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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 07/21/2026.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Claims 1-5 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10 of Applicant’s response filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7-9, that the claims bring forth a technical improvement to the data structure itself by controlling how data is stored therein. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims set forth asymmetric duty cycle threshold calibrated to the two kinds of supply which prevent redundant layers and keep a data structure compact. Examiner respectfully notes that no such asymmetric duty cycles are recited by the claim. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that any such benefit is to the abstract idea itself (the steps for storing and organizing information) rather than to any particular technical component or technical field. Merely storing information in a more organized or efficient manner does not set forth a technical improvement, since, if practiced outside the realm of the generic computer components recited, the same benefit of preventing creation of redundant layers and compactness of a data structure would be brought forth. Therefore, the claims, at most, recite an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than to any particular technical field or technical component. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 5 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, and a machine, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 5 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 5, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
(a) receiving EV eco data from each of a plurality of EV charging stations, the EV eco data including charging type information indicating a slow charging type or a fast charging type and charging amount information; (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles)
(b) constructing and adaptively updating a hierarchical structure among at least EV power plants, the EV charging stations, and EVs based on the EV eco data, wherein: (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could construct and adaptively update a hierarchical structure based on eco data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles)
(i) an EV charging station is placed in a lower layer of an EV power plant when the EV charging station is supplied with electric energy from the EV power plant at least a first threshold number of times within a first threshold period; (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could place an EV station lower in a hierarchical structure when the station is supplied with energy from a power plant at least a first threshold number of times; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles)
(ii) an EV is placed in a lower layer of an EV charging station when the EV is supplied with electric energy from the EV charging station at least a second threshold number of times within a second threshold period, the second threshold period being longer than the first threshold period and the second threshold number of times being smaller than the first threshold number of times; and (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could place an EV in a lower layer of charging stations when it is supplied with energy a second threshold number of times; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles)
(iii) an additional layer is not set in the hierarchical structure for a sporadic electric energy supply, the sporadic electric energy supply being an electric energy supply that does not satisfy either the first threshold number of times within the first threshold period or the second threshold number of times within the second threshold period; (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could refrain from setting an additional layer in a hierarchical structure if the sporadic energy supply does not satisfy a first or second threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles)
(c) grouping, into one or more EV charging station groups, the EV charging stations whose similarity in a layer of the hierarchical structure corresponding to the EV charging stations is equal to or greater than a similarity threshold, wherein the similarity increases as a number of EVs shared in common between the EV charging stations increases and as a geographic distance between the EV charging stations decreases; (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could group charging stations whose similarities are equal to or greater than a threshold based on numbers of EVs shared in common and distances; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles)
(d) determining, for each of the one or more EV charging station groups, electric energy usage statistics for a charging-amount-determination time interval. (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine energy usage statistics on the basis of this received data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above set of steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite certain methods activity since they recite a set of steps for determining interval energy usage statistics of charging stations which comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this set of steps in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
. . . by an electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem management device. . . (claims 1, 5; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
An electric vehicle (EV) ecosystem management device for determining an electric energy value based on electric energy usage statistics in an EV ecosystem, the EV ecosystem management device comprising: (claim 4; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processor; and (claim 4; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the EV ecosystem management device to: (claim 4; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-4, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
for each EV charging station group of the one or more EV charging station groups, controlling supply of electric energy by the EV charging stations in the EV charging station group at a supply value, by time, determined based on the electric energy usage statistics of the EV charging station group, so as to disperse a concentrated-usage time period and promote a low-usage time period.
At the current level of breadth, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could control supply of energy at a supply value, by time, so as to disperse a concentrated-usage time period and promote a low-usage time period by regulating when energy may be sold, how it may be sold and at what values; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles.
Claim 3:
wherein the supply value comprises a price. by time, set by a basic price plus a discount rate and a surcharge rate, the discount rate and the surcharge rate being determined, for the charging-amount-determination time interval, from a total charging amount of the one or more EV charging station groups and a reference charging amount.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the supply values used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 4:
further comprising dividing the charging-amount- determination time interval into a surcharge period and a discount period, wherein, for a specific EV charging station group of the one or more EV charging station groups, the price of the specific EV charging station group is additionally adjusted based on a charging amount of the specific EV charging station group in the surcharge period and a charging amount of the specific EV charging station group in the discount period.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could divide time interval into different periods and adjust prices in the periods; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial electricity sales entities would perform this step in managing usage of and selling electricity to users charging vehicles. Further still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation sets forth and describes mathematical concepts since the recitation of dividing an interval sets forth a mathematical operation.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-4, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights