DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application 18/878,999 filed on 12/26/2024. Examiner notes priority claim to PCT/JP2023/022128 filed 6/14/2023 and JP2022-108867 filed 7/6/2022. IDS filed 4/22/2025, 3/20/2025, 2/3/2025 have been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system). Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claim 12 is directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 1-11 and 13 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 12 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting acquire condition information including information indicating an amount of fuel suppliable to a vehicle to which a produced fuel can be supplied; and generate the production plan including a production time of the fuel and an amount of fuel produced on the basis of the acquired condition information (Example Claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like commercial interactions; and mental processes. The claims recite steps to acquire condition information regarding suppliable fuel and generate a production plan based on the acquired information which is a commercial interaction and mental process. It is understood that the claimed steps aim to solve the problem of the inability to reduce the production cost of hydrogen when hydrogen is produced and stored in a pressure accumulator to be supplied to a FC mobility by generating a production plan with the suppliable amount information (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]-[0006]). By this evidence, the claims recite a type of commercial interactions; and mental processes common to judicial exception to patent-eligibility. By preponderance, the claims recite an abstract idea (e.g., a manufacturing plan generation system).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a production plan generation system; a production device producing fuel according to a production plan generated by the production plan generation system) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to “acquire” condition information and “generate” the production plan (Example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-13 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Joos et al., US 20130317959 A1, hereinafter Joos, in view of
Boisen et al., US 20200346554 A1, hereinafter Boisen. As per,
Claims 1, 12, 13
Joos teaches
A production plan generation system for generating a production plan for fuel for a vehicle, the production plan generation system comprising circuitry configured to: /
A production plan generation method which is a method for operating a production plan generation system generating a production plan for fuel for a vehicle, the production plan generation method comprising: /
A production system comprising: a production plan generation system; and a production device producing fuel according to a production plan generated by the production plan generation system, wherein the production plan generation system generates the production plan for fuel for a vehicle and includes circuitry configured to: (Joos fig. 1 noting the electrolyser 12 corresponding to a production device; [0045] “The grid operator 26 may be a programmable logic controller, computer, or other programmable device” corresponding to the production plan generation system; [0074] “There is also some market for hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles” note the produced hydrogen used as vehicle fuel)
[…];
generate the production plan including a production time of the fuel and an amount of fuel produced on the basis of the acquired condition information. (Joos [0007] “receiving a series of dispatches indicating a specified power consumption for a period of time … The electrolyser is operated according to the dispatches. Hydrogen produced by the electrolyser while operating according to the dispatches;” [0072] “A dispatch order … specifies one or more desired rates of consumption during one or more future times periods” note the electrolyser producing hydrogen corresponding to the fuel; note the electrolyser producing the fuel according to a series of dispatches and the dispatch orders specifying future periods of consumption corresponding to the production plan generated including a production time and amount based on acquired (received dispatches) condition information)
Joos does not explicitly teach, Boisen however in the analogous art of fuel management teaches
acquire condition information including information indicating an amount of fuel suppliable to a vehicle to which a produced fuel can be supplied; and (Boisen [0059] “Below is a list of exemplary data that may be received by the station control module 312 from the vehicle data unit 310 … data related to tank 357 … the tank volume … the following dynamic data is also desirable to receive from the vehicle data unit 310 … a real-time measurement of pressure within the tank(s); a real-time measurement of temperature within the tank;” [0060] “When vehicle 302 arrives at station 306 … a fueling channel is created from hydrogen storage tank 360 to tank 357 … The data communication of exemplary embodiments facilitates or ensures that tank 357 is not overfilled” note the acquired vehicle fuel tank volume and real-time pressure to ensure the tank is not overfilled corresponding to the acquired condition information)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joos’s fuel production system to include information regarding fuel capacity for a vehicle in view of Boisen in an effort to optimize hydrogen vehicle fueling and hydrogen storage (see Boisen ¶ [0049] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 2
Joos teaches
wherein the circuitry sets an upper limit of the amount of fuel produced on the basis of the acquired condition information and generates the production plan. (Joos [0022] “operating an electrolyser has steps of receiving data related to a maximum amount of hydrogen that may be injected into a gas pipeline and a) controlling the electrolyser to consume no more than an amount of electricity that will produce the maximum amount of hydrogen” note the upper bound on hydrogen quantity corresponding to the upper limit of the amount of fuel produced)
Claim 3
Joos teaches
wherein the circuitry acquires the condition information including information indicating an amount of fuel storable in a storage device that is other than the vehicle and can store the produced fuel. (Joos [0055] “Interim storage 52 … is intended primarily to aggregate produced hydrogen” note the interim storage corresponding to the storage device for produced fuel; [0050] “Natural gas system 30 may also comprise one or more reservoirs 36 for storing natural gas outside of the pipelines 34” note the reservoirs for storing produced fuel)
Claim 4
Joos teaches
wherein the circuitry acquires information indicating a production cost of the fuel for each time and generates the production plan also on the basis of the production cost. (Joos [0084] “when one or more of the stack assemblies 80 are operating in a hydrogen production or energy arbitrage mode, the controller 60 may also be programmed to start and stop the one or more stack assemblies 80 such that the one or more stack assemblies 80 are on while electricity is available at or below a specified price” note the programming of fuel production based on the production cost of consuming electricity at that time)
Claim 5
Joos teaches
wherein the produced fuel is hydrogen, and (Joos [0088] “Hydrogen is produced”)
the production cost of the fuel includes a power price. (Joos [0084] “At any time when electricity is available at a price at which the production of hydrogen produces a profit, then all stack assemblies 80 operate at full power” note the production decision tied to a power price/production cost)
Claim 6
Joos does not explicitly teach, Boisen however in the analogous art of fuel management teaches
wherein the circuitry manages an available state of the vehicle according to a supply of the fuel generated on the basis of the generated production plan to the vehicle. (Boisen [0007] “the hydrogen fueling station is configured for controlling the delivery of pressurized hydrogen gas based on the identifying information;” [0059] “the station control module 312 establishes an optimal fueling protocol for fueling the tank 357” note the control module managing the available state of the vehicle when fueling)
The motivation/rationale to combine Joos with Boisen persists.
Claim 7
Joos does not explicitly teach, Boisen however in the analogous art of fuel management teaches
wherein the circuitry determines whether or not there is an available vehicle on the basis of a remaining capacity of a fuel tank of the vehicle corresponding to the supply of the fuel generated on the basis of the generated production plan to the vehicle. (Boisen [0060] “When vehicle 302 arrives at station 306;” [0061] “Based on a communicated signal through either a wireless link or a cable, a signal from vehicle 302 is sent to station 306. The signal may contain a unique ID (based on static data) or static data or dynamic data as mentioned above linked to tank 357 or vehicle 302. Preferably, data linked to the vehicle tank volume and type is utilized” note the vehicle tank information when the vehicle arrives at the station, which includes fuel tank volume capacity)
The motivation/rationale to combine Joos with Boisen persists.
Claim 10
Joos does not explicitly teach, Boisen however in the analogous art of fuel management teaches
wherein the circuitry acquires information, which indicates a remaining capacity of a fuel tank of the vehicle and is transmitted from the vehicle when the vehicle enters a predetermined parking place, as the information indicating the amount of fuel suppliable to the vehicle. (Boisen [0060] “When vehicle 302 arrives at station 306;” [0061] “If a wireless communication is used, data communication channel 314 is preferably automatically established … Based on a communicated signal through either a wireless link or a cable, a signal from vehicle 302 is sent to station 306. The signal may contain a unique ID (based on static data) or static data or dynamic data as mentioned above linked to tank 357 or vehicle 302. Preferably, data linked to the vehicle tank volume and type is utilized” note the wireless link established between the vehicle and station for communicating the vehicle tank information, which includes fuel tank volume capacity)
The motivation/rationale to combine Joos with Boisen persists.
Claim 11
Joos teaches
wherein the circuitry acquires information indicating a fuel production capacity of a production device producing the fuel for the vehicle, and : (Joos fig. 1 noting the electrolyser 12 corresponding to a production device; [0022] “sending a signal to a grid operator indicating a corresponding maximum amount of hydrogen that can be produced” corresponding to the information indidcating a fuel production capacity; [0045] “The grid operator 26 may be a programmable logic controller, computer, or other programmable device” corresponding to the production plan generation system; [0074] “There is also some market for hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles” note the produced hydrogen used as vehicle fuel)
generates the production plan also on the basis of the acquired information indicating the fuel production capacity of the production device. (Joos [0047] “ the amount of electricity carried by each transmission line 18, 20 must be kept below the maximum capacity of each transmission line 18, 20. In FIG. 1, the grid operator 26 is responsible for managing both the balance of production and consumption and transmission constraints;” [0079] “the master controller 60 attempts to operate the DC power supplies 90 such that the electrolyser 12 consumes a specified amount of power … The controller 60 may reduce the power consumed by the DC power supplies 90 by the amount of power required by the balance of plant 94” note the master controller operating the electrolyser according to the balance of the plant to stay below the maximum capacity)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Joos, in view of Boisen, in view of
Alexander et al., US 20110093305 A1, hereinafter Alexander. As per,
Claim 8
Joos / Boisen do not explicitly teach, Alexander however in the analogous art of fuel management teaches
wherein, when it is determined that there is no available vehicle and a storage amount of the generated fuel does not satisfy a condition related to the supply of the fuel to a vehicle used by a predetermined user, the circuitry adds a new constraint related to the supply of the fuel to the vehicle used by the predetermined user and instructs to generate a new production plan. (Alexander [0003] “controlling the rate and schedule according to which hydrogen is produced by one or more hydrogen generation plants available to the vehicle fleet, based upon the fuel inventories, consumption rates and/or refueling patterns of the fleet;” [0031] “A series of calculations (i.e., iterations) is conducted to assign trucks to queues for each of the available fueling stations;” fig. 8 noting the demand forecast for the fuel; [0050] “Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID), can be employed to … regulate the output of fuel production appliances to meet demand … unmanaged plants which run at full capacity to replenish depleted inventory can saturate storage quicker than needed”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joos’s fuel production system and Boisen’s optimized refueling to include dynamically iterating fuel production calculations in view of Alexander in an effort to avoid saturating storage and disposing fuel at a direct value loss (see Alexander ¶ [0050] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Joos, in view of Boisen, in view of
McArthur et al., US 20020132144 A1, hereinafter McArthur. As per,
Claim 9
Joos / Boisen do not explicitly teach, McArthur however in the analogous art of fuel management teaches
wherein the vehicle is a leased vehicle. (McArthur [0145] “the person operating the vehicle on a daily basis may not actually own the vehicle, but typically is obligated to make lease payments;” [0146] “Then, credit for power generated would be payable to the leasing company, and these payments would serve as part payment for the lease of the vehicle. The operator of the vehicle then takes no part in any of the transactions involved in generation of electricity, but would enjoy the benefit of a reduced lease rate”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Joos’s fuel production system and Boisen’s optimized refueling to include leased vehicles in view of McArthur in an effort to offer an income generating component to the leasing company (see McArthur ¶ [0146] & MPEP 2143G).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20210199451-A1; US 20070282495 A1; WO 2023199042 A1; Thanapalan et al., Progress in the development of renewable hydrogen vehicles, storage, infrastructure in the UK: Hydrogen Centre in its early years of operation, 2011.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624