DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on March 17, 2026, for the application with serial number 18/918,204..
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the present claims recite an improvement in the technology of operating a fleet of electric vehicles. See Remarks p. 14. In response, the Examiner submits that the subject matter of the present claims is, at best, tangentially related to a technology or technical field. Operating a fleet of electric vehicles is a business process, and the claims involve a business process. No apparent improvement in the design or performance of electric vehicles is recited in the claims. Instead, the claims recite a process for optimization of logistical considerations in fleet management; recited at a high level of generality. The steps of the claims could be implemented mentally or on paper by a human being. However, a general purpose computer is recited for implementing the process. The concept of “easiness of schedule correction” is recited in the claims, but merely stating that something is easier, or that a schedule is optimized, or more efficient; does not provide a specific manner of improvement. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP §2105.05(a). Merely stating that the process is easier, optimized, or more efficient is merely the idea of a solution or outcome.
The Applicant further submits that the claims are subject matter eligible because the recited process is not conventional. See Remarks pp. 18-20. In response, the Examiner points out that lack of conventionality does not imply subject matter eligibility. An abstract idea without significantly more is just that – an abstract idea – regardless of conventionality. Additional elements outside the scope of the abstract idea of schedule planning have been evaluated, but the additional elements have been found to amount to generic computer hardware. Generic computer hardware does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is maintained.
35 USC §112 Rejections
The rejection of the claims for indefiniteness is maintained; for the reasons set forth in the rejection, below.
35 USC §103 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the prior art rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims(s) 1-11 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, under step 2A, prong one, the claims recite a judicial exception: schedule planning (as evidenced by the preamble of exemplary independent claim 1), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “receive input of a plurality of parameter values;” “plan one or a plurality of schedule combinations based on the plurality of parameter values;” “evaluate . . . an efficiency of transportation . . . and an easiness of schedule correction;” and “output information based on . . . a target schedule combination.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of schedule planning that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of schedule planning. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of schedule planning. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes optimizing the delivery and charging schedule of a fleet of electric vehicles.
Under step 2A, prong two, of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (an apparatus in independent claim 1; and a computer is recited in independent claim 11. Vehicles are also recited, but they do not perform the steps of the claim, and the “apparatus” does not include the vehicles). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). Under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception. Referring to the additional elements provided in the analysis in step one, above, the generic computer hardware does not provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite: “an easiness of schedule correction for determining a correction easiness value.” The term “easiness” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easiness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The definition provided in the claims is circular – “easiness of schedule correction” is used to determine a “correction easiness value.” The Specification provided a similar circular definition. See Specification ¶[0084]. The circular definition does not provide a narrow, objective meaning to the term: “easiness.” The amended language of exemplary independent claim 1 merely states that the correction easiness value is determined based at least on predicted use time of a charger, staying times, and a ratio of traveling distance to cruising distance. Not only is this narrowing language inconsistent with the plain meaning of “correction easiness;” the narrowing language does not provide any bounds on the term. By merely stating a few factors on which the determination is based, the full scope of the determination is not defined. The claims are indefinite. The dependent claims inherit the deficiency.
Conclusion
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 RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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 at 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 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights