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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to Application 19/161,927 - filed on 9/3/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
The Examiner has noted the Applicant claiming Priority from Foreign Application JP2023-075724 filed 05/01/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending of which:
Claims 1-5 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statements filed on 9/3/2025, 11/26/2025, 6/23/2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “receive a notification of a demand response request… make a determination regarding demand response based on the calculated cost”, [bolded emphasis added].
Claim 1 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether “demand response” is the same as antecedently recited “a demand response request”.
Claim 1 is recommended to recite, as an example only: “receive a notification of a demand response request… make a determination regarding the demand response request based on the calculated cost”.
Claim 5 recites: “makes a determination regarding demand response based also on the acquired information”, [bolded emphasis added].
Claim 5 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether “demand response” is the same as antecedently recited “a demand response request” from independent claim 1.
Claim 5 is recommended to recite, as an example only: “makes a determination regarding the demand response request based also on the acquired information”.
Appropriate correction is required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 are directed to a system or machine which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions, and concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, and judgement) including: “receive a notification of a demand response request”, “acquire information regarding an electric mobility provided with a power source capable of supplying electric power externally”, “calculate a cost required for the use of the power source provided in the electric mobility in response to the received demand response request based on the acquired information”, and “make a determination regarding demand response based on the calculated cost”. Receiving requests for electrical power from external sources such as electric vehicles, calculating costs for using those sources, and deciding whether to use them fall within mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices and business relations as it pertains to commercial or legal interactions, each under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II); as well as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, and judgement) under the abstract grouping Mental Processes1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claim 1 recites the following additional element “circuitry”. The functions of this additional element include examples such as receiving notifications, acquiring information about electric mobilities, calculating costs required for using electric mobilities as power sources, and determining demand response based on the cost. The additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of receiving, calculating, and evaluating data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not appear to provide any further additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Further, dependent claims 2-5 merely incorporate the additional element recited in claim 1 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claim 1 and its execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “circuitry” to capabilities such as calculating, acquiring, and determining various forms of data such as costs, locations, information about electric mobilities, requests, schedules, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-5 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will contain bracketed comments preceded by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Hancock US 20250033517 A1, hereinafter Hancock. As per,
Regarding claim 1: Hancock teaches:
A demand response system comprising circuitry (Hancock ¶ [0154]) configured to:
receive a notification of a demand response request (Hancock ¶ [0308]: When asked to participate in a Demand Response event the Engine 020 will determine whether to shed load by stopping charging of the EV fleet or discharge the fleet through bidirectional charging back to the grid. [Also see Fig. 16 and related text]);
acquire information regarding an electric mobility provided with a power source capable of supplying electric power externally (Hancock ¶ [0151]: Individual EV data 004 may comprise a data feed that contains specific information that comes from the actual electric vehicle, and contains information including vehicle location data in the form of GPS, battery information including current battery state (charge status) that is the amount that the battery is currently charged, battery temperature and age, battery capacity (e.g. the max charge the battery may hold, which may change with age and temperature), battery charge and discharge [EN: Vehicle to Grid] rates, and general vehicle information, such as if the EV is autonomous or non-autonomous.);
calculate a cost required for the use of the power source provided in the electric mobility in response to the received demand response request based on the acquired information (Hancock ¶ [0288]: The engine 020 will determine when to buy or sell energy for optimal profit 1832. The Engine 020 will determine when to charge EVs/buy energy based on current energy prices 1802 and fleet availability and determine when to discharge EV/sell the energy back to the energy grid to make a profit while still allocating enough time to recharge the EV fleet to meet tomorrow's charging needs 1808. The Engine 020 will then determine a schedule for recharging to meet tomorrow's charging needs 1834); and
make a determination regarding demand response based on the calculated cost (Hancock end-¶ [0289]: … The Engine 020 would determine that these EVs may be used to sell overcharge energy and will charge the EV when energy prices are the lowest throughout the day based on a predicted or given model of the daily energy prices and ToU rates. EVs may be discharged during peak time via vehicle-to-grid bidirectional charging to make a profit from the energy sold back to the grid).
Regarding claim 5: Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Hancock further teaches:
the circuitry acquires information regarding the scheduled use of the electric mobility (Hancock Fig. 7 end-¶ [0215]: The hidden layers that perform the Schedule Optimization calculations and decisions first take the empty 24-hour schedule and create all the possible schedules to meet Tomorrow's Charging Needs. After all the possibilities have been considered the Optimization Algorithm uses the predicted energy profile model and prices from the predictive model above. It will then calculate the approximate daily energy costs for each schedule and select the least expensive option to maximize energy savings. [Also see Fig. 7 and related text]), and
makes a determination regarding demand response based also on the acquired information regarding the scheduled use of the electric mobility (Hancock ¶ [0288]: The engine 020 will determine when to buy or sell energy for optimal profit 1832. The Engine 020 will determine when to charge EVs/buy energy based on current energy prices 1802 and fleet availability and determine when to discharge EV/sell the energy back to the energy grid to make a profit while still allocating enough time to recharge the EV fleet to meet tomorrow's charging needs 1808. The Engine 020 will then determine a schedule for recharging to meet tomorrow's charging needs 1834. ¶ [0289]: … The Engine 020 would determine that these EVs may be used to sell overcharge energy and will charge the EV when energy prices are the lowest throughout the day based on a predicted or given model of the daily energy prices and ToU rates. EVs may be discharged during peak time via vehicle-to-grid bidirectional charging to make a profit from the energy sold back to the grid)).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of this title, 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.
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Hancock in view of
Harty US 20200276910 A1, hereinafter Harty. As per,
Regarding claim 2: Hancock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Although Hancock teaches calculating a cost for using an electric vehicle to discharge power to a grid for a demand response, Hancock does not specifically teach determining the cost of moving the electric vehicle to the discharge location.
However, Harty in analogous art of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems teaches or suggests:
wherein the circuitry calculates, as the cost, a cost of moving the electric mobility to a location where electric power is supplied from the power source provided in the electric mobility in response to the demand response request (Harty ¶ [0045]: Illustrated processing block 48 provides for detecting… a V2G energy [EN: meaning Vehicle to Grid or demand response] request…. Block 50 may automatically select… the V2G energy request as a granted request. As will be discussed in greater detail, block 50 may take into consideration various parameters/attributes of the requests such as, for example, service location, numerical values (e.g., kWh, distance, price per kWh, price per mile, credits, cryptocurrency, etc.) associated with the requests, and so forth. An electric vehicle may be automatically configured to satisfy the granted request at block 52. Block 52 may include, for example… dispatching the EV to a discharge location associated with the V2G request….).
Harty and Hancock are found as analogous art of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Hancock’s electric vehicle fleet charging and energy management system and method to have included Harty’s teachings around determining the cost of moving electric vehicles to discharge locations. The benefit of these additional features would have minimized unused battery energy, improved energy usage efficiency, and reduce total cost of ownership of electric vehicles. (Harty ¶ [0001]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Hancock in view of Harty (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Hancock in view of Harty above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claim 3: Hancock / Harty teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above.
Although Hancock teaches calculating a cost for using an electric vehicle to discharge power to a grid for a demand response, Hancock does not specifically teach determining whether to move individual electric vehicles to specific discharge locations.
However, Harty in analogous art of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems teaches or suggests:
wherein the circuitry makes a determination as to whether or not to move the electric mobility to a location where electric power is supplied from the power source provided in the electric mobility in response to the demand response request based on the calculated cost (Harty end-¶ [0045]: An electric vehicle may be automatically configured to satisfy the granted request at block 52. Block 52 may include, for example… dispatching the EV to a discharge location associated with the V2G request…. Block 68 provides for comparing a first numerical value associated with a transport request to a second numerical value associated with V2G energy request. For example, if the transport request is for a trip that will cost the potential passenger 100 Euros and the V2G energy request is for an amount of energy that will cost the requesting entity 150 Euros, block 58 might compare 100 Euros to 150 Euros to determine which numerical value is higher…. As already noted, the comparison may also use other numerical values and/or involve conversions and block 68 may determine whether the EV has the resources (e.g., unused energy, time) to satisfy the requests).
Harty and Hancock are found as analogous art of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Hancock’s electric vehicle fleet charging and energy management system and method to have included Harty’s teachings around determining whether to move individual electric vehicles to specific discharge locations. The benefit of these additional features would have minimized unused battery energy, improved energy usage efficiency, and reduce total cost of ownership of electric vehicles. (Harty ¶ [0001]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Hancock in view of Harty (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Hancock in view of Harty above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claim 4: Hancock / Harty teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above.
Hancock further teaches:
the circuitry acquires information regarding a plurality of electric mobilities (Hancock ¶ [0053]: In accordance with another aspect, there is provided an energy management optimization method, to be executed by an electric vehicle charge optimization engine, for balancing energy needs in a zone having a plurality of charge stations for a plurality of electric vehicles, the method comprising: providing to the electric vehicle charge optimization engine energy availability data, non-vehicle data representative of energy asset needs of the zone, vehicle data, and electric vehicle fleet data….), and
[..]
Although Hancock teaches calculating a cost for using an electric vehicle to discharge power to a grid for a demand response, Hancock does not specifically teach determining whether to move a plurality of individual electric vehicles to specific discharge locations.
However, Harty in analogous art of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems teaches or suggests:
determines a combination of electric mobilities that enable a response to the demand response request from among a plurality of electric mobilities, and, based on the calculated cost for each electric mobility in the determined combination, makes a determination as to whether or not to move each electric mobility in the combination to a location where electric power is supplied from the power source provided in the electric mobility (Harty ¶ [0083]: In another embodiment, the grant module may dispatch the EV 22 to the origin associated with the transport request or the charging location associated with the V2G energy request…. Accordingly, the hybrid vehicle-to-grid and mobility service request system 202 manages the requests received for an EV 22 to facilitate maximizing the benefit that can be conferred to the EV 22. Therefore, the operator can use an EV or fleet of EVs to the greatest effect).
Harty and Hancock are found as analogous art of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Hancock’s electric vehicle fleet charging and energy management system and method to have included Harty’s teachings around determining whether to move a plurality of individual electric vehicles to specific discharge locations. The benefit of these additional features would have minimized unused battery energy, improved energy usage efficiency, and reduce total cost of ownership of electric vehicles. (Harty ¶ [0001]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Hancock in view of Harty (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of electric vehicle fleet demand response energy management systems. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Hancock in view of Harty above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Huang; Yuping et al. US 20240185150 A1, Two-stage stochastic programming based V2G scheduling model for operator revenue maximization.
NAKAMURA; Toru US 20220239101 A1, Power management apparatus and power management method.
TANAKA; Toshimitsu et al. US 20250083551 A1, Charge and discharge management apparatus, charge and discharge management method and program.
AL GAFRI; Mohammed Hadi et al. US 20240034184 A1, Method for minimizing electric vehicle outage.
Yokoyama; Shinichi et al. US 20200317075 A1, Vehicle management system.
ORIHASHI; Nobuyuki et al. US 20220194252 A1, Power management apparatus and power management method.
Nakamura; Toru US 20210039518 A1, Vehicle management apparatus, vehicle, and vehicle management method.
DOW; Young Soo US 20230406143 A1, Method, device, and system for charging/discharging electric vehicle.
Lu; Norman et al. US 20230375993 A1, Directed energy distribution.
Seo et al KR102101509B1, Method of applying response mobility load to demand response market for electric power and system for management electric charging of mobility load.
Beyazıt et al. "Cost optimization of a microgrid considering vehicle-to-grid technology and demand response." Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks 32 (2022): 100924.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352467722001692
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
August 26, 2026 /HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
1 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
Prosecution Insights