DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea which amounts to a mental process.
The Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test requires a two-part framework to determine whether a claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In the first step, it is determined whether the claim is to a “process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”. Claim 1 recites a process and claim 15 recites a machine.
Next, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (step 2A, prong 1, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54-55 (Jan. 7, 2019)), and if so, whether that judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A, prong 2, see id. at 56).
Claim 1 is directed to a right-to-repair battery replacement method that receives and transmits a plurality of different types of data: a request, an image(s), a code(s), a message of compatibility; and outputs a plurality of different types of data: an indication that a link is open and a notification that a battery has been replaced. Claim 15 receives and transmits the same data, only that it adds a camera system for gathering the data (the images) and generic computer components. The data is input, processed, transmitted to a server for further process, input again and output to a user. Claims 1 and 15 are thus directed to the abstract idea of instructing and notifying a user regarding battery replacement. This is essentially a mental process, since collecting information, manipulating information and then communicating results is something that could be done within one’s head, or at least on pen and paper. Data gathering and manipulation by a computer (“the controller”) has been recognized by the courts as abstract in the similar cases of Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data analysis steps recited at a level of generality that could be performed in the human mind). Thus, the claim recites a judicial exception.
As to whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we must consider the additional elements which are for claim 1, the steps of receiving images, transmitting data to a server, receiving an “indication” regarding the link and outputting a result to a user regarding the battery amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. For claim 15, the same steps apply but the structure of a camera and generic computer are added. These also amount to insignificant extra-solution activity since generic computer components necessary for applying the exception (gathering data via the camera and processing the data via the computer) do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Furthermore, using a generic computer (“one or more processors”) to perform an abstract idea has not been found to constitute integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As for the receiving an indication regarding the link, the device detecting the open link is not claimed, rather information is received “an indication, thus this does not rise to the level of a integration into a practical application and rather constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore the claims are not eligible.
Furthermore, even if the process of analyzing data to determine compatibility and notifying the user of the replace were considered to be integration into a practical application, the claim would fail at step 2B of the analysis, since the camera and processor are well understood, routine and conventional (see the Wang and Shelton references below, Examiner also takes official notice that using cameras to read QR codes is well known, since the codes have been used ubiquitously for at least a decade). See MPEP 2106.05(d).
With respect to claims 2-7 and 16-18, additional data gathering or the types of data does not amount to integration into a practical application, or add significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 8 and 19, an EEPROM is well known (Examiner takes official notice that EEPROMs have been used to store small amounts of data has been known for decades) and outputting instructions (but not executing them, i.e. performing a physical transformation as part of the method) is also a part of a mental process that does not amount to integration into a practical application, or add significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claims 9-12 and 20, data is gathered regarding a charge/discharge profile but it is not performed by the method, only the result is input.
With respect to claims 13-14, reciting that the device is one of one or more well-known generic computer components (Examiner takes official notice that wireless network devices and electronic devices have been used by consumers for decades, i.e. computers) does not amount to integration into a practical application, or add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the dependent claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
With respect to claim 1, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “responsive to the target device being restarted, receiving an indication from the target device that a link configured to physically and electrically couple a device-side connector of the target device to a battery-side connector of the battery is open and that the replacement battery installed in the target device corresponds to the replacement- battery identification code in the at least one image; and based on the indication, notifying the user that the replacement battery was successfully installed in the target device” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-14, being dependent on claim 1, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1, and would therefore be allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 16-20, being dependent on claim 15, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Morioka et al. US PGPUB 2007/0229026 discloses a tamper detection section to recognize when a battery has been removed without authorization, however, Morioka fails to further teach or suggest receiving an indicating that “a link configured to physically and electrically couple a device-side connector of the target device to a battery-side connector of the battery is open” or the use of battery identification codes in images as in the allowable subject matter indicated above.
Shelton US PGPUB 2020/0405313 discloses a battery management system that used QR codes to identify battery compatibility using a server. However, Shelton, alone or in combination with Morioka, fails to further teach or suggest the allowable subject matter indicated above.
Matsumoto et al. US PGPUB 2013/0015982, cited by the EPO examiner as a Y reference discloses a battery management system but fails to further teach or suggest an indicated that “a link configured to physically and electrically couple a device-side connector of the target device to a battery-side connector of the battery is open”. Examiner notes that the determining that a “discontinuity” exists, or that a battery has been replaced is not the same as determining that a “link” “is open” (in the present tense). Furthermore the secondary Y reference cited Wang CN107277136A is a system for comparing images of “campus ID cards” and thus not analogous to the invention in the sense of the problem being solved (confirming battery compatibility and identifying, after the new battery is replaced, that a “link is open”) or the field of art (battery management systems). See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights