DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 29 July 2025.
The applicant's claim for benefit of FOR KR10-2023-0011985 filed 1/30/25 and PCT/KR2023/019934 field 12/5/23 has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FOR KR10-2023-0011985 filed 1/30/25. Though a certified copy has been retrieved on 8/27/25. It is noted, however, that certified English translation has not been received as required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, priority to FOR KR10-2023-0011985 filed 1/30/25 has not been perfected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 recite “E-points” However there is no specific definition of the term E-points in the disclosure. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term. As such the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. Examiner will interpret using broadest reasonable interpretation, as scrip used as currency.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
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. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method and the system of implementing a payment system. In the instant case, Claims 1-3 are directed to a process. Claims 4-6 are directed to a system.
(2a) Prong 1: Payment systems are categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: [organizing human activity (fundamental economic practice; commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
[Claim 1] A method of implementing a payment system in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem, the method comprising:
…, …, data regarding E-points within an ….; and
adjusting,…. issuance of the B-points based on a set inflation rate.
[Claim 4] An … for implementing a payment system, which is implemented to:
… data regarding E-points within an EV ecosystem; and
adjust issuance of the E-points based on a set inflation rate.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of ….adjusting…. do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receiving…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ( See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-3 are directed to a process. Claims 3-6 are directed to a system.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [35-36] EV ecosystem…participation device… networking device… ecosystem management device… [148] embodiments … implemented.. program instructions… various computer units and recorded on computer readable media… instruction… machine code… executed in a computer… ] )
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-3 and 5-6) introduces the additional elements of: wherein clauses further describing the data (Claims 2 and 5) and the set inflation rate..(Claim 3 and 6) This element is not a practical application of the judicial exception because these limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [35-36] EV ecosystem…participation device… networking device… ecosystem management device… [148] embodiments … implemented.. program instructions… various computer units and recorded on computer readable media… instruction… machine code… executed in a computer… ] ) Therefore, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070087816 A1, VanLuchene hereinafter referred to as VanLuchene.
Claims 1 and 4
VanLuchene discloses a method and management device of implementing a payment system in an … ecosystem, the method comprising:
receiving, by an …ecosystem management device, data regarding E-points within an … ecosystem; and (See at least VanLuchene, Abstract, virtual environment; [61] Karma points [656]…points…[142-202] describing various types of data in the databases of disclosed virtual environment)
adjusting, by the …ecosystem management device, issuance of the E-points based on a set inflation rate. (See at least VanLuchene, Abstract, virtual environment [268] exchange rate within game (i.e. virtual environment) and real world…[297] exchange rate can be zero and can also be adjustable based on the inflation (real or virtual or combination of these).)
Though VanLuchene discloses an ecosystem (e.g. virtual environment), VanLuchene does not directly disclose the “electric vehicle” / EV ecosystem. However, The Examiner notes that these limitations are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method would be performed the same regardless of what information was provided to the ---. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the above disclosed steps of VanLuchene would have function the same regardless of the real world location of the virtual environment/ virtual financial environment because the physical location does not functionally relate to the elements of the steps of the claimed method and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 5
VanLuchene discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 4.
VanLuchene further discloses:
wherein:the data regarding the E-points includes data regarding supply and demand of the E-points; and (See at least VanLuchene [142-202] describing various types of data in the databases of disclosed virtual environment…[151] account balances… [172] virtual cash deposit… )
the data regarding the E-points is collected based on …ecosystem participating device groups. (See at least VanLuchene [288] banks …. vote by group of player characters….[510] player character may limited to the number of VC funds in which can participate… [707] determining a virtual credit score…can be based on… [714] … group standing of the player…)
Though VanLuchene discloses an ecosystem (e.g. virtual environment), VanLuchene does not directly disclose the “electric vehicle” / EV ecosystem. However, The Examiner notes that these limitations are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method would be performed the same regardless of what information was provided to the ---. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the above disclosed steps of VanLuchene would have function the same regardless of the real world location of the virtual environment/ virtual financial environment because the physical location does not functionally relate to the elements of the steps of the claimed method and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 6
VanLuchene discloses the invention as claimed above in Claims 2 and 5.
VanLuchene further discloses:
wherein the set inflation rate is adaptively adjusted considering an expansion value of the EV ecosystem. (See at least VanLuchene, Abstract, virtual environment [268] exchange rate within game (i.e. virtual environment) and real world…[297] exchange rate can be zero and can also be adjustable based on the inflation (real or virtual or combination of these).)
Though VanLuchene discloses an ecosystem (e.g. virtual environment), VanLuchene does not directly disclose the “electric vehicle” / EV ecosystem. However, The Examiner notes that these limitations are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method would be performed the same regardless of what information was provided to the ---. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the above disclosed steps of VanLuchene would have function the same regardless of the real world location of the virtual environment/ virtual financial environment because the physical location does not functionally relate to the elements of the steps of the claimed method and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0330846 A1 (Dynamic Electronic Money – [57] depends on inflation rate or the like)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights