DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-5 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding independent claims, (additional elements bolded)
Regarding Claim 1, A method performed by an information processing apparatus,
the information processing apparatus being used for providing a rush power supply service that dispatches a power supply vehicle to supply power to a vehicle of a user, the method comprising:
accepting from the user a designation of one or more power supply conditions under which the user requests power supply to the vehicle;
determining, based on information on the vehicle at a first point in time, a date and time at which the one or more power supply conditions are predicted to be satisfied as a scheduled power supply date and time;
determining an operation plan for the power supply vehicle to supply power to the vehicle at the scheduled power supply date and time;
predicting whether the one or more power supply conditions are satisfied at the scheduled power supply date and time based on information on the vehicle at a second point in time that is before arrival of the scheduled power supply date and time and is after determination of the operation plan;
and modifying the operation plan to cancel the power supply to the vehicle in a case in which the one or more power supply conditions are predicted not to be satisfied at the scheduled power supply date and time.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards accepting from a user a designation, determining a date and time at which conditions are satisfied, predicting when conditions are satisfied, and modifying an operation plan all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards receiving requests for power supplies, determining operations plans, and modifying the plan (See Specification, [18]).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does 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 elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the claim further recite the additional element(s) of wherein the information processing apparatus monitors the remaining battery capacity of the vehicle and information processing apparatus monitors positional information for the vehicle. This elements is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or 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.
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 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2020, Mobile Charging as a Service: A Reservation-Based Approach) in view of Shintani et al. (US 20250256608 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, Zhang teaches: A method performed by an information processing apparatus, the information processing apparatus being used for providing a rush power
supply service that dispatches a power supply vehicle to supply power to a vehicle of a user, the method comprising: (Zhang, [pg. 1977, co. 1, para. 3]; we focus on the design of an intelligent
mobile charging platform with more practical concerns, Le., a limited number of mobile chargers equipped with restricted charge capacity, wherein recharging may need when the charger's battery SOC is low. As such, the availability of mobile chargers is one key concern, which is our focus in this article. With the support of charging reservations (including service start time, expected charging time, and charging location, and so on), accurate estimation on key indicators or available mobile chargers becomes possible. Correspondingly, charging demands across the network can be more efficiently and effectively satisfied and Zhang, [Fig. 1 and pg. 1978-1979, co. 2-co.1, para. 2-2 ]; figure discloses a mobile power unit (MPU) is sent a reservation from the CA (central aggregator) and initiate the MPU to travel towards the EV and cited passage provides further reservation and dispatch process and Zhang, [pg. 1984, co. 2, para. 2]; Upon a charging request, the candidate MPU would travel through the shortest path toward the EVs parking location).
accepting from the user a designation of one or more power supply conditions under which the user requests power supply to the vehicle; (Zhang, [pg. 1978, co. 2, para. 2]; A mobile charging service is then demanded by the EV and sent to the CA, along, with a range of charging context information. Such context could include the parking location, desired serving time point, charging duration, and so on. In the case that a mobile charging request is made while on the move, the EV will then drive toward an appropriate parking spot).
determining, based on information on the vehicle at a first point in time, a date and time at which the one or more power supply conditions are predicted to be satisfied as a scheduled power supply date and time; (Zhang, [pg. 1977, co. 1, para. 3-4]; the availability of mobile chargers is one key concern, which is our focus in this article. With the support of charging reservations (including service start time, expected charging time, and charging location, and so on), accurate estimation on key indicators for available mobile chargers becomes possible. propose a reservation-based mobile charging scheduling scheme, aiming to provide efficient and effective EV charging services of the system level. By intelligently scheduling optimal mobile chargers toward vehicles with appointments, great feasibility can be achieved for both service providers and EVs and Zhang, [pg. 1978, co. 1, para. 4]; With the support of the mobile charging intelligence, EV users are able to book to optimal mobile charger and receive services at the reservation time).
determining an operation plan for the power supply vehicle to supply power to the vehicle at the scheduled power supply date and time; (Zhang, pg. 1977, co. 1, para. 3-4 and pg. 1978, co. 1, para. 4]; citations above and Zhang, [pg. 1979, co. 1, co. 2]; CA is believed to be equipped 'With a superpower and super-computation capability to make charging plans for all EVs, allowing for demand-response functionality across a large-scale network. Such intelligent mobile charging service enables us to provide high charging efficiency, especially with concerns on the perspective of high EVs demand).
While Zhang teaches determining a first time when power supply conditions are satisfied and creating an operation plan, Zhang does not appear to explicitly teach a second time. However, Zhang in view of the analogous art of Shintani (i.e. mobile charging) does teach: predicting whether the one or more power supply conditions are satisfied at the scheduled power supply date and time based on information on the vehicle at a second point in time that is before arrival of the scheduled power supply date and time and is after determination of the operation plan; and modifying the operation plan to cancel the power supply to the vehicle in a case in which the one or more power supply conditions are predicted not to be satisfied at the scheduled power supply date and time. (Shintani, [13-14]; in this case, in a case where the target mobile object is an unmanned self-driving vehicle, the plan transmitter transmits, to the target mobile object, the mobile power-supply plan including information necessary for automatic movement of the target mobile object from the current location to the power supply requesting facility. [0014] (6) Preferably, in this case, the user benefit calculator successively calculates the mobile power-supply benefit based on the latest power supply requesting facility information, and in a case where the differential benefit becomes less than the station power supply benefit while the target mobile object is moving toward the power supply requesting facility, the plan transmitter transmits a notification of cancelling the notified mobile power-supply plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Zhang including determining a first time when power supply conditions are satisfied and creating an operation plan with the teachings of Shintani including modifying a plan to cancel to cancel the power supply in order to change a plan when the benefit conditions are no longer met. (Shintani, [14]; Preferably, in this case, the user benefit calculator successively calculates the mobile power-supply benefit based on the latest power supply requesting facility information, and in a case where the differential benefit becomes less than the station power supply benefit while the target mobile object is moving toward the power supply requesting facility, the plan transmitter transmits a notification of cancelling the notified mobile power-supply plan)
Regarding Claims 2, Zhang/Shintani teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more power supply conditions include: a first condition indicating that a remaining battery capacity of the vehicle is within a designated numerical value range; a second condition indicating that a designated power supply date and time is a designated day of week and time of day; and a third condition indicating that the vehicle is located at a designated power supply point. (Zhang, [pg. 1976, co. 2, para. 2]; compared with only a few minutes for a gas-powered vehicle. A Nissan Leaf EV on a full charge can achieve up to l07 miles of range [3], which still may not be enough to cover additional driving, The limitations in battery capacity have been considered as one of the major barriers to large-scale adoption of EVs, commonly known as range anxiety, While there are solutions to alleviate such concerns, such as quick chargers (Le,, level-3 chargers) and battery swapping techniques and Zhang, [pg. 1978, co. 2, para. 2]; A mobile charging service is then demanded by the EV and sent to the CA, along, with a range of charging context information. Such context could include the parking location, desired serving time point, charging duration, and so on. In the case that a mobile charging request is made while on the move, the EV will then drive toward an appropriate parking spot).
Regarding Claims 3, While Zhang teaches determining a plan and conditions, Zhang does not appear to teach monitoring capacity after the plan. However, Zhang/Shintani teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein the information processing apparatus monitors the remaining battery capacity of the vehicle during a time period from the determination of the operation plan until the arrival of the scheduled power supply date and time, and in a case in which the remaining battery capacity at the second point in time is outside the numerical value range designated in the first condition, predicts that the first condition is not satisfied at the scheduled power supply date and time and modifies the operation plan to cancel the power supply to the vehicle. (Shintani, [13-14]; in this case, in a case where the target mobile object is an unmanned self-driving vehicle, the plan transmitter transmits, to the target mobile object, the mobile power-supply plan including information necessary for automatic movement of the target mobile object from the current location to the power supply requesting facility. [0014] (6) Preferably, in this case, the user benefit calculator successively calculates the mobile power-supply benefit based on the latest power supply requesting facility information, and in a case where the differential benefit becomes less than the station power supply benefit while the target mobile object is moving toward the power supply requesting facility, the plan transmitter transmits a notification of cancelling the notified mobile power-supply plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Zhang including determining a first time when power supply conditions are satisfied and creating an operation plan with the teachings of Shintani including modifying a plan to cancel to cancel the power supply in order to change a plan when the benefit conditions are no longer met. (Shintani, [14]; Preferably, in this case, the user benefit calculator successively calculates the mobile power-supply benefit based on the latest power supply requesting facility information, and in a case where the differential benefit becomes less than the station power supply benefit while the target mobile object is moving toward the power supply requesting facility, the plan transmitter transmits a notification of cancelling the notified mobile power-supply plan)
Regarding Claims 4, While Zhang teaches determining a plan and conditions, Zhang does not appear to teach monitoring location after the plan. However, Zhang/Shintani teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein the information processing apparatus monitors positional information for the vehicle during a time period from the determination of the operation plan until the arrival of the scheduled power supply date and time, and in a case in which the positional information at the second point in time is different from positional information for the power supply point designated in the third condition, predicts that the third condition is not satisfied at the scheduled power supply date and time and modifies the operation plan to cancel the power supply. (Shintani, [25-26]; in a case where the target mobile object is the unmanned self-driving vehicle, the plan transmitter transmits, to the target mobile object, the mobile power-supply plan including the information necessary for automatic movement of the target mobile object from the current location to the power supply requesting facility. With this configuration, the target mobile object can be automatically moved to the power supply requesting facility, and can supply power at such a destination… in a case where the differential benefit becomes less than the station power supply benefit while the target mobile object is moving toward the power supply requesting facility, the plan transmitter transmits the notification of cancelling the notified mobile power-supply plan to the target terminal or the target mobile object. This makes it possible to minimize the disadvantage to the target user and Shintani, [31]; in a case where the target mobile object is the unmanned self-driving vehicle, the plan transmitter transmits, to the target mobile object, the mobile charge plan including the information necessary for automatic movement of this mobile object from the current location to the charge requesting facility. With this configuration, the target mobile object can be automatically moved to the charge requesting facility, and can be charged at such a destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Zhang including determining a first time when power supply conditions are satisfied and creating an operation plan with the teachings of Shintani including modifying a plan to cancel to cancel the power supply in order to change a plan when the benefit conditions are no longer met. (Shintani, [14]; Preferably, in this case, the user benefit calculator successively calculates the mobile power-supply benefit based on the latest power supply requesting facility information, and in a case where the differential benefit becomes less than the station power supply benefit while the target mobile object is moving toward the power supply requesting facility, the plan transmitter transmits a notification of cancelling the notified mobile power-supply plan)
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2020, Mobile Charging as a Service: A Reservation-Based Approach) in view of Shintani et al. (US 20250256608 A1) and Goei et al. (US 20190351783 A1).
Regarding Claims 5, While Zhang/Shintani teaches modifying and cancelling a power supply plan, and receiving requests for time and location of a power supply, neither appears to explicitly teach inquiring the user as a responsive action. However, Zhang/Shintani in view of the analogous art of Goei (i.e. mobile charging) does teach: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: inquiring of the user, upon canceling the power supply, a desired power supply date and time and a desired power supply location desired by the user; and remodifying the operation plan for the power supply vehicle to supply power to the vehicle at the desired power supply date and time and the desired power supply location. (Goei, [108]; Based upon the trip progress monitoring, a number of different alerts or suggestions as shown generally at step 2104 may be generated to the user through their mobile application 1616. The user may be prompted along the way with reservation time alerts 2106 as scheduled charging unit 1614 reservation times approach. Alternatively, if the monitoring determines that the user has deviated from their trip plan schedule and appears to endanger their battery consumption plan, the system will generate a deviation alert at 2108 and prompt for a corrective action or propose a change in the trip sequence at step 2110 so as to enable an alternative charging units 1614 booking. However, such changes may result in booking cancellation penalties which are charged directly to the users credit card or bank account on file within the system. The user may also engage the AIS to entirely manage the charging sequences based on tracking the user's journey and Goei, [93]; Upon user confirmation of a trip plan, the system will make the necessary reservations utilizing communications between the reservation interface 1806 of the application 1616 and the reservation controller 1712 of the device charger controller 1612 at the appropriate charging unit 1614).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Zhang/Shintani including modifying and cancelling a power supply plan, and receiving requests for time and location of a power supply with the teachings of Goei including inquiring the user as a responsive action in order to allow for a user to determine corrective actions when the prior plan has failed. (Goei, [108]; user may be prompted along the way with reservation time alerts 2106 as scheduled charging unit 1614 reservation times approach. Alternatively, if the monitoring determines that the user has deviated from their trip plan schedule and appears to endanger their battery consumption plan, the system will generate a deviation alert at 2108 and prompt for a corrective action or propose a change in the trip sequence at step 2110 so as to enable an alternative charging units 1614 booking).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights