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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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’s) submitted on 1/09/2025 & 12/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1 – 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 & 2 are directed to a method of computing emissions of a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1 & 2 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Similarly, claims 8 & 9 are directed to a system for computing emissions of a vehicle (i.e., a machine) and is also within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 8 recites:
An emissions calculation system included in at least one of an electric vehicle or a management system that manages the electric vehicle, the emissions calculation system comprising:
an obtainer that obtains charge information on charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle with first electricity derived from renewable energy, and charging the storage battery with second electricity derived from grid electricity;
a first calculator that calculates a proportion based on the charge information, the proportion being an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery; [mental process/step]
a second calculator that calculates an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle, based on the proportion, a first emission coefficient, and a second emission coefficient, the first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, the second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity; and [mental process/step]
an outputter that outputs the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculates a proportion…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement as to the proportion of renewable energy used to charge a vehicle, which is a mental process under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Further, “calculates an amount…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person performing a simple computation of the amount of carbon dioxide corresponding to the charge amounts of the renewable and grid energy, as well as the emissions of each per charge quantity, which is a mental process under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An emissions calculation system included in at least one of an electric vehicle or a management system that manages the electric vehicle, the emissions calculation system comprising: [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h), Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
an obtainer that [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] obtains charge information on charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle with first electricity derived from renewable energy, and charging the storage battery with second electricity derived from grid electricity; [pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g)]
a first calculator that [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] calculates a proportion based on the charge information, the proportion being an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery;
a second calculator that [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] calculates an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle, based on the proportion, a first emission coefficient, and a second emission coefficient, the first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, the second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity; and
an outputter that [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] outputs the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)].
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an obtainer…,” “obtains charge information…,” “a first calculator…,” “a second calculator…,” “an outputter…,” and “outputs the amount…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the “obtains charge information…” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering charge information data for use in the computations), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “outputs the amount…” limitation is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting the computed carbon dioxide amount), and amounts to mere post solution output of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “obtainer…,” “first calculator…,” “second calculator…,” and “outputter…” are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors and computing components performing generic computer functions of obtaining, calculating, and outputting data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 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 element of using a computing device to perform the computations amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “an obtainer…,” “obtains charge information…,” “an outputter…,” and “outputs the amount…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 3 – 7 & 10 – 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claim 3 recites wherein the charging and emissions information are obtained for a time period, which merely recites instructions to apply the exception under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and thus does not render the claim patent-eligible.
Claim 4 recites wherein the first electricity is generated by a solar power system, which merely constrains the type of information obtained to a specific embodiment, and does not render the claim patent-eligible.
Claim 5 recites wherein the first emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the first electricity which, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, merely indicates receiving information regarding an emissions coefficient and adjusting data based on such, which is a mental process with the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 6 recites wherein the second emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the first electricity which, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, merely indicates receiving information regarding an emissions coefficient and adjusting data based on such, which is a mental process with the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 7 recites wherein the method is implemented using a non-transitory computer readable medium including a program executable by a processor, which, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, merely encompasses instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component, which does not render the claim patent-eligible.
Claims 10 – 14 recite substantially similar limitations as those found in Claims 3 – 7, and are found to not be patent-eligible under similar rationale.
Therefore, dependent claims 3 – 7 & 10 – 14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claims 1, 2, 8, & 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 14 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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 3 & 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "each time period" which is similarly recited by Claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no time period has been introduced for “each” to reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, & 6 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yabe (JP 2010239704 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Yabe discloses: An emissions calculation method comprising: (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0001 & 0016 a greenhouse gas calculation method for calculating greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging an electric vehicle [i.e. an emissions calculation method])
obtaining charge information, using at least one of an electric vehicle or a management system that manages the electric vehicle, the charge information relating to charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle with first electricity derived from renewable energy, and charging the storage battery with second electricity derived from grid electricity; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0009, 0025, & 0026 wherein an information acquisition unit may be included as part of the electric energy calculation unit [i.e. a management system that manages the electric vehicle] which may acquire information including a natural energy power amount [i.e. with first electricity derived from renewable energy] and a grid energy power amount [i.e. second electricity derived from grid electricity], each measured via an associated meter [i.e. charge information is obtained using the management system], as well as information from the vehicle [i.e. the charge information relating to charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle]. At least Paragraphs 0029 & 0040 further describe the acquisition of power breakdown and grid information by the information acquisition unit)
calculating a proportion based on the charge information, using at least one of the electric vehicle or the management system, the proportion being an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0018 & 0029 wherein the greenhouse gas emission calculating device acquires information relating to the breakdown of the charging power, and calculates a ratio of grid power to natural [i.e. renewable] power based on said breakdown information as disclosed in Paragraphs 0031 & 0033 of Yabe [i.e. calculating a proportion that is an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery based on the charge information by the management system])
calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle, based on the proportion, a first emission coefficient, and a second emission coefficient, using at least one of the electric vehicle or the management system, the first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, the second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity; and (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0031 wherein the calculation unit [i.e. management system] may calculate the total greenhouse gas emissions based on the power breakdown information acquired according to the equation of CO2 emissions = Emission basic unit x Electric energy used [i.e. calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle]. At least Paragraph 0031 further discloses a more specific equation, set forth below, which computes total carbon dioxide emissions based on the percentage/ratio of natural [i.e. renewable] power to grid power [i.e. based on the proportion], the CO2 emission basic units of grid and natural power [i.e. a first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, and a second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity])
T
o
t
a
l
C
O
2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
=
{CO2 emission basic unit of grid power (kg / kWh) x percentage of grid power in charging power (%) + CO2 emission basic unit of natural energy power (kg / kWh) x natural energy power in charging power Ratio (%)} × charged electric energy (kWh)
outputting the amount of the carbon dioxide emissions. (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0028 & 0035 wherein the greenhouse gas emission calculation device may include an output unit, which may be configured to output the calculation result to one of a plurality of destinations, such as to a physical computing storage medium, or wirelessly to a server [i.e. outputting the amount of the carbon dioxide emissions])
Regarding Claim 3:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the charge information is performed in each time period; and the outputting of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is performed in the time period.
Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0033 & 0037 wherein the real-time grid power and natural [i.e. renewable] charging power are acquired over a duration from start to end of charging [i.e. over a time period], with the carbon dioxide emissions being computed based on said information as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0029 – 0031, which is then output for each calculation result as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0035 of Yabe [i.e. outputting of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is performed in the time period].
Regarding Claim 4:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 1, wherein the first electricity is generated by a solar power system.
Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0023 wherein the charging system may include a solar cell module, configured to provide the “natural energy” [i.e. the first energy as set forth above] to the vehicle via the charger as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0025 [i.e. the first electricity is generated by a solar power system]
Regarding Claim 6:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 1, wherein the second emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the second electricity.
Yabe discloses in at least Paragraph 0030 wherein a grid power basic information unit corresponding to the amount of CO2 emitted per kilowatt of energy [i.e. the second emission coefficient] may be acquired from a predetermined network server, said grid power emission basic unit being calculated and published each year in consideration of fuel [i.e. wherein the second emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the second electricity].
Regarding Claim 7:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing one or more processors to execute the emissions calculation method according to claim 1.
Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0028 wherein the electric energy calculation method may be implemented on a device, including a CPU [i.e. one or more processors] and memory, said memory including a ROM storing a control program for implementing the calculations [i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing one or more processors to execute the emissions calculation method].
Regarding Claim 8:
Yabe discloses: An emissions calculation system included in at least one of an electric vehicle or a management system that manages the electric vehicle, the emissions calculation system comprising: (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0001 & 0018 a charging system including a greenhouse gas emission calculating device [i.e. an emissions calculation system included in a management system] for calculating greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging an electric vehicle)
an obtainer that obtains charge information on charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle with first electricity derived from renewable energy, and charging the storage battery with second electricity derived from grid electricity; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0009, 0025, & 0026 wherein an information acquisition unit [i.e. an obtainer] may be included as part of the electric energy calculation unit which may acquire information including a natural energy power amount [i.e. with first electricity derived from renewable energy] and a grid energy power amount [i.e. second electricity derived from grid electricity], each measured via an associated meter [i.e. charge information is obtained], as well as information from the vehicle [i.e. the charge information relating to charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle]. At least Paragraphs 0029 & 0040 further describe the acquisition of power breakdown and grid information by the information acquisition unit)
a first calculator that calculates a proportion based on the charge information, the proportion being an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0018 & 0029 wherein the greenhouse gas emission calculating device acquires information relating to the breakdown of the charging power, and calculates a ratio of grid power to natural [i.e. renewable] power based on said breakdown information via a calculation unit [i.e. a first calculator] as disclosed in Paragraphs 0031 & 0033 of Yabe [i.e. calculating a proportion that is an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery based on the charge information])
a second calculator that calculates an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle, based on the proportion, a first emission coefficient, and a second emission coefficient, the first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, the second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity; and (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0031 wherein the calculation unit [i.e. second calculator] may calculate the total greenhouse gas emissions based on the power breakdown information acquired according to the equation of CO2 emissions = Emission basic unit x Electric energy used [i.e. calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle]. At least Paragraph 0031 further discloses a more specific equation, set forth below, which computes total carbon dioxide emissions based on the percentage/ratio of natural [i.e. renewable] power to grid power [i.e. based on the proportion], the CO2 emission basic units of grid and natural power [i.e. a first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, and a second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity])
T
o
t
a
l
C
O
2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
=
{CO2 emission basic unit of grid power (kg / kWh) x percentage of grid power in charging power (%) + CO2 emission basic unit of natural energy power (kg / kWh) x natural energy power in charging power Ratio (%)} × charged electric energy (kWh)
an outputter that outputs the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0028 & 0035 wherein the greenhouse gas emission calculation device may include an output unit [i.e. an outputter], which may be configured to output the calculation result to one of a plurality of destinations, such as to a physical computing storage medium, or wirelessly to a server [i.e. an outputter that outputs the amount of the carbon dioxide emissions])
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(s) 2, 9 - 11, 13, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (JP 2010239704 A) in view of Jang (WO 2020080754 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Yabe discloses: An emissions calculation method comprising: (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0001 & 0016 a greenhouse gas calculation method for calculating greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging an electric vehicle [i.e. an emissions calculation method])
obtaining charge information and…, using at least one of the electric vehicle or a management system that manages the electric vehicle, the charge information relating to charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle with first electricity derived from renewable energy, and charging the storage battery with second electricity derived from grid electricity; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0009, 0025, & 0026 wherein an information acquisition unit may be included as part of the electric energy calculation unit [i.e. a management system that manages the electric vehicle] which may acquire information including a natural energy power amount [i.e. with first electricity derived from renewable energy] and a grid energy power amount [i.e. second electricity derived from grid electricity], each measured via an associated meter [i.e. charge information is obtained using the management system], as well as information from the vehicle [i.e. the charge information relating to charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle]. At least Paragraphs 0029 & 0040 further describe the acquisition of power breakdown and grid information by the information acquisition unit)
calculating a proportion based on the charge information, using at least one of the electric vehicle or the management system, the proportion being an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0018 & 0029 wherein the greenhouse gas emission calculating device acquires information relating to the breakdown of the charging power, and calculates a ratio of grid power to natural [i.e. renewable] power based on said breakdown information as disclosed in Paragraphs 0031 & 0033 of Yabe [i.e. calculating a proportion that is an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery based on the charge information by the management system])
calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle, based on the proportion, a first emission coefficient, a second emission coefficient, and…, using at least one of the electric vehicle or the management system, the first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, the second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity; and (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0031 wherein the calculation unit [i.e. management system] may calculate the total greenhouse gas emissions based on the power breakdown information acquired according to the equation of CO2 emissions = Emission basic unit x Electric energy used [i.e. calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle]. At least Paragraph 0031 further discloses a more specific equation, set forth below, which computes total carbon dioxide emissions based on the percentage/ratio of natural [i.e. renewable] power to grid power [i.e. based on the proportion], the CO2 emission basic units of grid and natural power [i.e. a first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, and a second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity]. Further, At least Paragraph 0032 of Yabe discloses wherein the amount of CO2 emitted while the vehicle is running may be calculated and compared to the equivalent CO2 emissions for a gasoline vehicle, paralleling the computation of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions based on an amount of electricity consumed by an electric vehicle while traveling as set forth in further detail below with respect to teaching reference Jang)
T
o
t
a
l
C
O
2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
=
{CO2 emission basic unit of grid power (kg / kWh) x percentage of grid power in charging power (%) + CO2 emission basic unit of natural energy power (kg / kWh) x natural energy power in charging power Ratio (%)} × charged electric energy (kWh)
outputting the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0028 & 0035 wherein the greenhouse gas emission calculation device may include an output unit, which may be configured to output the calculation result to one of a plurality of destinations, such as to a physical computing storage medium, or wirelessly to a server [i.e. outputting the amount of the carbon dioxide emissions])
Yabe however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the information acquired includes an amount of electricity consumed by an electric vehicle while traveling
Wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the vehicle is further based on the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling
However Jang teaches wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by an electric vehicle may be computed based on a fuel efficiency of the electric vehicle and the charging amount.
Wherein the information acquired includes an amount of electricity consumed by an electric vehicle while traveling (However Jang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0016 & 0055 wherein a carbon emission reduction amount management device may search for and receive vehicle information, including the fuel efficiency and carbon emission coefficient of the electric vehicle, the fuel efficiency being taught in at least Paragraph 0066 to have units of km/kWh [i.e. an amount of energy consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling])
Wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the vehicle is further based on the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling (However Jang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0060 & 0063 – 0066 wherein the carbon emissions from an electric vehicle may be computed based on a charging amount multiplied by an electric vehicle fuel economy [km/kWh] and electric vehicle carbon emission factor [g/km] [i.e. the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the vehicle is further based on the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Yabe by incorporating the computation of CO2 emissions for the electric vehicle based on a fuel economy of the electric vehicle as taught by Jang.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Jang in at least Paragraphs 0055 & 0066, the carbon emissions may be computed for travel of the electric vehicle for a specific distance or charge amount, improving the carbon emission computation over a specific distance or charge usage of travel.
Regarding Claim 9:
Yabe discloses: An emissions calculation system included in at least one of an electric vehicle or a management system that manages the electric vehicle, the emissions calculation system comprising: (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0001 & 0018 a charging system including a greenhouse gas emission calculating device [i.e. an emissions calculation system included in a management system] for calculating greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging an electric vehicle)
an obtainer that obtains charge information and…, the charge information relating to charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle with first electricity derived from renewable energy, and charging the storage battery with second electricity derived from grid electricity; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0009, 0025, & 0026 wherein an information acquisition unit [i.e. an obtainer] may be included as part of the electric energy calculation unit which may acquire information including a natural energy power amount [i.e. with first electricity derived from renewable energy] and a grid energy power amount [i.e. second electricity derived from grid electricity], each measured via an associated meter [i.e. charge information is obtained], as well as information from the vehicle [i.e. the charge information relating to charging a storage battery of the electric vehicle]. At least Paragraphs 0029 & 0040 further describe the acquisition of power breakdown and grid information by the information acquisition unit)
a first calculator that calculates a proportion based on the charge information, the proportion being an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0018 & 0029 wherein the greenhouse gas emission calculating device acquires information relating to the breakdown of the charging power, and calculates a ratio of grid power to natural [i.e. renewable] power based on said breakdown information via a calculation unit [i.e. a first calculator] as disclosed in Paragraphs 0031 & 0033 of Yabe [i.e. calculating a proportion that is an amount of electricity used for the charge with the first electricity out of an amount of electricity used for charging the storage battery based on the charge information])
a second calculator that calculates an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle, based on the proportion, a first emission coefficient, a second emission coefficient, and…, the first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, the second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity; and (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0030 & 0031 wherein the calculation unit [i.e. second calculator] may calculate the total greenhouse gas emissions based on the power breakdown information acquired according to the equation of CO2 emissions = Emission basic unit x Electric energy used [i.e. calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle]. At least Paragraph 0031 further discloses a more specific equation, set forth below, which computes total carbon dioxide emissions based on the percentage/ratio of natural [i.e. renewable] power to grid power [i.e. based on the proportion], the CO2 emission basic units of grid and natural power [i.e. a first emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the renewable energy, and a second emission coefficient being an emission coefficient of carbon dioxide related to the grid electricity]. Further, At least Paragraph 0032 of Yabe discloses wherein the amount of CO2 emitted while the vehicle is running may be calculated and compared to the equivalent CO2 emissions for a gasoline vehicle, paralleling the computation of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions based on an amount of electricity consumed by an electric vehicle while traveling as set forth in further detail below with respect to teaching reference Jang)
T
o
t
a
l
C
O
2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
=
{CO2 emission basic unit of grid power (kg / kWh) x percentage of grid power in charging power (%) + CO2 emission basic unit of natural energy power (kg / kWh) x natural energy power in charging power Ratio (%)} × charged electric energy (kWh)
an outputter that outputs the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0028 & 0035 wherein the greenhouse gas emission calculation device may include an output unit [i.e. an outputter], which may be configured to output the calculation result to one of a plurality of destinations, such as to a physical computing storage medium, or wirelessly to a server [i.e. an outputter that outputs the amount of the carbon dioxide emissions])
Yabe however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the information acquired by the obtainer includes an amount of electricity consumed by an electric vehicle while traveling
Wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the vehicle is further based on the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling
However Jang teaches wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by an electric vehicle may be computed based on a fuel efficiency of the electric vehicle and the charging amount.
Wherein the information acquired includes an amount of electricity consumed by an electric vehicle while traveling (However Jang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0016 & 0055 wherein a carbon emission reduction amount management device may search for and receive vehicle information, including the fuel efficiency and carbon emission coefficient of the electric vehicle, the fuel efficiency being taught in at least Paragraph 0066 to have units of km/kWh [i.e. an amount of energy consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling])
Wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the vehicle is further based on the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling (However Jang teaches in at least Paragraphs 0060 & 0063 – 0066 wherein the carbon emissions from an electric vehicle may be computed based on a charging amount multiplied by an electric vehicle fuel economy and electric vehicle carbon emission factor [i.e. the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the vehicle is further based on the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Yabe by incorporating the computation of CO2 emissions for the electric vehicle based on a fuel economy of the electric vehicle as taught by Jang.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Jang in at least Paragraphs 0055 & 0066, the carbon emissions may be computed for travel of the electric vehicle for a specific distance or charge amount, improving the carbon emission computation over a specific distance or charge usage of travel.
Regarding Claim 10:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 2, further comprising: the obtaining of the charge information is performed in each time period; and the outputting of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is performed in the time period.
Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0033 & 0037 wherein the real-time grid power and natural [i.e. renewable] charging power are acquired over a duration from start to end of charging [i.e. over a time period], with the carbon dioxide emissions being computed based on said information as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0029 – 0031, which is then output for each calculation result as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0035 of Yabe [i.e. outputting of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is performed in the time period].
Regarding Claim 11:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 2, wherein the first electricity is generated by a solar power system.
Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0023 wherein the charging system may include a solar cell module, configured to provide the “natural energy” [i.e. the first energy as set forth above] to the vehicle via the charger as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0025 [i.e. the first electricity is generated by a solar power system]
Regarding Claim 13:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 2, wherein the second emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the second electricity.
Yabe discloses in at least Paragraph 0030 wherein a grid power basic information unit corresponding to the amount of CO2 emitted per kilowatt of energy [i.e. the second emission coefficient] may be acquired from a predetermined network server, said grid power emission basic unit being calculated and published each year in consideration of fuel [i.e. wherein the second emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the second electricity].
Regarding Claim 14:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing one or more processors to execute the emissions calculation method according to claim 2.
Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0028 wherein the electric energy calculation method may be implemented on a device, including a CPU [i.e. one or more processors] and memory, said memory including a ROM storing a control program for implementing the calculations [i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing one or more processors to execute the emissions calculation method].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (JP 2010239704 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lackis (US 2024/0015553 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 1, wherein the first emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the first electricity.
While Yabe discloses in at least Paragraph 0031 wherein the CO2 emission basic unit of natural energy power [i.e. first emission coefficient] may be used to compute total greenhouse gas emissions, Yabe appears to be silent regarding wherein the first emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the first electricity.
However Lackis teaches in at least Paragraphs 0110 – 0112 & 0127 wherein an emission factor or carbon footprint may be measured or determined corresponding to different energy sources and identified from a lookup table, including different emission factors for different renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power [i.e. wherein the first emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the first electricity].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Yabe by incorporating the updating of emission factor based on the energy source generating power as taught by Lackis.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lackis in at least Paragraphs 0110 – 0112, the emissions per unit energy at the base station may be more accurately computed, improving the estimation of emissions utilized by the vehicle when the battery is charged.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (JP 2010239704 A) in view of Jang (WO 2020080754 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lackis (US 2024/0015553 A1).
Regarding Claim 12:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 2, wherein the first emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the first electricity.
While Yabe discloses in at least Paragraph 0031 wherein the CO2 emission basic unit of natural energy power [i.e. first emission coefficient] may be used to compute total greenhouse gas emissions, Yabe appears to be silent regarding wherein the first emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the first electricity.
However Lackis teaches in at least Paragraphs 0110 – 0112 & 0127 wherein an emission factor or carbon footprint may be measured or determined corresponding to different energy sources and identified from a lookup table, including different emission factors for different renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power [i.e. wherein the first emission coefficient is updated according to a type of the first electricity].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Yabe by incorporating the updating of emission factor based on the energy source generating power as taught by Lackis.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lackis in at least Paragraphs 0110 – 0112, the emissions per unit energy at the base station may be more accurately computed, improving the estimation of emissions utilized by the vehicle when the battery is charged.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Kim (US 12,203,762 B2): Kim recites a method for estimating the carbon footprint of a vehicle in real-time, taking into consideration factors such as the carbon emissions of the energy supply chains that supply power to the vehicle. The estimated carbon footprint determined may then be output to a user, such as through a display or the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661