Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 6, 2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on March 6, 2026.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-13 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260325 for references purposes only.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are objected to because they recite “PU is a recommended upper limit state of charge.” Examiner assumes that Applicant intended “PU is the recommended upper limit state of charge.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an appropriate reward.” This phrase is vague and indefinite because “appropriate” is subjective in meaning. Additionally, it is unclear whether this refers to “the reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (1)”, “the reward having a magnitude of R1”, “the reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (2)”, or “the reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (3).” For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “the reward calculated based on Expression (1), (2), or (3).” Claims 12-13 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112d
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites “the reward is not provided to the user when the battery state of charge is greater than the recommended upper limit state of charge.” Claim 1 recites “determine no reward when… battery state of the charge is greater than the recommended upper limit state of charge.” As such, claim 4 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of rewarding a user based on a battery state charge, which is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g. 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) and also a mathematical concept (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Claim 1, representative of claims 12 and 13, includes the following limitations:
Acquiring battery state charge information;
Determining a reward using the battery state charge information;
Providing the reward to a user when the battery state charge is less than or equal to a recommended upper limit, wherein the reward is calculated based on one of the following expressions:
Expression (1): R = R2 + (((P-PL) x (R1-R2)) / (PU-PL));
Expression (2): R = R1 – (((P-PU) x R1) / (100-PU)); and
Expression (3): R = (P x R1) / PU;
Wherein the recommended lower and upper limits are set in advance;
Determining no reward when the battery state charge is greater than or equal to zero and less than the recommended lower limit, or when the battery state charge is greater than the recommended upper limit;
Determining a reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (1) when the battery state charge is greater than or equal to the recommended lower limit and less than or equal to the recommended upper limit;
Determining a reward having a magnitude of R1 when the battery state charge is greater than or equal to the recommended lower limit and less than or equal to the recommended upper limit;
Determining a reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (2) when the battery state charge is greater than the recommended upper limit;
Determining a reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (3) when the battery state charge is greater than or equal to zero and less than the recommended lower limit;
Wherein the user has an option to stop the battery charging when an appropriate reward is triggered.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
A charging device;
One or more processors;
A memory;
User terminal;
Transmitting the reward.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
They add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Note that “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity can include both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as whole. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of “a charging device”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, and “user terminal” are mere instructions to apply an exception, and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional elements of “a charging device”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, and “user terminal” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of “a charging device”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, and “user terminal” are simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements only provide a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of “transmitting the reward” is extra solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. The limitation “transmitting the reward” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The “transmitting of data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 and MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, a conclusion that the limitation “transmitting the reward” is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported under Berkheimer.
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites when the reward is less than or equal to the recommended upper limit, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites when the reward is greater than the recommended upper limit, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites when the reward is not provided, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the recommended upper limit of charge, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites when the charge is less than a recommended lower limit, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites when the reward is not provided, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites transmitting the information at a time, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 9 recites when the reward can be utilized, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claims 10-11 recite the type of reward, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
101 arguments
Under step 2A prong one, Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite an abstract idea because it is not merely directed to the abstract concept of providing rewards/incentives. Under step 2A prong two, Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem: determining reward magnitudes that vary based on the battery state of charge.
Regarding the step 2A prong one argument, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed Examiner’s finding that the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of rewarding a user based on a battery charge state (see PTAB Decision mailed on January 7, 2026, p 4-6). Regarding the step 2A prong two argument, the PTAB affirmed Examiner’s finding that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see PTAB Decision p 6-9). The current amendments are directed to a) determining there is no reward; b) determining a reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (1); c) determining a reward having a magnitude of R1; d) determining a reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (2); and e) determining a reward having a magnitude expressed by Expression (3). Note that these amendments are part of the abstract idea itself (i.e. rewarding a user based on a battery state charge) because they clarify how to determine the reward. Finally, the amendment directed to providing the user an option to stop the battery charging when the appropriate reward is triggered is also part of the abstract idea because it concerns rewarding the user based on the battery state charge. Applicant’s argument about a technical solution to a technical problem (i.e. motivate the user to terminate battery charging just before charging efficiency drops, reducing battery charging time, and suppressing battery deterioration) was already addressed by the PTAB. The PTAB clearly stated the asserted advantages are the result of applying the abstract idea itself, rather than being attributable to additional elements (see PTAB Decision p 8). “There is nothing in the claims that require the user to stop charging the battery once the recited equations trigger a reward” (see PTAB Decision p 8). The instant amendment simply “provides the user an option to stop the battery charging when an appropriate reward is triggered”; there is no requirement to stop the battery charging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699