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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 02/13/2025.
Claims 1 – 22 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
storing vehicle energy analytics on an existing fleet of ICE vehicles and a replacement fleet of electronic vehicles (EVs);
storing financial analytics regarding potential grants, credits and/or incentives for the replacement fleet of EVs;
determining a total cost of ownership regarding the replacement fleet of EVs based on the vehicle energy analytics and/or the financial analytics regarding potential grants, credits and/or incentives for the replacement fleet of EVs; and
displaying on a user interface a forecast regarding the total cost of ownership, wherein the user interface includes user-adjustable elements to change one or more parameters regarding the vehicle energy analytics and the financial analytics, wherein the user interface is configured to adjust total cost of ownership in real-time based on adjustment to the user-adjustable elements.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to fundamental economic practices or principles, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. circuitry/processor). For example, storing vehicle energy analytics, storing financial analytics and determining a total cost of ownership regarding replacing a fleet of EVs is related to fundamental economic practices (i.e, determining TCO). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data (using vehicle erngy analytics and financial analytics to determine TCO).
Independent Claim 12 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also encompass the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed evaluating route information from a feasibility study; Claims 3-4 are directed to evaluating the real-world driving dynamics of the replacement fleet; Claim 5 is directed to deriving V2G revenue estimation; Calim 6 is directed to incorporating battery degradation into energy consumption predictions; Claims 7-8 are directed to generating a long term strategy; Claims 9-10 is directed to generating EV projection estimates and Claim 11 is directed to determining location identification and placement of EV infrastructure for replacement. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional element of a user interface. Claim 12 recites the additional elements of circuitry and a user interface. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶0022-¶0023).
For instance, the steps of storing vehicle energy analytics of existing fleet of ICE vehicles and replacement EVs and storing financial analytics regarding grants, credits or incentives for replacement EVs is generic storing of information. The step of determining a TCO regarding a replacement fleet involves analyzing data. The step of displaying a forecast on a user-interface and adjustable elements (data input) is data gathering and display functionality.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. circuitry/ processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. circuitry/processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of user interface and circuitry are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the steps of storing vehicle energy analytics and Storing financial analytics is generic storage functionality and are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the cicuitry is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 court decision (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicates storing and retrieving information in memory, is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-22 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11, 12, 18-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Balali et al. (US 2023/0045381).
Claim 1:
Balali discloses:
A computer-implemented method for performing forecasts for entities planning to transition from a vehicle fleet with internal combustion engines ("ICE") to an electric vehicle ("BV") fleet, the method comprising: (see at least ¶0089, PredictEV Fleet algorithm determines an optimized mix of EVs to replace a portion or all of existing non-EVs)
storing vehicle energy analytics on an existing fleet of ICE vehicles and a replacement fleet of electronic vehicles (EVs); (see Figure 2 and associated text; see also ¶0089, EV database information)
storing financial analytics regarding potential grants, credits and/or incentives for the replacement fleet of EVs; (see at least ¶0022, charging costs, incentives and rebates; see also ¶0096, lease or finance charges, incentives, etc.)
determining a total cost of ownership regarding the replacement fleet of EVs based on the vehicle energy analytics and/or the financial analytics regarding potential grants, credits and/or incentives for the replacement fleet of EVs; and (see at least Figure 4 and associated text; see also ¶0155, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analsysis; see also ¶0095-¶0096)
displaying on a user interface a forecast regarding the total cost of ownership, wherein the user interface includes user-adjustable elements to change one or more parameters regarding the vehicle energy analytics and the financial analytics, wherein the user interface is configured to adjust total cost of ownership in real-time based on adjustment to the user-adjustable elements. (see at least ¶0023, recommendations are provided and user may adjust scenarios to reflect speicif interests; see also Figure 7 and associated text; see also ¶0178, adjustable user intputs)
Claim 7:
Balali discloses claim 1. Balali further discloses:
further comprising generating a long term strategy and roadmap for an electrification project for an entire fleet. (see at least ¶0097, electrification adoption rate is variable over the planning years; see also ¶0136, planning horizon; see also Figure 7 and associated text)
Claim 8:
Balali discloses claim 7. Balali further discloses:
wherein generating the long term strategy and roadmap includes a determination of one or more of vehicle transition, charging infrastructure needs, available incentives, utility constraints, incorporation of costs and revenue from V2G opportunities. (see at least Figure 7 and associated text; see also ¶0178-¶0181, fleet electrification for transitioning to EVs including estimating energy demand, charging solutions, etc.; see also ¶0022-¶0027, An algorithm is proposed that assists with optimal electrification strategies over a desired electrification period while minimizing total costs, which may include ownership, maintenance, insurance, registration, and charging costs as well as incentives and rebates. )
Claim 9:
Balali discloses claim 1. Balali further discloses:
further comprising generating EV projection estimates for residential, workplace, and/or commercial charging use cases for the replacement fleet. (see at least ¶0003-¶0004, fleet sector and companies adopting EVs; see also ¶0148, determining optimized combination of charging stations)
Claim 11:
Balali discloses claim 9. Balali further discloses:
further comprising determining location identification and placement of EV infrastructure for the replacement fleet. (see at least ¶0112, optimized locations of the EVSEs are recommended)
Claims 12, 18-20 and 22 for a system (Balali see Figure 8) substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 1, 7-9 and 11 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balali et al. (US 2023/0045381) further in view of “Electrification of Transport,” Feasibility of Electrification of Vehicles, Clean Energy Project Development Services, GPEKS, 04/27/2017 Wayback Machine
< https://web.archive.org/web/20170427111348/https://www.gpeks.com/feasibility-electrification-vehicles > (Hereinafter “GPEKS”).
Claim 2:
While Balali discloses claim 1, Balali does not explciity disclose the following limitation; however, GPEKS does disclose:
wherein determining the total cost of ownership includes evaluating route information from a feasibility study regarding one or more of the existing vehicle fleet and/or the replacement fleet. (see at least pg. 1, routes and usage patterns)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining of total cost of ownership using database information of Balali with the feasibility study of GPEKS 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.
Claim 13 for a system (Balali see Figure 8) substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 2 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balali et al. (US 2023/0045381) further in view of Bnaya et al. (US 2024/0013105).
Claim 3:
While Balali discloses claim 1, Balali further discloses (see at least ¶0023, algorithm inputs include expected travel shifts information such as maximum distance travel; see also ¶0024, trip distance), Balali does not explicity disclose the following limitation; however, Bnaya does disclose:
wherein determining the total cost of ownership includes evaluating the real-world driving dynamics of the replacement fleet. (see at least Figure 2 and ¶0024-¶0025, mobility pattern data includes trip frequency, trip distances, trip speed, acceleration profile)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining of total cost of ownership of Balali with the mobility pattern data of Bnaya to provide vehicle data showing how the vehicle will be utilized and residual value (see Spec ¶0024 or ¶0036).
Claim 4:
While Balali and Bnaya disclose claim 3, Balali does not explicity disclose the following limitation; however, Bnaya does disclose:
wherein evaluating the real-world driving dynamics comprises one or more of capacity loss, seasonal variations, and/or impact of average speed of driver (converted into energy consumption). (see at least Figure 2 and ¶0024-¶0025, mobility pattern data includes trip frequency, trip distances, trip speed, acceleration profile)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining of total cost of ownership of Balali with the mobility pattern data of Bnaya to provide vehicle data showing how the vehicle will be utilized and residual value (see Spec ¶0024 and ¶0036).
Claim 6:
While Balali discloses claim 1, Balali does not expliclitly disclose the following limitation; however, Bnaya does disclose:
wherein determining the total cost of ownership includes incorporating battery degradation into energy consumption predictions impacting costs. (see at least ¶0036, battery degradation prediction)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining of total cost of ownership of Balali with the battery degradation prediction to help determine vehicle residual value (see Spec ¶0036).
Claims 14, 15 and 17 for a system (Balali see Figure 8) substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 3, 4 and 6 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balali et al. (US 2023/0045381) further in view of Cedillo et al., “Dynamic pricing and control for EV charging stations with solar generation,” Applied Energy 326 (2022), < https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119920>, (Hereinafter “Cedillo”).
Claim 5:
While Balali discloses claim 1, Balali further discloses renewable energy sources and solar photovoltaics pannes (see ¶0026),Balali does not expliclity disclose the following limitaitons; however, Cedillo does disclose:
wherein determining the total cost of ownership includes deriving vehicle-to-grid revenue estimation from existing energy storage and solar tariff structures. (see at least pg.2, para 4, a dynamic pricing scheme is developed to create a tariff that changes using grid analytics from historical EV user reponses to price from charging stations using solar power; see also pg. 3, Section 2.1, variable of a model include the numbr of EVs in charging station and variation of solar generation to compute a pricing model)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining of total cost of ownership of Balali with the dynamic pricing scheme including tariffs for charging stations using solar power to assist in making charging stations more economically feasible and optimize revenues (see Section 2.1)
Claim 16 for a system (Balali see Figure 8) substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 5 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balali et al. (US 2023/0045381) further in view of “Electric Vehicle Total Cost of Ownership Analysis Summary Report,” July 2023, Evironmental Defence Fund, WSP, (Hereinafter “WSP”).
Claim 10:
While Balali discloses claim 9, Balali does not expliclitly disclose the following limitation; however, WSP does disclose:
wherein EV projection estimates include projections using one or more of reference databases such as the National Household Travel Survey, Department of Transportation Annual Statistics, seasonal factors, and/or proximity to distribution feeders and distribution feeder capacity to estimate EV use growth in certain areas. (pg. 11, determining fuel costs associated with TCO using National Household Travel Survey)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the determining of total cost of ownership of Balali with the determining of fuel costs associated with TCO of WSP
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.
Claim 21 for a system (Balali see Figure 8) substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 10 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Borhan et al. (US 2025/0329258) discloses optimize an objective function including one or more fleet cost objectives, for example, total cost of ownership, vehicle cost, and/or cost of operation of the fleet.
Kiefhaber et al. (US 2014/0365023) disclose receiving energy information indicating an excess or deficiency of available energy for consumption by an energy consumer during a particular time period, generating energy utilization scenarios, where each energy utilization scenario models, where users utilize control parameters such as sliders to adjust parameters.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights