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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-13,15, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/20/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1 – 4, 14, 16-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 02/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups II-IV are not mutually exclusive This is not found persuasive because figures 2 – 12 show a plurality of subcombinations of the system including: a power storage system, a control apparatus within a server, a control apparatus within a vehicle, methods of controlling power. This is a serious search and/or examination burden for the reasons stated above.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1-15 are directed to an Apparatus, which falls within the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 16-18 are directed to an Apparatus, which falls within the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 20 is directed to a Method, which falls within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 1 is directed to an Abstract Idea, specifically, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes. The claim recites the steps:
Commercial or legal interactions – “a guarantee application”
Controlling use based on contractual (a guarantee application status)
using these values to restrict discharging.
Evaluating conditions and applying rules
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claim recites, a battery, a moving object, and limiting discharge power, these elements are generic and merely serve as a technological environments in which the Abstract Idea is applied. The claimed limitation of power is not based on any technical improvement to battery systems, or discharge mechanisms, but instead is based on non-technical criteria such as guarantee conditions, usage time, travel distance and total discharge. Further the limitation, “…the limitation unit is configured to limit, or not limit the amount of power…” does not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception, as it encompasses both limiting and not limiting.
The claims:
do not improve battery technology,
do not improve discharge mechanisms
provide a new technical control strategy
The claims merely apply a usage/warranty-based (guarantee application) rule to conventional systems and apply the Abstract Idea in a generic technical environment.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Prong 2: Additional elements
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements include:
determination unit,
limitation unit
These elements are recited a high level of generality and represent well understood,
routine, conventional activities in the relevant field of electric vehicle charging and data processing.
For example:
monitoring battery state and discharge are conventional,
monitoring travel distance is conventional, and
monitoring usage time is conventional.
The dependent claims further recite additional data sources and conventional techniques
(e.g. discharge power calculation, network communication, warranty/usage conditions), which likewise do not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
Taken individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add a specific limitation beyond the Abstract Idea that is not well understood, routine and conventional.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term, “guarantee application determination unit” is indefinite because it is purely functional and fails to recite how the “guarantee application condition” is determined. The scope of what constitutes the guarantee application condition is unclear.
The term phrase, “limit, or not limit the amount of power… to be lower than or equal to a second limit value” is internally inconsistent because, “not limit” conflicts with “to be lower than or equal to a limit value,” rendering it unclear whether limiting is required. As such, the scope of the claim is ambiguous.
The term “virtual travel distance” is indefinite because it lacks a clear definition and is not a recognized physical parameter. The scope can not be reasonably ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ehara (US 20230013438).
Regarding claim 1, Ehara teaches a control apparatus (figure 1 item 150 defined in paragraph [0032] as an Electric Control Unit (ECU)) comprising:
a guarantee application determination unit configured to determine whether a battery included in a moving object satisfies a predetermined guarantee application condition (defined in paragraph [0063] wherein a guarantee application is interpreted as a contract which the user signs to register with the server and to comply with the charging and/or discharging request); and
a limitation unit configured to limit an amount of power which is discharged from the battery to an outside of the moving object, to be lower than or equal to a first limit value, when the battery satisfies the guarantee application condition ([0006] discloses wherein the server limits the exchange of power to an upper limit or a lower limit. [0064] – [0069] discloses wherein the server uses the contract information to adjust the discharge electric energy to predetermined value),
wherein the limitation unit is configured to limit, or not to limit the amount of power which is discharged from the battery to the outside of the moving object, to be lower than or equal to a second limit value which is higher than the first limit value, when the battery does not satisfy the guarantee application condition (paragraph [0066] – [0070] discloses wherein the exchange of power limited based on information received from the server, such as a detection value of the smart meter. [0043] teaches wherein the meter determines information such as traveling speed and mileage. [0059] discloses wherein the smart meter measures power consumption).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ehara figure 1 shows vehicle with a charge-discharge control
Regarding claim 2, Ehara teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the guarantee application determination unit is configured to determine that the guarantee application condition is not satisfied when a usage time from a start date of use of the moving object is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (paragraph [0073] discloses wherein the server determines a usage time, interpreted as a total mileage including an unused period. [0077] determines wherein the unused period is equal to more than a predetermined number of days) , when a virtual travel distance is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (paragraph [0044] discloses wherein a navigation unit, NAVI determines a travel route based on battery energy), or when a total amount of discharge of the battery is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (paragraph [0036] discloses wherein a monitoring module monitors the state of discharge to determine whether the discharge is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold. Paragraph [0065] discloses wherein a predetermined discharge amount is monitored).
Regarding claim 3, Ehara teaches the control apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising:
a movement distance storage unit configured to store a movement distance of the moving object during the usage time (paragraph [0073] discloses wherein the server determines a movement distance during a usage time, interpreted as a total mileage including an unused period. [0077] determines wherein the unused period is equal to more than a predetermined number of days);
a discharge power amount calculation unit configured to calculate an amount of power discharged from the battery to the outside of the moving object during the usage time (paragraph [0073] discloses wherein a discharge power amount is calculated during a usage time); and
a total discharge power amount calculation unit configured to calculate the total amount of discharge by summing a value obtained by converting a movement distance stored in the movement distance storage unit into an amount of power, and an amount of power calculated by the discharge power amount calculation unit (paragraphs [0073] – [0074] discloses wherein total mileage of the vehicle is determined to determine a total discharge power).
Regarding claim 4, Ehara teaches the control apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a movement distance storage unit configured to store a movement distance of the moving object during the usage time (paragraph [0073] discloses wherein a distance is stored as a total mileage);
a discharge power amount calculation unit configured to calculate an amount of power discharged from the battery to the outside of the moving object during the usage time (paragraphs [0073] – [0074] disclose wherein a discharge power amount is calculated as a function of the total mileage); and
a virtual travel distance calculation unit configured to calculate the virtual travel distance by summing a movement distance stored in the movement distance storage unit, and a value obtained by converting an amount of power calculated by the discharge power amount calculation unit into a movement distance (paragraphs [0041], [0043]-[0044] discloses wherein a navigation unit calculates a driving routes and destinations. paragraphs [0073] – [0074] disclose wherein a discharge power amount is calculated as a function of the total mileage).
Regarding claim 14, Ehara teaches the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the moving object is a vehicle (figure 1 item 50 shows a vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Ehara teaches a control apparatus (figure 1 item 150 defined in paragraph [0032] as an Electric Control Unit (ECU)) comprising:
a guarantee application determination unit configured to determine whether electrical equipment that is operated, when a battery included in a moving object is charged and discharged, satisfies a guarantee application condition (defined in paragraph [0063] wherein a guarantee application is interpreted as a contract which the user signs to register with the server and to comply with the charging and/or discharging request); and
a limitation unit configured to limit a usage amount of the electrical equipment for discharging from the battery to an outside of the moving object, to be lower than or equal to a first limit value, when the electrical equipment satisfies the guarantee application condition ([0006] discloses wherein the server limits the exchange of power to an upper limit or a lower limit. [0064] – [0069] discloses wherein the server uses the contract information to adjust the discharge electric energy to predetermined value),
wherein the limitation unit is configured to limit, or not to limit the usage amount of the electrical equipment for the discharging from the battery to the outside of the moving object, to be lower than or equal to a second limit value which is higher than the first limit value, when the electrical equipment does not satisfy the guarantee application condition (paragraph [0066] – [0070] discloses wherein the exchange of power limited based on information received from the server, such as a detection value of the smart meter. [0043] teaches wherein the meter determines information such as traveling speed and mileage. [0059] discloses wherein the smart meter measures power consumption).
Regarding claim 17, Ehara teaches the control apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the electrical equipment includes a switch component that is configured to operate when the battery is discharged to the outside of the moving object (paragraph [0036] discloses wherein the charger-discharger includes a relay for switching connection and disconnection of an electro power to control charging and discharging).
Regarding claim 18, Ehara teaches the control apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the moving object is a vehicle (figure 1 item 50 shows as a vehicle).
Regarding claim 20, Ehara teaches a method (figure 4 shows a method) comprising:
determining whether a battery included in a moving object satisfies a predetermined guarantee application condition (defined in paragraph [0063] wherein a guarantee application is interpreted as a contract which the user signs to register with the server and to comply with the charging and/or discharging request);
limiting an amount of power which is discharged from the battery to an outside of the moving object, to be lower than or equal to a first limit value, when the battery satisfies the guarantee application condition ([0006] discloses wherein the server limits the exchange of power to an upper limit or a lower limit. [0064] – [0069] discloses wherein the server uses the contract information to adjust the discharge electric energy to predetermined value); and
limiting, or not limiting the amount of power which is discharged from the battery to the outside of the moving object, to be lower than or equal to a second limit value which is higher than the first limit value, when the battery does not satisfy the guarantee application condition (paragraph [0066] – [0070] discloses wherein the exchange of power limited based on information received from the server, such as a detection value of the smart meter. [0043] teaches wherein the meter determines information such as traveling speed and mileage. [0059] discloses wherein the smart meter measures power consumption).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Us 20230278451 A1 Power Supply System Ehara; Masato Et Al.
Us 20230138275 A1 Electric Power Adjusting Device Furukawa; Kimihiko Et Al.
Us 20230208144 A1 Controlling Charging And Discharging Kim; Kyoung Joo Et Al.
Us 20230014362 A1 Electric Power Management System Ehara; Masato Et Al.
Us 20220305948 A1 Control System And Display Device Munemoto; Kentaro Et Al.
Us 20220289060 A1 Control System And Energy Management Tsuchiya; Yoshiyuki
Us 20230143398 A1 E-Fleet Aggregator Ito; Tomoki Et Al.
Us 20220097552 A1 Communication Method Dow; Young Soo
Us 20200282855 A1 Protect Electric Vehicle Battery Health Slutzky; David Lee Et Al.
Us 20220200313 A1 Charge And Discharge Control Ogasawara; Keisuke Et Al.
Us 20150042288 A1 Vehicle With An Electric Storage Ishii; Daisuke Et Al.
Us 20110202217 A1 EVSE For Grid-Integrated Vehicles Kempton; Willett
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights