Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 8/19/2025. Claims 1, 3-16 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 2 stand cancelled. Claims 13-16 are newly entered. Claims 1, 9, and 11-12 are amended.
Applicant is encouraged to request a telephonic interview prior to next response.
Claim Rejection - 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 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16 are directed to a machine, and claim 12 is directed to a process. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-16 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as recited in MPEP 2106.
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1, 11, and 12 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
accept an inquiry about rental of a power feed mat that supplies electric power to a movable body; and
specify at least one power feed mat among a plurality of power feed mats based on the accepted inquiry and association information;
a storage storing the association information in which category information is associated with identification information for each of the plurality of power feed mats, the category information indicating to which of a plurality of categories set for characteristics at least one characteristic of the power feed mat belongs;
provide information based on a result of specifying at least one power mat to a user,
wherein
the characteristics include a degree of deterioration,
update the degree of deterioration by receiving an amount of power feed from the movable body and estimating efficiency in power feed,
the plurality of categories set for the degree of deterioration includes a category in which the degree of deterioration of the power feed mat is equal to or higher than a reference degree and a category in which the degree of deterioration is lower than the reference degree,
in response to receiving an instruction from the user, order the at least one power feed mat, which is specified based on the accepted inquiry and the association information including the updated degree of deterioration, to be delivered to a user, and
update the association information in the storage to reflect a change in the degree of deterioration of the at least one power feed mat after rental, the change determined based on data of the at least one power feed mat indicating at least one of: a number of times of use of the at least one power feed mat, a total time period of transport of the at least one power feed mat, an amount of change in weight of the at least one power feed mat, or a degree of soiling of the at least one power feed mat.
The above limitations recite the concept of product recommendation & ordering. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1 and 3-16 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
An apparatus comprising a processor, a memory, and a display
Steps being performed automatically
A terminal device
An information processing system, comprising: an information processing apparatus; and a terminal device communicatively connected to the information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus includes: a processor, a memory, and a display
The power feed mats including a power transmission coil that wirelessly supplies electric power
An information processing apparatus
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 3-10 and 13-16 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
An apparatus comprising a processor, a memory, and a display
Steps being performed automatically
A terminal device
An information processing system, comprising: an information processing apparatus; and a terminal device communicatively connected to the information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus includes: a processor, a memory, and a display
The power feed mats including a power transmission coil that wirelessly supplies electric power
An information processing apparatus
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-16 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. 101) as discussed above. The combination of elements of the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Claims 1 and 3-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections above and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
In the present application, claims 1 and 3-16 are allowable over prior art. The most related prior art patent of record includes Oshima et al (US 20200410578 A1), hereinafter Oshima, Sakamoto et al (US 20130066791 A1), hereinafter Sakamoto, Lambrinos et al (US 20140249871 A1), hereinafter Lambrinos, and Tagami et al (US 5812070 A), hereinafter Tagami.
Oshima teaches systems for handling rental requests of a lendable electric supply device such as a generator [Abstract], including receiving a request from a user to rent such a device via an interface [0056], and displays matching devices to the user for selection [0058]. Information about the device is used to rent it, and is stored in a database, such as a rechargeable battery associated with the generator device [0010]. The reference also discusses the ability to calculate the fuel efficiency of a generator based on the fuel consumption detected by the generator itself, and the power consumption of the appliance being charged, as measured by a circuit onboard the generator [0039].
However, Oshima fails to teach at least accepting an inquiry about rental of a power feed mat; wherein the characteristics includes a degree of deterioration, the method further includes automatically updating the degree of deterioration by receiving an amount of power feed from the movable body and estimating efficiency in power feed, the plurality of categories set for the degree of deterioration include a category in which the degree of deterioration of the power feed mat is equal to or higher than a reference degree and a category in which the degree of deterioration is lower than the reference degree, and in the ordering, the at least one power feed mat, which is specified based on the accepted inquiry and the association information including the updated degree of deterioration, is ordered to be delivered to the user of the terminal device; and automatically update the association information in the memory to reflect a change in the degree of deterioration of the at least one power feed mat after rental, the change determined based on data of the at least one power feed mat indicating at least one of: a number of times of use of the at least one power feed mat, a total time period of transport of the at least one power feed mat, an amount of change in weight of the at least one power feed mat, or a degree of soiling of the at least one power feed mat.
Sakamoto teaches systems for determining a rental capacity of a battery for charging an appliance [Abstract], including calculating an efficiency for transmission of electricity based on static values registered with the appliance [0114], and determining an amount of electricity sold and an accompanying price [0206].
However, Sakamoto fails to teach at least accepting an inquiry about rental of a power feed mat; specifying at least one power feed mat among a plurality of power feed mats based on the accepted inquiry and association information in which category information is associated with identification information of each of the plurality of power feed mats, the category information indicating to which of a plurality of categories set for at least one characteristic of the power feed mat a characteristic belongs, the characteristics includes a degree of deterioration, the method further includes automatically updating the degree of deterioration by receiving an amount of power feed from the movable body and estimating efficiency in power feed, the plurality of categories set for the degree of deterioration include a category in which the degree of deterioration of the power feed mat is equal to or higher than a reference degree and a category in which the degree of deterioration is lower than the reference degree, and in the ordering, the at least one power feed mat, which is specified based on the accepted inquiry and the association information including the updated degree of deterioration, is ordered to be delivered to the user of the terminal device; and automatically update the association information in the memory to reflect a change in the degree of deterioration of the at least one power feed mat after rental, the change determined based on data of the at least one power feed mat indicating at least one of: a number of times of use of the at least one power feed mat, a total time period of transport of the at least one power feed mat, an amount of change in weight of the at least one power feed mat, or a degree of soiling of the at least one power feed mat.
Lambrinos teaches a method for managing rental vehicles [Abstract], including renting the vehicle based on a level of charge of the vehicle [0040], with this criterion being a classification to determine which vehicle to allocate to a user [0033]. The selected vehicle is presented to the user for confirmation [0047], and further criteria such as safety of the vehicle can be considered in selection of the vehicle [0038].
However, Lambrinos fails to teach at least accepting an inquiry about rental of a power feed mat; wherein the characteristics includes a degree of deterioration, the method further includes automatically updating the degree of deterioration by receiving an amount of power feed from the movable body and estimating efficiency in power feed, the plurality of categories set for the degree of deterioration include a category in which the degree of deterioration of the power feed mat is equal to or higher than a reference degree and a category in which the degree of deterioration is lower than the reference degree, and in the ordering, the at least one power feed mat, which is specified based on the accepted inquiry and the association information including the updated degree of deterioration, is ordered to be delivered to the user of the terminal device; and automatically update the association information in the memory to reflect a change in the degree of deterioration of the at least one power feed mat after rental, the change determined based on data of the at least one power feed mat indicating at least one of: a number of times of use of the at least one power feed mat, a total time period of transport of the at least one power feed mat, an amount of change in weight of the at least one power feed mat, or a degree of soiling of the at least one power feed mat.
Tagami teaches systems for renting motor vehicles [Abstract], including that an amount of electricity consumed from the battery, and the rental fare, are calculated and stored as conditions of the vehicle [Col. 6], and classifying the vehicle based on the remaining amount of battery [Col. 7].
However, Tagami fails to teach at least accepting an inquiry about rental of a power feed mat; providing, information based on a result of specifying to a terminal device; and in response to receiving an instruction from the terminal device, ordering the at least one power feed mat, which is specified by the information processing apparatus, to be delivered to a user of the terminal device, wherein the characteristics includes a degree of deterioration, the method further includes automatically updating the degree of deterioration by receiving an amount of power feed from the movable body and estimating efficiency in power feed, the plurality of categories set for the degree of deterioration include a category in which the degree of deterioration of the power feed mat is equal to or higher than a reference degree and a category in which the degree of deterioration is lower than the reference degree, and in the ordering, the at least one power feed mat, which is specified based on the accepted inquiry and the association information including the updated degree of deterioration, is ordered to be delivered to the user of the terminal device; and automatically update the association information in the memory to reflect a change in the degree of deterioration of the at least one power feed mat after rental, the change determined based on data of the at least one power feed mat indicating at least one of: a number of times of use of the at least one power feed mat, a total time period of transport of the at least one power feed mat, an amount of change in weight of the at least one power feed mat, or a degree of soiling of the at least one power feed mat.
The most relevant non-patent literature of record is Reference U– see attached, which teaches a wireless charging induction mat for electric vehicles, which can be leased by customers to charge their vehicles. The most relevant foreign reference is Onuma (JP 2002291110 A), which teaches systems for renting batteries [Abstract], including managing the power charge for the battery [0015] and determining the amount used to calculate a rental fee. However, each of these references fail to disclose the claimed steps of at least independent claims 1 and 11-12.
Each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious the combination of limitations in the independent claims 1 and 3-16, alone or in obvious combination. Therefore, at least for the combination of elements recited in the independent claims, the claims are allowable over prior art if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §101
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that the claims “is integrated into a practical application by improving the technical field of power charging, using a particular machine (a processor, a memory, a display and a power feed mat) and applying data to monitor and update the condition of the power feed mat after rental.” Applicant argues that “this is not a generic business process but a specific application to the technical field of power charging, where the physical state of the power feed mat …directly impacts its performance.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is not a stand-alone test for eligibility [MPEP 2106.05(b)]. In considering whether the machine recited by the additional elements provides significantly more, the particularity or generality of its elements are considered [MPEP 2106.05(b)]. In the instant case, the claim recites generic computer components, i.e. an apparatus, a terminal device, steps being automatic, with a mere assertion that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is a particular machine Rather than reciting the argued improvement to the field of power charging, Applicant merely asserts that such a machine is both particular and required. The claims instead merely invoke generic computer components, at a high level of generality, to provide a general linking to technology, such that the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. Specifically, the claims recite a general purpose computer that applies the abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions, which does not qualify as a particular machine [MPEP 2106.05(b)]. Rather than improving the field of power charging, the claims are directed to the field of product recommendations & ordering; at best, the claims recite the manipulation of power-charging-related data, but does not actually recite any activities related to the field of power-charging itself.
Applicant further argues that the claim recites “an ordered combination of steps and components that work together to achieve a specific result, e.g. providing efficient rental of power feed mats tailored to user needs …and updated based on the physical change in the power feed mat,” arguing that this is “more than a routine, conventional activity previously known in the field, because the recited features are unconventional features that confine the claim to a particular useful application of the …judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite an abstract idea comprising the concept of product recommendation & ordering, except for the high-level recitation of additional elements, which amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. Examiner notes that “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea,” [MPEP 2106.05(I)]; the pending claims, rather than reciting a specific technical process for improving the field of power charging or another practical application, merely apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Applicant further argues that “Claims 3-10 depend upon claim 1 and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least their dependency from claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth in the Rejection and Response above.
Applicant further argues that “the claim subject matter of claim 11 as a whole is integrated into a practical application by improving the technical field of wireless power charging, using a particular machine (a plurality of power feed mats, an information processing apparatus and a terminal device) and applying data to monitor and update the condition of the power feed mat after rental. This is not a generic business process but a specific application to the technical field of power charging, where the physical state of the power feed … directly impacts its performance.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is not a stand-alone test for eligibility [MPEP 2106.05(b)]. In considering whether the machine recited by the additional elements provides significantly more, the particularity or generality of its elements are considered [MPEP 2106.05(b)]. In the instant case, the claim recites generic computer components, i.e. an apparatus, a terminal device, steps being automatic, with a mere assertion that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is a particular machine Rather than reciting the argued improvement to the field of power charging, Applicant merely asserts that such a machine is both particular and required. The claims instead merely invoke generic computer components, at a high level of generality, to provide a general linking to technology, such that the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. Specifically, the claims recite a general purpose computer that applies the abstract idea by use of conventional computer functions, which does not qualify as a particular machine [MPEP 2106.05(b)]. Rather than improving the field of power charging, the claims are directed to the field of product recommendations & ordering; at best, the claims recite the manipulation of power-charging-related data, but does not actually recite any activities related to the field of power-charging itself.
Applicant further argues that “claim 11 as amended recites an ordered combination of steps and components that work together to achieve a specific result, e.g., providing efficient rental of power feed mats tailored to user needs … and updated based on the physical change in the power feed mat … The claimed subject matter of claim 11 is more than a routine, conventional activity previously known in the field, because the recited features are unconventional features that confine the claim to a particular useful application of the … judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite an abstract idea comprising the concept of product recommendation & ordering, except for the high-level recitation of additional elements, which amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. Examiner notes that “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea,” [MPEP 2106.05(I)]; the pending claims, rather than reciting a specific technical process for improving the field of power charging or another practical application, merely apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Applicant argues that Claim 12 “is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least analogous reasons to those offered above with respect to claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth in the Rejection and Response above.
Applicant argues that “claims 13-16 depend from claim 11 and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least analogous reasons to those offered above with respect to claim 11.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth in the Rejection and Response above.
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS JOSEPH SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689