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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14May2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Pending
1-20
Withdrawn
11-19
101
1-10, and 20
103
1-10, and 20
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 11-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09March2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 09March2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is insufficient evidence that a human can charge electric vehicles by hand without charging stations. This is not found persuasive because the restriction wasn't for a human being able to charge an EV by hand without a charging station. The restriction was for the scheduling, a human can perform all of the claimed scheduling by hand using a whiteboard or paper. Claims 1-10, and 20 uses a computer to manage the scheduling while claims 11-19 don't.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1-10 are directed towards a process and claim 20 is directed towards a composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a Prong 1
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 20, the claim recites, in part, limitations that constitute a “mental process”. The limitations of selecting, determining, and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and 20, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1 and 20, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 and 20 above.
Step 2a Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a generic computing component(s) or automations to perform both the generic computing functions in the claim(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components and automations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and automations cannot provide 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar US 20240027199 in view of Mason US 20110238457.
Kumar discloses,
Claims 1 and 20; A facility comprising: a plurality of charging stations operational to charge a plurality of fleet electric vehicles per a schedule([0051] The scheduling system 102 may transmit the vehicle-to-order scheduling data 140 to a vehicle storage facility where the vehicles are also charged), wherein the plurality of fleet electric vehicles are operational to perform a plurality of tasks on a plurality of routes dispersed over a plurality of days([0051] Discloses a plurality of vehicles and routes the vehicles take to perform deliveries, [0092] - [0095] Discloses that the scheduling is based on multiple days and condition of the days); and a computer in communication with the plurality of charging stations and operational to generate the schedule to charge the plurality of fleet electric vehicles over the plurality of days with a two-stage process([0014] Discloses a computer that performs operation for the scheduling system), wherein the schedule is based on: a first number of the plurality of charging stations ready to charge([0121] Charging scheduling may be performed based on a number of charging stations); a second number of the plurality of fleet electric vehicles ready to be charged([0119] The scheduling system 102 may also consider vehicle-to-vehicle interactions, such as simultaneous charging requests by EVs); a plurality of state-of-charges in the plurality of fleet electric vehicle upon arrival at the facility and already present at the facility([0039] The scheduling system uses several datapoints when managing the vehicles and the state of charge is one of them).
Claims 2 and 20; A first stage operational to perform a plurality of searches in a combinatorial search tree to determine a complete assignment mapping of the plurality of fleet electric vehicles suited to perform the plurality of tasks([0065] The method 200 may further include determining whether spare capacity exists in one or more scheduled vehicles, at 216. If one or more scheduled vehicles have spare capacity, the method 200 may further include searching for one or more orders to be scheduled for the one or more vehicles); and a second stage operational to perform a scheduling process that determines the schedule to charge the plurality of fleet electric vehicles over the plurality f days based on the complete assignment mapping([0065] If no scheduled vehicles have spare capacity, the method 200 may include determining when the vehicles are to be charged, at 218. For example, the vehicle order mapping engine 134 may determine when the vehicles are to be charged based on the one or more charging parameters 120).
Claim 4; Wherein the complete assignment mapping is flexible to trade off a peak demand charging value and a time-of-use charging value while satisfying the plurality of tasks([0121] A charging scheduling model may consider an actual quantity of charging stations to reduce charging cost and to guarantee the charging demand of each EV).
Claim 5; Wherein the computer is further operational to: solve a value-minimizing aggregate for the complete assignment mapping with the scheduling process([0095] An average permissible amount of leeway (or flexibility) associated with an order O.sub.j along route R.sub.k on day D.sub.1 may be indicated as α.sub.jkl. An average permissible amount of leeway (or flexibility) associated with an order O.sub.j along route R.sub.k on any day may be indicated as μ.sub.jkl. In some examples, μ.sub.jkl may have the same value as α.sub.jkl).
Claim 8; Wherein the computer is further operational to: skip completion of one or more partial candidate complete assignment mappings that utilize higher peak power than a previously found candidate complete assignment mapping during the plurality of searches to determine the complete assignment mapping([0050] The scheduling system 102 may complete (e.g., finalize) an assignment for the EV 182. To further illustrate, the scheduling system 102 may perform the reverse logistics operation based on one or more of a delivery distance associated with the at least one other delivery, a volume associated with the at least one other delivery, or a weight associated with the at least one other delivery, such as by comparing the delivery distance to a remaining charge capacity or remaining distance capacity of the EV 182, by comparing the volume to a remaining volume capacity of the EV 182, by comparing the weight to a remaining weight capacity of the EV 182, based on a current location of the EV 182, or a combination thereof).
Claim 9; Wherein the computer is further operational to: finalize the complete assignment mapping; and perform the scheduling process a single time in response to the complete assignment mapping as finalized([0135] To illustrate, the status information may indicate one or more completed deliveries and one or more incomplete deliveries. The dynamic scheduling may use the status information to determine a current location of the EV, such as by determining the last completed delivery location and a next scheduled delivery location, which may indicate an approximate location of the EV (e.g., the EV is between the location of the completed delivery and the location of the next scheduled delivery)).
Claim 10; Wherein the computer is further operational to present the schedules in a human readable form([0031] the scheduling system 102 includes one or more input/output (I/O) devices that include one or more display devices, a keyboard, a stylus, one or more touchscreens).
However, Kumar fails to disclose:
Claims 1 and 20; A plurality of energy consumption levels associated with the plurality of routes; and wherein the two-stage process.
Claim 7; Wherein the computer is further operational to: skip one or more conflicting tasks among the plurality of tasks in the plurality of searches.
Mason teaches a similar device in the same field of vehicle charging and scheduling.
Mason teaches,
Claims 1 and 20; A plurality of energy consumption levels associated with the plurality of routes; and wherein the two-stage process([0021] Vehicle fleets can also benefit from considering routes that reduce fuel or other energy consumption and [0101] for a fleet of J vehicles required to make M total stops, the routing module 200 can identify a preferred route for each vehicle J having N stops that has the lowest energy use estimate).
Claim 7; Wherein the computer is further operational to: skip one or more conflicting tasks among the plurality of tasks in the plurality of searches([0075] In some embodiments, the time component of a cost function can be affected by, but is not limited to, the following: estimated transit time (which may include duration and/or time of day of start of travel), road closure information, road restrictions, hazardous weather information, mandatory break times, scheduling conflicts).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of energy consumption levels associated with the plurality of routes; and wherein the two-stage process as taught by Mason, for the purpose of allocating multiple vehicles to multiple routes more efficiently.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the computer is further operational to: skip one or more conflicting tasks among the plurality of tasks in the plurality of searches as taught by Mason, for the purpose of avoiding wasting time and having to rearrange the schedule when a conflict happens.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Merino whose telephone number is (703)756-4721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/John C Merino/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
