DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 17-18 have been added, and are rejected.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/18/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/18/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claim limitation of “decide a business agency that will remove the battery from the vehicle, after… the second user approves selling of the battery at the price included in the price information” is linked to the coordination of a real-world batter-removal of the battery mounted on the vehicle. The arguments further remark that the amended features of the deciding a date and time are linked to executing and managing the actual process of removing the battery mounted on the vehicle in a very specific manner. On pages 9-11, it is argued that the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and the claims add specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field that confine the claim to a particular useful application, referencing the claims being free of prior art as support. On page 12, the Applicant argues that dependent claims 17 and 18 further clarify the link to the specific practical application of removing the battery mounted on the vehicle in a more specific manner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The deciding of a business agency that will remove the battery after approving of a price for selling the battery is a sales activity, and is ineligible as an abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activity. There are not additional elements in this limitation, and any battery removal is not positively recited, nor are any technical process of physically removing the battery recited in the claims. The claim merely recite deciding on a business agency, which is merely selecting an agency to do business with. The deciding of a date and time is also merely scheduling based on availability, which is not tied to any additional elements, and is merely creating an appointment, and is an abstract idea. These elements, alone or in combination, are wholly directed to a sales activity, and do not involve any additional elements to integrate it into a practical application or provide significantly more. Furthermore, the claims being free of prior art does not have any bearing on subject matter eligibility, and while the claims may not be well-understood, routine, or conventional within the abstract idea, they are not so in confining the claim to a particular useful application. For example, in the case of Bascom, while the claims recited well-understood, routine, and conventional elements, the claims utilized the various generic computer components in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement. The present claims do not recite any elements in such a manner, merely reciting a generic processor with a memory to execute an abstract idea of a sales process for trading a battery at an approved price, and then deciding and scheduling with a business agency to perform service.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
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 1-2 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 and 11-18 are directed to a server, which is an apparatus. Claim 9 is directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claim 1-2 and 4-16 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 9 as representative, claim 9 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of selling a used battery to a buyer:
a first user who desires to reuse a battery mounted on a vehicle capable of travelling with an electric motor as a power source;
a second user who owns the vehicle;
acquire price information that includes a price to be paid for purchasing the battery for reuse and that is presented by the first user;
identify a notification destination of the second user and provide the notification destination of the second user with the price information that is acquired acquiring, after the acquiring acquires the price information;
decide a business agency that will remove the battery from the vehicle, after providing the providing provides the notification destination of the second user with the price information and the second user approves selling of the battery at the price included in the price information;
notify the notification destination of the second user of business agency information about the business agency after the deciding decides the business agency;
decide a date and time when the battery is to be removed from the vehicle based on (i) information that is related to a date and time when the battery can be removed from the vehicle in the business agency that is acquired from the business agency, and (ii) information that is related to a data and time when the second user is available to visit the business agency to remove the batter from the vehicle and that is acquired from the second user.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for selling a used battery to a buyer. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc. The claims recite acquiring price information and determining a business agency to service the item upon approval of the price (see specification [0003] disclosing the problem of reusing batteries of hybrid vehicles), which are sales activities.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that claim 9 recites additional elements, such as:
a server;
a first terminal;
a second terminal;
at least one processor with a memory comprising instructions;
an acquisition unit;
a provision unit;
a decision unit;
a notification unit;
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 9 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim merely includes instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While claim 9 recites a server and various terminals, these additional elements are recited with a very high level of generality. The server and terminals are also disclosed with a very high level of generality in the specification, such as in paragraphs [0022-0023], which merely describe them as a computer or a mobile terminal including a CPU, a memory, and the like. As such, it can be seen that the server and terminals are any generic computing devices, and merely serve to provide a general link to a computing environment. The various units are also disclosed with a very high level of generality, such as in paragraphs [0026-0027], which disclose the units as functions of the processing unit that is represented by a processor, and achieved by hardware or software. The units are merely any generic processor or instructions that execute the abstract idea, and are not particular devices.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 9 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 9 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 9 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Regarding independent claim 1 (server) and independent claim 10 (method), the claims recite substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 9. The additional elements of claims 1 and 10 remain only broadly and generically defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of claim 9 (system). As such, claims 1 and 10 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 1 (server): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 9 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10 (method): Claim 10 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 9 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 10 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 9.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8 and 11-18 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 9, such as by further defining the algorithm for selling a used battery to a buyer. Thus, each of claims 2, 4-8 and 11-18 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2, 4-8 and 11-18 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2, 4-8 and 11-18 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 9. Further additional elements (e.g., a determination unit (claim 6); a database (claim 8); a GPS (claim 14)) are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2, 4-8 and 11-18 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2, 4-8 and 11-18 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2, 4-8 and 11-18 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 9. Thus, dependent claims 2, 4-8 and 11-18 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The claims are free of the prior art for the reasons as indicated in the previous Office Action mailed on 2/18/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm 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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights