DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response filed 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, 21-22 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
101 Rejection
This rejection is maintained.
The Applicant references the limitations:
"transfer the charging recommendation information to the vehicle, wherein
the charging recommendation information includes a first battery level at which to
start battery charging, and a second battery level at which to stop battery
charging; ...
prior to charging the battery, display a current battery level when the current
battery level reaches the first battery level; and
during charging of the battery, display the current battery level when the
current battery level reaches the second battery level."
Applicant states, “Pursuant to M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(l), a claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application…”, stating that the additional elements “improves the relevant existing technology”[pg. 6 of remark]. Applicant states that the recommendations of when to charge a battery improves the technology and further that Examiner errs on making a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. Regardless of Examiner’s comments[which are separate from the 101 analysis], it remains that the claim does not positively tie the abstract idea significantly into the technological environment even in combination of the additional elements. The invention is still gathering data for statistical analysis. For example, if it is determined(either through observation or a database) that every day at 3:00 pm traffic light X turns red, 9 out of every 10 days, and with that knowledge, one sends out a flyer to people letting them know this so they can choose to avoid driving though that light at exactly 3:00pm to avoid the red light, although helpful, is not considered an improvement in the technology of vehicle navigation. The current claim only acknowledges performing a recommendation (based on analyzed gathered data) to be displayed. Further, the improvement on battery degradation does not actually happen in the claim, as it would require a user to actually follow through on following the battery charging scheme for any positive consequences to happen. Gathering data to generate analytics for purposes of making a recommendation is not unique. Stating these data analytics are used for battery recommendations is viewed as attempting to generally link the use of a judicial exception to the technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Generally linking is not the same as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element of, “transfer the charging recommendation information to a vehicle…”, is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity of output steps for the data gathering, which is recitation at a high level of generality MPEP 2106.05(f), (h), or (g) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Applicant continues to state the displaying step is not insignificant post solution activity due to the limitations imposing meaningful limits to the claim. Applicant cites the specification further stating a user can recognize the charging information to delay battery degradation (start and stop charging at recommended times). This is argument is not persuasive. The ability for a user to read a screen of recommendations based on data analytics is not understood as meaningful limitations but instead as displaying results to the data analytics(the recommendations). The displaying results step(recommendations) on the user display is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the battery evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying/activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, regardless of what the user can do with it. Further, people can choose to not follow the display recommendations, and if they decide not to, no battery degradation prevention is achieved. The displaying feature is not found to be significant element.
No additional elements or combination of are found to be significantly more or impose meaningful limitations to the claim. The 101 ineligibility for the claims are maintained.
103 Rejection
Applicants remarks are found persuasive and the art rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing limitations (group the first driving data into a plurality of groups using the SOC information, assign a hierarchical grade to each of the plurality of groups based on the respective SOH information) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites “group first vehicle driving data…”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person could look at a data sheet or display with battery data from different vehicles on it, then group it based on miles left till charge, amount of charge, full, empty, type of charger, etc.. This step is directed to a mental process. In the alternative, this could also be considered an additional element of extra-solution activity of gathering/organizing data.
The claim recites “assign a hierarchical grade to each…”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the processor”. A person can grade vehicles(batteries), highest to least, based on seeing/knowing how many batteries are in the vehicles or their ability to startup strong, checking a charge state on the dash, or just note how much further one car can drive over another when they are fully charged. These steps are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim recites the use of a processor, memory, and configured to store program instructions on. This computer setup is understood as generic computing components as there is no improvement of the computing. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The claim recites additional elements or steps of: “receive first vehicle driving data from a plurality of other vehicles and second vehicle driving data from a user vehicle… information including… and charging mode information of a battery of the corresponding vehicle”, “detect a user group from the plurality of groups…”, “determine whether a group of plurality of groups…”, “when a group of the plurality of groups is determined… generate charging recommendation information…”, “transfer the charging recommendation information to the vehicle, wherein the charging recommendation information includes… ”, “display the charging recommendation…”, and “display” the current battery levels at different charging states. .
The receiving steps from sensors and/or from external sources is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The detecting step is additionally used as a form of data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional element of determine… a higher grade, is also seen a form of organizing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional element of generating charging recommendation based on SOC information, is seen as a high level of generality and generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is not considered significantly more.
The additional element of transferring charging recommendation information, is cited as a type of post-solution activity of sending data, which is not understood as significantly more.
The additional elements of displaying different battery levels for different charge parameters is also understood as post-solution activity of displaying information which is not considered significantly more. These additional elements amount to insignificant application of the identified abstraction per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Per the evaluation in step 2A, general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or filed of use (recommendation apparatus) is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps found are considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein does not provide any indication that the processor and memory are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer components, and mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner MPEP2106.05 (g).
Thus it is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-5,8,10-11 and 21-22 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5,8,10-11 and 21-22 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 2-5, 8, 10-11, and 21-22 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, and 21-22 have no further art rejections.
Additional Art to Consider
Application WO-2017185181 A1 titled, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING STATE-OF-CHARGE USING TAFEL SLOPE, includes a system that uses battery analytics from battery packs for determining charge strategies. The system further utilizes state of health and state of charge of batteries of vehicles along with calculating the vehicle data and battery sensors. This is similar to the Applicant’s invention in that Applicant’s analyzing state of charge of battery data and determining some sort of data scheme based on battery data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights