CTFR 18/978,153 CTFR 90658 DETAILED ACTION In the response filed February 25, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 4-7, and 9-11; and canceled claims 2 and 3. Claims 1 and 4-11 are pending in the current application. Notice of AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claim 9 was objected to for informalities. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the objection from the previous Office action. Claim 11 was rejected as being indefinite. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the rejection from the previous Office action Applicant’s arguments for claims 1 and 4-11 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception as it recites control of physical vehicle movement within an industrial facility based on hardware configuration of the vehicle. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the claims merely “acquire type information,” “determine a route,” and “provide an instruction to the first and second vehicles.” The claims do not recite any control or movement of physical vehicles. Applicant further argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception as the determined route is a route that is tied to specific physical structures and physical travel paths. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As much as the determined route is a route through specific paths, the claims merely determine and provide such routes. Nothing in the claim language recites or requires the vehicle to travel along these routes. These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining and providing a route to vehicles based on acquired information, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive and as such the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained. Applicant’s arguments for claims 1 and 4-11 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 and 4-11 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 significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1 and 4-9 is drawn to a machine and claim 10 is drawn to a process, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES). Claim 11 is directed to a vehicle, which is a machine. However, no structure is claimed for the machine. As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. While the route determination apparatus is recited in claim 11, the claim does not recite that the vehicle comprises of the route determination apparatus. Claim 11 is therefore deemed to be directed to non-statutory subject matter where there is no indication that the propo se d product is recorded on a computer-readable medium and/or capable of execution by a computer. See MPEP 2106.03. Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. Claim 1 (representative of claims 10 and 11) recites/describes the following steps: “acquire type information as to whether a vehicle is equipped with a power feeding port or not, the type information indicating the vehicle is a first vehicle including a power feeding port, or a second vehicle including an engine and no power feeding port;” “determine a route along which the first vehicle or the second vehicle travels by itself or is towed based on the type information;” and “provide an instruction to the first and second vehicles, wherein the route is from a manufacturing plant to a yard, wherein the route of the first vehicle includes a power feeding apparatus on the route, and wherein the route of the second vehicle includes no power feeding apparatus on the route.” These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining and providing a route to vehicles based on acquired information, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES). Dependent claim 4 recites “transmit the determined route to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle,” which is analyzed in the steps below. Dependent claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “create a control instruction value for the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route;” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites the additional element of “transmit the control instruction value to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, the vehicle towing the first vehicle, or the vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route,” which is analyzed in the steps below. Dependent claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “instruct the first and second vehicles at a vehicle manufacturing plant or at a port where vehicles are loaded onto a ship,” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 6 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations. Dependent claim 7 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitations “acquire State of Charge (SOC) information of the first vehicle; and, determine a route based on the information and the SOC information,” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 7 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations. Dependent claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein when the SOC of the first vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined value, the route of the first vehicle is a route including a power feeding apparatus thereon,” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 8 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations. Dependent claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “when at least one of a condition that the vehicle is the second vehicle and a condition that the vehicle is the first vehicle of which the SOC is equal to or higher than a predetermined value is satisfied, the route of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is a route including no power feeding apparatus thereon,” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 9 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations. Step 2A – Prong Two: The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a route determination apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor,” (claim 1); “a first vehicle,” and “a second vehicle,” (claims 1 and 10); “a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle,” (claim 4); and “a vehicle configured to tow a first vehicle,” (claim 11). The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a route determination apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor,” (claim 1); “a first vehicle,” and “a second vehicle,” (claims 1 and 10); “a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle,” (claim 4); and “a vehicle configured to tow a first vehicle,” (claim 11), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f). The dependent claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “transmit the determined route to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle,” (claim 4); and “transmit the control instruction value to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, the vehicle towing the first vehicle, or the vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route,” (claim 5). The recited additional elements of “transmit the determined route to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle,” (claim 4); and “transmit the control instruction value to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, the vehicle towing the first vehicle, or the vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route,” (claim 5), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Remaining dependent claims 6-9 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO). Step 2B: As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a route determination apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor,” (claim 1); “a first vehicle,” and “a second vehicle,” (claims 1 and 10); “a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle,” (claim 4); and “a vehicle configured to tow a first vehicle,” (claim 11), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f). As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “transmit the determined route to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle,” (claim 4); and “transmit the control instruction value to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, the vehicle towing the first vehicle, or the vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route,” (claim 5), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of user interfaces. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) , and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) , which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Remaining dependent claims 6-9 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable by Driscoll et al. (US 2016/0035001 A1), hereinafter Driscoll, in view of Braunstein (US 2023/0168684 A1). Regarding claim 1 , Driscoll discloses a route determination apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Par. [0029], User device 110 , wireless beacons 130 , fuel provider device 140 , and payment provider server 160 may each include one or more processors, memories, and other appropriate components for executing instructions), wherein the processor is configured to: determine a route (Par. [0104], determines a route based on the vehicle information, and provides route guidance to the in-vehicle system) along which the first vehicle or the second vehicle travels by itself or is towed based on the type information (Par. [0013], The vehicle may be a conventionally driven car, or feature autonomous and/or automatic driving – “the first vehicle or the second vehicle travels by itself”); and provide an instruction to the first and second vehicles (Par. [0104], user 102 is provided route guidance to the selected fuel provider location. In an embodiment, the in-vehicle system provides route guidance using location components 122 . In some embodiments, payment provider server 160 determines a route based on the vehicle information, and provides route guidance to the in-vehicle system), wherein the route of the first vehicle includes a power feeding apparatus on the route (Par. [0098], the onboard application may detect that the vehicle is an electric car and only suggest electric charging stations), and wherein the route of the second vehicle includes no power feeding apparatus on the route (Par. [0098], For example, for vehicle 202 that requires a special type of fuel, the onboard application may only suggest fuel provider locations 204 that have the desired fuel – vehicles that require only gas are suggested only stations that have the desired fuel type). Driscoll does not explicitly disclose acquire type information as to whether a vehicle is equipped with a power feeding port or not, the type information indicating the vehicle is a first vehicle including a power feeding port, or a second vehicle including an engine and no power feeding port and wherein the route is from a manufacturing plant to a yard. Braunstein teaches acquire type information as to whether a vehicle is equipped with a power feeding port or not, the type information indicating the vehicle is a first vehicle including a power feeding port, or a second vehicle including an engine and no power feeding port (Par. [0108], an indication of a type of the energy transfer port 110 of the machine 102 , and/or other information associated with the machine 102 . The service controller 118 can also, or alternately, determine attributes of the machine 102 based on a stored profile associated with a model type of the machine 102 , based on previous information sent to and/or received from the machine 102 , and/or based on any other data), and wherein the route is from a manufacturing plant to a yard (Par. [0081], route determined from a first location to a second location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route determination system of Driscoll to include the power feeding port and route determination abilities of Braunstein to teach “acquire type information as to whether a vehicle is equipped with a power feeding port or not, the type information indicating the vehicle is a first vehicle including a power feeding port, or a second vehicle including an engine and no power feeding port and wherein the route is from a manufacturing plant to a yard,” since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transfer port attribute determination abilities of Braunstein for the charge type or fuel determination abilities of Driscoll. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Regarding claim 4 , Driscoll and Braunstein disclose the route determination apparatus according to claim 1. Driscoll also discloses transmit the determined route to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle (Par. [0104], user 102 is provided route guidance to the selected fuel provider location. In an embodiment, the in-vehicle system provides route guidance using location components 122 . In some embodiments, payment provider server 160 determines a route based on the vehicle information, and provides route guidance to the in-vehicle system). Regarding claim 5 , Driscoll and Braunstein disclose the route determination apparatus according to claim 1. Driscoll does not explicitly disclose create a control instruction value for the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route; and transmit the control instruction value to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, the vehicle towing the first vehicle, or the vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route. Braunstein teaches create a control instruction value for the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route; and transmit the control instruction value to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, the vehicle towing the first vehicle, or the vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route (Par. [0070], Based on the operation data, the service controller 118 can send instructions to autonomously control the machine 102 and/or the service vehicle 104 , to coordinate driving operations of the machine 102 and the service vehicle 104 such that the target separation distance 128 can be maintained between the machine 102 and the service vehicle 104 during convoy travel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route determination system of Driscoll to include the route determination abilities of Braunstein to teach “create a control instruction value for the first vehicle, the second vehicle, a vehicle towing the first vehicle, or a vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route; and transmit the control instruction value to the first vehicle, the second vehicle, the vehicle towing the first vehicle, or the vehicle towing the second vehicle based on the determined route,” since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transfer port attribute determination abilities of Braunstein for the charge type or fuel determination abilities of Driscoll. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Regarding claim 6 , Driscoll and Braunstein discloses the route determination apparatus according to claim 1. Driscoll does not explicitly disclose wherein the instruction unit instructs the first and second vehicles at a vehicle manufacturing plant or at a port where vehicles are loaded onto a ship. Braunstein teaches wherein the instruction unit instructs the first and second vehicles at a vehicle manufacturing plant or at a port where vehicles are loaded onto a ship (Par. [0081], route determined from a first location to a second location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route determination system of Driscoll to include the route determination abilities of Braunstein to teach wherein the instruction unit instructs the first and second vehicles at a vehicle manufacturing plant or at a port where vehicles are loaded onto a ship,” since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transfer port attribute determination abilities of Braunstein for the charge type or fuel determination abilities of Driscoll. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Regarding claim 7 , Driscoll and Braunstein discloses the route determination apparatus according to claim 1. Driscoll also discloses further comprising an SOC (State of Charge) information acquisition unit configured to acquire SOC information of the first vehicle (Par. [0046], Onboard diagnostics and status components 124 comprises onboard sensors that detect and/or monitor fuel level, fuel consumption rate, fluid levels, tire pressures, and other vehicle information), wherein the route determination unit determines a route based on the information and the SOC information (Par. [0104], user 102 is provided route guidance to the selected fuel provider location. In an embodiment, the in-vehicle system provides route guidance using location components 122 . In some embodiments, payment provider server 160 determines a route based on the vehicle information, and provides route guidance to the in-vehicle system). Regarding claim 10 , Driscoll discloses a route determination method comprising: determining a route (Par. [0104], determines a route based on the vehicle information, and provides route guidance to the in-vehicle system) along which the first vehicle or the second vehicle travels by itself or is towed based on the type information (Par. [0013], The vehicle may be a conventionally driven car, or feature autonomous and/or automatic driving – “the first vehicle or the second vehicle travels by itself”); and providing an instruction to the first and second vehicles (Par. [0104], user 102 is provided route guidance to the selected fuel provider location. In an embodiment, the in-vehicle system provides route guidance using location components 122 . In some embodiments, payment provider server 160 determines a route based on the vehicle information, and provides route guidance to the in-vehicle system), wherein the route of the first vehicle includes a power feeding apparatus on the route (Par. [0098], the onboard application may detect that the vehicle is an electric car and only suggest electric charging stations), and wherein the route of the second vehicle includes no power feeding apparatus on the route (Par. [0098], For example, for vehicle 202 that requires a special type of fuel, the onboard application may only suggest fuel provider locations 204 that have the desired fuel – vehicles that require only gas are suggested only stations that have the desired fuel type). Driscoll does not explicitly disclose acquiring type information as to whether a vehicle is equipped with a power feeding port or not, the type information indicating the vehicle is a first vehicle including a power feeding port, or a second vehicle including an engine and no power feeding port and wherein the route is from a manufacturing plant to a yard. Braunstein teaches acquiring type information as to whether a vehicle is equipped with a power feeding port or not, the type information indicating the vehicle is a first vehicle including a power feeding port, or a second vehicle including an engine and no power feeding port (Par. [0108], an indication of a type of the energy transfer port 110 of the machine 102 , and/or other information associated with the machine 102 . The service controller 118 can also, or alternately, determine attributes of the machine 102 based on a stored profile associated with a model type of the machine 102 , based on previous information sent to and/or received from the machine 102 , and/or based on any other data), and wherein the route is from a manufacturing plant to a yard (Par. [0081], route determined from a first location to a second location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route determination system of Driscoll to include the power feeding port and route determination abilities of Braunstein to teach “acquire type information as to whether a vehicle is equipped with a power feeding port or not, the type information indicating the vehicle is a first vehicle including a power feeding port, or a second vehicle including an engine and no power feeding port and wherein the route is from a manufacturing plant to a yard,” since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transfer port attribute determination abilities of Braunstein for the charge type or fuel determination abilities of Driscoll. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll (US 2016/0035001 A1) in view of Braunstein (US 2026/0168684 A1) and Ricci (US 2017/0136894 A1) . Regarding claim 11 , Driscoll and Braunstein do not explicitly disclose a vehicle configured to tow the first vehicle along a route determined by the route determination apparatus according to claim 1. Ricci teaches a vehicle configured to tow the first vehicle along a route determined by the route determination apparatus according to claim 1 (Par. [0079], it is an aspect of the present disclosure that a number of vehicles may be selectively coupled together to share energy, increase power output, provide security, decrease power consumption, provide towing services, and/or provide a range of other benefits). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route determination system of Driscoll and Braunstein to include the tow vehicle limitation of Ricci to teach “a vehicle configured to tow the first vehicle along a route determined by the route determination apparatus,” since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll (US 2016/0035001 A1) in view of Braunstein (US 2026/0168684 A1) and Jackson et al. (US 2018/0045533 A1), hereinafter Jackson . Regarding claim 8 , Driscoll and Braunstein disclose the route determination apparatus according to claim 7. Driscoll and Braunstein do not explicitly disclose wherein when the SOC of the first vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined value, the route of the first vehicle is a route including a power feeding apparatus thereon. Jackson teaches wherein when the SOC of the first vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined value, the route of the first vehicle is a route including a power feeding apparatus thereon (Par. [0035], If the SOC is below a pre-defined threshold distance that the vehicle must travel to arrive at a destination, the vehicle may delay outputting guidance, or output guidance but notify a user of a charging station). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the route determination system of Driscoll and Braunstein to include state of charge threshold abilities as taught in Jackson as a need exists to allow vehicles to efficiently arrive at their determined locations (Jackson, Par. [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the charging system of Driscoll and Braunstein to include state of charge threshold abilities as taught in Jackson to teach “wherein when the SOC of the first vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined value, the route of the first vehicle is a route including a power feeding apparatus thereon,” since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 9 , Driscoll and Braunstein disclose the route determination apparatus according to claim 7. Driscoll and Braunstein also disclose wherein when at least one of a condition that the vehicle is the second vehicle (Driscoll, Par. [0098], For example, for vehicle 202 that requires a special type of fuel, the onboard application may only suggest fuel provider locations 204 that have the desired fuel – vehicles that require only gas are suggested only stations that have the desired fuel type). Driscoll and Braunstein do not explicitly disclose a condition that the vehicle is the first vehicle of which the SOC is equal to or higher than a predetermined value is satisfied, the route of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is a route including no power feeding apparatus thereon. Jackson teaches a condition that the vehicle is the first vehicle of which the SOC is equal to or higher than a predetermined value is satisfied, the route of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is a route including no power feeding apparatus thereon (Par. [0044], If no charge is needed, the charging station or cloud may continue communication with the vehicle to periodically receive or send data or other information. In certain scenarios, the cloud or charging station may receive a message or determine that the vehicle currently requires a charge or may require a charge in the future. For example, the vehicle may require a charge to proceed to the vehicle's route). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the charging system of Driscoll and Braunstein to include state of charge threshold abilities as taught in Jackson as a need exists to allow vehicles to efficiently arrive at their determined locations (Jackson, Par. [0037]). obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the charging system of Ricci and Braunstein to include state of charge threshold abilities as taught in Jackson to teach “wherein when at least one of a condition that the vehicle is the second vehicle and a condition that the vehicle is the first vehicle of which the SOC is equal to or higher than a predetermined value is satisfied, the route of the first vehicle or the second vehicle is a rout including no power feeding apparatus thereon,” since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Prior Art of Record The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Meroux et al. (US 2024/0067031 A1) discloses a system for transmitting a charging recommendation from a cloud-based server to an electric vehicle (EV), where the charging recommendation includes preferred options for charging stations and/or charging times. In one example, a method comprises receiving, at a cloud-based charging recommendation system of an EV charging system, a set of battery charging parameters from the EV via a secure anonymous connection; determining a set of candidate charging stations for the EV, based on the received battery charging parameters; estimating sustainability, cost, and preference metrics for each candidate charging station; ranking the future charge events based on the sustainability, cost, and preference metrics; selecting one or more charge options for the EV from the ranked future charge events; generating the charging recommendation with the one or more charge options; and transmitting the charging recommendation to the EV via the secure anonymous connection. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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. /Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 2 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 3 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 4 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 5 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 6 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 7 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 8 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 9 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 10 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 11 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 12 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 13 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 14 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 15 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 16 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 17 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 18 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 21 Art Unit: 3629 Application/Control Number: 18/978,153 Page 22 Art Unit: 3629
Prosecution Insights