DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response to the restriction requirement received on 20 May 2026, and the application filed on 23 April 2025. This communication is the first action on merits. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are original / previously presented.
Claim 11 is withdrawn, tied to the non-elected invention.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of restriction between Group I (claims 1-10) and Group 2 (claim 11), electing Group I in the reply filed on 20 May 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “restriction is improper because Groups I and II are not separately usable sub combinations and are not patentably distinct. See MPEP 806.05(d). The two groups form a single, integrated workflow: the predicted emission and reduction values generated under Group I serve as the reference required by Claim 11 in Group II and Claim 7 (Group I) already recites calculating an actual reduction amount – the very value that claim 11 aggregates” (Reply pg. 1). This is not found persuasive because inventions I and II are subcombinations that are distinct and do not overlap including the provided reasoning that subcombination II has separate utility, nothing that subcombination I (claim 1) has separate utility such as generating a charging action candidate, calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas, and calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas; and subcombination II (claim 11) has separate utility including calculating an actual value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas, selling the carbon credit, and distributing the profit obtained in the selling. Each of these inventions can be performed independently without the other. Next, the argument that ‘the predicted emission and reduction values generated under Group I serve as the reference required by Claim 11 in Group II and Claim 7 (Group 1) already recites ‘calculating an actual reduction amount - the very value that Claim 11 aggregates’ in Group II, is not persuasive. First, while both groups involve a predicted value of an emission amount these differ in scope. Group I calculates a predicted value of an emission amount of charging actions associated with another charging action in addition to a reference charging action, but Group II (1) does not actually calculate a predicted value, and (2) the Group II predicted value is only for a reference charging action and does not involve a predicted emission amount of another charging action. Second, while both groups involve calculating actual value of a reduction amount, these also differ in scope. Group I (in dependent claim 7) calculating an actual value is for a single user charging action, however Group II calculating is for each of the users of the plurality of electric vehicles and adding up actual values of the reduction amount. Third, nothing in Group II involves Group I features of generating selectable charging action candidates, calculating predicted value of emission amount by each of the charging actions, calculating predicted value of a reduction value (or as present in the dependent claims: displaying charging action candidates, displaying predicted values of emission amounts / reduction amounts, calculating predicted reduction amount of greenhouse gas based on movement of electric vehicle, calculating predicted reduction amount of greenhouse gas based on using solar power and meteorological data, displaying power amount charged to battery by solar power, carbon credit is based on accumulated predetermined period, carbon credit excludes power amount used for traveling of electric vehicle after charging action). Nothing in Group I involves the Group II features of adding actual values of the reduction amounts, selling carbon credits, and distributing profit. Since there are at least three elements of utility in the limitations of claim 1 (Group I) not present in claim 11 (Group II), and there are at least three elements of utility in the limitations of claim 11 (Group II) not present in claim 1 (Group I), there is sufficient evidence that the inventions are distinct, with recognized divergent subject matter, and that there would be a search burden. Hence the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 20 May 2026.
Priority
The application 19/186,642 filed on 23 April 2025 claims priority from Japan application JP2024-072098 filed on 26 April 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 31 December 2025 and 23 April 2025 have been acknowledged by the Office.
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. The Office recommends Information Processing Method and Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium for Processing Information on a Carbon Credit.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10:
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite a method; claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-10 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: processing information on a carbon credit created by reducing greenhouse gas, the carbon credit being created based on a reduction of the greenhouse gas discharged by a charging action of charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply, generating a charging action candidate including at least one another charging action different from a reference charging action that is a charging action serving as a reference, the at least one another charging action having an emission amount of the greenhouse gas smaller than that in the reference charging action, the charging action candidate being selectable by a user; calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas discharged by each of the charging actions; and calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in each of the at least one another charging action, based on the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the reference charging action and the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the another charging action. Independent claim 10 recites: processing information on a carbon credit created by reducing greenhouse gas, the carbon credit being created based on a reduction of the greenhouse gas discharged by a charging action of charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply, generating a charging action candidate including at least one another charging action different from a reference charging action that is a charging action serving as a reference, the at least one another charging action having an emission amount of the greenhouse gas smaller than that in the reference charging action, the charging action candidate being selectable by a user; calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas discharged by each of the charging actions; and calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in each of the at least one another charging action, based on the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the reference charging action and the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the another charging action.
The claim(s) as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mathematical concepts.
First, the limitations of processing information on a carbon credit created by reducing greenhouse gas, the carbon credit being created based on a reduction of the greenhouse gas discharged by a charging action of charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply, generating a charging action candidate including at least one another charging action different from a reference charging action that is a charging action serving as a reference, the at least one another charging action having an emission amount of the greenhouse gas smaller than that in the reference charging action, the charging action candidate being selectable by a user; calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas discharged by each of the charging actions; and calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in each of the at least one another charging action, based on the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the reference charging action and the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the another charging action are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, fundamental economic principles or practices includes processing information on a carbon credit…, carbon credit being created based on reduction of the greenhouse gas…; marketing or sales activities or behaviors includes generating a charging action candidate…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes processing information on a carbon credit…, carbon credit being created based on reduction of the greenhouse gas…, generating a charging action candidate…, calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas…, calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas…; and following rules or instructions includes processing information on a carbon credit, carbon credit being created based on reduction of the greenhouse gas…, generating a charging action candidate…, calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas…, calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in each of the at least one another charging action, based on the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the reference charging action and the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the another charging action. The presence of generic computer components such as a computer, non-transitory computer readable storage medium does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the individual limitations of calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas discharged by each of the charging actions; and calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in each of the at least one another charging action, based on the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the reference charging action and the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the another charging action recite mathematical concepts. The limitation of calculating a predicted value of an emission amount is a mathematical relationship between greenhouse gas and charging action; and calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount is a mathematical formula and calculation to obtain a predicted reduction amount using a predicted reference charging action value and another charging action value. Thus, the claims recite a mathematical concept. Also, these claims explicitly recite performing calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-10 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. a computer, non-transitory computer readable storage medium) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of an electric vehicle in the limitations (e.g. the charging action candidate being selectable by a user of the electric vehicle) does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. electric vehicles), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, 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.
Next, the additional element of charging a battery in the limitation of a charging action of charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. criteria as pre-solution activity for creating the carbon credit), and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the battery, electric vehicle, and external power supply are other machines operating in their ordinary capacity (i.e. an external power supply providing a charge to a battery of an electric vehicle), and also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding the charging. 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.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (computer, non-transitory medium), applied to a field of use (electric vehicles), and adding high-level extra-solution and/or pre-solution activities (charging a battery). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer, non-transitory computer readable storage medium to perform processing information on a carbon credit…, carbon credit being created based on reduction of the greenhouse gas…, generating a charging action candidate…, calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas…, calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding the electric vehicle does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. electric vehicles). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0005] describing the additional element of electric vehicles with a large-capacity battery for driving that is widespread at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Next, the additional element of charging a battery in the limitation of a charging action of charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. criteria as pre-solution activity for creating the carbon credit), and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the battery, electric vehicle, and external power supply are other machines operating in their ordinary capacity (i.e. an external power supply providing a charge to a battery of an electric vehicle), and also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding the charging. 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 discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the charging are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. criteria as pre-solution activity for creating a carbon credit), and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the battery, electric vehicle, and external power supply in these steps merely represents using other machines in their ordinary capacity, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0045] describing the additional element of charging the battery mounted on the electric vehicle using the external power supply is referred to as ‘charging action’ at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use, and adding high level extra-solution activities. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / commercial / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to identify different charging options and their greenhouse gas impact), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. electric vehicles), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of an electric vehicle itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1 and 10, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-9. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: The limitations displaying the charging action candidate on a terminal device of the user or a terminal device mounted on the electric vehicle, wherein in the displaying, at least one of a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas and a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas is displayed on the terminal device together with the charging action candidate are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a terminal device of the user, a terminal device mounted on the electric vehicle are computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (electric vehicles). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification Fig 8, ¶[0063] describing the additional element of a terminal device of the electric vehicle displaying charging options at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: The limitation wherein the at least one another charging action includes a charging action performed at another time and/or another place different from a time and/or a place at which the reference charging action is performed merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: First, the limitation wherein the at least one another charging action includes a charging action performed at another place different from the place where the reference charging action is performed merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation in the calculation of the predicted reduction amount, a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in the charging action performed at the another place is calculated further based on an emission amount of the greenhouse gas caused by a movement of the electric vehicle between the place where the reference charging action is performed and the another place is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mathematical concept (mathematical calculation, mathematical relationship) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: First, the limitation wherein the at least one another charging action includes a charging action of charging the battery with electric power generated by solar power generation merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation in the calculation of the predicted reduction amount, a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in the charging action using the solar power generation is calculated further based on meteorological data is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mathematical concept (mathematical calculation, mathematical relationship) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: The limitation displaying the charging action candidate on a terminal device of the user or a terminal device mounted on the electric vehicle, wherein in the displaying, at least one of
information on a power amount charged to the battery by the solar power generation, the power amount being estimated based on the meteorological data, and information on a power generation amount generated by the solar power generation, the power generation amount being estimated based on the meteorological data is further displayed on the terminal device together with the charging action candidate is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (marketing or sales activities or behaviors, managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a terminal device of the user, a terminal device mounted on the electric vehicle are computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (electric vehicles). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0071] describing the additional element of a terminal device displaying charging power amounts by the solar power generation estimated by the meteorological data at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitations calculating an actual value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas based on an actual value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas in an actually performed charging action and the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the reference charging action, wherein the carbon credit is created based on the actual value of the reduction amount of the greenhouse gas are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activities (fundamental economic practices, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions); and the calculating limitation is also a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: The limitation wherein the carbon credit is created based on the actual value of the reduction amount of the greenhouse gas accumulated in a predetermined period is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activities (fundamental economic practices, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: The limitation wherein the carbon credit is created based on a power amount excluding a power amount used for traveling of the electric vehicle after the charging action among a power amount charged to the battery by the actually performed charging action is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activities (fundamental economic practices, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea
Therefore claims 1, 10, and the dependent claims 2-9 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are ineligible.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2023/0152108 A1 to Vreeland in view of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publication WO 2020/080754 A1 to Jang et al. (foreign patent document #1 on IDS submitted on 31 December 2025).
Claim 1:
Vreeland, as shown, teaches the following:
An information processing method (Vreeland Fig 5, ¶[0030] details identifying one or more charging stations and the emissions data associated with the charging stations to optimize carbon emissions),
With respect to the following:
which a computer performs, of processing information on a carbon credit created by reducing greenhouse gas,
the carbon credit being created based on a reduction of the greenhouse gas discharged by a charging action of charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply, and
Vreeland, as shown in Fig 1, Fig 7, ¶[0019], ¶[0024], ¶[0040] details a computer, charging stations for charging the battery of an electric vehicle equipped with one or more renewable energy sources such as solar panels that are adapted to provide power for charging the vehicle (i.e. charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply), and identifying charging stations to optimize carbon emissions, minimizing carbon emissions discharged to produce the power used to power the vehicle (i.e. charging action). However, Jang teaches these limitations, charging an electric vehicle with a charger that supplied electric energy to the electric vehicle, and a carbon emission reduction management device calculating a carbon reduction amount that corresponds to the charging amount calculated for each user and when the preset standards are met (e.g. accumulated over a certain period of time) an application for carbon emission credits is transmitted to a carbon emission credit issuance server and applied for and issued (Jang claims 1 and 7, ¶[0034-35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include which a computer performs, of processing information on a carbon credit created by reducing greenhouse gas, the carbon credit being created based on a reduction of the greenhouse gas discharged by a charging action of charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply as taught by Jang with the teachings of Vreeland, with the motivation of “reducing carbon emissions by operating an electric vehicle” (Jang ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include which a computer performs, of processing information on a carbon credit created by reducing greenhouse gas, the carbon credit being created based on a reduction of the greenhouse gas discharged by a charging action of charging a battery mounted on an electric vehicle by an external power supply as taught by Jang in the system of Vreeland, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Vreeland (in view of Jang) also teaches the following:
the information processing method comprising:
generating a charging action candidate including at least one another charging action different from a reference charging action that is a charging action serving as a reference, the at least one another charging action having an emission amount of the greenhouse gas smaller than that in the reference charging action (Vreeland Fig 2-3, ¶[0022-23] details identifying charge stations (i.e. candidates) across regions and their emission intensity based on how their power is produced, identifying the charge station(s) in region 210 that have the highest emission intensity (i.e. a reference charging action) followed by the charge stations in regions 220 and 230 (i.e. charging action candidates including at least one another charging action candidate different form a reference charging action serving as a reference and having an emission amount smaller than the reference charging action); and displaying the one or more charging stations that optimize carbon emissions such as by minimizing an amount of carbon emissions discharged distinguishing these charge stations with a different color),
the charging action candidate being selectable by a user of the electric vehicle (Vreeland Fig 3, ¶[0027] details displaying the optimized carbon emission charging station icon with a demarcation, and receiving a selection of which charging station the user intends to charge the vehicle at in the UI);
calculating a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas discharged by each of the charging actions (Vreeland Fig 2, ¶[0018], ¶[0021-22] details obtaining carbon emissions data associated with the utility grid locations to determine emissions data for each charging station including forecasted emissions data, and using projected emissions data to determine / forecast carbon emissions for each of the charging stations at the time the vehicle is projected to pass through the respective charging station); and
calculating a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in each of the at least one another charging action, based on the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the reference charging action and the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the another charging action (Vreeland ¶[0022] details comparing likely charge station emissions of stations in grid location 210 (reference charging action) and stations in locations 220 and 230 (another charging action) and determining grid location 210 will most likely result in a higher net effect in emissions compared to charging the vehicle at one of the locations 220 and 230, i.e. this is another way of stating charging options at 220 and 230 most likely result in a lower net effect in emissions (calculated predicted value of reduction amount of greenhouse gas) compared to charging the vehicle at grid location 210.
Claim 2:
Vreeland in view of Jang, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Vreeland also teaches the following:
displaying the charging action candidate on a terminal device of the user or a terminal device mounted on the electric vehicle (Vreeland Fig 2-4, ¶[0023-25] details displaying candidate charge stations in different regions and on different routes including stations that optimize carbon emissions on a user interface in the vehicle or on the mobile device),
wherein in the displaying, at least one of a predicted value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas and a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas is displayed on the terminal device together with the charging action candidate (Vreeland ¶[0025] details the UI displays adjacent to the charging station information that includes the emissions data such as the projected emissions data for a time that the vehicle traveling on a route is projected to arrive thereat).
Claim 3:
Vreeland in view of Jang, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Vreeland also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one another charging action includes a charging action performed at another time and/or another place different from a time and/or a place at which the reference charging action is performed (Vreeland ¶[0022], ¶[0025] details determining a net effect of charging a vehicle at one charging station in one region 210 (reference charging action) compared to charging at 220 and 230 (another charging action, another place different from the reference charging action is performed), and when determining the net effect of charging the vehicle at each location trip deviations to reach each charging location are considered and the projected power consumption of the vehicle (i.e. a place different from a time and/or place of a reference charging action), and the UI displays information that includes the emissions data such as the projected emissions data for a time that the vehicle traveling on a route is projected to arrive thereat).
Claim 4:
Vreeland in view of Jang, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 3. Vreeland also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one another charging action includes a charging action performed at another place different from the place where the reference charging action is performed (Vreeland ¶[0022], ¶[0025] details determining a net effect of charging a vehicle at one charging station in one region 210 (reference charging action) compared to charging at 220 and 230 (another charging action, another place different from the reference charging action is performed), and when determining the net effect of charging the vehicle at each location trip deviations to reach each charging location are considered and the projected power consumption of the vehicle (i.e. a place different from a place of a reference charging action), and
in the calculation of the predicted reduction amount, a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in the charging action performed at the another place is calculated further based on an emission amount of the greenhouse gas caused by a movement of the electric vehicle between the place where the reference charging action is performed and the another place (Vreeland Fig 4, ¶[0022], ¶[0025], ¶[0027] details determining a net effect of charging a vehicle at one charging station in one region 210 (reference charging action) compared to charging at 220 and 230 (another charging action, another place different from the reference charging action is performed), and when determining the net effect of charging the vehicle at each location trip deviations to reach each charging location (i.e. movement of the electric vehicle between the place where the reference charging action is performed and another place) are considered and the projected power consumption of the vehicle (i.e. a place different from a place of a reference charging action), noting in Fig 4 the driver could select a subsequent station demarcated as 320 instead of the first station (i.e. reference station) on the route).
Claim 7:
Vreeland in view of Jang, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Vreeland also teaches the following:
calculating an actual value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas based on an actual value of an emission amount of the greenhouse gas in an actually performed charging action and the predicted value of the emission amount of the greenhouse gas in the reference charging action (Vreeland ¶[0021-22] details determining a higher net effect in emissions if charging the vehicle at a charge station in region 210 (which the emissions data can be forecasted emissions data, per ¶[0021]) compared to charging the vehicle at one of the charging stations located at 220 and 230 (which the emissions data can be real-time emission data, per ¶[0021]), noting this is another way of stating charging options at 220 and 230 most likely result in a lower net effect in emissions (calculated actual value of reduction amount of greenhouse gas)),
Jang also teaches the following:
wherein the carbon credit is created based on the actual value of the reduction amount of the greenhouse gas (Jang claims 1 and 7, ¶[0034-35], ¶[0053] details adding up the actual carbon emission reduction amounts accumulated and when the preset standards are met (e.g. accumulated over a certain period of time) an application for carbon emission credits is transmitted to a carbon emission credit issuance server and applied for and carbon emission rights are issued, i.e. carbon credit is created).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the carbon credit is created based on the actual value of the reduction amount of the greenhouse gas as taught by Jang with the teachings of Vreeland (in view of Jang), with the motivation of “reducing carbon emissions by operating an electric vehicle” (Jang ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the carbon credit is created based on the actual value of the reduction amount of the greenhouse gas as taught by Jang in the system of Vreeland (in view of Jang), 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8:
Vreeland in view of Jang, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 7. Jang also teaches the following:
wherein the carbon credit is created based on the actual value of the reduction amount of the greenhouse gas accumulated in a predetermined period (Jang claims 1 and 7, ¶[0034-35], ¶[0053] details adding up the actual carbon emission reduction amounts accumulated and when the preset standards are met (e.g. accumulated over a certain period of time) an application for carbon emission credits is transmitted to a carbon emission credit issuance server and applied for and carbon emission rights are issued, i.e. carbon credit is created).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the carbon credit is created based on the actual value of the reduction amount of the greenhouse gas accumulated in a predetermined period as taught by Jang with the teachings of Vreeland (in view of Jang), with the motivation of “reducing carbon emissions by operating an electric vehicle” (Jang ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the carbon credit is created based on the actual value of the reduction amount of the greenhouse gas accumulated in a predetermined period as taught by Jang in the system of Vreeland (in view of Jang), 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2023/0152108 A1 to Vreeland in view of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publication WO 2020/080754 A1 to Jang et al., as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2024/0010099 A1 to Peterman et al.
Claim 5:
Vreeland in view of Jang, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Vreeland also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one another charging action includes a charging action of charging the battery with electric power generated by solar power generation (Vreeland ¶[0019] details charging stations are equipped with one or more renewable energy sources such as solar panels that provide power for charging the vehicle),
With respect to the following:
and in the calculation of the predicted reduction amount, a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in the charging action using the solar power generation is calculated further based on meteorological data.
Vreeland, as shown in ¶[0019], ¶[0021-22] details forecasting emissions and determining the higher net effect in emissions comparing two different charging stations (e.g. 210 compared to 220 and 230) for charging a vehicle, noting this is another way of stating charging options at 220 and 230 most likely result in a lower net effect in emissions (predicted reduction amount of greenhouse gas); and details using solar panels at a charging station to provide power for charging the vehicle, but does not explicitly state calculating the predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in the charging action using the solar power generation is calculated further based on meteorological data. However, Peterman teaches this remaining limitation with a charger station that can generate all electricity from renewable sources including solar power or a from a varying state of renewable energy, and forecasting emissions based on weather by predicting use of solar power based on the expected sunniness or cloudiness, i.e. a predicted value of a reduction amount of greenhouse gas in the charging action using solar power generation is calculated based on meteorological data (Peterman ¶[0024], ¶[0030], ¶[0035], ¶[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in the charging action using the solar power generation is calculated further based on meteorological data as taught by Peterman with the teachings of Vreeland in view of Jang, with the motivation of “increasing a portion of renewable energy used to charge an electric vehicle” (Peterman ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a predicted value of a reduction amount of the greenhouse gas in the charging action using the solar power generation is calculated further based on meteorological data as taught by Peterman in the system of Vreeland in view of Jang, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6:
Vreeland in view of Jang in view of Peterman, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 5. Vreeland also teaches the following:
displaying the charging action candidate on a terminal device of the user or a terminal device mounted on the electric vehicle (Vreeland Fig 2-4, ¶[0023-25] details displaying candidate charge stations in different regions and on different routes including stations that optimize carbon emissions on a user interface in the vehicle or on the mobile device),
Peterman (of Vreeland in view of Jang in view of Peterman) also teaches the following:
wherein in the displaying, at least one of
information on a power amount charged to the battery by the solar power generation (Peterman ¶[0032], ¶[0042] identifying a real time grid composition for a first segment of charging wherein 60% of energy is solar, and during a second segment of charging wherein 50% of charging is solar; and the vehicle interface can display the charging stations with the energy compositions or energy intensities thereof), the power amount being estimated based on the meteorological data (Peterman ¶[0058] details the emissions forecaster can predict solar power based on expected sunniness or cloudiness), and
information on a power generation amount generated by the solar power generation, the power generation amount being estimated based on the meteorological data is further displayed on the terminal device together with the charging action candidate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include information on a power amount charged to the battery by the solar power generation, the power amount being estimated based on the meteorological data as taught by Peterman with the teachings of Vreeland in view of Jang (in view of Peterman), with the motivation of “increasing a portion of renewable energy used to charge an electric vehicle” (Peterman ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include information on a power amount charged to the battery by the solar power generation, the power amount being estimated based on the meteorological data as taught by Peterman in the system of Vreeland in view of Jang (in view of Peterman), 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 9:
Vreeland in view of Jang, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 7. Vreeland does not explicitly state but Peterman teaches the following:
wherein the carbon credit is created based on a power amount excluding a power amount used for traveling of the electric vehicle after the charging action among a power amount charged to the battery by the actually performed charging action (Peterman ¶[0030], ¶[0035], ¶[0040] details carbon emissions are associated with a charging session, and an operator of a charging station can obtain renewable energy credits (RECs) to offset all or a portion of the energy delivered, the action generator can obtain RCEs such as by sourcing a reception of energy by the battery (e.g. charging the battery) from a grid at a time when the energy grid includes a relatively high proportion of renewable energy and discharging the battery into the energy grid when energy grid includes a relatively low proportion of renewable energy, noting that this carbon credit excludes traveling of the electric vehicle after the charging action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the carbon credit is created based on a power amount excluding a power amount used for traveling of the electric vehicle after the charging action among a power amount charged to the battery by the actually performed charging action as taught by Peterman with the teachings of Vreeland in view of Jang, with the motivation of “increasing a portion of renewable energy used to charge an electric vehicle” (Peterman ¶[0002]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the carbon credit is created based on a power amount excluding a power amount used for traveling of the electric vehicle after the charging action among a power amount charged to the battery by the actually performed charging action as taught by Jang in the system of Vreeland in view of Jang, 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. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (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 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights