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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending in this instant application per original claims filed on 08/06/2025 by Applicant. Claims 1 and 4 are two independent claims reciting method and device claims. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are respective dependent claims.
One/1 IDS has been filed by the Applicant so far on 08-06-2025 that has been considered and entered.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection on merits in response to the original claims filed by the Applicant for its original application of 06 AUGUST 2025 that is titled: “METHOD FOR MANAGING CARBON CREDITS IN EV ECOSYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING SAME”.
Accordingly, pending Claims 1-6 are now being rejected herein.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1 and 6 are independent method and device claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of: receiving EV eco data including activity data of EV ecosystem; and generating carbon emission rights on the basis of the EV eco data. In other words, the claim describes a procedure for managing carbon credits in an EV (electric vehicle) ecosystem (per Abstract). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or 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 behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ vehicle. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: an electric vehicle (EV) and an EV ecosystem; and EV ecosystem management device/s. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The devices and vehicle recited in the steps are hardware recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements described above were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent system Claim 4, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-3, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the generating of the carbon emission rights includes: determining, by the EV ecosystem management device, default carbon emission rights on the basis of the EV eco data; wherein the carbon emission rights are traded through a first carbon emission rights trading method or a second carbon emission rights trading method, in the first carbon emission rights trading method; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent system Claims 5-6 also further narrow their independent Claim 4, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2025/ 0356374 filed by Kang, Jung S. (hereinafter “Kang”).
Exemplary Analysis for Rejection of Claims 1-3
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Pub. No. US 2025/ 0356374 filed by Kang, Jung S. (hereinafter “Kang”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 1, Kang teaches ---
[Claim 1] A method of managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem, the method comprising:
(see at least: Kang Abstract and Summary in paras [0006]-[0017]; and para [0010] about {“According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of determining a value of electric energy in consideration of power generation sources in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem, the method comprising determining, by an EV ecosystem management device, an incentive for an EV power plant based on a power generation source of the EV power plant; and determining, by the EV ecosystem management device, a carbon emission right to be allocated to the EV power plant based on the power generation source of the EV power plant.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’)
Kang teaches ---
receiving, by an EV ecosystem management device, EV eco data including activity data of EV ecosystem participation devices; and
(see at least: Kang ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’; and para [0013] about {“According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided an EV ecosystem management device for determining a value of electric energy in consideration of power generation sources in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem, which is implemented to: determine an incentive for an EV power plant based on a power generation source of the EV power plant; and determine a carbon emission right to be allocated to the EV power plant based on the power generation source of the EV power plant.”}; and paras [00022]-[0023] about {“FIG. 4 is a conceptual diagram illustrating the operation of the EV ecosystem participation device management unit according to an embodiment of the present invention. ……… FIG. 5 is a conceptual diagram illustrating the operation of the EV ecosystem participation device management unit according to an embodiment of the present invention.”}; and paras [0150]-[0153] for “EV eco data 1000” and “activity data”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘an EV ecosystem management device’, ‘EV eco data including activity data’, and ‘EV ecosystem participation devices’)
Kang teaches ---
generating, by the EV ecosystem management device, carbon emission rights on the basis of the EV eco data.
(see at least: Kang ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’, ‘an EV ecosystem management device’, ‘EV eco data including activity data’, and ‘EV ecosystem participation devices’; and para [0029] about {“FIG. 11 is a conceptual diagram illustrating a method of generating and recovering carbon emission rights according to an embodiment of the present invention.”}; and para [0063] about {“The EV ecosystem carbon emission right management unit 270 may manage carbon emission rights to generate or recover carbon emission rights based on activity data of EV ecosystem participation devices participating in the EV ecosystem environment as individuals and companies.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘generating …… carbon emission rights’)
Dependent Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Kang as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 1 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 2, Kang teaches ---
[Claim 2] The method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the carbon emission rights includes:
(see at least: Kang ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’, ‘an EV ecosystem management device’, ‘EV eco data including activity data’, and ‘EV ecosystem participation devices’; and ‘generating …… carbon emission rights’)
Kang teaches ---
determining, by the EV ecosystem management device, default carbon emission rights on the basis of the EV eco data; and
(see at least: Kang ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’, ‘an EV ecosystem management device’, ‘EV eco data including activity data’, and ‘EV ecosystem participation devices’; and ‘generating …… carbon emission rights’; and para [0160] about {“Basically, default carbon emission rights may be generated based on an EV operation distance included in the EV operation data. For example, when an individual operates an EV for 100 km, a default carbon emission right 1100 corresponding to the operation distance of 100 km may be generated.”}; and paras [0162]-[0170] for “default carbon emission right 1100” and/or “default carbon emission right 120”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘determining …… default carbon emission rights’)
Kang teaches ---
adjusting, by the EV ecosystem management device, the default carbon emission rights on the basis of the EV eco data and generating the carbon emission rights.
(see at least: Kang ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’, ‘an EV ecosystem management device’, ‘EV eco data including activity data’, and ‘EV ecosystem participation devices’; ‘generating …… carbon emission rights’ and ‘determining …… default carbon emission rights’; and para [0161] about {“The default carbon emission right 1100 may be adjusted in consideration of individual driving habits and individual charging habits from the EV eco data and finally corrected to a carbon emission right 1120 to be granted to the individual.”}; and paras [0162]-[0170] for “default carbon emission right 1100” and/or “default carbon emission right 120”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘adjusting …… the default carbon emission rights’)
With respect to Claim 3, Kang teaches ---
[Claim 3] The method of claim 2, wherein the carbon emission rights are traded through a first carbon emission rights trading method or a second carbon emission rights trading method,
(see at least: Kang ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’, ‘an EV ecosystem management device’, ‘EV eco data including activity data’, and ‘EV ecosystem participation devices’; ‘generating …… carbon emission rights’, ‘determining …… default carbon emission rights’ and ‘adjusting …… the default carbon emission rights’; and para [0175] about {“Carbon emission rights may be traded through a first carbon emission right trading method 1250 and a second carbon emission right trading method 1260. In the case of the second carbon emission right trading method 1260, trading is conducted without setting the minimum carbon emission right trading unit 1210, and in the case of the first carbon emission right trading method 1250, trading may be conducted with the minimum carbon emission right trading unit 1210 set.”}; and paras [0180]-[0187] for “first carbon emission right trading method 1310 ” and/or “a second carbon emission right trading method 1320”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a first carbon emissions rights trading method’ and ‘a second carbon emission rights trading method’)
Kang teaches ---
the trade is performed based on setting of a minimum carbon emission rights trading unit in the first carbon emission rights trading method, and
(see at least: Kang ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’, ‘an EV ecosystem management device’, ‘EV eco data including activity data’, and ‘EV ecosystem participation devices’; ‘generating …… carbon emission rights’, ‘determining …… default carbon emission rights’ and ‘adjusting …… the default carbon emission rights’; and para [0175] about {“Carbon emission rights may be traded through a first carbon emission right trading method 1250 and a second carbon emission right trading method 1260. In the case of the second carbon emission right trading method 1260, trading is conducted without setting the minimum carbon emission right trading unit 1210, and in the case of the first carbon emission right trading method 1250, trading may be conducted with the minimum carbon emission right trading unit 1210 set.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above)
the trade is performed without the setting of the minimum carbon emission rights trading unit in the second carbon emission rights trading method.
(see at least: Kang ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘managing carbon emission rights in an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem’, ‘an EV ecosystem management device’, ‘EV eco data including activity data’, and ‘EV ecosystem participation devices’; ‘generating …… carbon emission rights’, ‘determining …… default carbon emission rights’ and ‘adjusting …… the default carbon emission rights’; and para [0175] about {“Carbon emission rights may be traded through a first carbon emission right trading method 1250 and a second carbon emission right trading method 1260. In the case of the second carbon emission right trading method 1260, trading is conducted without setting the minimum carbon emission right trading unit 1210, and in the case of the first carbon emission right trading method 1250, trading may be conducted with the minimum carbon emission right trading unit 1210 set.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above)
With respect to Claims 4-6, the limitations of these system claims are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kang based on the exemplary analysis above for the rejection of method Claims 1-3 as described above, because the limitations of these system Claims 4-6 are commensurate in scope to limitations, and thus duplicates, of the above rejected method Claims 1-3 as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims; and said prior art includes references with synonyms for terms used in the claims that have been interpreted under the BRI (broad reasonable interpretation) procedures of the Office. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
PSA Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/SANJEEV MALHOTRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights