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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 each recite a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method that includes a network interface configured to facilitate data communication via a network, a memory, a processing circuit, one or more processors, and a user interface receiving pricing information for a charging interval from a charging management system, the pricing information including information indicative of one or more of a predicted price; receiving information indicative of a charging urgency from a user; determining an urgency value based on the information indicative of the charging urgency; determining a desired charging rate for the EV; determining, based on the desired charging rate, a bid power for the charging interval; determining, based on the pricing information and the urgency value, an agent monetary value for power during the charging interval; and transmitting a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate to the charging management system.
This is a method that can be performed in the human mind and with pen and paper and of managing commercial interactions between people (e.g., the user and the charging management system). The mere nominal recitation of a network interface configured to facilitate data communication via a network, a memory, a processing circuit, one or more processors, and a user interface does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concepts of determining an urgency value; determining a desired charging rate; determining a bid power; and determining an agent monetary value in a computer environment. The network interface, network, memory, processing circuit, processors, and user interface are merely invoked as tools to perform the claimed method, whether viewed individually or in combination. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 11 each recite the additional elements of receiving pricing information for a charging interval from a charging management system, the pricing information including information indicative of one or more of a predicted price; and transmitting a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate to the charging management system. These additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concepts of determining an urgency value; determining a desired charging rate; determining a bid power; and determining an agent monetary value in a computer environment. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 11, respectively, and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Claims 2-4 and 12-14 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, by e.g., further defining determining the agent monetary value. Claims 5 and 15 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, by e.g., further defining determining the bid power. Claims 6 and 16 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, by e.g., further defining modifying the bid power or the agent monetary value. Claims 7 and 17 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, by e.g., further defining determining the bid. Claims 8-10 and 18-20 further narrow the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11, respectively, by e.g., further defining declining charging from the charging management system and receiving pricing information for a future charging interval from the charging management system. Thus, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 11 and do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Steps 2A prong two or 2B. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-20 describe neither a practical application of nor significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
I. Claims 1, 7, 1
1, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chassin US 20100107173 A1 in view of Lalwani US 20190095872 A1 and Pai US 20100274682 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Chassin teaches an agent associated with an electric vehicle (EV) comprising: a network interface configured to facilitate data communication via a network; a memory; and a processing circuit comprising a processor in communication with the memory and network interface, the processing circuit configured to ([0019] Embodiments of the disclosed methods can be performed using computing hardware, such as a computer processor or an integrated circuit. For example, embodiments of the disclosed methods can be performed by software stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (e.g., one or more optical media discs, volatile memory
components (such as DRAM or SRAM), or nonvolatile memory or storage components (such as hard drives)). Such software can be executed on a single computer or on a networked computer (e.g., via the Internet, a wide-area network, a local-area network, a client-server network, or other such network):
receive pricing information for a charging interval from a charging management system, the pricing information including information indicative of one or more of a predicted price
PNG
media_image1.png
37
73
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0110] the central computer receives resource bids or requests from those computing devices associated with resource consumers (e.g., devices 6520, 6522) and receives resource offers from those computing devices associated with resource suppliers (e.g., devices 6530, 6532). [0134] a plurality of offers for supplying electricity are received from a plurality of resource suppliers. The offers can comprise data messages indicating an offered quantity of electricity and a supplier-requested index value indicative of a minimum price for which a respective supplier will produce the offered quantity of electricity);
determine a desired charging rate PD for the EV ([0289] [EQUATION 14] where ROCdes is the desired rate-of-charge, such that k is the user's comfort economy setting, SOCfinal is the final desired state-of-charge of the vehicle), and
determine, based on the desired charging rate PD, a bid power Pbia for the charging interval ([0179] electric vehicle chargers (a) increase or decrease their bids in accordance with a user's comfort economy setting (e.g., a user-selected value, referred to herein as the k-value)).
Chassin does not explicitly teach, however Lalwani teaches receive, via a user interface, information indicative of a charging urgency from a user, and determine an urgency value k based on the information indicative of the charging urgency ([0024] the service provider, at a block 404, may
receive directly from the vehicle, updated ETA and/or other information, such as for example, an
urgency of service need (level of gas or charge remaining), and a location and/or destination of the vehicle. [0089] Example 40 is one or more computer-readable media containing instructions written thereon to cause a scheduling server, in response to execution of the instructions, to: receive a request from an SA/AD vehicle for assignment to a service provider for provision of a service, wherein the request includes first data related to an urgency for provision of the service and a location of the SA/AD vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Chassin the process of receiving, via a user interface, information indicative of a charging urgency from a user, and determining an urgency value k based on the information indicative of the charging urgency as taught by Lalwani 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 is predictable. Such a combination would yield the predictable result of a method where information indicative of a charging urgency from a user is received via a user interface; and, an urgency value k is determined based on the information indicative of the charging urgency.
Chassin does not explicitly teach, however Pai teaches determine, based on the pricing information and the urgency value k, an agent monetary value for power during the charging interval, and transmit a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate PD to the charging management system ([0013] A flexibility discount is applied to the cost of the candidate bid. A plurality of candidate bids having candidate commitment windows with varying start times, end times and candidate commitment window sizes, determine a cost for each of the plurality of candidate bids, apply a flexibility discount to the cost of the candidate
bid. [0140] Those providers interested in making a bid for the specified job send bids back to the portal 707. [0141] (d) The portal ranks the received bids according to criteria set by the requestor in the job specification. These criteria can include one ore more of urgency, price, proximity, and performance rating based upon stored feedback for the provider from previous transactions. [0074] The urgency
factor is calculated from the time of arrival/delivery as given (in the bid) by Provider. This depends on the urgency of delivery desired by the requestor. [0180] the default weightage for dollar-quality,
urgency and proximity factors are 50%, 75% and 75% respectively. However, the user requisition puts these weightages at 65%, 50% and 50% respectively. Therefore, to determine the best bid among those forwarded by providers, EDV of these bids is calculated using the following formula. Claim 1 ranking the bids according to the job description, said job description being qualified by user-specified values of parameters of quality, urgency, cost and provider rating. Appendix C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Chassin the process of determining, based on the pricing information and the urgency value k, an agent monetary value for power during the charging interval; and transmitting a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate PD to the charging management system as taught by Pai 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 is predictable. Such a combination would yield the predictable result of a method including determining, based on the pricing information and the urgency value k, an agent monetary value for power during the charging interval; and transmitting a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate PD to the charging management system.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Chassin, Lalwani, and Pai teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chassin further teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine a state of an onboard battery of the EV, the processing circuit to determine the bid based on the state of the onboard battery and the agent monetary value ([0287] In certain embodiments of the disclosed technology, electric vehicle charges (a) increase or decrease their bids in accordance with a user's comfort economy setting (e.g., a user-selected value, referred to herein as the k-value) in relation to the state-of-charge (SOC) and time remaining to desire full-charge, and/or (b) reduce or increase the rate-of-charge (ROC) based on the price cleared from the market. [0288] the active bid strategy for an electric vehicle charger is based on the SOC, and the bid price is computed using the following …) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale).
Regarding Claim 11, Chassin teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, pricing information for a charging interval from a charging management system, the pricing information including information indicative of one or more of a predicted price
PNG
media_image2.png
36
71
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0110] the central computer receives resource bids or requests from those computing devices associated with resource consumers (e.g., devices 6520, 6522) and receives resource offers from those computing devices associated with resource suppliers (e.g., devices 6530, 6532). [0134] a plurality of offers for supplying electricity are received from a plurality of resource suppliers. The offers can comprise data messages indicating an offered quantity of electricity and a supplier-requested index value indicative of a minimum price for which a respective supplier will produce the offered quantity of electricity);
determining, by the one or more processors, a desired charging rate PD for the EV ([0289] [EQUATION 14] where ROCdes is the desired rate-of-charge, such that k is the user's comfort economy setting, SOCfinal is the final desired state-of-charge of the vehicle);
determining, by the one or more processors, based on the desired charging rate PD, a bid power Pbia for the charging interval ([0179] electric vehicle chargers (a) increase or decrease their bids in accordance with a user's comfort economy setting (e.g., a user-selected value, referred to herein as the k-value)) (see rejection above for combination rationale).
Chassin does not explicitly teach, however Lalwani teaches receiving, by the one or more processors, via a user interface, information indicative of a charging urgency from a user; determining, by the one or more processors, an urgency value k based on the information indicative of the charging urgency ([0024] the service provider, at a block 404, may receive directly from the vehicle, updated ETA and/or other information, such as for example, an urgency of service need (level of gas or charge remaining), and a location and/or destination of the vehicle. [0089] Example 40 is one or more computer-readable media containing instructions written thereon to cause a scheduling server, in response to execution of the instructions, to: receive a request from an SA/AD vehicle for assignment to
a service provider for provision of a service, wherein the request includes first data related to an
urgency for provision of the service and a location of the SA/AD vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Chassin the process of receiving, by the one or more processors, via a user interface, information indicative of a charging urgency from a user; and determining, by the one or more processors, an urgency value k based on the information indicative of the charging urgency as taught by Lalwani 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 is predictable. Such a combination would yield the predictable result of a method where information indicative of a charging urgency from a user is received by one or more processors, via a user interface; and an urgency value k is determined, by the one or more processors, based on the information indicative of the charging urgency.
Chassin does not explicitly teach, however Pai teaches determining, by the one or more processors, based on the pricing information and the urgency value k, an agent monetary value for power during the charging interval; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate PD to the charging management system ([0013] A flexibility discount is applied to the cost of the candidate
bid. A plurality of candidate bids having candidate commitment windows with varying start times, end times and candidate commitment window sizes, determine a cost for each of the plurality of candidate bids, apply a flexibility discount to the cost of the candidate bid. [0120] the application programs 131 discussed above are resident on the hard disk drive 110 and read and controlled in execution by the processor 105 [0140] Those providers interested in making a bid for the specified job send bids back to the portal 707. [0141] (d) The portal ranks the received bids according to criteria set by the requestor in the job specification. These criteria can include one ore more of urgency, price, proximity, and performance rating based upon stored feedback for the provider from previous transactions. [0074] The urgency factor is calculated from the time of arrival/delivery as given (in the bid) by Provider. This depends on the urgency of delivery desired by the requestor. [0180] the default weightage for dollar-quality, urgency and proximity factors are 50%, 75% and 75% respectively. However, the user requisition puts these weightages at 65%, 50% and 50% respectively. Therefore, to determine the best bid among those forwarded by providers, EDV of these bids is calculated using the following formula. Claim 1 ranking the bids according to the job description, said job description being qualified by user-specified values of parameters of quality, urgency, cost and provider rating. Appendix C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Chassin the process of determining, by the one or more processors, based on the pricing information and the urgency value k, an agent monetary value for power during the charging interval; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate PD to the charging management system as taught by Pai 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 is predictable. Such a combination would yield the predictable result of a method including determining, by the one or more processors, based on the pricing information and the urgency value k, an agent monetary value for power during the charging interval; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate PD to the charging management system.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Chassin, Lalwani, and Pai teaches the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Chassin further teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, a state of an onboard battery of the EV; and determining, by the one or more processors, the bid based on the state of the onboard battery and the agent monetary value ([0287] In certain embodiments of the disclosed technology, electric vehicle charges (a) increase or decrease their bids in accordance with a user's comfort economy setting (e.g., a user-selected value, referred to herein as the k-value) in relation to the state-of-charge (SOC) and time remaining to desire full-charge, and/or (b) reduce or increase the rate-of-charge (ROC) based on the price cleared from the market. [0288] the active bid strategy for an electric vehicle charger is based on the SOC, and the bid price is computed using the following …) (see claim 11 rejection above for combination rationale).
Novel & Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims, and rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 12 would be allowable for disclosing all of the limitations required in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, in combination with compare the desired charging rate PD to a current charging rate Pc; and in response to determining that the current charging rate Pc is above a desired charging rate Pc, determine the agent monetary value based on a price versus power curve extending between a first point determined based on the predicted price
PNG
media_image3.png
26
46
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and the current charging rate Pc and a second point determined based on a maximum price Amax and a maximum charging rate Pmax; wherein the maximum price Amax is determined by a formula: Amax =
PNG
media_image4.png
32
55
media_image4.png
Greyscale
+ ka, a being a standard deviation of pricing information.
Claims 3 and 13 would be allowable for disclosing all of the limitations required in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, in combination with compare the desired charging rate to a current charging rate; and in response to determining that the current charging rate is below the desired charging rate, determine the agent monetary value based on a price versus power curve extending between a first point determined based on a minimum price and a minimum charging power, and a second point determined based on the predicted price and the current charging rate, wherein the minimum price is determined by a formula: minimum price = predicted price – kϬ, Ϭ 0being a standard deviation of pricing information.
Claims 4 and 14 would be allowable for disclosing all of the limitations required in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, in combination with determining, by the one or more processors, that a current charging rate is equal to a maximum charging rate or a minimum charging rate; and determining, by the one or more processors, the agent monetary value based on a price versus power curve extending between a first point determined based on a minimum price and a minimum charging rate, and a second point determined based on a maximum price and the maximum charging rate; wherein the minimum price is determined by a formula: minimum price = predicted price - kϬ, and the maximum price is determined by a formula: maximum price = predicted price + kϬ, Ϭ being a standard deviation of pricing information.
Claims 5 and 15 would be allowable for disclosing all of the limitations required in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, in combination with receiving, by the one or more processors, information indicative a desired departure time and a desired total amount of energy from the user interface; and determining, by the one or more processors, the bid power based on the desired departure time, the desired total amount of energy, and the urgency value.
Claims 6 and 16 would be allowable for disclosing all of the limitations required in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, in combination with receiving, by the one or more processors, via the user interface, one or more of a modified desired departure time, a modified desired total amount of energy, a modified maximum bid, and a modified information indicative of the charging urgency; and modifying, by the one or more processors, at least one of the bid power or the agent monetary value in real-time or substantially real-time based one or more of the modified desired departure time, the modified desired total amount of energy, the modified maximum bid, and the modified information indicative of the charging urgency.
Claims 7 and 17 would be allowable for disclosing all of the limitations required in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, in combination with determining, by the one or more processors, a state of an onboard battery of the EV; and determining, by the one or more processors, the bid based on the state of the onboard battery and the agent monetary value.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 would be allowable for disclosing all of the limitations required in independent claims 1 and 11, respectively, in combination with wherein the charging interval is an upcoming charging interval, the method further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a dispatch limit and a forecasted charging price for the upcoming charging interval from the charging management system after transmitting the bid; in response to determining that the forecasted charging price is above the bid, declining, by the one or more processors, charging from the charging management system; and receiving, by the one or more processors, pricing information for a future charging interval from the charging management system.
As discussed more fully above, the combination of Chassin, Lalwani, and Pai teaches
receiving, by one or more processors, pricing information for a charging interval from a charging management system, the pricing information including information indicative of one or more of a predicted price receiving, by the one or more processors, via a user interface, information indicative of a charging urgency from a user; determining, by the one or more processors, an urgency value k based on the information indicative of the charging urgency; determining, by the one or more processors, a desired charging rate for the EV; determining, by the one or more processors, based on the desired charging rate, a bid power for the charging interval; determining, by the one or more processors, based on the pricing information and the urgency value, an agent monetary value for power during the charging interval; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a bid comprising a charge interval start and stop time, the agent monetary value, and the desired charging rate to the charging management system. However, the prior art does not teach such a method in combination with the limitations required by dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUANE MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-7544. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached on (571)272-4602. 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 866-217-9197 (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 571-272-1000.
/D.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights