DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 17/897,194 filed on 08/28/2022. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 17/897,194 filed 08/28/2022 is a Continuation of PCT/JP2020/013046, filed 03/24/2020.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed December 23, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1-12, and did not cancel any claims. New claims 14-19 were presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1-12 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant submits “To begin, a primary concern underlying the question as to whether claims are directed to an abstract idea is one of preemption. That is to say, the question of whether claims are directed to an abstract idea depends upon whether the subject matter of the claims improperly monopolizes basic tools of science and technology.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 15]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “a primary concern underlying the question as to whether claims are directed to an abstract idea is one of preemption. That is to say, the question of whether claims are directed to an abstract idea depends upon whether the subject matter of the claims improperly monopolizes basic tools of science and technology,” the Examiner notes that "the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). "Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Id.; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13 62-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract."). The Examiner emphasized that the fact that the claims may not preempt al applications does not establish eligibility. Accordingly, Applicant’s preemption-based argument is not persuasive.
Applicant submits “Applicant does not assert that the current claims set forth herein are similar to the claims of McRO. Rather, Applicant points out that, like the claims of McRO, the present claims are not preemptive in the sense that they do not monopolize basic tools of science and technology. Stated another way, the present claims are directed to the determination of battery usage plans that increases efficiency in the use of such batteries.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, pages 18-19]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In McRO, the claims were found eligible because they recited a specific set of rules that improved a technological process (i.e., automated animation) and limited how the result was achieved. In contrast, the present claims do not recite any specific rules, algorithms, or technical mechanisms for generating the battery usage plan, but instead recite the results if “generating” such a plan based on input data. Applicant’s argument regarding lack of preemption is also unpersuasive for the reasons previously stated. Furthermore, the alleged “increase in efficiency” related to the abstract idea of planning and resource allocation, rather than an improvement to computer functionality or another technological field. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Applicant points out the present claims provide for an improvement to "other technology" in the sense that battery usage is made more efficient. More efficient use of batteries reduces waste and reduces the amount of energy needed to run machines from the energy stored in such batteries.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 19]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that an improvement to technology must be reflected in the claimed invention itself, rather than in the results of applying the abstract idea. In this case, the claims recite generating a battery usage plan based on collected and analyzed information. Any alleged improvement in battery efficiency raises from the content of the plan (i.e., imported resource allocation), not from a technological improvement in the operation of the computer or the batteries. The claims do not recite any specific technical mechanism, algorithm, or implementation that improves the functioning of a machine or a technological process .For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Applicant additionally notes that claims that recite elements that cannot be practically performed in the human mind such that the human mind is not equipped to perform such claim elements are not mental process and therefore are not an abstract idea in accordance with step 2A.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 21]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that the claims set forth or describe steps that can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper, which fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106. The 101 rejection found the limitations in claim 1 to recite an abstract idea that falls into the “mental processes” based on the limitations “storing, as stored information, a number of the batteries to be used for each type of the electrical working machines, a duration time of each respective one of the batteries for each type of the electrical working machines, and a time required for charging each respective one of the batteries; receiving, as input information, a task schedule including a procedure comprising the steps, a time required for each one of the steps or a power amount required for the each one of the steps, and at least one type of the electrical working machines and a number of the electrical working machines used in the each one of the steps; generating, based on the stored information stored by the storing and the input information received by the receiving, the use plan information including a number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and charging timings of the batteries; and outputting the use plan information.” These limitations recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Mental processes -concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. As claimed, the steps can be practically performed mentally, by a human evaluating information. The above noted limitations can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation/judgement perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. The steps in the method can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper, as they involve steps such as storing, receiving a task schedule, generating a battery use plan, and outputting that plan. However, each of these steps can be performed by a human using tools like pen and paper and basic recordkeeping systems. A person can manually record the duration and charging time of batteries, analyze a task schedule, calculate the number of batteries needed and their charging times, and write down the resulting plan. The claim does not require ant specialized hardware, real-time constraints, or technical improvement to a computer or battery system nor does it recite transmitting the output. As such, the steps are abstract in nature and fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Moreover, it is noted that the inability of a human to practically perform the claimed steps does not preclude the claims from reciting a mental process. The claim recite collecting, analyzing, and generating information, which can be performed y, by a human evaluating information. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A Prong 1 are not persuasive because the claims have been shown to set forth or describe activities falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “In addition, with respect to newly added claim 14, Applicant asserts that it would not be practical to perform the elements of newly added claims 14 within the human mind. In this respect, it would not be practical for one to individually track the remaining battery levels of batteries received from electrical working machines to identify when a predicted battery exhaustion time will be earlier than is set forth in the use plan information.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 22]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the claimed steps of receiving battery level information, determining a battery exhaustion time, comparing that time to a planned replacement timing, and generating a warning can be performed by a human using pen and paper by recording the data, performing the calculations, and making the comparison. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Applicant asserts that the Office Action unduly boils down the claimed elements to mere "steps for managing scheduling activities, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions)." Based on technical effects as described in the specification relating to efficient battery utilization and other benefits, Applicant asserts that the present claims are not directed to mere organization of human activity. Rather, the claims are directed to providing for the efficient use of batteries which avoids waste and translates to lesser energy requirements to perform work.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 23]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the claims recite limitations related to collecting battery related information, determinant usage and timing, and generating a plan to coordinate the use and replacement of batteries across tasks and machines. These limitations relate to organizing and managing resource usage and timing of activities, which fall withing the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” As noted before (Office Action dated 07/23/2025), “Claim 1 has been found to recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” by reciting steps that cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from monitoring data relating to work site activity, and is also organizing human activity by managing interactions between people by following rules, or instructions. The limitations reciting “storing, as stored information, a number of the batteries to be used for each type of the electrical working machines, a duration time of each respective one of the batteries for each type of the electrical working machines, and a time required for charging each respective one of the batteries; receiving, as input information, a task schedule including a procedure comprising the steps, a time required for each one of the steps or a power amount required for the each one of the steps, and at least one type of the electrical working machines and a number of the electrical working machines used in the each one of the steps; generating, based on the stored information stored by the storing and the input information received by the receiving, the use plan information including a number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and charging timings of the batteries; and outputting the use plan information,” are reasonably understood as setting forth activities of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - including following rules or instructions. Under Prong One of Step 2A, information relating to a number of batteries to be used is stored, a task schedule is received, use plan information is generated based on the stored and received information, and the use plan information is output. The inputs are received and analyzed for purposes which relate to resource management in a work site, the claim limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Moreover, Applicant’s Specification supports the interpretation of the above-noted steps as implemented in the context of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - including following rules or instructions (See, e.g., [paragraph 0011]: “According to the present invention, it is possible to provide an efficient battery use plan based on a working schedule using an electrical working machine. Further, it is possible to estimate a budget with high accuracy when a battery is rented based on the use plan.”) As stated in MPEP 2106, the phrase “certain methods of organizing human activity” is used to describe concepts relating to 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). The claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Clearly, organizing human activities is applicable to the process of generating use plan information of resources. Accordingly, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry, the claims recite limitations falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as set forth in MPEP 2106. The Office maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea.” For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant notes that claim 16 recites a system that includes the various elements of a plurality of batteries and a plurality of electrical working machines of various types. The batteries are of a common type that can be used to power all of the different types of electrical work machines. At least one of the types of the electrical work machines is used to perform a respective one of the steps in accordance with a task schedule, where a use plan for using the batteries is determined. The batteries are then used to power the electrical work machines to perform the steps in accordance with the use plan. Applicant asserts that claim 16 recites physical apparatus in a wholistic system and cannot be interpreted as an abstract idea. [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 24]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to new claim 16, it is noted that the recitation of physical components such as batteries, electrical working machines. A memory, and a processor does not, by itself, remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. The claims is directed to using generic components to implement the abstract idea of planning and coordinating battery usage across a series of tasks. The additional recitation that the batteries are used to power machines according to use plan merely reflects the intended application of that abstract idea, and does not impose any specific technological improvement or limitation to the component themselves.
Applicant submits “In addition, assuming solely for the sake of argument, and without conceding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea, claims 1-13 are nevertheless patent- eligible because the specific combination of limitations integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application as determined under Step 2A, prong 2.” “Applicant asserts that claim 1 as amended as a whole integrates an alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the claims recite the practical application of generating use plan information that may be employed to ensure an optimal use of batteries in performing work with electrical work machines.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, pages 25-26]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues “In addition, assuming solely for the sake of argument, and without conceding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea, claims 1-13 are nevertheless patent-eligible because the specific combination of limitations integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application as determined under Step 2A, prong 2.” The additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: at least one memory which stores at least one program, at least one processor, and an external apparatus, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has provided no facts/evidence, cited any portion of the Specification, nor provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It is also noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no memory, processor, external apparatus, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to a use plan information of the batteries including a number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and charging timings of the batteries, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. In response to Applicant’s statement that “the claims recite the practical application of generating use plan information that may be employed to ensure an optimal use of batteries in performing work with electrical work machines,” it is noted that the claims recite limitations related to generating and using a plan to coordinate battery usage, which falls within the abstract idea of organizing and managing resources. The asserted “optimal use” reflects an intended result of the abstract idea, rather than a claim limitation that integrates it into a practical application.
Moreover, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Lastly, in response to Applicant’s argument that “the Office Action appears to ignore the technical solutions presented to the technical problem of efficient use of battery power” [Remarks, page 23], it is noted that the claims are directed to coordinating the use and timing of batteries, which falls within the abstract idea of organizing resource usage. The asserted efficiency benefits reflect the results of this coordination and are not indicative of a technological improvement in the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Applicant asserts that the Office Action appears to state the claim elements and conclusory analysis that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. However, the Office Action does not set forth any factual evidence for these conclusions. Applicant asserts that the Office Action has not met the burden of providing factual evidence that a claim element or combination of elements set forth in the present claims are well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan as required by the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3D 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, for this reason, Applicant asserts that the rejection of claim 1 as amended is improper and must be withdrawn.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 29]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant submits “that the Office Action appears to state the claim elements and conclusory analysis that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. However, the Office Action does not set forth any factual evidence for these conclusions.” As best understood by the Examiner, Applicant’s reliance on the Berkheimer Memo is based on Applicant’s misunderstanding of the Berkheimer decision, which is germane only to Step 2B eligibility inquiry into whether certain additional claim limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional and the evidentiary requirements to support factual findings related thereto. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, the Examiner emphasizes that a §101 rejection, including one based on a judicial exception, does not hinge on whether or not any particular limitation or the entire claimed subject matter is directed to “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.” Notably, a §101 rejection may be proper even none of the claim limitations are deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec).
As described above, the additional elements are broadly applied at a high level of generality to carry out the claim functions. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea(s) at a high level of generality and they operate in well-understood, routine, and conventional manners. It is noted that the standard of review under 35 USC §101 is different from that of 35 USC §102/103. Under 101 the standard for determining if the claimed invention was well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination akin to the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification. “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” Memorandum, dated 04/19/2018.
Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(d)(lI) provides a non-exhaustive list of elements the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec. Performing repetitive calculations, e.g. see Parker v. Flook, and/or Bancorp Services v. Sun Life. Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank. Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, e.g. see Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank. A web browser’s back and forward button functionality, e.g. see Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. Recording a customer’s order, e.g. see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, e.g. see OIP Techs, v. Amazon, Inc. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, e.g. see OIP Techs, v. Amazon, Inc.
Moreover, it is noted that the addition of non-conventional components to an abstract idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete. Further, the Examiner points out that limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception also include: adding the words “apply it” or equivalent with the judicial exceptions, or mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, of the judicial exception. As described below, the claims of the instant application are drawn to an abstract idea. It is noted that for the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry.” Claim 1 is directed to performing the method steps, but these limitations add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s argument “that the Office Action has not met the burden of providing factual evidence that a claim element or combination of elements set forth in the present claims are well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan as required by the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3D 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, for this reason, Applicant asserts that the rejection of claim 1 as amended is improper and must be withdrawn,” it is noted that only those additional elements (analyzed under 2B) that are deemed “conventional” need to comply with Berkheimer. When elements are just part of “apply it” [abstract idea] on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f), no evidence is needed. Citations for conventionality to MPEP 2106.05 were already provided. Arguing abstract elements for Berkheimer is not persuasive. See BSG Tech, LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281,1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) states “Our precedent has consistently employed this same approach. If a claim’s only “inventive concept” is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. See, e.g., Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1370 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept because they “amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components”).
The Office Action did provide factual evidence and met the burden elaborated by the Berkheimer court of by the April PTO Guidance. See Office Action, dated 07/23/2025, page 19. The Examiner notes that the additional elements, satisfy the requirement of Berkheimer by citation to Applicant’s Specification and court decisions that the generic computing elements analyzed under Step 2B are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The various additional elements of the claims also receive and process data. All of these functions have been recognized by the courts as generic and well-understood computer functionality. Applicant's novelty lies in the details of the abstract ideas and computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea(s) at a high level of generality (“similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,” as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in well-understood, routine, and conventional manners. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Applicant asserts that claim 14 presents a technical solution of alerting a user of when a predicted battery exhaustion time is earlier than a planned timing that is directed to the technical problem of ensuring batteries are employed in the most efficient manner possible.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 30]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument is noted that claim 14 recites limitations related to determining a battery exhaustion time, comparing it to a planned timing, and outputting a warning. Merely adding the step of outputting a warning does not provide an inventive concept or a technological improvement, as it is simply the presentation of the result of the abstract idea. The warning is output that follows the underlying determination and comparison, and does not add any additional technical features to the claim. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Applicant asserts that the technical solution presented by the subject matter of the present claims to the technical problem of inefficient use of batteries that apply to multiple different types of electrical working machines presents a specific combination of elements that are sufficient so as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 31]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “Applicant asserts that the technical solution presented by the subject matter of the present claims to the technical problem of inefficient use of batteries that apply to multiple different types of electrical working machines presents a specific combination of elements that are sufficient so as to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely produce a result in the form of information relating to a use plan information of the batteries including a number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and charging timings of the batteries, which is not an improvement to the at least one memory, at least one processor, computer program, computer, external apparatus, or any other system or technology. Furthermore, with respect to exemplary claims 1 and 12, none of the steps, individually or in combination, have been shown to yield an improvement to a computer or to any technology. The claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the processor, computer, or any technology in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is no indication that any of the additional elements or the combination of elements amount to an improvement to the computer or to any technology. Their individual and collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, these additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
For the reasons above, in addition to the reasons provided in the updated §101 rejection below, Applicant’s amendment and supporting arguments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
Applicant submits “Although Funk appears to deal with battery pack and tool/fleet management, but the cited paragraphs fail to teach of suggest each step in a series of tasks or multiple types of electrical work machines sharing and using a common type of battery. Also, although Funk mentions that multiple types of tools can share a battery pack," Funk fails to teach or suggest the allocation of batteries for each step of the series of tasks. Accordingly, Applicant asserts that Funk fails to teach or suggest at least this element of claim 1 as amended.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 33]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that Funk teaches shared battery packs across multiple tools and the use of operational data to plan and manage battery usage across multiple tasks and devices. See paragraphs 0020, 0043, and 0053. More specifically, Funk teaches analyzing operational parameters and managing battery usage across multiped tools and tasks, including predicting run time and planning charging support to multiple tasks. It would have been obvious to apply such shared battery management in the context of multiple machined performing steps in a task. Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification in construing the claimed invention, it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Funk teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Applicant assert that Funk does not teach or suggest "a duration time of each respective one of the batteries for each type of the electrical working machines." [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 37]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that Funk discloses collecting and analyzing operational data (i.e., run time, discharge rates, charging time, usage pattern) that allow for determination of battery duration for different tools. Funk teaches determining and storing operational parameters and usage duration data associated with specific tools and battery packs, including analysis of run time and discharge characteristic. These disclosures reasonably correspond to a duration time for a battery in use with different types of machines. Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification in construing the claimed invention, it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Funk teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Funk fails to teach or suggest "a time required for each one of the steps or a power amount required for each one of the steps" as set forth in claim 1 as amended.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 40]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that Fuck teaches receiving operational conditions and using them to determine runtime, charging time, and battery requirements in paragraphs 0051-0053. These operational inputs correspond to time and/or power required to perform tasks or steps. Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification in construing the claimed invention, it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Funk teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “Akahane fails to teach or suggest "a number of the batteries to be used for each type of the electrical working machines" as set forth in claim 1 as amended.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 45]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that “Akahane does not teach “a number of the batteries to be used for each type of the electrical working machine” since Akahane teaches a single type of forklift that uses a single battery,” it is noted that Akahane discloses storing data such as the number of forklifts, the number of standby batteries, and the battery charging requirements in paragraph 0059. Which suggests string the number of batteries needed per machine type. Additionally, Akahane’s mention of “forklifts 1 to 4” in paragraph 0046 shows that battery usages is tracked in relation to specific machines, even if they are if the same type. The claim only required storing the number of batteries used for each type of electrical working machine, which is satisfied even with a single machine type. Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification in construing the claimed invention, it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Akahane teaches and at least suggests the disputed limitation.
Applicant submits “Applicant asserts that none of Funk, Akahane, Tamaru, and Hyde teach or suggest the reuse of partially used batteries or the switching of plans based on a priority.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 47]
In response to Applicant’s argument “that none of Funk, Akahane, Tamaru, and Hyde teach or suggest the reuse of partially used batteries or the switching of plans based on a priority,” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as
to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed
features. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable
invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes
them from the references.
Applicant submits “Applicant asserts that Takatsuka fails to teach or suggest the elements of claims 1 or 12 as amended.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/23/2025, page 47]
In response to Applicant’s argument “that Takatsuka fails to teach or suggest the elements of claims 1 or 12 as amended.”” it is noted that this argument is a mere allegation of patentability by the Applicant with no supporting rationale or explanation. Merely stating that the claims do not teach a feature does not offer any insight as to why the specific sections of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner fail to disclose the claimed features. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations in view of the prior art will be presented later in this Office Action.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Newly presented claim 14 recites “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the changing timings of the batteries include battery replacement timing…” The phrase “the changing timings” lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claim indefinite. While claim 1 introduces “charging timings,” it does not introduce “changing timings”. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as reciting “wherein the charging timings of the batteries include battery replacement timing…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the information processing apparatus (claims 1-11, 14-15), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 12-13), and system (claims 16-19) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, article of manufacture, and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-19 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in the MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing scheduling activities, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: at least one memory which stores at least one program; and at least one processor, wherein the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: storing, as stored information, a number of the batteries to be used for each type of the electrical working machines, a duration time of each respective one of the batteries for each type of the electrical working machines, and a time required for charging each respective one of the batteries; receiving, as input information, a task schedule including a procedure comprising the steps, a time required for each one of the steps or a power amount required for the each one of the steps, and at least one type of the electrical working machines and a number of the electrical working machines used in the each one of the steps; and generating, based on the stored information stored by the storing and the input information received by the receiving, the use plan information including a number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and charging timings of the batteries; and outputting the use plan information to an external apparatus; wherein the generating updates the use plan information in a case where the stored information has been updated or in a case where the input information has been updated. These steps describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and are part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry. Independent claim 12 recites similar limitations as those recited in claim 1 and therefore is found to recite the same abstract idea(s) as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 16, the additional elements are: at least one memory which stores at least one program, at least one processor, and an external apparatus (claim 1); a computer program, a computer, and an external apparatus (claim 12); a plurality of batteries of a common type, a plurality of electrical working machines, at least one memory which stores at least one program, at least one processor (claim 16). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the step for outputting is not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 16, the additional elements are: at least one memory which stores at least one program, at least one processor, and an external apparatus (claim 1); a computer program, a computer, and an external apparatus (claim 12); a plurality of batteries of a common type, a plurality of electrical working machines, at least one memory which stores at least one program, at least one processor (claim 16). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0030]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
Even if the step for outputting is not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-19 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-19 recite “determining a predicted number of chargers conforming to the use plan information based on the use plan information, “ “wherein the generating of the use plan information further comprises generating information indicating a temporal transition of the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks,” “wherein in generating the use plan information, perform: determining whether a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding a step of interest of the steps is usable in the step of interest, and generating the use plan information as using a new one of the batteries in the step of interest when it is determined that the partially used one of the batteries is not usable in the step of interest,” “wherein in generating the use plan, perform generating of the use plan information as using a total number of new ones of the batteries to be used in the step of interest of the steps over the series of tasks as the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks,” “wherein in generating the use plan, perform: determining whether a step of interest of the steps is completable even when a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest is used in the step of interest, and generating the use plan information as using the partially used one of the batteries in the step of interest when the step of interest is determined to be completable,” “wherein in generating the use plan, perform: determining whether a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding a step of interest of the steps is usable in the step of interest and, whether charging of the battery is completable by a timing of performing the step of interest, and generating the use plan information as starting recharging the partially used one of the batteries when the one of the steps preceding the step of interest is completed in a case where it is determined that the partially used one of the batteries is usable in the step of interest and the charging is completable, and as using a recharged one of the batteries in the step of interest,” “perform: receiving a priority setting regarding whether a priority is given to a number of the batteries for reducing a number of necessary ones of the batteries or is given to a number of replacements for reducing a number of replacement ones of the batteries, and generating the use plan information as using in a step of interest of the steps a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest of the steps in accordance with the priority setting in a case where the priority is given to the number of the batteries, and as using a charged one of the batteries in the step of interest in a case where the priority is given to the number of replacements of the batteries,” “perform: storing a rental unit price of a respective one of the batteries; and generating estimation information of a rental fee based on the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and the rental unit price,” “receiving a priority setting as to whether a priority is given to a number of the batteries for reducing a number of necessary ones of the batteries or is given to a number of replacements for reducing a number of replacement ones of the batteries, generating the use plan information as using in a step of interest a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest of the steps in accordance with the priority setting, in a case where priority is given to the number of the batteries, generating the use plan information as using a charged one of the batteries in the step of interest in a case where the priority is given to the number of replacement ones of the batteries, and generating estimation information of a rental fee based on the use plan information,” “wherein in the generating of the use plan information, perform generating the estimation information by adding a price for providing the use plan information to the rental fee,” “wherein the storing further stores a rental unit price of a respective one of the batteries; and the generating further generates estimation information of a rental fee based on the number of batteries required for the series of the tasks and the rental unit price,” “wherein the changing timings of the batteries include battery replacement timing, and perform: determining a battery exhaustion time from a remaining battery level received from a respective electrical working machine of the plurality of types of electrical working machines; and outputting a battery exhaustion warning in a case where the battery exhaustion time determined is earlier than the battery replacement timing included in the use plan information,” “wherein the batteries power the electrical working machines to perform the plurality of steps included in the series of tasks in accordance with the use plan information,” “wherein when the use plan information is generated, determine a predicted number of chargers conforming to the use plan information based on the use plan information,” “wherein when the use plan information is generated, generate information indicating a temporal transition of the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks,” “wherein when the use plan information is generated, determine whether a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding a step of interest is usable in the step of interest, and generate the use plan information based on a use of a new one of the batteries in the step of interest when it is determined that the partially used one of the batteries is not usable in the step of interest,” however these limitations are part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. When evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
34. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
35. Claims 1-8, 12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk, Pub. No.: US 2021/0376630 A1, [hereinafter Funk], in view of Akahane et al., Pub. No.: US 2012/0126754 A1, [hereinafter Akahane], in further view of Tamaru, Pub. No.: US 2002/0059320 A1, [hereinafter Tamaru], in further view of Hyde et al., Patent No.: US 9,079,505 B1, [hereinafter Hyde].
As per claim 1, Funk teaches an information processing apparatus that generates use plan information of a plurality of batteries for performing each one of a plurality of steps included in a series of tasks by a plurality of electrical working machines capable of sharing the batteries, wherein at least one type of the electrical working machines is used in the each one of the steps, the information processing apparatus comprising (paragraphs 0005, 0020, 0036, 0043, 0053):
at least one memory which stores at least one program (paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0033); and
at least one processor, wherein the at least one program causes the at least one processor (paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0032) to perform:
storing, as stored information, a duration time of each respective one of the batteries for each type of the electrical working machines (paragraph 0057, discussing that the data may include data associated with operation of the battery pack including battery output data, current, voltage, power, load, discharge rate, or the like, the user may have access to or receive reports that include battery pack condition data, such as temperature; or battery pack use data, such as number of charging cycles or uses, duration of use, or the like…It should be understood that, in some cases, data may be separated by device type or specific device, such as based on a device identifier; paragraph 0063, discussing that tool data may be extracted from the tool by the battery pack...Battery data may be received from the BMS (battery management system)...Operational parameters, e.g., the tool data or battery data, may be relayed in association with identification information so that the operational parameters are provided in real-time to the application server…The application server may perform analysis of the operational parameters…The application server may then provide the patterns or charging time derived from the operational parameters to the battery charger; paragraph 0043, discussing that the application server and the database server may each include hardware or software for configuring the application server and the database server, respectively, to perform various functions. As such, for example, the application server may include processing logic and memory enabling the application server to access or execute stored computer readable instructions for performing various functions. In an example embodiment, one function that may be provided by the application server may be the provision of access to information or services related to the battery pack. For example, the application server may be configured to receive the data transmitted by the battery pack. The application server may then be configured to analyze tool run hours or time, or various other aspects of the operational parameters to determine patterns of use of the tool, charging time of the battery pack, or other issues or problems…Additionally or alternatively, the application server may be configured to determine the expected run time achievable for a specific tool or task based on knowledge of discharge rates for the tool or task and the current state of charge. In some cases, these contents may be stored in the database server; paragraph 0036, discussing that all data may be transmitted or stored in association with the identification information so that such data can be associated with its respective tool, tool type, or user for analytical purposes. The identification information may include a specific tool identifier (e.g., serial number), a type identifier indicating the type or model of the tool, or a specific user identifier);
receiving, as input information, a task schedule including a procedure comprising the steps, a time required for each one of the steps or a power amount required for the each one of the steps, and at least one type of the electrical working machines (paragraph 0020, discussing that example embodiments may be practiced in connection with any tool that may benefit from having a rechargeable battery pack. For example, the tool may be an outdoor power equipment tool…Furthermore, it should be understood that the battery pack may be configured to operate in a plurality of different types of tools; paragraph 0036, discussing that the BMS may receive or generate identification information that correlates a specific tool to the user of the tool. Thus, all data may be transmitted or stored in association with the identification information so that such data can be associated with its respective tool, tool type, or user for analytical purposes. The identification information may include a specific tool identifier (e.g., serial number), a type identifier indicating the type or model of the tool (e.g., model number)…; paragraph 0051, discussing that the user via the user device may input certain operational conditions related to how the tool will be operated to predict and further optimize the charge time of the battery pack. For example, the user may input lawn/lot size, ground condition, grass type, etc., and these conditions may be used to configure the tool and battery pack accordingly. In other words, the user may input these operational conditions such that a charge of the battery pack will be sufficient to support the next or subsequent task performed by the battery pack. In some cases, upon manually entering the operational conditions, the application may be configured to notify the user if the battery pack needs to be charged and, if so, the estimated charge time of the battery pack that will be sufficient to accommodate these conditions so the user may plan accordingly; paragraph 0052, discussing that the user may plan on using the battery pack to accomplish several tasks with multiple tools. For example, the user may plan to accomplish a first task and a second task; paragraph 0053, discussing that the predetermined charge level that is sufficient to support performing multiple tasks, for example on the same day, may be transmitted to the battery charger such that the battery charger charges the battery pack appropriately…); and
generating, based on the stored information stored by the storing and the input information received by the receiving, the use plan information including a number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and charging timings of the batteries (paragraph 0051, discussing that in some cases, upon manually entering the operational conditions, the application may be configured to notify the user if the battery pack needs to be charged and, if so, the estimated charge time of the battery pack that will be sufficient to accommodate these conditions so the user may plan accordingly; paragraph 0053, discussing that the predetermined charge level that is sufficient to support performing multiple tasks, for example on the same day, may be transmitted to the battery charger such that the battery charger charges the battery pack appropriately. In some cases, the battery pack may be configured to notify the user that multiple battery packs may be needed to support multiple tasks and to charge each battery pack accordingly. In embodiments, where the user may complete several tasks with the same or plurality of tools in a predefined period of time, the user may input an operational plan that includes performing several tasks, or the battery pack, based on analysis of operational parameters gathered from previous uses, may predict that the user more likely than not performs several tasks within the predefined period of time and ensure that the battery charger charges the battery pack accordingly. This capability by the system may be particularly useful in applications that involve the management of a fleet of tools used in a commercial setting. A manager of the fleet, for example, may then have the ability to predict how many battery packs [i.e., number of the batteries required for the series of tasks] will be needed for each day and the charge level needed for each particular battery pack enabling the manager to efficiently optimize the task plan of the fleet for the day; paragraph 0056, discussing that the user may have access to the data that is being communicated to the battery charger via the battery pack or the application server. For example, the user may be notified when the battery pack is done charging, or what the estimated charging time of the battery pack is, or if the battery pack should be charged; paragraph 0064, discussing that the application server may perform analysis of the operational parameters. The application server may then provide a notification to the user of the anticipated charging time of the battery pack. The application server may then provide the charging time derived from the operational parameters to the battery charger); and
outputting the use plan information to an external apparatus (paragraph 0051, discussing that in some cases, upon manually entering the operational conditions, the application may be configured to notify the user if the battery pack needs to be charged and, if so, the estimated charge time of the battery pack that will be sufficient to accommodate these conditions so the user may plan accordingly; paragraph 0053, discussing that the predetermined charge level that is sufficient to support performing multiple tasks, for example on the same day, may be transmitted to the battery charger such that the battery charger charges the battery pack appropriately. In some cases, the battery pack may be configured to notify the user that multiple battery packs may be needed to support multiple tasks and to charge each battery pack accordingly. In embodiments, where the user may complete several tasks with the same or plurality of tools in a predefined period of time, the user may input an operational plan that includes performing several tasks, or the battery pack, based on analysis of operational parameters gathered from previous uses, may predict that the user more likely than not performs several tasks within the predefined period of time and ensure that the battery charger charges the battery pack accordingly. This capability by the system may be particularly useful in applications that involve the management of a fleet of tools used in a commercial setting. A manager of the fleet, for example, may then have the ability to predict how many battery packs will be needed for each day and the charge level needed for each particular battery pack enabling the manager to efficiently optimize the task plan of the fleet for the day; paragraph 0056, discussing that the user may have access to the data that is being communicated to the battery charger via the battery pack or the application server. For example, the user may be notified when the battery pack is done charging, or what the estimated charging time of the battery pack is, or if the battery pack should be charged; paragraph 0064, discussing that the application server may perform analysis of the operational parameters. The application server may then provide a notification to the user of the anticipated charging time of the battery pack. The application server may then provide the charging time derived from the operational parameters to the battery charger);
wherein the generating updates the use plan information in a case where the stored information has been updated or in a case where the input information has been updated (paragraph 0004, discussing that in order to facilitate more efficient charging of the battery pack by the battery charger, some example embodiments may provide a battery pack that is configured to communicate to the battery charger certain operational data of the battery pack and the tool the battery pack is powering to allow for the battery charger to adjust the charging duration of the battery pack based on the operational data received; paragraph 0054, discussing that where the user is manually inputting data to control the charge time of the battery pack, the system may be configured to make recommendations to the user to ensure the battery pack is charged efficiently and appropriately (e.g., actual conditions detected may be helpful in determining if battery pack charge time should be adjusted up or down); paragraph 0068, discussing that the battery usage profile may be based on the schedule inputted by the user, and then in accordance with further example embodiments, may be updated by the battery pack based on an analysis of the use of the tool).
Funk does not explicitly teach storing, as stored information, a number of the batteries to be used for each type of the electrical working machines, and a time required for charging each respective one of the batteries; and receiving, as input information, a number of the electrical working machines used in the each one of the steps. Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches:
storing, as stored information, a number of the batteries to be used for each type of the electrical working machines, and a time required for charging each respective one of the batteries (paragraph 0011, discussing a management method for charging batteries of work vehicles; paragraph 0059, discussing that various types of data necessary for determining in advance the schedule for managing the forklifts 1 to 4 and charging the lithium ion batteries A to E are input through the input means. The data to be input here includes: a charging time required for the battery charger to charge the lithium ion batteries A to E (one hour in the present embodiment); the number of forklifts 1 to 4; the number of standby batteries and the number of the battery chargers; and the maximum usable runtimes (of the lithium ion batteries A to D) on normal operation of the forklifts; paragraph 0046, discussing that the charge process by the battery charger as described is influenced by the number of battery chargers and a charging time. Therefore, in the above steps, based on the acceptable charge amount by which each of the lithium ion batteries can be charged by the battery charger (the acceptable charge amount indicating that one lithium ion battery can be charged for one hour), the above-described priority order for replacing the lithium ion batteries A to E is determined. Additionally, after completion of the cargo handling work by the forklifts 1 to 4, as shown at the end of the charge process, all the lithium ion batteries A to E are fully charged in preparation for the process to be done on the following day).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for storing, as stored information, a number of the batteries to be used for each type of the electrical working machines, and a time required for charging each respective one of the batteries, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Funk-Akahane combination does not explicitly teach receiving, as input information, a number of the electrical working machines used in the each one of the steps. However, Tamaru in the analogous art of work machine managements systems teaches this concept. Tamaru teaches:
receiving, as input information, a number of the electrical working machines used in the each one of the steps (paragraph 0005, discussing that when construction work is started, a construction work process management chart is produced, based on the requirements of the client, and construction work is carried out according to that Gantt chart. As used here, a Gantt chart is a scheduled work plan that divides the construction work into several work processes, and notes the types and numbers of construction machines required for each work process, as well as the daily schedule required for each work process. As the construction work is carried out, work progress is noted on the Gantt chart, and that is compared against the initial schedule plan; paragraph 0012, discussing that the general site manager produces the Gantt chart, selects the types and numbers of construction machines required for each work process, rents the selected construction machines from a rental (lease) company or purchases them from a manufacturer, and manages the deployment of vehicles).
Examiner notes that Tamaru, in addition to Funk, also teaches wherein at least one type of the electrical working machines is used in the each one of the steps (paragraph 0005, discussing that when construction work is started, a construction work process management chart is produced, based on the requirements of the client, and construction work is carried out according to that Gantt chart. As used here, a Gantt chart is a scheduled work plan that divides the construction work into several work processes, and notes the types and numbers of construction machines required for each work process, as well as the daily schedule required for each work process. As the construction work is carried out, work progress is noted on the Gantt chart, and that is compared against the initial schedule plan; paragraph 0012, discussing that the general site manager produces the Gantt chart, selects the types and numbers of construction machines required for each work process, rents the selected construction machines from a rental (lease) company or purchases them from a manufacturer, and manages the deployment of vehicles).
The Funk-Akahane combination describes features related to battery management. Tamaru is directed toward equipment management system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for tool management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Funk-Akahane combination with Tamaru because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for resource management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying the Funk-Akahane combination to include Tamaru’s feature for including receiving, as input information, a number of the electrical working machines used in the each one of the steps, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of efficiently managing the machines (Tamaru at paragraph 0017); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru combination does not explicitly teach generates use plan information of a plurality of batteries of a common type for performing each one of a plurality of steps included in a series of tasks by a plurality of types of electrical working machines capable of sharing the plurality of batteries of the common type. However, Hyde in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches this concept. Hyde teaches:
generates use plan information of a plurality of batteries of a common type for performing each one of a plurality of steps included in a series of tasks by a plurality of types of electrical working machines capable of sharing the plurality of batteries of the common type (col. 3, lines 46-67 & col. 4, lines 1-3, discussing a system and method for management of an energy storage system for a vehicle having vehicle systems including the energy storage system. The vehicle may be operated in a configuration to perform at least one duty in conditions of operation such as travel on a route. The energy storage system may be a battery system with battery modules. The management system may be configured to plan and operate vehicle systems such as the energy storage system based on data and information available from data sources on the vehicle and from connectivity to data sources external to the vehicle. The management system may comprise a computing system configured to manage at least one vehicle system including the energy storage system. The computing system may be configured to use data from data sources to create a management plan for operation of the vehicle and the energy storage system based on criteria such as objectives and predicted conditions. Data from the data sources may be available to the computing system during operation of the vehicle and the energy storage system so that the management plan can be adapted to conditions of operation. Performance of the vehicle and the energy storage system in operation of the duty may be managed according to the management plan and the conditions of operation. The energy storage system may be a battery system with battery modules; col. 4, lines 58-67 & col. 5, lines 1-3, discussing a system and method of predictive management of an energy storage system in a vehicle comprising vehicle systems including the energy storage system. The method may comprise the steps of obtaining data relating to the vehicle in data categories from data sources, determining a route and duty for the vehicle, determining the configuration of vehicle systems, evaluating data to predict anticipated conditions for the route and duty, determining a plan for operation of the vehicle and vehicle systems according to criteria such as objectives, operating the vehicle, and monitoring the operation of the vehicle. The energy storage system may be a battery system with battery modules; col. 17, lines 26-45, discussing that data and information from the management system can be retrieved and accessed at network-connected computing device for purposes of review, backup, evaluation, forensic and analytics. Data and information from multiple vehicles can be collected, combined and compared and used for any of a wide variety of purposes, including evaluating of system/vehicle/component performance,…,optimization program/routine development and modification, business analytics, resource and facility planning, pattern identification, profile development, capacity monitoring and development, performance comparison, product evaluation, cause-effect evaluation, experimentation, etc. As indicated, according to an exemplary embodiment, data can be acquired from/for individual vehicles, fleets of vehicles, groups of vehicles; individual vehicle data may be aggregated over time for a personal vehicle; multiple vehicle data may be aggregated over time for a fleet or group; col. 18, lines 23-48, discussing that the management system is configured to use data in combination with objectives/considerations in a plan to manage the energy storage system in the performance of each duty assigned to or performed by the vehicle…management of the energy storage system comprises management of operation of a battery system…According to an exemplary embodiment, the vehicle may be provided with other vehicle systems to be related to the energy storage system under management such as a wireless power source (e.g. beamed/transmitted power available at a station or at a street location) or a solar collector (e.g. an array of solar cells) to obtain energy for the energy storage system (e.g. the battery system to provide energy to charge components of the battery system)…; col. 19, lines 14-24, discussing that the computing system is configured to use data from data sources to create a management plan for operation of the vehicle and vehicle system such as the energy storage system (e.g. battery system) to perform the duties assigned to the vehicle based on criteria such as objectives and predicted conditions; col. 22, lines 60-67, discussing that data sources will be provided to interchange data with the battery management system; data sources will comprise various sets of updated/recorded and stored data records associated with the battery system in the management of the battery system. According to an exemplary embodiment, the data records available on the network can be used at a data center for an analytics function to manage the use of battery modules in vehicles, for example, to facilitate life-cycle management of each battery module in a battery system or inventory (e.g. the life-cycle for the battery module is managed according to data records to suggest recommended use of each battery module). Data records available on the network may be used to optimize use of battery modules in vehicles according to battery type, based on state of charge of the battery module, state of health of the battery module, operation history of the battery module; the battery module recommended by the management plan/system for a battery system configuration for a vehicle performing duty following a route may be based on predicted needs in consideration of corresponding data records for each installed/available battery module (e.g. type, rate of energy charge and discharge, energy storage capacity, depth of charge and discharge or number of charge-discharge cycles, etc.); col. 28, lines 25-46, discussing that the battery system may be configured to comprise a battery pack or a set of battery packs; a battery pack may be configured to comprise a set of battery modules (e.g. a battery or battery cell/combination of cells)…The battery system may be configured with multiple bays or receptacles for installation of (modular) battery packs; according to an exemplary embodiment, the battery system may be configured as indicated with a bay for a high-performance battery pack (or battery module) and a bay for a standard battery pack (or battery module). As indicated, according to an exemplary embodiment, separate bays may be configured for installation of different types of battery packs/modules; separate bays may be configured identically according to an exemplary embodiment. As shown schematically in FIG. 9C, bays or receptacles for battery modules in a battery system or battery pack may be configured for installation of different types of interchangeable battery modules; col. 47, lines 24-34, discussing that if battery modules are interchangeable (swappable) modules, the system may recommend or select installation of high-power batteries versus high-energy batteries. The system will provide alerts and communication to advise the user/operator to either limit total distance traveled or to recharge the battery module during the day. Communications may be provided to the user/operator at a user interface in the vehicle as well as to computing devices such as a home computer, table computer and smart phones; col. 47, lines 60-65, discussing that the system provides that recommended plan for configuration with interchangeable modular batteries is to select at least one module with high cycle life to accommodate stop-and-go conditions; col. 19, lines 54-64).
The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru combination describes features related to battery management. Hyde is directed toward a system and method for management of a fleet of vehicles having an energy storage system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru combination with Hyde because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru combination to include Hyde’s feature for including generating use plan information of a plurality of batteries of a common type for performing each one of a plurality of steps included in a series of tasks by a plurality of types of electrical working machines capable of sharing the plurality of batteries of the common type, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of operating machines in a cost-efficient/energy-efficient manner to perform the designated duties (Hyde at col. 15, lines 20-25); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Funk, Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform determining a predicted number of chargers conforming to the use plan information based on the use plan information (paragraph 0048, discussing that the replacement order of the lithium ion batteries A to E as shown in the time chart of FIG. 4 is limited by the acceptable charge amount by which each of the lithium ion batteries can be charged by the battery charger 11 (the acceptable charge amount indicating that one lithium ion battery can be charged for one hour). It is, therefore, expected depending on the situation that the plurality of lithium ion batteries A to E wait in order for their turn to be charged. This situation may be handled in a manner, for example, that the batteries are not fully charged but only partially charged, any one of the forklifts 1 to 4 is halted for operation, another lithium ion battery is additionally provided as a standby battery, and another battery charger 11 is additionally provided; paragraph 0059).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for including determining a predicted number of chargers conforming to the use plan information based on the use plan information, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Funk further teaches wherein the generating of the use plan information further comprises generating information indicating a temporal transition of the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks (paragraph 0038, discussing that similar to the battery data, the tool data may also be transmitted or stored in association with the identification information so that all operational parameters are associated with a respective tool, tool type, or user. The identification information may therefore include a specific tool identifier, a type identifier indicating the type or model of the tool, or a specific user identifier. In some embodiments, operational parameters may also be transmitted or stored in association with temporal information that may indicate the time (or time period) that the operational parameters were obtained from the tool or the time that the operational parameters were transmitted from the battery pack; paragraph 0068, discussing that when the battery usage profile is derived from machine learning, the battery pack, through analyzing any combination of run time run hours, position, orientation, temperature data, speed data, mode of operation,…, or the like, may determine a schedule of the battery pack in combination with the charge level and use of the battery pack and the particular tool used. In this regard, the battery pack may learn that the user typically mows 2 hours on Friday and then completes leaf blowing and trimming operations for 2 hours on Saturday. Accordingly, the battery usage profile, which contains the usage and times associated with the usage, may be communicated to the battery charger).
As per claim 4, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Funk further teaches wherein in generating the use plan information, the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: determining whether a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding a step of interest of the steps is usable in the step of interest (paragraph 0053, discussing that the predetermined charge level that is sufficient to support performing multiple tasks, for example on the same day, may be transmitted to the battery charger such that the battery charger charges the battery pack appropriately. In some cases, the battery pack may be configured to notify the user that multiple battery packs may be needed to support multiple tasks and to charge each battery pack accordingly. In embodiments, where the user may complete several tasks with the same or plurality of tools in a predefined period of time (e.g., over the course of an afternoon or day), the user may input an operational plan that includes performing several tasks, or the battery pack, based on analysis of operational parameters gathered from previous uses, may predict that the user more likely than not performs several tasks within the predefined period of time and ensure that the battery charger charges the battery pack accordingly. This capability by the system may be particularly useful in applications that involve the management of a fleet of tools used in a commercial setting. A manager of the fleet, for example, may then have the ability to predict how many battery packs will be needed for each day and the charge level needed for each particular battery pack enabling the manager to efficiently optimize the task plan of the fleet for the day; paragraph 0069).
Funk does not explicitly teach and generating the use plan information as using a new one of the batteries in the step of interest when it is determined that the partially used one of the batteries is not usable in the step of interest. However, Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches this concept. Akahane teaches:
and generating the use plan information as using a new one of the batteries in the step of interest when it is determined that the partially used one of the batteries is not usable in the step of interest (paragraph 0048, discussing that the replacement order of the lithium ion batteries A to E as shown in the time chart of FIG. 4 is limited by the acceptable charge amount by which each of the lithium ion batteries can be charged by the battery charger. It is, therefore, expected depending on the situation that the plurality of lithium ion batteries A to E wait in order for their turn to be charged. This situation may be handled in a manner, for example, that the batteries are not fully charged but only partially charged, any one of the forklifts 1 to 4 is halted for operation, another lithium ion battery is additionally provided as a standby battery…; claim 2: “a step of stopping a work in progress and changing a schedule if it is determined that a problem arises in completing the work due to a shortage in the remaining battery levels of the plurality of the secondary batteries.”; paragraph 0043).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for generating the use plan information as using a new one of the batteries in the step of interest when it is determined that the partially used one of the batteries is not usable in the step of interest, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4. Although not explicitly taught by Funk, Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches wherein in generating the use plan, the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform generating of the use plan information as using a total number of new ones of the batteries to be used in the step of interest of the steps over the series of tasks as the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks (paragraph 0004, discussing that a user with a high rate of operation prepares, for each forklift, two to three units of lead-acid battery packs to be replaced. An installed lead-acid battery pack with no remaining battery level is replaced in rotation with a previously charged battery pack; paragraph 0043, discussing that if it is determined that, for example, at 9 am, the forklift 1 is engaged in work very high in load and the lithium ion battery A is greatly drained as compared with other lithium ion batteries B to E, the forklift 1 is made to return to the base station 10, and the battery thereof is replaced with the lithium ion battery E which has been charged in advance from 8 am as a standby battery…; paragraph 0048, discussing that the replacement order of the lithium ion batteries A to E as shown in the time chart of FIG. 4 is limited by the acceptable charge amount by which each of the lithium ion batteries can be charged by the battery charger. It is, therefore, expected depending on the situation that the plurality of lithium ion batteries A to E wait in order for their turn to be charged. This situation may be handled in a manner, for example, that the batteries are not fully charged but only partially charged, any one of the forklifts 1 to 4 is halted for operation, another lithium ion battery is additionally provided as a standby battery…; paragraph 0049, discussing that additionally, if it is determined that an index value for each of the forklifts 1 to 4 calculated is negative, that is, a problem arises in completing work that is now in progress due to a shortage in the remaining battery levels, the work is stopped, the schedule is changed, and, for example, any one of the forklifts 1 to 4 which is not short in remaining battery level may be used as a substitute to continue the work).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for including wherein in generating the use plan, the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform generating of the use plan information as using a total number of new ones of the batteries to be used in the step of interest of the steps over the series of tasks as the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 6, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Funk, Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches wherein in generating the use plan, the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: determining whether a step of interest of the steps is completable even when a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest is used in the step of interest, and generating the use plan information as using the partially used one of the batteries in the step of interest when the step of interest is determined to be completable (paragraph 0048, discussing that the replacement order of the lithium ion batteries A to E as shown in the time chart of FIG. 4 is limited by the acceptable charge amount by which each of the lithium ion batteries can be charged by the battery charger. It is, therefore, expected depending on the situation that the plurality of lithium ion batteries A to E wait in order for their turn to be charged. This situation may be handled in a manner, for example, that the batteries are not fully charged but only partially charged, any one of the forklifts 1 to 4 is halted for operation, another lithium ion battery is additionally provided as a standby battery…; claim 2: “a step of stopping a work in progress and changing a schedule if it is determined that a problem arises in completing the work due to a shortage in the remaining battery levels of the plurality of the secondary batteries.”; paragraph 0056, discussing a schedule generating unit which determines in advance a schedule for managing the plurality of forklifts 1 to 4 and charging the lithium ion batteries A to E based on usable runtimes of the lithium ion batteries A to E respectively installed in the plurality of forklifts 1 to 4, and the acceptable charge amount by which each of the lithium ion batteries A to E can be charged by the battery charger 11; and a schedule transmitting unit which makes the forklifts 1 to 4 carry out the work thereof in accordance with the schedule for managing the forklifts 1 to 4 and charging the lithium ion batteries A to E, which is generated by the schedule generating unit; paragraph 0043).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for including wherein in generating the use plan, the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: determining whether a step of interest of the steps is completable even when a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest is used in the step of interest, and generating the use plan information as using the partially used one of the batteries in the step of interest when the step of interest is determined to be completable, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by Funk, Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches wherein in generating the use plan, the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: determining whether a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding a step of interest of the steps is usable in the step of interest and, whether charging of the battery is completable by a timing of performing the step of interest, and generating the use plan information as starting recharging the partially used one of the batteries when the one of the steps preceding the step of interest is completed in a case where it is determined that the partially used one of the batteries is usable in the step of interest and the charging is completable, and as using a recharged one of the batteries in the step of interest (paragraph 0014, discussing that an index value for determining a priority order for replacing the batteries of the work vehicles is calculated by referring to differences between the remaining battery levels of the secondary batteries acquired from the work vehicles and the estimated power consumptions of the work vehicles calculated for a predetermined time from the current time. Then, a return command is output to one of the work vehicles based on the index value and the acceptable charge amount by which the secondary batteries can be respectively charged. Thus, the management of the work vehicles and the priority order for replacing the secondary batteries makes more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the secondary batteries installed in the work vehicle. Thereby, it is possible to promote efficient management of the secondary batteries; paragraph 0030, discussing that communication means is provided between the base station and each of the forklifts. Data detected by the remaining battery level sensors 1A to 4A of the forklifts 1 to 4, the power consumption sensors 1B to 4B, and the position sensors 1C to 4C are supplied to the controller C1 through the communication means 12. On the other hand, a return command for charging the lithium ion batteries is to be output from the controller C1 to each of the forklifts 1 to 4; paragraph 0032, discussing tight the signal transmitting/receiving unit also transmits to each of the forklifts 1 to 4, a return signal for charging batteries; paragraph 0033, discussing that the index value calculating unit 21 of the controller C1 calculates an index value which is a factor in determining which one of the forklifts 1 to 4 is made to return to the base station 10 for the battery charger to charge the lithium ion batteries; paragraph 0046, discussing that after completion of the cargo handling work by the forklifts 1 to 4, as shown at the end of the charge process, all the lithium ion batteries A to E are fully charged in preparation for the process to be done on the following day; paragraphs 0043, 0044, 0045).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for including wherein in generating the use plan, the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: determining whether a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding a step of interest of the steps is usable in the step of interest and, whether charging of the battery is completable by a timing of performing the step of interest, and generating the use plan information as starting recharging the partially used one of the batteries when the one of the steps preceding the step of interest is completed in a case where it is determined that the partially used one of the batteries is usable in the step of interest and the charging is completable, and as using a recharged one of the batteries in the step of interest, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. While Funk describes making recommendations to the user to ensure the battery pack is charged efficiently and appropriately (paragraph 0054). Funk does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: receiving a priority setting regarding whether a priority is given to a number of the batteries for reducing a number of necessary ones of the batteries or is given to a number of replacements for reducing a number of replacement ones of the batteries, and generating the use plan information as using in a step of interest of the steps a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest of the steps in accordance with the priority setting in a case where the priority is given to the number of the batteries, and as using a charged one of the batteries in the step of interest in a case where the priority is given to the number of replacements of the batteries. However, Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches these concepts. Akahane teaches
wherein the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: receiving a priority setting regarding whether a priority is given to a number of the batteries for reducing a number of necessary ones of the batteries or is given to a number of replacements for reducing a number of replacement ones of the batteries (paragraph 0011, discussing making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the secondary batteries, thus making it possible to promote efficient management of the secondary batteries; paragraph 0047, discussing that the schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the lithium ion batteries A to E respectively installed in the forklifts 1 to 4 is made more efficient by the system for charging secondary batteries of electric work vehicles and the management method for charging secondary batteries. It is, thereby, possible to promote efficient management of the lithium ion batteries A to E. As a result, it is possible to manage the secondary batteries efficiently by eliminating the necessity for unnecessarily providing standby batteries as needed in a conventional case), and
generating the use plan information as using in a step of interest of the steps a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest of the steps in accordance with the priority setting in a case where the priority is given to the number of the batteries, and as using a charged one of the batteries in the step of interest in a case where the priority is given to the number of replacements of the batteries (paragraph 0012, discussing a step of calculating an index value for determining a priority order for replacing the plurality of secondary batteries of the plurality of work vehicles, by referring to differences between the remaining battery levels of the plurality of secondary batteries and the estimated power consumptions; and a step of outputting a return command to one of the plurality of work vehicles based on the index value and acceptable charge amounts by which the plurality of secondary batteries are respectively charged; paragraph 0013, discussing determining a priority order for replacing the plurality of secondary batteries of the plurality of work vehicles by referring to differences between the estimated power consumptions calculated and the plurality of remaining battery levels of the plurality of secondary batteries, and the controller being configured to output a return command indicating that one of the plurality of work vehicles returns to the charging base according to the priority order; paragraph 0034, discussing that according to the priority order, the charge-schedule determining unit outputs a command for making one of the forklifts 1 to 4 which is associated with the minimum index value return to the base station. Then, based on the return command, such work is done that the lithium ion battery installed in the associated one of the forklifts 1 to 4 is replaced with a lithium ion battery which has already been charged by the battery charger).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for including wherein the at least one program causes the at least one processor to perform: receiving a priority setting regarding whether a priority is given to a number of the batteries for reducing a number of necessary ones of the batteries or is given to a number of replacements for reducing a number of replacement ones of the batteries, and generating the use plan information as using in a step of interest of the steps a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest of the steps in accordance with the priority setting in a case where the priority is given to the number of the batteries, and as using a charged one of the batteries in the step of interest in a case where the priority is given to the number of replacements of the batteries, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 12 the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which stores a computer program which, when loaded into a computer and executed, causes the computer to perform an information processing method (Funk, paragraph 0031, discussing that the processor may be configured to execute instructions stored in the memory or otherwise accessible to the processor. As such, whether configured by hardware or by a combination of hardware and software, the processor may represent an entity (e.g., physically embodied in circuitry in the form of processing circuitry) capable of performing operations according to embodiments of the present invention while configured accordingly; paragraph 0033, discussing that the memory may include one or more non-transitory memory devices such as, for example, volatile and/or non-volatile memory that may be either fixed or removable. The memory may be configured to store information, data, applications, instructions or the like for enabling the processing circuitry to carry out various functions in accordance with example embodiments. For example, the memory could be configured to buffer input data for processing by the processor. Additionally or alternatively, the memory could be configured to store instructions for execution by the processor. As yet another alternative or additional capability, the memory may include one or more databases that may store a variety of data sets responsive to input from the tool, or any other functional units or devices from which the battery pack has previously extracted data while powering such tool. Among the contents of the memory, applications may be stored for execution by the processor in order to carry out the functionality associated with each respective application. In some cases, the applications may include instructions for recognition of patterns of activity and for initiation of one or more responses to the recognition of any particular pattern of activity as described. Additionally or alternatively, the applications may prescribe particular reporting paradigms or protocols for reporting of information from the battery pack to a network device (i.e., the battery charger or the user device) via the communications manager).
As per claim 15, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Funk further teaches wherein the batteries power the electrical working machines to perform the plurality of steps included in the series of tasks in accordance with the use plan information (paragraph 0020, discussing that tool 110 that may benefit from having a rechargeable battery pack 150, as discussed herein. For example, the tool 110 may be an outdoor power equipment tool. The outdoor power equipment tool may be a mower, a blower, a chainsaw, a trimmer, an edger, a snow removal tool, a tiller, or the like. Furthermore, it should be understood that the battery pack 150 may be configured to operate in a plurality of different types of tools 110. For example, the battery pack 150 may be configured to power a mower, trimmer, and blower or the like owned by the same user. Accordingly, a plurality of tools 110 may be configured to be powered by the same or a same type of battery pack 150. In this regard, any battery-powered tool 110 that can be operably coupled to the battery pack 150 for both power provision purposes and communication purposes, as described herein, may be part of the system 100, and the system 100 could include as few as a single tool 110 or as many as dozens of tools 110; paragraph 0043, discussing that FIG. 3 illustrates a diagrammatic representation of a system in accordance with a further example embodiment described herein. As discussed above, the battery pack 150 may be configured to receive and manage the operational parameters received from the battery pack 150 and the tool 110 and transmit the operational parameters over the network 170 to the network devices. However, in other example embodiments, components of server network 332 may execute applications for storage or analysis of the tool or battery operational parameters. In an example embodiment, one function that may be provided by the application server 340 may be the provision of access to information or services related to the battery pack 150. For example, the application server 340 may be configured to receive the data transmitted by the battery pack 150 (via the network 170). The application server 340 may then be configured to analyze RPM data, tool run hours or time, or various other aspects of the operational parameters to determine patterns of use of the tool 110, charging time of the battery pack 150, or other issues or problems. Furthermore, the application server 340 may be configured to provide an alert to the user or fleet manager and the alert may be descriptive of the data received from the battery pack 150 or tool 110. In some cases, the application server 340 may also determine an expected time for completion of charge based on the charging rate and the current state of charge. Additionally or alternatively, the application server 340 may be configured to determine the expected run time achievable for a specific tool or task based on knowledge of discharge rates for the tool or task and the current state of charge. In some cases, these contents may be stored in the database server 342; paragraph 0053, discussing that the predetermined charge level that is sufficient to support performing multiple tasks, for example on the same day, may be transmitted to the battery charger 180 such that the battery charger 180 charges the battery pack 150 appropriately. In some cases, the battery pack 150 may be configured to notify the user that multiple battery packs 150 may be needed to support multiple tasks and to charge each battery pack 150 accordingly. In embodiments, where the user may complete several tasks with the same or plurality of tools 110 in a predefined period of time (e.g., over the course of an afternoon or day), the user (via the user device 160) may input an operational plan that includes performing several tasks, or the battery pack 150, based on analysis of operational parameters gathered from previous uses, may predict that the user more likely than not performs several tasks within the predefined period of time and ensure that the battery charger 180 charges the battery pack 150 accordingly. This capability by the system 100 may be particularly useful in applications that involve the management of a fleet of tools 110 used in a commercial setting. A manager of the fleet, for example, may then have the ability to predict how many battery packs 150 will be needed for each day and the charge level needed for each particular battery pack 150 enabling the manager to efficiently optimize the task plan of the fleet for the day; paragraph 0051).
Claim 16 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 16 the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches a system, comprising: a plurality of batteries (Funk, paragraphs 0005, 0020, 0036, 0043, 0053); a plurality of electrical working machines, each of the electrical working machines comprising a corresponding one of a plurality of types (Funk, paragraphs 0005, 0020, 0036, 0043, 0053); at least one the batteries are employed to power each one of the types of the electrical work machines in performing each one of a plurality of steps included in a series of steps of a task, where at least one type of the electrical work machines is used in each one of the steps in accordance with a use plan information (Funk, paragraphs 0005, 0020, 0036, 0043, 0053); at least one memory which stores at least one program (Funk, paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0033); at least one processor (Funk paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0032); and a plurality of batteries of a common type (Hyde, col. 3, lines 46-67 & col. 4, lines 1-3, col. 4, lines 58-67 & col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 17, lines 26-45; col. 18, lines 23-48; col. 19, lines 14-24; col. 22, lines 60-67; col. 28, lines 25-46; col. 47, lines 24-34; col. 47, lines 60-65).
Claim 17 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 2, as discussed above.
Claim 18 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 3, as discussed above.
Claim 19 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 4, as discussed above.
36. Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk in view of Akahane, in view of Tamaru, in view of Hyde, in further view of Takatsuka et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0253789 A1, [hereinafter Takatsuka].
As per claim 9, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform: storing a rental unit price of a respective one of the batteries; and generating estimation information of a rental fee based on the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and the rental unit price. However, Takatsuka in the analogous art of battery reservation systems teaches these concepts. Takatsuka teaches:
wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform: storing a rental unit price of a respective one of the batteries (paragraph 0052, discussing a reservation input screen displayed on the display component of the vehicle shown, which is used to select a battery station and includes the number of battery packs that can be rented and the rental price; paragraph 0073, discussing that he battery number acquisition component uses a unique ID or the like assigned to each vehicle and included in the reservation information accepted by the input acceptance component to acquire the number of battery packs that can be installed in the vehicle. More specifically, the battery number acquisition component acquires the number of battery packs 1 that can be installed by using information about the vehicle corresponding to the ID stored ahead of time in a specific database; paragraph 0077); and
generating estimation information of a rental fee based on the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and the rental unit price (paragraph 0075, discussing that reservation details for the selected battery station A are displayed on the reservation input screen. More specifically, information related to the total power amount reserved, the number (3) of battery packs that satisfies the total power amount, the desired pickup time, and the rental fee is displayed; paragraph 0032, discussing that the user can make a reservation by selecting the desired battery station from among the plurality of battery stations presented as reservation destination candidates, which are presented in order of closeness from the current position, in order of the fewest number of rentals, in order of the lowest rental fee, and in order of the shortest waiting time, for example; paragraph 0127).
The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination describes features related to battery management. Takatsuka is directed toward a method for battery reservation. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination with Takatsuka because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination to include Takatsuka’s features for including wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform: storing a rental unit price of a respective one of the batteries; and generating estimation information of a rental fee based on the number of the batteries required for the series of the tasks and the rental unit price, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing users to easily select a battery station that can provide the number and capacity of battery packs satisfying the necessary conditions (Takatsuka at paragraph 0029); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13 recites limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 9, as discussed above.
As per claim 10, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde-Takatsuka combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 9. Although not explicitly taught by Funk, Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform: receiving a priority setting as to whether a priority is given to a number of the batteries for reducing a number of necessary ones of the batteries or is given to a number of replacements for reducing a number of replacement ones of the batteries (paragraph 0012, discussing a step of calculating an index value for determining a priority order for replacing the plurality of secondary batteries of the plurality of work vehicles, by referring to differences between the remaining battery levels of the plurality of secondary batteries and the estimated power consumptions; and a step of outputting a return command to one of the plurality of work vehicles based on the index value and acceptable charge amounts by which the plurality of secondary batteries are respectively charged; paragraph 0013, discussing that the controller being configured to determine a priority order for replacing the plurality of secondary batteries of the plurality of work vehicles by referring to differences between the estimated power consumptions calculated and the plurality of remaining battery levels of the plurality of secondary batteries, and the controller being configured to output a return command indicating that one of the plurality of work vehicles returns to the charging base according to the priority order; paragraph 0034, discussing that the charge-schedule determining unit 22 of the controller C1 compares an index value calculated by the index value calculating unit 21 with an index value (Zn) calculated for each of the forklifts 1 to 4, thereby making a priority order for battery replacement by referring to the extent of drain on the lithium ion batteries (batteries A to E)), and
generating the use plan information as using in a step of interest a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest of the steps in accordance with the priority setting, in a case where priority is given to the number of the batteries, generating the use plan information as using a charged one of the batteries in the step of interest in a case where the priority is given to the number of replacement ones of the batteries (paragraph 0013, discussing that the controller being configured to determine a priority order for replacing the plurality of secondary batteries of the plurality of work vehicles by referring to differences between the estimated power consumptions calculated and the plurality of remaining battery levels of the plurality of secondary batteries, and the controller being configured to output a return command indicating that one of the plurality of work vehicles returns to the charging base according to the priority order; paragraph 0014, discussing that an index value for determining a priority order for replacing the batteries of the work vehicles is calculated by referring to differences between the remaining battery levels of the secondary batteries acquired from the work vehicles and the estimated power consumptions of the work vehicles calculated for a predetermined time from the current time. Then, a return command is output to one of the work vehicles based on the index value and the acceptable charge amount by which the secondary batteries can be respectively charged. Thus, the management of the work vehicles and the priority order for replacing the secondary batteries makes more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the secondary batteries installed in the work vehicle. Thereby, it is possible to promote efficient management of the secondary batteries. As a result, it is possible to manage the secondary batteries efficiently by eliminating the necessity for unnecessarily providing standby batteries as needed in a conventional case; paragraphs 0034, 0046).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for including wherein the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform: receiving a priority setting as to whether a priority is given to a number of the batteries for reducing a number of necessary ones of the batteries or is given to a number of replacements for reducing a number of replacement ones of the batteries, generating the use plan information as using in a step of interest a partially used one of the batteries used in one of the steps preceding the step of interest of the steps in accordance with the priority setting, in a case where priority is given to the number of the batteries, generating the use plan information as using a charged one of the batteries in the step of interest in a case where the priority is given to the number of replacement ones of the batteries, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination does not explicitly teach generating estimation information of a rental fee based on the use plan information. However, Takatsuka in the analogous art of battery reservation systems teaches this concept. Takatsuka teaches:
generating estimation information of a rental fee based on the use plan information (paragraph 0075, discussing that reservation details for the selected battery station A are displayed on the reservation input screen. More specifically, information related to the total power amount reserved, the number (3) of battery packs that satisfies the total power amount, the desired pickup time, and the rental fee is displayed; paragraph 0032, discussing that the user can make a reservation by selecting the desired battery station from among the plurality of battery stations presented as reservation destination candidates, which are presented in order of closeness from the current position, in order of the fewest number of rentals, in order of the lowest rental fee, and in order of the shortest waiting time, for example; paragraph 0127).
The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination describes features related to battery management. Takatsuka is directed toward a method for battery reservation. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination with Takatsuka because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination to include Takatsuka’s feature for including generating estimation information of a rental fee based on the use plan information, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing users to easily select a battery station that can provide the number and capacity of battery packs satisfying the necessary conditions (Takatsuka at paragraph 0029); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11, Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde-Takatsuka combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 10. Although not explicitly taught by the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination, Takatsuka in the analogous art of battery reservation systems teaches wherein in the generating of the use plan information, the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform generating the estimation information by adding a price for providing the use plan information to the rental fee (paragraph 0052, discussing a reservation input screen displayed on the display component of the vehicle shown, which is used to select a battery station and includes the number of battery packs that can be rented and the rental price; paragraph 0073, discussing that he battery number acquisition component uses a unique ID or the like assigned to each vehicle and included in the reservation information accepted by the input acceptance component to acquire the number of battery packs that can be installed in the vehicle. More specifically, the battery number acquisition component acquires the number of battery packs that can be installed by using information about the vehicle corresponding to the ID stored ahead of time in a specific database; paragraph 0095, discussing that reservation details for the selected battery station A are displayed on the reservation input screen S3. More specifically, information related to the total power amount reserved, the number of battery pack that satisfies the total power amount, the desired pickup time, and the rental fee is displayed; paragraphs 0077, 0127).
The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination describes features related to battery management. Takatsuka is directed toward a method for battery reservation. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination with Takatsuka because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination to include Takatsuka’s feature for including wherein in the generating of the use plan information, the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform generating the estimation information by adding a price for providing the use plan information to the rental fee, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing users to easily select a battery station that can provide the number and capacity of battery packs satisfying the necessary conditions (Takatsuka at paragraph 0029); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
37. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk in view of Akahane, in view of Tamaru, in view of Hyde, in further view of Kumar et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0176639 A1, [hereinafter Kumar].
As per claim 14, the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Funk teaches changing timings of the batteries (paragraph 0063, discussing that tool data may be extracted from the tool by the battery pack...Battery data may be received from the BMS (battery management system)...Operational parameters, e.g., the tool data or battery data, may be relayed in association with identification information so that the operational parameters are provided in real-time to the application server…The application server may perform analysis of the operational parameters…The application server may then provide the patterns or charging time derived from the operational parameters to the battery charger; paragraph 0043, discussing that the application server and the database server may each include hardware or software for configuring the application server and the database server, respectively, to perform various functions. As such, for example, the application server may include processing logic and memory enabling the application server to access or execute stored computer readable instructions for performing various functions. In an example embodiment, one function that may be provided by the application server may be the provision of access to information or services related to the battery pack. For example, the application server may be configured to receive the data transmitted by the battery pack. The application server may then be configured to analyze tool run hours or time, or various other aspects of the operational parameters to determine patterns of use of the tool, charging time of the battery pack, or other issues or problems…Additionally or alternatively, the application server may be configured to determine the expected run time achievable for a specific tool or task based on knowledge of discharge rates for the tool or task and the current state of charge. In some cases, these contents may be stored in the database server); and
outputting a battery exhaustion warning (paragraph 0043, discussing that the application server may be configured to provide an alert to the user or fleet manager and the alert may be descriptive of the data received from the battery pack or tool; paragraph 0056, discussing that the battery pack may cause one or more alerts or reports to be displayed on the user device regarding the battery pack charging status. The battery pack charging status may include a charging condition, e.g., whether the battery pack is currently being charged, discharged, or inactive.
Although not explicitly taught by Funk, Akahane in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches wherein the changing timings of the batteries include battery replacement timing (paragraph 0011, discussing making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the secondary batteries, thus making it possible to promote efficient management of the secondary batteries; paragraph 0036, discussing that it is assumed in the time chart shown in FIG. 4 that, first, the lithium ion batteries A to D are installed respectively in the forklifts 1 to 4, and the lithium ion battery E is prepared as a standby battery. Further, it is assumed that, in starting cargo handling work by the forklifts 1 to 4 (starting at 8 am), each of the lithium ion batteries A to E is assumed to be fully charged in advance. Moreover, the process of replacing the lithium ion batteries shown in the time chart of FIG. 4 is carried out based on: (1) a time required for the battery charger 11 to charge the lithium ion batteries A to E (one hour in the present embodiment); (2) the number of forklifts 1 to 4 (four forklifts in the present embodiment); (3) the number of standby batteries and the number of the battery chargers 11 (one each in the present embodiment); and (4) the maximum usable runtimes (of the lithium ion batteries A to D) on normal operation of the forklifts (four hours in the present embodiment). Data covering the above descriptions of (1) to (4) will be input in advance to the controller C1 through the input means 14.paragraph 0047, discussing that the schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the lithium ion batteries A to E respectively installed in the forklifts 1 to 4 is made more efficient by the system for charging secondary batteries of electric work vehicles and the management method for charging secondary batteries. It is, thereby, possible to promote efficient management of the lithium ion batteries A to E. As a result, it is possible to manage the secondary batteries efficiently by eliminating the necessity for unnecessarily providing standby batteries as needed in a conventional case; FIG. 4).
Funk is directed toward a method and system for battery management. Akahane is directed toward a management method for charging batteries. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Funk with Akahane because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying Funk to include Akahane’s feature for including wherein the changing timings of the batteries include battery replacement timing, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of making more efficient a schedule for using, replacing, and charging in rotation the batteries (Akahane at paragraph 0011); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination does not explicitly teach the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform: determining a battery exhaustion time from a remaining battery level received from a respective electrical working machine of the plurality of types of electrical working machines; and outputting a battery exhaustion warning in a case where the battery exhaustion time determined is earlier than the battery replacement timing included in the use plan information. However, Kumar in the analogous art of battery management systems teaches these concepts. Kumar teaches:
the at least one program further causes the at least one processor to perform: determining a battery exhaustion time from a remaining battery level received from a respective electrical working machine of the plurality of types of electrical working machines (paragraph 0006, discussing converting the predicted state of degradation into a remaining time or duration estimate based on a rate of convergence towards a threshold defining the end of life for display to a vehicle operator. In this way, the remaining useful life of a vehicle battery may be more accurately predicted and the information may be conveyed to the vehicle operator in a timely manner; paragraph 0007, discussing that based on a speed of convergence of the measured battery attributes towards their respective thresholds, an end of life of the battery may be predicted. The remaining battery life may then be displayed to the vehicle operator; paragraph 0027, discussing that the controller may compare estimated battery characteristics to corresponding thresholds, as shown at FIG. 2. Further, the controller may estimate a speed of convergence of the estimated battery characteristic to the corresponding threshold, as shown at FIG. 6, to predict the end of life of the battery; paragraph 0162, discussing that wherein determining the threshold includes determining the thresholds based on battery end-of-life information gathered from each of the plurality of vehicles of the fleet and received via the vehicle communication network; paragraph 0125); and
outputting a battery exhaustion warning in a case where the battery exhaustion time determined is earlier than the battery replacement timing included in the use plan information (paragraph 0007, discussing that based on a speed of convergence of the measured battery attributes towards their respective thresholds, an end of life of the battery may be predicted. The remaining battery life may then be displayed to the vehicle operator; paragraph 0104, discussing that the various alerts, communications and control strategies, that send messages to the driver/maintenance personnel and curtail functionality, may be executed in a step-wise manner as the predicted end of life of the battery becomes shorter. As an example, vehicle drivers may be warned of an imminent battery failure; paragraph 0129, discussing that it is imperative to warn the driver and service personnel of an imminent battery failure before it occurs so that the battery could be replaced).
The Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination describes features related to battery management. Kumar is directed toward a method for determining battery life. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards systems for battery management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination with Kumar because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for battery management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (generating use plan information of batteries), and because modifying the Funk-Akahane-Tamaru-Hyde combination to include Kumar’s features for including determining a battery exhaustion time from a remaining battery level received from a respective electrical working machine of the plurality of types of electrical working machines; and outputting a battery exhaustion warning in a case where the battery exhaustion time determined is earlier than the battery replacement timing included in the use plan information, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of better notifying an operator of the condition of the component (Kumar at paragraph 0008); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martens, Pub. No.: US 2011/0029265 A1 – describes a method and device for predicting a rechargeable battery's lifetime.
Mitchell et al., Pub. No.: US 2003/0004662 A1 – describes a method and system for managing battery power for battery powered devices.
Muenzel, Valentin, et al. "A multi-factor battery cycle life prediction methodology for optimal battery management." Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Sixth International Conference on Future Energy Systems. 2015 – describes battery life prediction methodology tailored towards operational optimization of battery management.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625