DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-20 were originally pending in this application, of which claims 3-8, 11-16, and 19-20 have been amended, no claims were cancelled, and no claims were newly added in the preliminary amendments filed concurrently with the original filing of the application. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 13, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “to EVs in the fleet” but should instead recite --to the plurality of EVs in the fleet--. Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations, and is similarly objected to.
Claim 1 recites “receive trip demand information comprising demand information for unscheduled trips” but should instead recite --receive trip demand information comprising demand information for the unscheduled trips--. Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations, and is similarly objected to.
Claim 2 recites “a specific EV to perform charging during a given time interval… the specific EV” but should instead recite --[[a]] the one or more specific EVs to perform charging during [[a]] the given time interval… the one or more specific EVs--. Claims 10 and 18 recite similar limitations, and is similarly objected to. Claim 5 recites “one or more specific EVs… those EVs” but should instead recite --the one or more specific EVs… the one or more specific EVs--. Claim 13 recites similar limitations, and is similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are 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 1 recites “provide control in relation to operations of the on-demand vehicle fleet, wherein the providing control comprises: generating control information based on the EV information and the trip demand information, wherein the control information comprises EV charging schedule information comprising an indication of one or more specific EVs to perform charging during a given time interval; and transmitting the control information for use by computing devices associated with respective EVs for use in controlling of the EVs” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. If the control information comprises the indication of one or more specific EVs, does the control information still get transmitted to the computing devices of all of the plurality of EVs or just to the computing devices of the specific EVs? The metes and bounds of the claim are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the control information is transmitted to the computing devices of the one or more specific EVs. Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations and are similarly rejected.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 9, and 17, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a system, a method, or a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“A system, comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions; and one or more computer processors configured to execute the instructions to provide control in relation to operations of an on-demand vehicle fleet comprising at least a plurality of electric vehicles (EVs), wherein the on-demand vehicle fleet receives requests for at least some trips that are unscheduled, the instructions to: receive EV information relating to EVs in the fleet; receive trip demand information comprising demand information for unscheduled trips; and provide control in relation to operations of the on-demand vehicle fleet, wherein the providing control comprises: generating control information based on the EV information and the trip demand information, wherein the control information comprises EV charging schedule information comprising an indication of one or more specific EVs to perform charging during a given time interval; and transmitting the control information for use by computing devices associated with respective EVs for use in controlling of the EVs.”
The limitations of generating control information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more computer processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “one or more computer processors” language, generating control information in the context of the claim encompasses a person using available data (EV information such as charge level of multiple vehicles and trip demand information such as a trip requested by another person) and identifying or selecting an EV to make the trip. This type of scheduling logic can be performed in the human mind to select an EV to make each trip based on available data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a computer-readable storage medium with instructions and one or more processors to perform the recited steps. The one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The received EV information and trip demand information is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of gathering data used for the generating step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations of transmitting the control information is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic transmission of information) which is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. As mentioned above, limitations of transmitting the control information is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic transmission of information) which is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 further define the control information which is part of the mental process. A person can select a charger or area to charge a vehicle based on the level of charge of a vehicle.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 further recite receiving prediction information (insignificant extra-solution activity), assessing (part of the mental process, as a person can compare a current charge to the required charge for a trip to determine if the vehicle can make the trip or not), and generating an indication (which is merely a selection or identification of whether the vehicle can make the trip or not).
Claims 4, 12, and 20 further recite setting a lower SOC and indicating when the SOC of the EV is below the lower SOC. This can be performed in the human mind by selecting a lower SOC and comparing the EV SOC to the lower SOC to determine if the vehicle needs to be charged.
Claims 5 and 13 further recite receiving feedback and generating future control information based on the feedback. The step of receiving feedback is considered insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering which is used in the generating step. The generating future control information can be performed in the human mind by, for example, adjusting to a different charging station when a driver ignores a suggestion for a certain charging station.
Claims 6 and 14 recite that the control information includes an area where the EV is recommended to await a future trip. A person can mentally decide and suggest where to wait.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the details of the trip demand information that is received (insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering).
Claims 8 and 16 recite performing receding horizon optimization which is claim at a high level of generality and under broadest reasonable interpretation is considered a mathematical process.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan (p2Charging: Proactive Partial Charging for Electric Taxi Systems, a copy of which was provided with the IDS received on 1/17/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan discloses a system, comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions; and one or more computer processors configured to execute the instructions to provide control in relation to operations of an on-demand vehicle fleet comprising at least a plurality of electric vehicles (EVs), wherein the on-demand vehicle fleet receives requests for at least some trips that are unscheduled (see at least pages 688 and 690 – Fig. 5 shows the charging framework including taxi dispatch and charging scheduler), the instructions to: receive EV information relating to EVs in the fleet (see at least page 690 – taxi mobility and status); receive trip demand information comprising demand information for unscheduled trips (see at least page 690 – passenger demand); and provide control in relation to operations of the on-demand vehicle fleet, wherein the providing control comprises: generating control information based on the EV information and the trip demand information, wherein the control information comprises EV charging schedule information comprising an indication of one or more specific EVs to perform charging during a given time interval; and transmitting the control information for use by computing devices associated with respective EVs for use in controlling of the EVs (see at least page 690 – In p2Charging, taxi scheduler periodically updates the status of current working e-taxis, e.g., location, remaining energy and occupancy status, according to the uploaded e-taxis' status and then schedules when, where and how long to charge them to meet spatiotemporal passenger demand. E-taxis follow the charging decisions obtained from the taxi scheduler to charge their battery. The taxi scheduler uses both passenger demand and taxi supply model and charging supply/demand model to make scheduling decisions.).
Regarding claim 2, Yuan discloses wherein the control information comprises, in relation to a specific EV to perform charging during a given time interval, at least one of: an identification of a charger to use for the charging; and an identification of a geographic area in which the specific EV is to perform charging (see at least pages 690-691 - schedules when, where and how long to charge to meet spatiotemporal passenger demand… location of the charging stations).
Regarding claim 6, Yuan discloses wherein the control information comprises an identification of a geographic area in which an EV is recommended to await a future trip (see at least pages 688 and 694-695 - we propose a charging scheduling framework for e-taxis to meet dynamic passenger demand in spatial-temporal dimensions as much as possible while minimizing idle time to travel to charging stations and waiting time at charging stations… select the e-taxi and charging station pair with the minimum idle driving time and waiting time).
Regarding claim 7, Yuan discloses wherein the trip demand information includes trip demand prediction information relating to predicted trip demand (see at least page 688 - Our solution utilizes predicted passenger demand and estimated waiting time at charging stations to find the global optimal charging decisions.).
Regarding claim 8, Yuan discloses wherein the generating control information comprises performing a receding horizon optimization for an optimization horizon having a plurality of time intervals, wherein the given time interval of the indication is associated with one of the plurality of time intervals (see at least pages 689, 691-692, and 694 - To address this problem, we design a receding horizon based scheduling algorithm that utilizes predicted passenger demand and waiting time at charging stations to find the global optimal charging schedules for all e-taxis.).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 14-18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-2 and 6-8, and it has been determined that claims 9-10 and 14-18 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-2 and 6-8; therefore, claims 9-10 and 14-18 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-2 and 6-8.
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 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.
Claims 3-4, 11-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Kumar (US 2024/0027199 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further to: receive or generate prediction information relating to a predicted amount of energy required for an EV to complete a specific trip; assess whether the EV has sufficient energy to complete the trip based on SOC information of the EV; and generate in response to an assessment that the EV does not have sufficient energy, an indication in the control information not authorizing the EV to perform the trip, and generate, in response to an assessment that the EV has sufficient energy, an indication in the control information authorizing the EV to perform the trip.
Kumar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions are further to: receive or generate prediction information relating to a predicted amount of energy required for an EV to complete a specific trip (see at least [0136-0140] - evaluate a travel distance required for the EV if assigned the new delivery… the travel distance may then be used to calculate an energy metric associated with estimated energy expenditure for the EV to pickup the new delivery); assess whether the EV has sufficient energy to complete the trip based on SOC information of the EV (see at least [0136-0140] – determine if the charge level of the EV is sufficient); and generate in response to an assessment that the EV does not have sufficient energy, an indication in the control information not authorizing the EV to perform the trip, and generate, in response to an assessment that the EV has sufficient energy, an indication in the control information authorizing the EV to perform the trip (see at least [0103] - The dynamic scheduling may receive feedback associated with the charge levels of the first and second EVs and determine that the first EV has insufficient charge to complete its current deliveries and the new delivery while the second EV has sufficient charge to complete its current deliveries and the new delivery. Under these circumstances the new delivery may be assigned to the second EV since the first EV has an insufficient charge level to accommodate all assigned deliveries and the new delivery.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kumar into the invention of Yuan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to dynamically optimize scheduling, reduce energy expenditure, and increase sustainability for a fleet of EVs (Kumar – [0026, 0133]).
Regarding claim 4, Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further to set a lower state of charge (SOC) threshold based on the trip demand information, and wherein the generating control information comprises generating an indication of an EV to perform charging on the basis that a SOC of the EV is below the lower state of charge (SOC) threshold.
Kumar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions are further to set a lower state of charge (SOC) threshold based on the trip demand information, and wherein the generating control information comprises generating an indication of an EV to perform charging on the basis that a SOC of the EV is below the lower state of charge (SOC) threshold (see at least [0136-0140] - The dynamic scheduling may then determine whether current charge level of the EV is sufficient to accommodate the energy metric and complete its existing deliveries. If the energy metric is too large (i.e., the EV does not have sufficient charge level to complete its existing deliveries and the new delivery), the dynamic scheduling may determine whether a charging station is proximate the location of the EV, the new delivery, or both and may determine whether to assign the new delivery to the EV based on availability of a charging station or lack thereof.).
The motivation to combine Yuan and Kumar is the same as in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 19-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 3-4, and it has been determined that claims 11-12 and 19-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 3-4; therefore, claims 11-12 and 19-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 3-4.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Montealegre (US 2005/0102098 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further to: receive feedback information associated with one or more specific EVs in response to prior control information transmitted in association with those EVs, the feedback information comprising an indication of a level of compliance with the prior control information, and wherein the generating control information for a future time period is performed based on the feedback information.
Montealegre, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions are further to: receive feedback information associated with one or more specific EVs in response to prior control information transmitted in association with those EVs, the feedback information comprising an indication of a level of compliance with the prior control information, and wherein the generating control information for a future time period is performed based on the feedback information (see at least [0050] - After the driver of the vehicle ignores the route calculated by the route calculation module 204 a predetermined number of times, the AI module 210 sets the calculated route to that particular destination to the preferred route used by the driver.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Montealegre into the invention of Yuan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to prevent frustrating the driver by taking into account driver habits and preferences, and to learn new roads or correcting mistakes in the stored map (Montealegre - [0010-0011]). Montealegre demonstrates that the concept of identifying driver compliance with a suggestion and modifying a future suggestion is considered to be obvious and advantageous. Applying Montealegre’s teachings to Yuan’s invention is applying a known technique to a known system which is ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Ramirez (US 2024/0157828 A1) is directed to systems and methods for generating instructions for a mobile electric vehicle (EV) charging station to meet an EV at a particular time and place. In one implementation, EV trip data including a remaining range of the EV and an intended route of the EV is collected to determine a range of locations that the EV can stop at along its route without running out of power. Instructions to one of the locations are generated for a mobile EV charging station that is a best fit for arriving at the particular location and for the EV to reach the same location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669