and giving an instruction about the supply destination in accordance with the received mode information. In particular, the controller circuitry 110 receives the amount of electric power used which is notified from the power usage monitoring section 220 and determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power of the facility 200...Incidentally, the controller circuitry 110 determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power by making a determination as to whether or not the amount of electric power used is greater than or equal to a threshold value which is smaller than the contract amount of electric power".
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 Ohira 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 8
As to Claim 8, Kazuhisa combined with Ohira and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Ohira teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 6, wherein the facility energy determining unit 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.
It is stated that the comparison between contract, or stored energy, takes place after connection with the mobile vehicle. As it is stated that such a determination takes place on the basis of an aid time, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses the time of connection as the time of energy supply, or when the vehicle is on site and connected to the charging and discharging device in [0044], "Moreover, the controller circuitry 110 has the function of performing control of a supply destination of the generated electric power of the power generator 410 and the stored electric power of the electricity storage device 420 of the mobile unit 400 connected to the charging and discharging device 300 and giving an instruction about the supply destination in accordance with the received mode information. In particular, the controller circuitry 110 receives the amount of electric power used which is notified from the power usage monitoring section 220 and determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power of the facility 200...Incidentally, the controller circuitry 110 determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power by making a determination as to whether or not the amount of electric power used is greater than or equal to a threshold value which is smaller than the contract amount of electric power".
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 Ohira 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 Ohira and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa combined with Ohira does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 2, wherein the vehicle energy determining unit 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 Ohira. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 10
As to Claim 10, Kazuhisa combined with Ohira teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa combined with Ohira does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 1, wherein the control unit generates an aid schedule of the mobile vehicle for the facility to be aided as the control for performing aid.
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 facility logistics determination of De Blasio and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa combined with Ohira. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhisa(JP2017112806A) in view of Ohira(US 20150306968 A1) in further view of De Blasio(US 20210129695 A1) in further view of Maeno(US 20160134157 A1)
Claim 5
As to Claim 5, Kazuhisa combined with Ohira and De Blasio teaches all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Kazuhisa does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Ohira teaches:
wherein the vehicle energy determining unit ... determine whether the first condition … satisfied
Help is distributed on the basis of electricity exceeding a threshold with respect to usage; alternatively, this can be understood as ensuring that usage does not fall below a certain threshold before help is distributed in [0044], "Moreover, the controller circuitry 110 has the function of performing control of a supply destination of the generated electric power of the power generator 410 and the stored electric power of the electricity storage device 420 of the mobile unit 400 connected to the charging and discharging device 300 and giving an instruction about the supply destination in accordance with the received mode information. In particular, the controller circuitry 110 receives the amount of electric power used which is notified from the power usage monitoring section 220 and determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power of the facility 200...Incidentally, the controller circuitry 110 determines whether or not the amount of electric power used is about to exceed the contract amount of electric power by making a determination as to whether or not the amount of electric power used is greater than or equal to a threshold value which is smaller than the contract amount of electric power".
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 Ohira 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 Ohira does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, De Blasio teaches:
and the facility energy determining unit … determine whether … the second condition … satisfied
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 Ohira. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 2.
Kazuhisa combined with Ohira and De Blasio does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Maeno teaches:
The aid management server according to claim 2, wherein the control unit corrects the amount of energy to be supplied when one of the first condition and the second condition is not satisfied, and wherein the ... and the ... determine whether the first condition and the second condition are satisfied again.
In [0034], "FIG. 2 shows a solar charge control routine executed by the microcomputer 40. This routine is repeatedly executed after a predetermined operation for activating the solar power generation system is carried out". A first threshold, corresponding to a threshold quantity of power generated in [0037], "The microcomputer 40 proceeds with the process to a step S22 to read sensor values of the electric current and voltage sensors of the sensor section 22 to calculate an electric power P output from the solar cell 10. Next, the microcomputer 40 proceeds with the process to a step S23 to determine whether or not the calculated electric power P is equal to or larger than an electric power generation determination threshold Pref1". A second threshold, corresponding to a discharge quantity threshold, is outlined in [0040], "When the microcomputer 40 determines at the step S23 that the electric power P is equal to or larger than the electric power generation determination threshold Pref1 while the microcomputer 40 executes such processes repeatedly, the microcomputer 40 proceeds with the process to a step S24 to execute a charge control. In this case, the microcomputer 40 activates the main DC/DC converter 30 to cause an electric current to flow from the solar cell 10 to the additional battery 53. Thereby, the additional battery 53 is charged. Then, the microcomputer 40 proceeds with the process to a step S25 to determine whether or not the electric power P output from the solar cell 10 is smaller than an electric power generation determination threshold Pref2. The microcomputer 40 continues the execution of the charge control of the step S24 while the electric power P is equal to or larger than the electric power generation determination threshold Pref2".
Kazuhisa combined with Ohira and De Blasio discloses a system for providing power supply to a plurality of facilities via electric mobile delivery vehicles. Maeno discloses a system meant to facilitate the management of electric power supply equipment. Each reference discloses utilizing and managing electric power supply equipment. Extending the iterative adjustment and checking as recorded in Maeno to the system of Kazuhisa combined with Ohira 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 Maeno and apply that to the system of Kazuhisa combined with Ohira and 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 iterative adjustment would enable users to dynamically respond to charging conditions.
Conclusion
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