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 .
Response to argument:
Objection to specification: Objection to specification is withdrawn. Applicant provides full form of CVS.
Claim objection: Applicant amended claims as suggested, therefore claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 (a): Applicant response is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 (a) is withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C 101:
Regarding claims 1-5 applicant argues “Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This rejection should be withdrawn for at least the following reason. The claims recite patentable subject matter.
The subject claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. Specifically, independent claim 1 and its associated dependent claims are directed to a battery information management method and independent claim 5 is directed to a non- transitory computer-readable medium.
Traditionally, managing information related to the performance of a battery includes recording the performance information in a distributed database, such as a blockchain. See paragraph [0003] of the published application. A problem associated with this is the "the management technique becomes complex and the management cost increases." See paragraph [0004] of the published application. Accordingly, the subject claims are directed to providing a battery information management method ... that [is] capable of reliably managing battery performance information with a simpler method at a low cost. See paragraph [0005] of the published application.
Further, the subject claims are directed to improving "tamper resistance of the battery performance information." See paragraph [0015] of the published application. Additionally, the subject claims are directed to improving a security of a hash value. For example, paragraph [0051] states in part (emphasis added):
... the date and time (for example, latest date and time of timestamp) at which the measurement data 140A is acquired or the date and time at which the first hash value is calculated may be included in the package data to calculate the hash value of the package data. As a result, it is possible to improve security of the hash value.
To the above and related ends, independent claim 1 recites in part (claim 5 recites similar features): "... the package data comprises a data and a time of the executing the first processing ..." Accordingly, improvement to the functioning of the computer can be achieved in the form of improved security of the hash value.
Thus, the subject claims go beyond actions that can be performed in the human mind or can be performed manually. Instead, the claims recite additional features related to improving functioning of a computer in the form of improved security of the hash value.
Based on at least the above, it is submitted that the subject claims recite meaningful features that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Further, the subject claims recite patentable subject matter and, therefore, this rejection should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees the amended claim as recited provide improvements i.e., improve security of the hash value and the improvement to the functioning of the computer because the recited claim limitations are directed towards abstract ideas and there is not any additional element/step (or limitations) in the claims that reflect or recite the disclosed improvement. As discussed in the non-final office action the limitations are directed toward mathematical or mental steps for calculating hash values and storing data into database using hash value. The new limitations: the package data comprises a data (which is considered as insignificant mental steps i.e., organizing, grouping data) and a time of executing the first processing (which is also considered as insignificant mental step).
MPEP 2106.05 (a) also discusses “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Also, Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
Therefore, under broadest reason of interpretation (BRI), considering the claims as a whole, an improvement in the technology or computer functioning cannot be realized but use of a generic computer (i.e., mental process) utilizing measured battery data to calculate different hash values using a hash algorithm, store the measurement data and algorithm into a database in a searchable manner.
MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2). III C also suggests “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
Therefore, the claims as presented for examination can be performed in mentally and the claims do not recite additional features related to improving functioning of a computer in the form of improved security of the hash value.
Based on the discussion above, examiner views the claims do not recite meaningful features that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the independent claims and the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A battery information management method to be executed by at least one computer, the battery information management method comprising:
acquiring battery information including: measurement data including a measurement result relating to electrical characteristics of a battery;
an algorithm for evaluating the state of the battery from the measurement data; and
evaluation data including the result of evaluating the state of the battery by the algorithm;
executing first processing of calculating a first hash value that is a hash value of at least one of the measurement data and the algorithm included in the battery information;
executing second processing of calculating a second hash value that is a hash value of package data associating the first hash value with the evaluation data,
the package data comprises a data and a time of the executing the first processing; and
executing third processing of storing at least one of the measurement data and the algorithm into a database in a searchable manner with the second hash value serving as a search key.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (process).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, a step of
“an algorithm for evaluating the state of the battery from the measurement data (is considered to be a mathematical relationship); and
evaluation data including the result of evaluating the state of the battery by the algorithm (is considered to be a mathematical relationship);
executing first processing of calculating a first hash value that is a hash value of at least one of the measurement data and the algorithm included in the battery information (is considered to be a mathematical relationship);
executing second processing of calculating a second hash value that is a hash value of package data associating the first hash value with the evaluation data (is considered to be a mathematical relationship),
the package data comprises a data and a time of the executing the first processing (is considered to be a mental process); and
executing third processing of storing at least one of the measurement data and the algorithm into a database in a searchable manner with the second hash value serving as a search key (is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mental process).”
These mathematical relationships and mental steps represent that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claim 5.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps: computer is recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A battery information management method…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “acquiring battery information including: measurement data including a measurement result relating to electrical characteristics of a battery” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In claim 5, the additional element is: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing at least one computer to. The above additional element/step is recited in generality and represent extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing at least one computer to” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use. The storing medium and the program recited are not qualified as particular machines; a generic computer equipment that is well understood and conventional and is significantly insufficient. The additional elements/steps “acquire battery information including: measurement data including a measurement result relating to electrical characteristics of a battery” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-4 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claim 1 and 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
There are no prior art rejections for claims 1-5. However, examiner cannot comment on their allowability until the objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 and 101 are adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueki et al (US 20230205747 A1) discusses battery data management system or method that implements hashing.
Jin et al (US 7600094 B1) generally discusses data management using a hashing technique.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863