Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 10/18/2024. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 16-29 (pre-amended) are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language (applicant claims a familiar concept: a very high level of electronic transaction in e-commerce to authorize an “energy” charging service). Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole (versus applicant’s claims). References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
4. Applicant claims a PCT/Finland priority of 4/06/2023; this date is considered.
Claim interpretations
5. 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.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 “...a first message for authorization...” or “...a second message for authorization ...”, (see pending claims 16, 23).
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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) is/are: “...a first message for authorization...” or “...a second message for authorization...”, (see pending claims 16, 23).
Because this/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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
11. If applicant does not intend to have this/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.
12. If applicant intends to have this/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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
13. In claim 16, line 3, “the message comprising...” should be – the first message comprising ...-
In claim 16, line 9, “the message comprising...” should be – the second message comprising ...-
In claim 16, line 9, “an identifier of an user;” should be – an identifier of a user;-
In claim 23, line 5, “the message comprising...” should be – the first message comprising ...-
In claim 23, line 11, “the message comprising...” should be – the second message comprising ...-
In claim 23, line 11, “an identifier of an user;” should be – an identifier of a user;-
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
14. There is an antecedent basis for “an authorized user” in claim 23 line 13, this phrase should be – the authorized user --
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.
15. Independent claims 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (i.e., at most, applicant presents about using a generic computer, and its fundamental components to practice a mental process).
101 Analysis - Step 1: Claim 16-29 are directed to “a method”; and an implemented device; therefore, these claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 16 includes limitation(s) that recites an abstract idea (in bold-faced) and adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field (in underlined terms).
Per independent claim 16: Applicant claims a generic concept of a method for operating a business transaction, comprising:
- receiving a first message for authorization from an electric vehicle charging station, the message comprising an indicator for an automatic authorization function which is initiated by detection of an electric vehicle being connected to the electric vehicle charging station and an identifier of the electric vehicle charging station;
- rejecting authorization based on the identifier of the charging station when the identifier is not associated to an authorized user; (e.g., wrong ID number/card)
- receiving a second message for authorization from the electric vehicle charging station, the message comprising an identifier of an user;
- accepting the authorization after determining that the identifier of the user is associated to an authorized user (e.g., a matching step);
- determining if any message for authorization comprising the indicator was rejected within a predetermined interval from the accepted authorization (e.g., not matching a card ID/DEBIT/balance);
- linking the identifier of the charging station with the authorized user (e.g., performing extra matching steps) associated with the identifier of the user when the message comprising the indicator was received within the predetermined interval; and
- accepting authorizations based on the linked authorized user for any subsequent messages for authorization comprising the identifier of the charging station with the indicator.
As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("“[M]ental processes .. and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, a method that claims about above steps is an abstract idea.
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 using a device/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 (i.e., there is no defined practical structure, or storage medium in those pending claims, 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) do/does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, those claims recite at least one abstract idea (e.g., receiving a message for a comparison to a stored database).
101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II
According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a generic computer/processor 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 (e.g., using a general transaction at a POS) do not integrate a judicial exception into a specific “practical application.”
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 16 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 element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception (e.g., using a generic computer component in a familiar transaction). Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations (e.g., underlined claimed phrases) discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations (e.g., underlined terms in the claim) of receiving/obtaining data, comparing/matching, and outputting estimated data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that these claimed activities are all conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data for a ship is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner from the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int'l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere pre/post-solution activity is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
16. Dependent claims 17-22, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are also directed to non-statutory subject matter by incorporating their independent claim’ deficiencies; those claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they do not indicate a specific practical application (e.g., including a significant further) for the claimed features.
16. In summary, claims 16-29 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In regards to claim 29 – Applicant is claiming a computer program, which is directed to non-statutory subject matter, see MPEP section 2106.1.
the claim recites limitation “a computer-readable medium comprising instructions….”, the applicant does not cite a non-transitory term, it could be interpreted as carrier wave. It is suggested that the applicant to amend the claim 29 to include non-transitory term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
17. Claims 16, and 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker (US Pub 20190160957 A1– hereafter “Hooker’957”), in view of HUBJECT’s “Secure and User-Friendly EV Charging” – hereafter “HUBJECT”.
A. Per independent claims 16, and 23: Hooker’957 suggests a computer-implemented method, and a device comprising features:
- a device having a processor and a memory, including program code configured to, when executed by the at least one processor (see Hooker’957 FIG. 1, para. [0018],[0020]), cause the computing device to:
- receive a first message for authorization for a certain familiar transaction (see Hooker’957 claims 1, and 4; see also Hubject, Fig. 1, page 7 lines 4-15; e.g., from an electric vehicle charging station), the message comprising an indicator (e.g., an approval/marker) for an automatic authorization function which is initiated by detection of an object/electric vehicle (e.g., an object: a smart chip/IC) being connected to the electric vehicle charging station and an identifier of the electric vehicle charging station, see Hubject page 6 lines 1-6 – e.g., a credit card having a smart chip using for a personal transaction);
- reject authorization ( see Hooker’957 Fig. 2) based on the identifier of the charging station when the identifier is not associated to an authorized user (i.e., using a not matching pass-code);
- receive a second message for authorization from the electric vehicle charging station, the message comprising an identifier of a user (e.g., using a secret word instead of a forgotten pass-code as identification(s);
- accept the authorization after determining that the identifier of the user is associated to an authorized user (e.g., initial queries, and matched responses at a beginning of a transaction – see Hooker’957 Fig. 2 ref. 59 a camera screen, FIG. 4 ref. 132);
- determine if any message for authorization comprising the indicator was rejected within a predetermined interval from the accepted authorization (e.g., providing a pass-code NOT WITHIN a predetermined interval);
- link the identifier of the charging station with the authorized user associated with the identifier of the user when the message comprising the indicator was received within the predetermined interval (e.g., a transaction process is normally established by authentication (e.g., information from a smart chip are matched, then a link is established to continue that transaction – see Hooker’957 Fig. 3 – using “STORES CODES” 80); and
accept authorizations based on the linked authorized user for any subsequent messages for authorization comprising the identifier of the charging station with the indicator (e.g., “receive data for authorizing charging of the electrically powered vehicle” in Hooker’957 claim 1; approved a smart card/a transaction spending via a Hooker’957 camera screen).
Hooker’957 also suggests ”an identifier of the charging station with the indicator”; wherein “a charging station 34” having a specific identification is recognizable by a server 50, see Hooker’957 para. [0027]), such that related information are supplied as record(s) to a user, and also being reported to a server to reporting a transaction status.
The examiner notes that applicant claims familiar limitations as buying fuel at a gas station for an automobile’s energy refueling wherein a screen monitor is an indicator for authorization/rejection messages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Hooker’957, with HUBJECT for an intent of use on electric vehicles’ charging transactions (exchanging signals between a charging station and a server) since similar features are also applied for personal transactions as disclosed by Hubject using a computer networking system to link a Point of Sale to a server via available network(s).
B. Per dependent claim 24, and 18: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 23 are incorporated.
Hooker’957 in view of,Hubject sends a request to determine if the user wants to enable the automatic authorization function at the electric vehicle charging station in response to a connected electric vehicle being detected; and link the identifier of the charging station with the authorized user after receiving an approval from the user. This is a familiar concept of exchanging electronic communication is an electronic charging transaction remotely monitoring and authorized via a NETWORK 52 and a SERVER 50 (see Hooker’957 FIG. 2).
C. Per dependent claim 25, and 19: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 23 are incorporated.
Applicant claims a group of charging station would accept charging from a user to link the identifier of the charging station with the authorized user if the automatic authorization (issuing by a remote server) is allowed for the group – this has been a familiar practice in many transactions (for instance, see Lars Walch et al, EP2366580B1 claim 1) (for example a Shell credit card would be honored from a different Shell station because they are electronically linked together to a common remote server).
Per dependent claims 26-27, and 20-21: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 25 are incorporated.
Applicant claims features:
sending a request to determine if the user wants to enable the automatic authorization function at the electric vehicle charging station in response to a connected electric vehicle being detected, wherein the request is sent to the user when determined that the automatic authorization is allowed for the group only after an approval is received from the user; and linking the identifier of the charging station with the authorized user after receiving an approval from the user.
The above transaction between an electric vehicle 32, a charging station 34, and a server 50 is suggested by Hooker’s 957 FIG. 2)
E. Per dependent claim 28, and 22: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 25 are incorporated.
Hooker’957 also suggests about sending a request to the user to determine if the electric vehicle charging station is a personal electric vehicle charging station of the user; and upon reception of a verification from the user, remove the electric vehicle charging station from the group – this is a familiar action of querying to updating current data (if there is any change) using a networking computer (for example, see Drayna et al – US Pat. 11820326 B2 col. 24 lines 8-12).
G. Per dependent claim 29. Applicant claims an implementation a procedure of claim 23 on a computer-readable medium. The same references and rationales set forth are also applied as shown for a rejection of claim 23.
18. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooker’957, in view of HUBJECT, and in view of Reed et al (US Pat 11494827 B2)
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 23 are incorporated.
Hooker’957 in view of HUBJECT does not disclose a predetermined interval has a value between ten seconds and ten minutes; however, for a computer’s communication signal, this predetermined interval is “QUICKLY” exchanged by Reed et al (Figs. 19-20, 22, claims 4, and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Hooker’957, in view of HUBJECT with Reed et al in order to quickly response disclosed by Reed et al (claims 4, and 20) for a request at a pump station while improving electronic processing times which has been expected by proven successes.
Conclusion
20. Pending claims 16-29 are rejected.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664