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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This action is in response to the claims filed on July 22, 2025. Claims 1-6 are pending and are rejected for the reasons described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
5. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-3) and a machine (claims 4-6). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
6. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
A method of implementing an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem, the method comprising:
receiving, [[by an EV ecosystem management device]], EV eco data from [[an EV ecosystem participation device]]; and
managing, [[by the EV ecosystem management device]], an EV ecosystem environment based on the EV eco data.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., managing a system for the issuance of E-points for trading carbon emission rights and electrical energy). While claim 1 does not explicitly recite the issuance of E-points, it is clear, in light of the specification and dependent claims that the processes of receiving EV eco data and managing the EV ecosystem environment correspond to the issuance and use of E-points in a commercial environment.
Step 2A, Prong 2
7. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 1 also recite generic computer components (e.g., an EV ecosystem management device and an EV ecosystem participation device). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, claim 1 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
8. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 1 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., an EV ecosystem management device and an EV ecosystem participation device), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)); (See also applicant’s Specification at least Paragraphs 31-38).
Thus, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
9. Independent claim 4 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 4 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 4 and 1 is that claim 4 is drafted as a system rather than as a method. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 4 recites generic computer components (e.g., an EV ecosystem management device and an EV ecosystem participation device) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 4, claim 4 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
10. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 2 and 5 recite the limitations, “wherein: the EV eco data includes information related to at least one of electric energy, carbon emission rights, and E-points, the E-points are points for trading the electrical energy or the carbon emission rights.” These limitations simply provide further definition to the “EV eco data” recited in claims 1 and 4. Simply stating that the EV eco data comprises information related to E-points for trading electrical energy or carbon emission rights does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the type of data received and used by the system.
Additionally, claims 2 and 5 recite the limitation, “the EV ecosystem environment is generated based on an EV ecosystem participation device that supplies or receives electrical energy related to an operation of an EV, and an EV ecosystem participation device that trades a product or service based on the E-points.” This limitation simply provides further definition to the “EV ecosystem environment” recited in claims 1 and 4. Simply stating that the EV ecosystem environment is based on different EV ecosystem participation devices does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the entities involved with the EV ecosystem environment.
Claims 3 and 6 simply refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., grouping the participation devices based on a hierarchy, and issuing/cancelling E-points based on the groups) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, as described above regarding claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that the groups are comprised of “EV ecosystem participation devices” amounts to no more than merely applying generic computer components to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
12. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uyeki (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230158917).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Uyeki teaches:
A method of implementing an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem, the method comprising (See at least Paragraph 24: Describes a system for tracking and managing the transfer of renewable energy and credits associated with the renewable energy. The system of connected entities, as shown in Figure 1, corresponds to an electric vehicle ecosystem):
receiving, by an EV ecosystem management device, EV eco data from an EV ecosystem participation device (See at least Paragraphs 24 and 30-31: The system comprises an electronic device of an energy regulatory authority [i.e., an EV ecosystem management device] which monitors charging activity of a plurality of energy transfer devices [i.e., EV ecosystem participation devices]); and
managing, by the EV ecosystem management device, an EV ecosystem environment based on the EV eco data (See at least Paragraphs 24 and 30-31: The energy regulatory authority may facilitate the issuance of credits, such as renewable energy certificates or other renewable energy-related credits [e.g., E-points], and other forms of compensation to the network of entities involved in the production and consumption of energy).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Uyeki teaches:
wherein: the EV eco data includes information related to at least one of electric energy, carbon emission rights, and E-points (See at least Paragraph 24: The energy regulatory authority may monitor charging activity associated with a plurality of energy transfer devices [e.g., electric energy] and facilitate the issuance of credits [i.e., E-points]):
the E-points are points for trading the electrical energy or the carbon emission rights (See at least Paragraph 15: The renewable energy credit is a tradable, market-based instrument. For example, carbon generation entities may purchase the renewable energy certificate in order to obtain the right to perform non-sustainable activities [e.g., carbon emission rights; See Paragraph 34]), and
the EV ecosystem environment is generated based on an EV ecosystem participation device that supplies or receives electrical energy related to an operation of an EV, and an EV ecosystem participation device that trades a product or service based on the E-points (See at least Paragraph 23 and Figure 1: The system comprises a network of entities that supply electrical energy [e.g., renewable energy generation sources 110], and a plurality of entities that use the electrical energy and trade the credits generated by the energy regulatory authority. For example, the system comprises a plurality of energy transfer devices which may trade the generated renewable energy credits [See Paragraph 42]).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Uyeki teaches:
An electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem management device for implementing an EV ecosystem, which is implemented to: (See at least Paragraph 24: Describes a system for tracking and managing the transfer of renewable energy and credits associated with the renewable energy. The system of connected entities, as shown in Figure 1, corresponds to an electric vehicle ecosystem. The system comprises an electronic device of an energy regulatory authority [i.e., an EV ecosystem management device]):
receive EV eco data from an EV ecosystem participation device (See at least Paragraphs 24 and 30-31: The electronic device of an energy regulatory authority [i.e., an EV ecosystem management device] monitors charging activity of a plurality of energy transfer devices [i.e., EV ecosystem participation devices]); and
manage an EV ecosystem environment based on the EV eco data (See at least Paragraphs 24 and 30-31: The energy regulatory authority may facilitate the issuance of credits, such as renewable energy certificates or other renewable energy-related credits [e.g., E-points], and other forms of compensation to the network of entities involved in the production and consumption of energy).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Uyeki teaches:
wherein: the EV eco data includes information related to at least one of electric energy, carbon emission rights, and E-points (See at least Paragraph 24: The energy regulatory authority may monitor charging activity associated with a plurality of energy transfer devices [e.g., electric energy] and facilitate the issuance of credits [i.e., E-points]):
the E-points are points for trading the electrical energy or the carbon emission rights (See at least Paragraph 15: The renewable energy credit is a tradable, market-based instrument. For example, carbon generation entities may purchase the renewable energy certificate in order to obtain the right to perform non-sustainable activities [e.g., carbon emission rights; See Paragraph 34]), and
the EV ecosystem environment is generated based on an EV ecosystem participation device that supplies or receives electrical energy related to an operation of an EV, and an EV ecosystem participation device that trades a product or service based on the E-points (See at least Paragraph 23 and Figure 1: The system comprises a network of entities that supply electrical energy [e.g., renewable energy generation sources 110], and a plurality of entities that use the electrical energy and trade the credits generated by the energy regulatory authority. For example, the system comprises a plurality of energy transfer devices which may trade the generated renewable energy credits [See Paragraph 42]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230158917) in view of Osberg (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20160092899).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Uyeki does not explicitly teach, but Osberg, however, does teach:
wherein: a plurality of EV ecosystem participation devices are grouped based on a hierarchy and set as EV ecosystem participation device groups (See at least Paragraphs 28-30: Describes a system for improving eco-driving behavior through gamification. Users may be divided into groups based on various criteria. For example, users may be grouped based on the user’s past performance [i.e., a hierarchy]), and
issuance and cancellation of the E-points are performed based on the EV ecosystem participation device groups (See at least Paragraph 34-36: Rewards, such as points or carbon credits may be issued based on the user’s group and individual performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Uyeki and Osberg in order to persuade individuals to practice more eco-friendly driving behaviors which benefit the health of the environment (Osberg: Paragraphs 1-8).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Uyeki does not explicitly teach, but Osberg, however, does teach:
wherein: a plurality of EV ecosystem participation devices are grouped based on a hierarchy and set as EV ecosystem participation device groups (See at least Paragraphs 28-30: Describes a system for improving eco-driving behavior through gamification. Users may be divided into groups based on various criteria. For example, users may be grouped based on the user’s past performance [i.e., a hierarchy]), and
issuance and cancellation of the E-points are performed based on the EV ecosystem participation device groups (See at least Paragraph 34-36: Rewards, such as points or carbon credits may be issued based on the user’s group and individual performance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine the teachings of Uyeki and Osberg in order to persuade individuals to practice more eco-friendly driving behaviors which benefit the health of the environment (Osberg: Paragraphs 1-8).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mooney (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20240403975): Describes systems and methods that relate to an electric vehicle users network system, which connects electric vehicle owners, a plurality of electric vehicle charging stations and electric vehicle charging networks and businesses dealing with electric vehicle related goods and services to interact.
Lu (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20240144261): Describes systems and methods for determining a behavior of electricity consumption of an electric vehicle and an entity, and adjusting a carbon credit associated with the entity based on an amount of the electricity consumption that is carbon-based and the behavior of the electricity consumption preserving a charge of the electric vehicle.
Forbes (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20100235008): Describes systems and methods that relate generally to electric power supply and generation systems and, more particularly, to an apparatus and method for determining measurable, reportable, and verifiable carbon credits using a two-way measuring and reporting system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights