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 non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing on January 09, 2025 Claims 1-12 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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; and
selecting, from history information including a history of the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount, the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount 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.
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 selecting/determining the carbon dioxide emission amount and the charge electric power amount. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
In addition, this calculating step is mathematical calculations: this step 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 charge information …; obtaining discharge information…” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tonegaw (WO2007066198A2)
Regarding claim 1, Tonegaw teaches an emission amount management device that manages a carbon dioxide emission amount related to traveling of an electric vehicle (abstract), the emission amount management device comprising:
a first obtainer that obtains 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 ( Fig. 12 and corresponding paragraphs including at least ( [0108], [0118] ).
a second obtainer that obtains first discharge information including a first discharge electric power amount consumed by the electric vehicle during the traveling("electric power consumption amount of the motor-generator MG2'' in [0110] [0066]); and
a manager that selects, from history information (data stored in memory form "history information") including a history of the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount, the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount to be assigned to the first discharge electric power amount ( [0110], [0124]-[0126] Subsequently, the HV-ECU 140B reads from the storage portion 144 the amount of charge of the electricity storage device occurring prior to the charging from the charging station 30 and the carry-over CO2 amount as well as the amount of charge from the charging station 30 and the external charge CO2 amount, and then calculates the CO2 basic unit of electric power stored in the electricity storage device B by the above-described method, by further using the calculated engine CO2 amount and the amount of charge by the power generation of the motor-generator MGl as well as the amount of charge by the regenerative power generation of the motor-generator MG2 (step S370) ), and
calculates the carbon dioxide emission amount from the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount selected and the first discharge electric power amount ([0124]-[0126]).
Tonegaw does not explicitly teach a second obtainer that obtains first discharge information including a first discharge electric power amount consumed by the electric vehicle during the traveling, but it is well known that the discharge information may be calculated/obtained from electric power consumption amount of the motor-generator MG2 (in [0110] [0066]);
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Tonegaw’s chargeable-dischargeable device to obtain the discharge information, which is essential for vehicles to function properly, to ensure the safety of the driver and passengers.
Regarding claim 12, please look at the rejection to claim 1 as above.
Regarding claim 2, Tonegaw teaches wherein the manager executes a process of updating the history information based on the first discharge electric power amount and the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount selected ( step 220 in Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 4, Tonegaw teaches a third obtainer that obtains second discharge information including a second discharge electric power amount discharged when the electric vehicle is not traveling, wherein the manager selects, from the history information, the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount to be assigned to the second discharge electric power amount, and updates the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount selected ([0124]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 6, Tonegaw teaches wherein the second obtainer further obtains a travel distance traveled by the electric vehicle during the traveling, and the manager adds the travel distance obtained to a cumulative travel distance that is an integrated value of travel distances, adds the carbon dioxide emission amount calculated to a cumulative emission amount that is an integrated value of carbon dioxide emission amounts, and divides the cumulative emission amount to which the carbon dioxide emission amount is added by the cumulative travel distance to which the travel distance is added to calculate a carbon dioxide emission amount per unit distance( [0084][0089][0125]).
Regarding claim 7, Tonegaw teaches wherein when the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit distance is greater than a predetermined value, the manager preferentially displays a charge location where the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount is less than or equal to a predetermined amount ([0127]-[0131]).
Regarding claim 8, Tonegaw teaches wherein the electric vehicle further includes an engine as a drive source or a power generator ([0136]), the second obtainer obtains a gasoline use amount of the electric vehicle during the traveling, and the manager calculates a carbon dioxide emission amount of the engine during the traveling from the gasoline use amount obtained, and adds the carbon dioxide emission amount calculated to the cumulative emission amount ([0136][0141]).
Regarding claim 10, Tonegaw teaches when charging an electric vehicle, transmits 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 to the emission amount management device according to claim ([0131] As described above, in the fourth embodiment, the CO; emission amounts associated with the running of the motor vehicle are calculated, and at the time of charging from the charging station 30, those calculated CO2 emission amounts are transmitted to the electric power information server 5OA, the terminal device 70 at the user's home, and the like, via the charging cable 34) .
Regarding claim 11, Tonegaw teaches wherein the emission amount management device further includes a third obtainer that obtains second discharge information including a second discharge electric power amount discharged when the electric vehicle is not traveling, and the charging device transmits the second discharge information including the second discharge electric power amount discharged when the electric vehicle is not traveling, to the emission amount management device ([0127]-[0131]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tonegaw (WO2007066198A2) in view of Hieda (US 20150253364 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Tonegaw teaches wherein the history information includes a plurality of pairs of carbon dioxide emission amounts per unit electric power amount and charge electric power amounts, and the manager selects the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount ([0108], [0110], [0118 ), Tonegaw does not explicitly teach but Hieda teaches the manager selects the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount to be assigned to the first discharge electric power amount, in ascending order of the carbon dioxide emission amounts per unit electric power amount in the history information ([0218] C. The server determines the priorities of the power supplies to the electric household appliance in an ascending order of power cost or a CO.sub.2 emission amount from the power supplies which can supply power, listed in Table 3 according to classes of the electric household appliance).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Tonegaw’s chargeable-dischargeable device to combing Hieda’s teaching to determine the priorities of the power supplies to electric vehicles.
Claim 4 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tonegaw (WO 2007066198A2) in view of Megumi ( JP2014011849A)
Regarding claim 4, Tonegaw does not explicitly teach but Megumi teaches a third obtainer that obtains second discharge information including a second discharge electric power amount discharged when the electric vehicle is not traveling, wherein the manager selects, from the history information, the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount to be assigned to the second discharge electric power amount, and updates the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount selected (The calculating means calculates the amount of electric power that can be charged or discharged during the parking time estimated by the estimating means. The charging / discharging control unit controls charging or discharging of the electric energy calculated by the calculating unit).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Tonegaw’s chargeable-dischargeable device to combine Megumi’s teaching to charge / discharge vehicles efficiently during parking when the electric vehicle is not operated.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tonegaw (WO 2007066198A2) in view of Megumi ( JP2014011849A) in view of Hieda( US 20150253364 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Tonegaw as modified by Megumi teaches wherein the history information includes a plurality of pairs of carbon dioxide emission amounts per unit electric power amount and charge electric power amounts (Tonegaw, [0124]-[0126). Tonegaw as modified by Megumi does not explicitly teach but Hieda teaches the manager selects the carbon dioxide emission amount per unit electric power amount and the charge electric power amount to be assigned to the second discharge electric power amount, in descending order of the carbon dioxide emission amounts per unit electric power amount in the history information ([0218] C. The server determines the priorities of the power supplies to the electric household appliance in an ascending order of power cost or a CO.sub.2 emission amount from the power supplies which can supply power, listed in Table 3 according to classes of the electric household appliance).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Tonegaw’s chargeable-dischargeable device to combine Hieda’s teaching to determines the priorities of the power supplies to electric vehicles.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tonegaw (WO 2007066198A2) in view of Megumi ( JP 2014011849A) in view of McCloskey (US 20240391346 A1 )
Regarding claim 9, Tonegaw as modified by Megumi does not explicitly teach but McCloskey teaches an authenticator that performs authentication between the electric vehicle and a charger or a charger-discharger connected to the electric vehicle, wherein when the authentication is completed, the authenticator transmits a permission signal to charge, discharge, or charge and discharge to the charger or the charger-discharger, when the electric vehicle is charged, the first obtainer obtains the charge information from the charger or the charger-discharger, and when the electric vehicle is discharged, the third obtainer obtains the second discharge information from the charger or the charger-discharger ( claim 1, wherein the smart meter control server, upon verifying that the authentication credentials match the user account credentials, is configured to remotely control the smart meter device by: transmitting a start command to the smart meter device in response to receiving a first user command from the user, wherein the start command causes the smart meter device to permit the electric vehicle charging device to start the electric power transfer; and transmitting a stop command to the smart meter device in response to receiving a second user command the user, wherein the stop command causes the smart meter device to prevent the electric vehicle charging device from the electric power transfer).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify teaching of Tonegaw as modified by Megumi chargeable-dischargeable device to combine performing authentication between the electric vehicle and a charger as taught by McCloskey to improve safety to prevent unauthorized access to the charge stations.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
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