DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the patent application filed 24 June 2025. It is noted that this application benefits from Foreign Priority to Application Serial No. 20242105239 (India) filed 4 October 2024. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 24 June 2025 has been entered and considered. Claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
[3] Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-9 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 4, and 7 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 4, and 7 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of configuring and applying mathematical models to optimize routing and charging schedules/plans for a fleet of electric vehicles, which is reasonably considered to be an inventive concept directed to ineligible Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of Mathematical Concepts as ineligible abstract ideas (See at least Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to Mathematical Concepts, representative claim 1 recites:
“…collecting…a plurality of data associated to a logistic enterprise, wherein the plurality of data comprising data related to cost of power procurement from one or more predefined energy sources, data related to one or more operations within the logistic enterprise, data related to an average cost of charging one or more electric vehicles (EVs) of the logistic enterprise, and data related to access of the logistic enterprise on one or more charging points for the one or more electric vehicles (EVs); configuring…a first model based on a genetic algorithm (GA) for optimizing a routing cost of each of the one or more electric vehicles (EVs) to satisfy one or more delivery constraints and the average cost of charging of the one or more electric vehicles (EVs); configuring….a second model based on the genetic algorithm (GA) for optimizing the cost of the power procurement from the one or more predefined energy sources by utilizing the optimized routing cost of the one or more electric vehicles (EVs) from the first model, wherein each of the one or more EVs routes is fixed; and jointly optimizing…the cost of routing of the one or more electric vehicles (EVs) and cost of the power procurement from the one or more energy sources iteratively using the configured first model and the second model based on genetic algorithm (GA).…”
Considered in light of the supportive disclosure, the above limitations are reasonably understood to be implemented by the performance/execution of the disclosed mathematical equations and calculations in paragraphs [0023]-[0037] and [0051]-[0057] of the Specification as originally filed.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “Input/Output (I/O) interface” and “one or more hardware processors”. Claim 1 further indicates, generally, that the claimed method is “processor-implemented” as designated in the preamble. Claims 4 and 7, directed to a system and machine-readable storage mediums introduce a “memory” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “one or more hardware processors”, “memory”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “Input/Output (I/O) interface” is identified as collecting logistics and vehicle data.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., models are configured, routing and charging costs are optimized, vehicle and logistics data are collected etc.) as associated with a respective “interface” or “model/processor”. Beyond the general statement that the “model/processor” is generally tied to the recited functions, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “model(s)/processor” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a processor” or “using a model”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., vehicle and logistics data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., logistics data and instructions); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., configuring and applying mathematical models to optimize routing and charging schedules/plans for a fleet of electric vehicles) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of configuring and applying mathematical models to optimize routing and charging schedules/plans for a fleet of electric vehicles using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed configuring and applying mathematical models to optimize routing and charging schedules/plans for a fleet of electric vehicles benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0059]-[0062]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “one or more hardware processors”, “memory”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “Input/Output (I/O) interface” is identified as collecting logistics and vehicle data.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., vehicle and logistics data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., logistics data and instructions); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., configuring and applying mathematical models to optimize routing and charging schedules/plans for a fleet of electric vehicles).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of configuring and applying mathematical models to optimize routing and charging schedules/plans for a fleet of electric vehicles. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., configuring and applying mathematical models to optimize routing and charging schedules/plans for a fleet of electric vehicles, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of configuring and applying mathematical models to optimize routing and charging schedules/plans for a fleet of electric vehicles benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 4 and 7, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-3, 4-6, and 8-9, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
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.
[4] Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbraith et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0343149 hereinafter ‘Galbraith’) in view of Karimi et al., Demand Charge Management Based on Battery Aggregation of Commercial and Passenger Electric Fleet Vehicles, 2024-05-29, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (Volume: PP, Issue: 99, Page(s): 1-11), hereinafter “Karimi”.
With respect to claim 1, Galbraith discloses a processor-implemented method comprising: collecting, via an Input/Output (I/O) interface, a plurality of data associated to a logistic enterprise, wherein the plurality of data comprising data related to cost of power procurement from one or more predefined energy sources, data related to one or more operations within the logistic enterprise, data related to an average cost of charging one or more electric vehicles (EVs) of the logistic enterprise, and data related to access of the logistic enterprise on one or more charging points for the one or more electric vehicles (EVs) (Galbraith et al.; paragraphs [0028] [0039] [0042] [0053]; See at least collection of operational logistics data including time or pricing for energy procurement at locations in the charging network and at defined times, delivery schedules, charging data per vehicle, and charging station availability); configuring, via the one or more hardware processors, a first model based on a genetic algorithm (GA) for optimizing a routing cost of each of the one or more electric vehicles (EVs) to satisfy one or more delivery constraints and the average cost of charging of the one or more electric vehicles (EVs) (Galbraith et al.; paragraphs [0026] [0028] [0045] [0209]; See at least optimizer applies genetic algorithm to calculate routing costs in consideration of delivery and costs of charging vehicles); configuring, via one or more hardware processors, a second model based on the genetic algorithm (GA) for optimizing the cost of the power procurement from the one or more predefined energy sources by utilizing the optimized routing cost of the one or more electric vehicles (EVs) from the first model, wherein each of the one or more EVs routes is fixed (Galbraith et al.; paragraphs [0028] [0042] [0209]; See at least modelling routing costs including inputs of energy costs by charging location).
With respect to joint optimization of separate models related to routing and power procurement, Galbraith discloses determination/optimization of vehicle routing utilizing a genetic algorithm to model costs including costs of energy at different locations and at different times. Galbraith fasil to expressly state that the optimization of both models occurs jointly.
However, as evidenced by Karimi, it is well-known in the art to apply a genetic algorithm to simultaneously or jointly optimize the cost of routing of the one or more electric vehicles (EVs) and cost of the power procurement from the one or more energy sources iteratively using the configured first model and the second model based on genetic algorithm (GA) (Karimi; page 2 column 2, lines 30-60 and page 3, column 2 lines 15-60; See at least time-indexed vehicle routing compatible with simultaneous optimization of logistical operations and energy services within electric fleets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the determination/optimization of vehicle routing utilizing a genetic algorithm to model costs including costs of energy at different locations and at different times features of Galbraith by further including simultaneous optimization of logistics and energy management for commercial electric vehicles as taught Karimi. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of optimizing vehicle routing and charging strategies. As Galbraith disclose the use of determination/optimization of vehicle routing utilizing a genetic algorithm to model costs including costs of energy at different locations and at different times in the context of a system and method for optimizing vehicle routing and charging strategies and Karimi similarly discloses the utility simultaneous optimization of logistics and energy management for commercial electric vehicle in the context of a system and method for optimizing vehicle routing and charging strategies, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of aligning mathematical frameworks to ensure optimal utilization of both logistics and energy serves thereby empowering commercial operators to evaluate cost saving opportunities by leveraging commercial electric fleet vehicles (Karimi; page 2 column 2, lines 30-60).
With respect to claim 2, Galbraith discloses a processor-implemented method further comprising: collecting routes of each of the one or more EVs (Galbraith et al.; paragraphs [0042] [0047]; See at least routes and charge status); determining state of charge of each of the one or more EVs required for routing (Galbraith et al.; paragraphs [0047]-[0049]; See at least routes and charging plan based on charge of vehicle); and charging each of the one or more EVs irrespective of the cost of power procurement, if the one or more EVs do not have a predefined charge for routing (Galbraith et al.; paragraphs [0028] [0049]-[0050]; See at least routing inconsideration of charging costs and availability at different locations and times ).
With respect to claim 3, Galbraith discloses a processor-implemented method wherein the routing cost includes total distance travelled by the one or more EVs and cost to charge-discharge (Galbraith et al.; paragraphs [0028] [0042]; See at least calculation of routing costs based on distance and charging costs/pricing).
[5] Claims 4-6 and 7-9 substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 1-3 as directed to the enabling system and computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. With respect to these elements, Galbraith disclose enabling the disclosed method employing analogous systems and executable instructions. Accordingly, claims 4-6 and 7-9 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 1-3.
Conclusion
[6] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Fragkedaki, DECOUPLED ELECTRIC VEHICLE ROUTING, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0130130053, paragraphs [0039]-[0044]: Relevant Teachings: Fragkedaki discloses a system/method that provides calculations of routing costs based on evolutionary algorithms that include determining routing coasts based on different states of a charging network and vehicles.
Aggoune-Mtalaa, METHOD FOR IMPROVING THE ROUTING OF A FLEET OF MODULAR ELECTRIC VEHICLES, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0148116, paragraphs [0025]-[0058]: Relevant Teachings: Aggoune-Mtalaa discloses a system/method that applies a genetic algorithm to determine EV routing costs including charging at specified locations within a charging network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights