DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed September 17, 2025. Claims 1-17 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of calculating a predicted power consumption. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance using exemplary claim 1:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
acquiring route information indicating a delivery route including one or more points where an electric vehicle that delivers a load stops by and load information related to a load loaded on the electric vehicle or unloaded from the electric vehicle at each of the points; and
calculating a predicted power consumption amount in a case where the electric vehicle travels along the delivery route using the route information and the load information.
The claim is directed to an apparatus, which satisfies step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the new two-prong inquiry, the claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless it: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of calculating a predicted power consumption, which is an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes and mathematical concepts groupings. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
The limitations collectively amount to collecting data, analyzing the data using rules and mathematical relationships and adjusting a parameter based on the analysis. Courts have held similar subject matter abstract: See Alice Corp v CLS Bank International; Electric Power Group, LLC; Flook. In particular, Flook involved updating alarm limits based on calculations, which is analogous to adjusting a pressure set point based on runtime.
The October 2019 Update explains on pages 7-8 that claims do recite a mental process when the claim limitations can practically be performed in the human mind. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include Electric Power Group, LLC which was directed to collection information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and Classen which was directed to collecting and comparing known information. The courts have also found that claims that require a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (page 8 of the October 2019 Update). The Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitation of a memory, and a processor which are generic and are being used in their ordinary capacity. The use of these additional elements amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claims do not recite unconventional hardware, or a specific algorithmic improvement, or specific algorithmic structure beyond result oriented functional language. The claims simply applies rule-based decision logic to a conventional processor.
The remaining claims are rejected under similar grounds and do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, it is noted that the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Regarding computer functions, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states: The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
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));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and
vi. A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
ii. Shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. Restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
iv. Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017);
v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
vi. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
vii. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Espig et al (US 2022/0180316).
As per claim 1, Espig et al teach an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: acquiring route information indicating a delivery route including one or more points where an electric vehicle that delivers a load stops by and load information related to a load loaded on the electric vehicle or unloaded from the electric vehicle at each of the points (see at least paragraphs [0012-0021]; information on delivery schedule with delivery address with weights of loads at each delivery point); and
calculating a predicted power consumption amount in a case where the electric vehicle travels along the delivery route using the route information and the load information (see at least paragraphs [0022-0031]; calculate electrical energy required to complete route based on delivery stops, load weights, and route information).
As per claim 3, Espig et al teach wherein calculating the predicted power consumption amount comprises calculating a total weight of the load for each section of the delivery route divided by the points based on the load information, and calculating a second power consumption amount consumed at a time of traveling on the delivery route using the route information and the total weight for each section (see at least paragraphs [0019-0021]).
Claims 9-10 and 12 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under same rationale.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espig et al in view of “Official Notice”.
As per claim 2, Espig et al teach fails to explicitly teach wherein calculating the predicted power consumption amount comprises calculating the number of times of use of a lift of the electric vehicle at each point based on the load information, and calculating a first power consumption amount consumed at a time of loading and unloading the load based on the number of times of use of the lift. However, “Official Notice” is taken that the use of liftgate on delivery vehicles is notoriously well-known as evidenced by Kacludis (US 2022/0242298) who teach an electric liftgate that can be used on a delivery vehicle (see at least abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to include the electric power need to operate an electric lift because doing so would allow for a proper calculation of an electric delivery vehicle’s power consumption needs on a delivery route.
As per claim 4, Espig et al teach wherein acquiring the route information comprises further acquiring individual information about the electric vehicle, and calculating the predicted power consumption amount comprises calculating a second power consumption amount consumed at a time of traveling on the delivery route further using the individual information (see at least paragraphs [0012-0021]).
As per claim 5, Espig et al teach wherein acquiring the route information comprises further acquiring attribute information indicating an attribute of the load, and calculating the predicted power consumption amount comprises calculating a second power consumption amount consumed at a time of traveling on the delivery route further using the attribute information (see at least paragraphs [0027-0030]).
As per claim 7, Espig et al teach wherein acquiring the route information comprises further acquiring traveling record information accumulated for the delivery route, and calculating the predicted power consumption amount comprises calculating a second power consumption amount consumed at a time of traveling on the delivery route further using the traveling record information (see at least paragraphs [0027-0030]).
Claims 11, 13, 14, and 16 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6, 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espig et al in view of “Official Notice” and in further view of Kacludis (US 2022/0242298).
As per claim 6, Espig et al fail to explicitly teach wherein acquiring the route information comprises further acquiring atmospheric temperature information related to an atmospheric temperature at a time of traveling, and calculating the predicted power consumption amount comprises calculating a second power consumption amount consumed at a time of traveling on the delivery route further using the atmospheric temperature information. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hanchett teaches a method for electric vehicle route planning that takes the effects of weather along a route when determining the energy needed (see at least paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to include the effect of weather because doing so would allow for a more accurate prediction of energy consumption along a delivery route.
As per claim 8, Espig et al fail to explicitly teach wherein acquiring the route information comprises further acquiring road classification information indicating a classification of a road included in the delivery route, and calculating the predicted power consumption amount comprises calculating a second power consumption amount consumed at a time of traveling on the delivery route further using the road classification information. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hanchett teaches a method for electric vehicle route planning that takes the effects of road types and conditions along a route when determining the energy needed (see at least paragraph [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to include the road type and road condition because doing so would allow for a more accurate prediction of energy consumption along a delivery route.
Claims 15 and 17 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights