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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are patent eligible for the following reasons.
Step 2A Prong 2
The independent claims as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant respectfully directs the Examiner to the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, specifically "Example 46." In "Example 46," the use of physical hardware, such as an RFID scanner, to collect physical data for subsequent processing and display was found to meaningfully limit the abstract idea, thereby integrating it into a practical application. The physical nature of the data collection hardware was critical to finding the claims eligible at this step because it tied the data processing to a specific, tangible operation rather than a purely mental or mathematical exercise.
Similarly, the amended independent claims apply the calculation in a specific networked environment using physical measurements obtained by a plurality of sensors. The independent claims specifically require that the plurality of sensors include at least a current sensor and a power meter. These are tangible, physical devices analogous to the RFID scanner in "Example 46."
Furthermore, the independent claims require outputting the calculated amount of carbon dioxide emissions specifically to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle. This specific output integrates the calculated data directly into the hardware of the moving vehicle, demonstrating that the independent claims are not mere abstract computations but practical applications tied to specific physical hardware and a localized technical environment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 46, the use of physical hardware, such as an RFID scanner, does not appear to alone integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, Example 46 Claim 3, while found to be eligible, did not appear to base the eligibility on the requirements to use physical sensing devices as asserted by Applicant above. Indeed, as recited in Pages 39 & 40 of the guidance, “Further, steps (b) and (c) are also recited at a high level of generality and represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (the radio frequency reader and processor). Even in combination, these additional elements do not change the computers or other technology recited in the claim. Instead, these additional elements automate the mental processes that the farmer used to perform, using the computer components as a tool. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). While this type of automation improves the daily life of farmers, it does not improve computer functionality.” The eligibility, as recited in Page 40, appears to be found in the limitation of operating a gate control mechanism based on the information obtained.
While Claims 2 & 4 of Example 46 are also found to be eligible, neither appears to have based such a finding on the use of the recited physical hardware. In Claim 2, the eligibility is found based on the application of operating a feed dispenser, which is a practical application [see Page 37] and Claim 4’s eligibility is based on the fact that no judicial exception appears to be recited [see Page 41]. Thus, Examiner is unable to identify a specific tie between the eligibility of the claims at issue in Example 46 and the use of specific sensor units as asserted by the Applicant in Arguments, and Applicant arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Step 2B
For at least similar reasons, the amended independent claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The analysis in "Example 46" establishes that gathering data using specialized physical sensors and employing that data within a specific technical system adds meaningful limitations beyond the abstract idea itself. The combination of these physical and technical limitations ensures that the independent claims do not merely invoke a generic computer to perform generic data processing or output data to a generic display. Instead, the hardware components dictate a specialized configuration that fundamentally alters how the data is obtained and utilized.
The amended independent claims recite an ordered combination of elements requiring a server configured to communicate with a management system comprising a plurality of sensors to obtain physical measurements. The server then utilizes this physical data alongside periodically obtained consumption data to calculate emissions, and subsequently outputs the result directly to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle. Just as demonstrated in "Example 46," utilizing specific physical sensors to acquire data and tying the output to a specific technical environment adds meaningful limits to the claims. This ordered combination of operations imposes meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea and provides significantly more than merely implementing a calculation on a generic computer.
Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the action(s) of taking measurements with sensors, processing the measurements, and outputting the results, appear to encompass an abstract idea without significantly more under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Further, the use of a computing device, such as a server, in the context of the claim encompasses the mere application of the abstract idea using a computing element, which does not render the claim patent-eligible. Further, and as set forth above with respect to Example 46, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the elements in Example 46 that conferred patent-eligibility do not appear to be paralleled in the present claimed invention. Thus, Applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, as well as those set forth below with respect to the specific rejection(s), Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections under 35 USC 101.
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 2 & 9 – 16 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
Claim 2 is directed to a method of computing emissions of a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 2 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Similarly, claim 9 is 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 9 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 9 recites:
An emissions calculation system:
a server configured to communicate with an electric vehicle and a management system that manages charging of the electric vehicle, wherein the server is configured to perform operations comprising:
periodically obtaining, via a network, 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;
periodically obtaining, via the network, an amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while the electric vehicle is traveling;
calculating 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]
calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle, based on the proportion, a first emission coefficient, a second emission coefficient, and the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, 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, [mental process/step]
wherein the charge information is based on physical measurements obtained by a plurality of sensors included in the management system, and the plurality of sensors include at least a current sensor and a power meter; and
outputting, via the network, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle.
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, “calculating 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, “calculating 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: [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h), Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
a server configured to communicate with an electric vehicle and a management system that manages charging of the electric vehicle, wherein the server is configured to perform operations comprising: [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h), Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
periodically obtaining, via a network, 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; [pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g)]
periodically obtaining, via the network, an amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while the electric vehicle is traveling; [pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g)]
calculating 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;
calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the electric vehicle, based on the proportion, a first emission coefficient, a second emission coefficient, and the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, 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,
wherein the charge information is based on physical measurements obtained by a plurality of sensors included in the management system, and the plurality of sensors include at least a current sensor and a power meter; and [pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g), using generic sensors generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h), Apply it, 2106.05(f)]
outputting, via the network, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle. [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 “a server…,” “obtaining… charge information…” “obtaining… an amount of electricity…,” “wherein the charge information…,” “and “outputting…,” 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 “obtaining… charge information…” and “obtaining… an amount of electricity…,” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering charge information data and electricity information data for use in the computations), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “wherein the charge information…” in the context of the claim similarly encompasses the mere collection of data, specifically using generic sensors well-known in the art, and encompasses mere data gathering applied via components in a field of us, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. The “outputting…” 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 “server…” and associated network is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic 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, such as a server, 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 “obtaining… charge information…” “obtaining… an amount of electricity…,” “wherein the charge information…,” “and “outputting…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 10 – 16 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.
Claim 15 recites wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is calculated using the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, the amount of electricity consumed increasing with a travel distance of the electric vehicle, which merely recites specific information used in the computations, and is therefore no more than the abstract idea under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 15, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Therefore, dependent claims 10 – 16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claims 2 & 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 2 & 9 – 16 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 Chen (CN 116890885 A).
Regarding Claim 2:
Yabe discloses: An emissions calculation method (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])
performed by a server that communicates with an electric vehicle and a management system that manages charging of the electric vehicle, the emissions calculation method comprising: (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraph 0030 wherein grid power information may be obtained from a server connected via a network, with at least Paragraphs 0009, 0025, & 0026 wherein an information acquisition unit may further acquire information from a vehicle and charger [i.e. a server that communicates with an electric vehicle and a management system that manages charging of the electric vehicle])
periodically obtaining, via a network, 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, which may take place via a server as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0030 [i.e. the information is periodically obtained via a network])
wherein the charge information is based on physical measurements obtained by a plurality of sensors included in the management system, and the plurality of sensors include… a power meter; (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0026 & 0029 wherein the electric energy calculator may include a plurality of electrical energy meters configured to measure grid and renewable energy amounts, supplied to a charger which supplies power to an electric vehicle [i.e. wherein the charge information is based on physical measurements obtained by a power meter])
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…, 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, via the network, 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, via the network, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions])
Yabe however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the sensors include at least a current sensor and
periodically obtaining, via the network, an amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while the electric vehicle is 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
Wherein the output is directed to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle.
However Chen teaches wherein a vehicle’s emissions may be calculated and presented based on sensed voltage and current characteristics as the vehicle travels.
Wherein the sensors include at least a current sensor and (However Chen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0041, 0080, & 0081 wherein the carbon emissions calculation system may include a current sensor configured to detect the working mode of the vehicle, and compute the corresponding carbon emissions of the vehicle [i.e. wherein the sensors include at least a current sensor])
periodically obtaining, via the network, an amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while the electric vehicle is traveling; (However Chen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0060 wherein a vehicle may collect data from voltage and current sensors at time intervals, the sensor information being used to determine the working mode of the vehicle as taught in at least Paragraphs 0061 & 0063 [i.e. periodically obtaining, via the network, an amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while the electric vehicle is 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 Chen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0064, 0081, & 0082 wherein based on measured voltage and current sensor readings, working modes of the vehicle may be determined and used to calculate the carbon emissions of the vehicle [i.e. 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])
Wherein the output is directed to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle. (However Chen teaches in at least Paragraphs & 0082 wherein the computed carbon emissions may be sent from a train control management system to a vehicle display screen, which is programmed to display the carbon emissions data received [i.e. wherein the output is directed to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle])
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 determination of vehicle emissions based on a sensed electricity usage as taught by Yabe.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Yabe in at least Paragraphs 0060, 0064, & 0082, the vehicle’s operating mode, indicated by the power use, is indicative of carbon emissions in the moment, the determination of such a running state improving the determination of vehicle emissions, which may then be reliably reported to an end-user using a display, improving the informing of emissions to an end-user.
Regarding Claim 9:
Yabe discloses: An emissions calculation system: (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0001 & 0016 a greenhouse gas calculation device for calculating greenhouse gas emissions associated with charging an electric vehicle [i.e. an emissions calculation system])
a server configured to communicate with an electric vehicle and a management system that manages charging of the electric vehicle, wherein the server is configured to perform operations comprising: (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraph 0030 wherein grid power information may be obtained from a server connected via a network, with at least Paragraphs 0009, 0025, & 0026 wherein an information acquisition unit may further acquire information from a vehicle and charger [i.e. a server that communicates with an electric vehicle and a management system that manages charging of the electric vehicle])
periodically obtaining, via a network, 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, which may take place via a server as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0030 [i.e. the information is periodically obtained via a network])
calculating 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 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…, 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, (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)
wherein the charge information is based on physical measurements obtained by a plurality of sensors included in the management system, and the plurality of sensors include at least a… power meter; and (Yabe discloses in at least Paragraphs 0026 & 0029 wherein the electric energy calculator may include a plurality of electrical energy meters configured to measure grid and renewable energy amounts, supplied to a charger which supplies power to an electric vehicle [i.e. wherein the charge information is based on physical measurements obtained by a power meter])
Yabe however appears to be silent regarding:
periodically obtaining, via the network, an amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while the electric vehicle is 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
Wherein the sensors include at least a current sensor and
outputting, via the network, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle.
However Chen teaches wherein a vehicle’s emissions may be calculated and presented based on sensed voltage and current characteristics as the vehicle travels.
periodically obtaining, via the network, an amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while the electric vehicle is traveling; (However Chen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0060 wherein a vehicle may collect data from voltage and current sensors at time intervals, the sensor information being used to determine the working mode of the vehicle as taught in at least Paragraphs 0061 & 0063 [i.e. periodically obtaining, via the network, an amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while the electric vehicle is traveling])
Wherein the sensors include at least a current sensor and (However Chen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0041, 0080, & 0081 wherein the carbon emissions calculation system may include a current sensor configured to detect the working mode of the vehicle, and compute the corresponding carbon emissions of the vehicle [i.e. wherein the sensors include at least a current sensor])
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 Chen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0064, 0081, & 0082 wherein based on measured voltage and current sensor readings, working modes of the vehicle may be determined and used to calculate the carbon emissions of the vehicle [i.e. 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])
outputting, via the network, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle. (However Chen teaches in at least Paragraphs & 0082 wherein the computed carbon emissions may be sent from a train control management system to a vehicle display screen, which is programmed to display the carbon emissions data received [i.e. wherein the output is directed to an electronic control unit of the electric vehicle])
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 determination of vehicle emissions based on a sensed electricity usage as taught by Yabe.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Yabe in at least Paragraphs 0060, 0064, & 0082, the vehicle’s operating mode, indicated by the power use, is indicative of carbon emissions in the moment, the determination of such a running state improving the determination of vehicle emissions, which may then be reliably reported to an end-user using a display, improving the informing of emissions to an end-user.
Regarding Claim 10:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 2, further comprising: the obtaining of the charge information is performed for each of a plurality of time periods; and the outputting of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is performed for each of the plurality of time periods.
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 Chen (CN 116890885 A) 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.
Claim(s) 15 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (JP 2010239704 A) in view of Chen (CN 116890885 A) as applied to claims 2 & 9 above, and further in view of Ratti (US 2012/0172017 A1).
Regarding Claim 15:
The emissions calculation method according to claim 2, wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is calculated using the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, the amount of electricity consumed increasing with a travel distance of the electric vehicle.
Yabe does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is calculated using the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, the amount of electricity consumed increasing with a travel distance of the electric vehicle.
However Ratti teaches in at least Paragraph 0046 wherein the CO2 emissions are computed as a sum of the product between the distance traveled with a transportation mode and a coefficient, with at least Paragraphs 0034 – 0036 of Ratti teaching wherein the distance may be computed based on location information received from a user device at various time intervals [i.e. the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is calculated using the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, the amount of electricity consumed increasing with a travel distance of the electric vehicle].
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 determination of real-time emissions based on travel distance as taught by Ratti.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ratti in at least Paragraphs 0046 & 0054, emissions may be computed based on how far a vehicle has traveled, improving the determination of emissions of a vehicle over a travel interval.
Regarding Claim 16:
The emissions calculation system according to claim 9, wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is calculated using the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, the amount of electricity consumed increasing with a travel distance of the electric vehicle.
Yabe does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is calculated using the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, the amount of electricity consumed increasing with a travel distance of the electric vehicle.
However Ratti teaches in at least Paragraph 0046 wherein the CO2 emissions are computed as a sum of the product between the distance traveled with a transportation mode and a coefficient, with at least Paragraphs 0034 – 0036 of Ratti teaching wherein the distance may be computed based on location information received from a user device at various time intervals [i.e. the amount of carbon dioxide emissions is calculated using the amount of electricity consumed by the electric vehicle while traveling, the amount of electricity consumed increasing with a travel distance of the electric vehicle].
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 determination of real-time emissions based on travel distance as taught by Ratti.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ratti in at least Paragraphs 0046 & 0054, emissions may be computed based on how far a vehicle has traveled, improving the determination of emissions of a vehicle over a travel interval.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights