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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 28, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on November 28, 2025.
• Claims 1, 3-4, 19-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claim 21 has been added.
• Claims 2, 6, 9, 15-18, have been canceled.
• Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-14, and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes the 103 rejections have been withdrawn in the advisory action dated November 3, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pages 10-11, that the claims integrates the judicial exception into an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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). Here, the additional elements of claim 1 include an information processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform claim functions. The additional elements of claim 15 include an information processing device configured to perform claim functions. No additional elements are recited in claim 19. And the additional elements of claim 20 include a system comprising: a first processor, a second processor, and a third processor configured to perform claim functions. The additional elements are such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 regarding a purported improvement in the functioning of a computer or improvement to other technology, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11, where Applicant argues the claims improve technology or technical field, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, and in response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 that the claims improve battery handling, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that these improvements describe improvement to a technological field or functioning of a computer. Instead, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0003], stating “In the distribution business, for example, when a battery charge amount is insufficient and a so-called battery shortage occurs, there is a possibility that a business loss may occur due to a delayed delivery or the like.” And at [0004], stating an object of the present disclosure is to provide devices and methods “which are capable of accurately calculating a possibility of falling into a battery shortage.”
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 12 that the claims improves accuracy of estimating battery shortage in avoiding reducing accuracy of a driving assistance and avoiding a situation where the vehicle cannot drive on the road and improves battery life, the argument has been considered and is not persuasive. The pending claims do not describe a technical solution to a technical problem. The pending claims are directed to solving the problem of determining an insurance premium based on analyzing a battery usage of an electric vehicle (see at least [0002]-[0004] of the Specification). The claims of the instant application describe an improvement to a business process i.e., determining an insurance premium based on analyzing a battery usage of an electric vehicle, not improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to any other technology or technological field.
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10-14, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to an apparatus (claim 1), a method (claim 19), and a system (claim 20). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 19, and 20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 19, and 20 recite, in part, a system, a method, and an apparatus of organizing human activity and mental processes. Claim 1 recites calculate a risk degree based on information regarding a power consumption amount of a battery mounted on a moving object, the risk degree indexing a danger that a charge amount of the battery becomes less than a predetermined amount while the moving object is traveling; determine an insurance premium according to a history of the risk degree, determine the insurance premium based on information regarding handlings of the battery by a driver who drives the moving object, present at least one of the risk degree and information regarding a state of the battery to an insured of the driver when the insurance premium determined using at least one of the risk degree and the information regarding handling of the battery has increased by more than a predetermined rate as compared with an insurance premium before a renewal, and calculate a predicted value of the power consumption amount of the battery based on the information regarding the power consumption amount of the battery; calculate, based on the predicted value, an arrival probability indicating a probability that the moving object is able to arrive at a predetermined destination; and calculate the risk degree based on the arrival probability.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above.
Claim 20 recites generate travel history information regarding a travel history of a moving object; to generate information regarding a power consumption amount of a battery mounted on the moving object based on a voltage change and a current change in the battery; calculate a risk degree based on the travel history information and the information regarding the power consumption amount of the battery, the risk degree indexing a danger that a charge amount of the battery becomes less than a predetermined amount while the moving object is traveling; and determine an insurance premium according to a history of the risk degree, determine an insurance premium based on information regarding handling of the battery by a driver who drives the moving object, present at least one of the risk degree and information regarding a state of the battery to an insured or the driver when the insurance premium determined using at least one of the risk degree and the information regarding handling of the battery has increased by more than a predetermined rate as compared with an insurance premium before a renewal, and calculate a predicted value of the power consumption amount of the battery based on the information regarding the power consumption amount of the battery; calculate, based on the predicted value, an arrival probability indicating a probability that the moving object is able to arrive at a predetermined destination; and calculate the risk degree based on the arrival probability.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principle or practices (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for determining an insurance premium based on analyzing a battery usage of an electric vehicle, which a fundamental economic principle or practice including insurance. The mere nominal recitation of a processors do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of claim 1 include an information processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform claim functions. No additional elements are recited in claim 19. And the additional elements of claim 20 include a system comprising: a first processor, a second processor, and a third processor configured to perform claim functions. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of calculating a risk and determining an insurance premium) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 21 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claim 14 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-14, and 19-21 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120259665 A1 (“Pandhi”) discloses electric vehicle information, including electric vehicle charging information, may be received over a communications network. The electric vehicle charging information may be automatically associated with automobile insurance premium information. An integrated presentation of the electric vehicle charging information and the automobile insurance premium information may then be transmitted, over the communications network, for presentation to an owner of the electric vehicle.
US 20130013348 A1 (“Ling”) discloses a data logging device tracks the operation of a vehicle or driver actions. The device includes a storage device, which may be removable or portable, having a first memory portion that may be read from and may be written to in a vehicle and a second memory portion that may be read from and may be written to in the vehicle. The second memory portion may retain data attributes associated with the data stored in the first removable storage device. A processor reads data from an automotive bus that transfers data from vehicle sensors to other automotive components. The processor writes data to the first memory portion and the second memory portion that reflect a level of risk or safety. A communication device links the storage device to a network of computers. The communication device may be accessible through software that allows a user to access files.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM 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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Examiner, Art Unit 3694