DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 11/19/2025.
Claims 1, 5 – 9 remain pending for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In the Arguments/Remarks, Applicant argues that the claimed limitations do not recite a mental process because the claim recites detecting a charge/discharge current of a battery using a battery current sensor, determining whether the battery is being charged based on the detected current, and, in response to determining that the battery is being charged, calculating an air conditioning operation probability using an air conditioning operation probability model and predicted values of a plurality of parameters at a scheduled time of a next travel corresponding to future travel (Remarks, pages 6–7).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The recited “battery current sensor” is a conventional sensor device that merely collects charge/discharge current data of the battery. The step of detecting a charge/discharge current using a battery current sensor constitutes data gathering using a conventional device and is therefore directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of “determining whether the battery is being charged based on the detected charge/discharge current” encompasses evaluation and judgment applied to collected data and therefore constitutes a mental process, even when implemented by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely performs the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Further, the steps of “calculating” an air conditioning operation probability and “correcting” a predicted electricity consumption rate involve mathematical concepts and data manipulation and are therefore abstract ideas. The step of “displaying” the calculated travelable distance constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. When considered as a whole, the claim merely predicts and presents information and does not cause or require any technical control action affecting vehicle operation, battery charging, or air conditioning control. As such, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO eligibility framework.
Accordingly, Applicant’s amendment and arguments do not overcome the previously set forth rejection under 101.
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 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle comprising:
a battery;
an electric motor driven by electric power from the battery;
a battery current sensor that detects a charge/discharge current of the battery;
an air conditioning device operated by the electric power from the battery;
a display device; and
a processor configured to:
control the electric motor and the air conditioning device;
calculate a predicted electricity consumption rate of the vehicle in future travel, when the battery is being charged;
learn an air conditioning operation probability model, in which a plurality of parameters included in a vehicle environment information are input and an air conditioning operation probability is output, based on air conditioning operation result information and the vehicle environment information, the air conditioning operation probability model being a machine learning model trained by the processor;
determining whether the battery is being charged based on the charge/discharge current of the battery detected by the battery current sensor;
in response to determining that the battery being charged, calculate an air conditioning operation probability using the air conditioning operation probability model and predicted values of the plurality of parameters at a scheduled time of a next travel corresponding to the future travel, the air conditioning operation probability being a probability that air conditioning operation will be performed during the future travel;
calculate an air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount based on a product of the air conditioning operation probability and an air conditioning power consumption, the air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount being a correction amount related to electricity consumption rate of the air conditioning device;
correct a basic value of the predicted electricity consumption rate with the air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount;
calculate a travelable distance of the vehicle from the predicted electricity consumption rate and a remaining level of the battery when the battery is being charged, the travelable distance being a distance that the vehicle can travel with the remaining level; and
display the calculated travelable distance on the display device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the limitation “calculate a predicted electricity consumption rate …” encompasses a user applying observation, judgment, and evaluation to estimate the vehicle’s energy consumption rate for a future trip based on collected data. The limitation “determine whether the battery is being charged” encompasses the same person using evaluation and judgment to determine whether the battery is being charged based on collected data. The limitation of “calculate an air conditioning operation probability …” and “calculate an air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount …” are related to mathematical concept that can be perform using pen and paper. The limitation “correct a basis value …” similarly encompasses the same user exercising judgment and evaluation to adjust a baseline value of the predicted electricity consumption rate. example, this may involve adding the predicted energy consumption of the air conditioning unit to the predicted energy consumption associated with the vehicle’s driving operation. The limitation “calculate a travelable distance …” are also related to mathematical concept or data manipulation, therefore, being directed to abstract ideas. For Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle comprising:
a battery;
an electric motor driven by electric power from the battery;
a battery current sensor that detects a charge/discharge current of the battery;
an air conditioning device operated by the electric power from the battery;
a display device; and
a processor configured to:
control the electric motor and the air conditioning device;
calculate a predicted electricity consumption rate of the vehicle in future travel, when the battery is being charged;
learn an air conditioning operation probability model, in which a plurality of parameters included in a vehicle environment information are input and an air conditioning operation probability is output, based on air conditioning operation result information and the vehicle environment information, the air conditioning operation probability model being a machine learning model trained by the processor;
determining whether the battery is being charged based on the charge/discharge current of the battery detected by the battery current sensor;
in response to determining that the battery being charged, calculate an air conditioning operation probability using the air conditioning operation probability model and predicted values of the plurality of parameters at a scheduled time of a next travel corresponding to the future travel, the air conditioning operation probability being a probability that air conditioning operation will be performed during the future travel;
calculate an air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount based on a product of the air conditioning operation probability and an air conditioning power consumption, the air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount being a correction amount related to electricity consumption rate of the air conditioning device;
correct a basic value of the predicted electricity consumption rate with the air conditioning electricity consumption rate correction amount;
calculate a travelable distance of the vehicle from the predicted electricity consumption rate and a remaining level of the battery when the battery is being charged, the travelable distance being a distance that the vehicle can travel with the remaining level; and
display the calculated travelable distance on the display device.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the “processor” and the “air conditioning probability model”, the Examiner submits that these elements merely serve to generically link the claimed abstract idea to a technological environment. The “processor” and “air conditioning probability model” are recited at a high level of generality and function as nothing more than generic computer components configured to implement the abstract idea. Similarly, the recitations of “an electric motor driven by electric power from a battery” and “an air conditioning device operated by the electric power from the battery” merely describe conventional components of an electric vehicle and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The recited “battery current sensor” is a conventional sensor device that merely collects charge/discharge current data of the battery. The step of detecting a charge/discharge current using a battery current sensor constitutes data gathering using a conventional device and is therefore directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitation of “control the electric motor and the air conditioning device” is also recited at a generic level, describing only a routine or conventional function of a processor, and therefore does not add meaningful weight toward integration into a practical application. Notably, the claim does not recite any additional limitations requiring that the processor control the electric motor or the air conditioning device based on the calculated predicted electricity consumption rate. The recitation of “learn an air conditioning operation probability model …” amounts to no more than inputting and outputting data through a machine learning model, which constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. Finally, the additional limitation of “display the calculated travelable distance on the display device” is directed to insignificant post-solution activities. For these reasons, the additional limitations do not transform the claim into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “processor” and “air conditioning probability model” are recited at a high level of generality and function as nothing more than generic computer components configured to implement the abstract idea. Similarly, the recitations of “an electric motor driven by electric power from a battery” and “an air conditioning device operated by the electric power from the battery” merely describe conventional components of an electric vehicle and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The recited “battery current sensor” is a conventional sensor device that merely collects charge/discharge current data of the battery. The step of detecting a charge/discharge current using a battery current sensor constitutes data gathering using a conventional device and is therefore directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation of “control the electric motor and the air conditioning device” is also recited at a generic level, describing only a routine or conventional function of a processor, and therefore does not add meaningful weight that is significant more than the judicial exception. Notably, the claim does not recite any additional limitations requiring that the processor control the electric motor or the air conditioning device based on the calculated predicted electricity consumption rate. The recitation of “learn an air conditioning operation probability model …” amounts to no more than inputting and outputting data through a machine learning model, which constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. Finally, the additional limitation of “display the calculated travelable distance on the display device” is directed to insignificant post-solution activities. As such, these elements do not provide inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 5 - 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 5 – 9 do not recite any additional limitation that would integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept.
Therefore, claim(s) 1, 5 - 9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5 – 9 would be allowed if overcoming the 101 rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3668