DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 1, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This first final action is in response to applicant's Amendment filing on April 29, 2026 Claims 1-12 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the application is tied to particular charging sessions and travel segments in the operation of an electric vehicle system. Further, applicant argued that “the processor transmits a signal to a display device of the electric vehicle” and “the history information comprises a plurality of pairs each associating” (a structured history of per-event charge pairs).
Examiner respectfully disagree such arguments. For example, tied to “particular charging sessions and travel segments” is not in the claim; “the processor transmits a signal to a display device” merely transfers data, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity; a plurality of pairs of data just is a lookup table. A person, upon receiving such lookup table, mentally selects/determines the carbon dioxide emission amount and the charge electric power amount. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Therefore, rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of claim 12
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 12 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 12 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 12. An emission amount management method of managing a carbon dioxide emission amount related to traveling of an electric vehicle, the emission amount management method comprising:
obtaining charge information including information indicating a carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount of electric power with which the electric vehicle is charged and a charge electric power amount;
obtaining discharge information including a discharge electric power amount consumed by the electric vehicle during the traveling;
selecting, from history information including a plurality of pairs each associating, for each charging event, the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount in the charging event with the charge electric power amount in the charging event, a pair to be assigned to the discharge electric power amount, and
calculating the carbon dioxide emission amount from the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount selected and the discharge electric power amount;
obtaining a travel distance traveled by the electric vehicle during the traveling;
adding the travel distance obtained to a cumulative travel distance that is an integrated value of travel distances,
adding the carbon dioxide emission amount calculated to a cumulative emission amount that is an integrated value of carbon dioxide emission amounts, and
dividing the cumulative emission amount to which the carbon dioxide emission amount has been added by the cumulative travel distance to which the travel distance has been added to calculate a carbon dioxide emission amount per unit distance; and
when the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit distance is greater than a predetermined value, transmitting, to a display device of the electric vehicle, a display signal for preferentially displaying a charge location where the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount is less than or equal to a predetermined amount.
The method in claim 12 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 12 highlighted above merely consist of selecting/determining the carbon dioxide emission amount and the charge electric power amount from the history information obtained previously. This is equivalent to a person, upon receiving history data mentally selects/determines the carbon dioxide emission amount and the charge electric power amount. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
In addition, this calculating/adding/dividing steps are mathematical calculations: these steps recites athematic computation of numerical operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. —core abstract data processing akin to SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (advanced statistical analysis and simulation were abstract) and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) (updating parameters based on calculations is abstract).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Steps of obtaining are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The transmitting step is still really generic and just extra solution activity. As such, the additional limitations of claim 12 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 12 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Estimating and determining data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by general purpose computing devices, such as the devices in claim 12.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 12 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 1, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claims 12. Please note, claim 1 cites additional limitation such as first/second obtainer. Such additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
As such, since claims 1 and 12 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 12 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-11 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Therefore, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matte
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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 extension fee 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 JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm 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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 86-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights