Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 05/08/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
generating, via the processor, a first charging and discharging schedule, wherein a state of charge (SOC) at a time point when the electric vehicle exits is higher than or equal to a target SOC according to electric vehicle information;
generating, via the processor, a second charging and discharging schedule for participation of the electric vehicle in an electric power market according to contracted power capacity data received from a demand management business operator server based on the first charging and discharging schedule; and
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing behavior and sales activities/behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, generating a charging/discharging schedule is related to managing human behavior for charging an EV . Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Independent Claim 11 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to EV information; Claim 3 is directed to maximum hourly charging and discharging using output power; Claim 4 is directed to calculating a first charging and discharging schedule; Claim 5 is directed to adjusting the SOC of EV with a preset battery usage range; Claim 6 is directed to summing plug-in times and scheduling; Claim 7 is directed to second charging/discharging schedule to comply with hourly contracted power capacity; Claim 8 is directed to second charging/discharging schedule; Claim 9 is directed to second charging/discharging schedule total charging efficiencies and Claim 10 is directed to limiting discharging according to the resource type information. Claims 12-20 substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 2-10 and encompass same abstract idea.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a memory storing computer executable instructions and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute instructions. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a computing device, a memory storing computer executable instructions and at least one processor. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶0066-¶0067).
For instance, the steps of generating a first charging/discharging schedule where a SOC at a time point when EV exits is higher than or equal to a target SOC and generating a second charging/discharging schedule for participation of the EV in an electric power market are reflective of analyzing data to produce a schedule that manages human behavior. The step of charging the electric vehicle based on the determined schedule is an application step of the analysis (generating the schedule) and considered an ‘apply it’ step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, 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 stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a crm, etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (KR 20210148759).
Claim 1:
Jang discloses:
An electrical vehicle control device for scheduling charging and is charging of an electric vehicle, comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the instructions, wherein the instructions comprise: (see at least Figure 5 and pgs. 8-9, server device)
generating, via the processor, a first charging and discharging schedule, wherein a state of charge (SOC) at a time point when the electric vehicle exits is higher than or equal to a target SOC according to electric vehicle information; (see at least pg. 8, para 10, schedule generating unit for generating charge/discharge schedule; see also pg. 9, para 5, charging/discharging reference load generation unit may include a charging target SOC level at the time of vehicle exit)
generating, via the processor, a second charging and discharging schedule for participation of the electric vehicle in an electric power market according to contracted power capacity data received from a demand management business operator server based on the first charging and discharging schedule; and (see at least pg. 11, para 8-9 – pg. 12, para 1, utilizing power demand forecasts for charging/discharging schedule setting and operation and if participating in the power system service the collective charge management company can adjust the charge/discharge schedule and deliver service)
charging the electric vehicle based on the first charging and discharging schedule or the second charging or discharging schedule. (see at least pg. 12, para 1, performing charging service)
Claim 2:
Jang discloses claim 1. Jang further discloses:
wherein the electric vehicle information includes plug-in charger information, a current SOC, a target OC, resource type information, battery capacity information, battery charging and discharging efficiency, and scheduled vehicle entry time and scheduled vehicle exit time information. (see at least pg. 8, para 4, battery capacity, battery characteristics; see also pg. 9, para 2, charger information and Figure 3b; see also pg. 14, para 6; see also pg. 10, para 6, battery capacity, charge/discharge efficiency; pg. 16, para 3, current SOC level and target SOC; see also pg. 18, para 7, entry/exit time)
Claim 3:
Jang discloses claim 2. Jang further discloses:
wherein the instructions further comprise calculating, via the processor, maximum hourly charging and discharging energy using output power included in the plug-in charger information and the scheduled vehicle entry time and the scheduled vehicle exit time. (see at least pg. 9, para 2, charger information and Figure 3b; see also pg. 10, para 8, charger information includes maximum charging power; see also pg. 14, para 6; see also pg. 17, para 6-8, equations for calculating maximum charging speed and maximum discharge rate; see also pg. 13, para 6-7, charging/discharging schedule including start and departure time)
Claim 4:
Jang further discloses:
wherein the instructions further comprise calculating, via the processor, the first charging and discharging schedule using the current SOC, the battery capacity information, and the target SOC of the electric vehicle. (see at least pgs. 8, para 11-pg. 9, paras 1-2, receiving information for EV, connection point SOC, target SOC, etc. for determining charging/discharging schedule; see also pg. 8, para 4, battery capacity and characteristics)
Claim 5:
Jang discloses claim 2. Jang further discloses:
wherein the instructions further comprise adjusting, via the processor, the SOC of the electric vehicle to be within a preset battery usage range and sets the first charging and discharging schedule. (see at least Pg. 11, para 9, calculate available battery usage range)
Claim 7:
Jang discloses claim 1. Jang further disclose:
wherein the instructions further comprise calculating, via the processor, the second charging and discharging schedule to comply with hourly contracted power capacity. (see at least pg. 11, para 8-9 – pg. 12, para 1, utilizing power demand forecasts for charging/discharging schedule setting and operation and if participating in the power system service the collective charge management company can adjust the charge/discharge schedule and deliver service; see also pg. 3, para 6)
Claim 10:
Jang discloses claim 2. Jang further discloses:
wherein the instructions further comprise calculating, via the processor, the first charging and discharging schedule and the second charging and discharging schedule to limit discharging according to the resource type information. (see at least pg. 15, para 5, discharging is limited)
Claims 11-15, 17 and 20 for a method substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 1-5, 7 and 10 for a device (Jang pg. 6, para 13 server device) and are rejected based on the same rationale.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (KR 20210148759)) in view of Yokoyama et al. (CN 108376373).
Claim 6:
While Jang discloses claim 2, Jang does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Yokoyama does disclose:
wherein the instructions further comprise summing, via the processor, plug-in times from a plurality of scheduled vehicle entry times to a plurality of scheduled vehicle exit times, and calculating the first charging and discharging schedule and the second charging and discharging schedule according to the summed plug-in times. (see at least pg. 5, para 1, managing a plurality of conveying device for each accumulation time of charging and discharging; see also pg. 8, para 2, aggregator manages a plurality of electric vehicles for each accumulation of charging and discharging so it can accurately manage cumulative time; see also pg. 6, para 5, master aggregator scheduling)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the charge/discharge scheduling management system of Jang with accumulating time for charging/discharging of Yokoyama to assist with managing a plurality of electric vehicles.
Claim 16 for a method substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 6 and are rejected based on the same rationale as given above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (KR 20210148759)) in view of Limmer (US 12393888).
Claim 8:
While Jang discloses claim 7, Jang does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Limmer does disclose:
wherein the second charging and discharging schedule includes a schedule of charging power and discharging power. (see at least column 3, lines 53-55, charging scheduler can specify charging/discharging power)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the charge/discharge scheduling management system of Jang with the charging scheduler specifying charge/discharge power 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.
Claim 18 for a method substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 8 and are rejected based on the same rationale as given above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (KR 20210148759)) in view of Limmer (US 12393888) further in view Semsar et al. (Semsar, Sepehr and Lehn, Peter, “On-Board Signle-Phase Integrated Electric Vehicle Charger With V2G Functionality,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 35, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2020).
Claim 9:
While Jang and Limmer disclose claim 8, Jang further discloses , wherein the instructions further comprise calculating, via the processor, the second charging and discharging schedule (see at least pg. 11, para 8-9 – pg. 12, para 1), neither expliclity disclose the following limitation; however, Semsar does disclose:
[wherein the instructions further comprise calculating, via the processor, the second charging and discharging schedule] wherein a total of charging efficiencies is equal to a total of discharging efficiencies. (see at least pg. 12082, discharging and charging efficiency is relatively flat)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the charge/discharge scheduling management system of Jang and the charging scheduler specifying charge/discharge power with the charging/discharging efficiency measurements of Samsar in order to verify the concept of integrated charging is viable from an efficiency perspective.
Claim 19 for a method substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 9 and are rejected based on the same rationale as given above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Schmidt (US 2024/0174115) discloses The EV charger module will determine the current charge state of the vehicle battery and have its desired charge complete time input by the user. The transformer module will then create a schedule with these parameters from all connected EV charger modules to ensure that all vehicles are best able to reach the desired level of charge by the correct time.
Al-Awami etal. (US 2019/0359065) aggregator that communicates with the electric vehicles according to a dispatch strategy to switch charging with electric power from the electric grid. The aggregator that aggregates and manages charging of a set of electric vehicles associated with an electric grid.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights