DETAILED ACTION
The Preliminary Amendment filed 9/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7 and 12-20 have been amended. Claim 9 has been canceled. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claims 1, 10 and 16 recite “a first model generated for each vehicle…”, however it is unclear whether the first model is executed via at least one processor, one or more computers, or a computer, as recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 16, respectively. 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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, apparatus claims 1-8 are directed to at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, method claims 10-15 are directed to a series of steps, and computer-readable recording medium claims 16-20 are directed to storing a program. Thus the claims are directed to a machine, process, and manufacture, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite charging plan creation, including receiving, acquiring, inputting and creating steps.
The limitations of receiving, acquiring, inputting and creating, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite receiving, as an input, information comprising a work content of the electric vehicle and outputs a predicted power consumption of the electric vehicle, acquiring a current task schedule comprising work content of each of the plurality of electric vehicles; and inputting work contents specified based on the task schedules of the plurality of electric vehicles to the first models associated with vehicle types of the electric vehicles, and creating a charging plan of the plurality of electric vehicles using the output of the first models, the charging plan comprising information regarding a charging start timing and a power feeder for each of the electric vehicles.
That is, other than reciting at least one processor, and one or more computers, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include at least one processor, and one or more computers. The at least one processor, and one or more computers in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, 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 discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of at least one processor, and one or more computers amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 3 further describe the work content, and recite an additional creating step. Claims 4-6 recite additional executing, creating, and using steps. Claims 7 and 8 further describe the work content and the flight information, and recite an additional creating step. Similarly, dependent claims 11-15 and 17-20 recite additional details that further restrict/define the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, at least one processor, and one or more computers.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0025 of the specification, “The information processing device 100 is a computer such as a server computer. The user terminal 200 is a computer such as a smartphone, a tablet terminal, or a personal computer.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
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 (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.
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, 5-8, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohta et al (US 20210011486 A1).
As per claim 1, Ohta et al disclose an information processing apparatus comprising:
a first model generated for each vehicle type of a plurality of electric vehicles used at an airport, the first model that receives, as an input, information comprising a work content of the electric vehicle and outputs a predicted power consumption of the electric vehicle (i.e., The planning unit 3 creates a working plan of electric vehicles working in an airport based on the information collected by the collection unit 2. The determination unit 4 determines charging timings of the respective electric vehicles based on the working plan that the planning unit 3 has created, ¶ 0020);
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (i.e., any processing of the charging management system can be achieved by a processor, such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit), loading and executing a computer program stored in a memory, ¶ 0033) to:
acquire a current task schedule comprising work content of each of the plurality of electric vehicles; and input work contents specified based on the task schedules of the plurality of electric vehicles to the first models associated with vehicle types of the electric vehicles (i.e., The collection unit 2 collects departure and arrival information and information regarding amounts of loads of departing and arriving flights. The planning unit 3 creates a working plan of electric vehicles working in an airport based on the information collected by the collection unit 2, ¶ 0020), and
create a charging plan of the plurality of electric vehicles using the output of the first models, the charging plan comprising information regarding a charging start timing and a power feeder for each of the electric vehicles (i.e., The determination unit 4 shown in FIG. 1 takes into account the working periods and the distances between the charging station and the working areas where the working is conducted in the above working periods in the respective electric vehicles when it determines the charging timings of the respective electric vehicles, ¶ 0024).
As per claim 2, Ohta et al disclose the work content comprises flight information on an airplane to be worked by the electric vehicle (i.e., The collection unit 2 collects departure and arrival information and information regarding amounts of loads of departing and arriving flights, ¶ 0020).
As per claim 3, Ohta et al disclose the work content further comprises a work start time and a work end time, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to create the charging plan further using at least one of the work start time and the work end time associated with an output for each of the electric vehicles from the first model (i.e., the determination unit 4 takes into account the working periods and the distances between the charging station and the working areas where the electric vehicles work in the above working periods in the respective electric vehicles when the determination unit 4 determines the charging timings of the respective electric vehicles, ¶ 0025).
As per claim 5, Ohta et al disclose the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to create a charging plan using a second model that receives, as an input, the output of the first model and outputs the charging plan (i.e., the planning unit 3 creates the working plan of the electric vehicles working in the airport based on the collected information (Step S102). Next, the determination unit 4 determines the charging timings of the respective electric vehicles based on the working plan that has been created (Step S103), ¶ 0022).
As per claim 6, Ohta et al disclose the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to further use information related to a current remaining power amount of the electric vehicle in creating the charging plan (i.e., When the battery capacity is relatively small, charging needs to be performed earlier than charging performed in a case in which the battery capacity is relatively large. This is because the residual capacity of the battery becomes empty earlier in the case in which the battery capacity is relatively small than in the case in which the battery capacity is relatively large. Therefore, charging of the electric vehicle P1 is prioritized over charging of the electric vehicle, ¶ 0027).
As per claim 7, Ohta et al disclose the work content further comprises a work place for each of the electric vehicles, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to create the charging plan further using the work place associated with the output for each of the electric vehicles from the first model (i.e., the working plan includes information on working areas and working periods planned for the respective electric vehicles. For example, the electric vehicle P1 is planned to conduct working in a working area R1 from 9:00 to 11:00 and conduct working in the working area R1 from 13:00 to 15:00, ¶ 0023, wherein , wherein The determination unit 4 shown in FIG. 1 takes into account the working periods and the distances between the charging station and the working areas where the working is conducted in the above working periods in the respective electric vehicles when it determines the charging timings of the respective electric vehicles, ¶ 0024).
As per claim 8, Ohta et al disclose the flight information further comprises information regarding an airline company that operates the airplane (i.e., The collection unit 2 collects departure and arrival information and information regarding amounts of loads of departing and arriving flights, ¶ 0020).
Claims 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 6, respectively, since they are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5, respectively, since they are the computer-readable recording medium claims corresponding to the apparatus claims.
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 (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.
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 4, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al (US 20210011486 A1), in view of Suto et al (US 20230182608 A1).
As per claim 4, Ohta et al does not disclose the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to execute repetitive processing of acquiring the task schedule and creating the charging plan.
Suto et al disclose the relocation determination and offer can be repeated for one or more entities each owning a respective reserved charging reservation timeslot (¶ 0047). FIG. 3 depicts an example process for determining a proposed reallocation to offer to a target entity holding a reserved charging reservation timeslot for the target entity's EV (target EV). The process accesses (302) a travel schedule and route parameters of the target EV and determines that reallocating the reserved charging reservation timeslot to give up at least a portion to charge the subject EV is compatible with the travel schedule of the target EV and a charging requirement of the target EV (¶ 0048).
Ohta et al and Suto et al are concerned with effective electric vehicle charging management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include instructions to execute repetitive processing of acquiring the task schedule and creating the charging plan in Ohta et al, as seen in Suto et al, 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.
Claim13 is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 4, since it is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim.
Claim 19 is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 4, since it is the computer-readable recording medium claim corresponding to the apparatus claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in the PTO-892, considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, discloses electric vehicle charging management.
-Gulan et al (Charging Analysis of Ground Support Vehicles in an Electrified Airport) disclose analysis of airside ground support vehicles and their plug-in charging requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights