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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 10/23/2023.
Claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. It is not clear if “a first incentive” of claim 2, line 3 is the same “first incentive” of independent claim 1, line 9.
Correction is required.
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.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-5 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., process. Claims 6-7 recite tangible system components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Claim 1 as representative:
receiving from a user of the electrically powered vehicle, a request for registration as a home station, of a specific battery replacement station among the plurality of battery replacement stations; and
determining a first incentive to be granted to the user when the user uses the home station for battery replacement of the electrically powered vehicle, wherein the determining a first incentive includes setting the first incentive to be greater than a second incentive to be granted to the user when the user uses a battery replacement station other than the home station for battery replacement of the electrically powered vehicle.
The above limitations recite determining an incentive to be granted when a user uses a home station for battery replacement. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover advertising, marketing or sales activities and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, under Prong One of Step 2A.
Independent claim 6 recite the same abstract idea as identified above and dependent claims 2-5 and 7 further narrow it.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
• a first processing apparatus (claim 6)
• a second processing apparatus (claim 6);
The “a first processing apparatus” , “a second processing apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the “receiving ”, and “determining” steps.
The additional elements of the processing apparatus are considered as “apply it” as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (similar to Apple, Inc. v Ameranth and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v Capital One Bank (USA).
Accordingly, these 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. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Regarding the limitations “a first processing apparatus” , “a second processing apparatus” , as seen above, these limitations have been interpreted as “apply it”. However, these limitation can be additionally interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this limitation alone and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 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 of “a first processing apparatus” , “a second processing apparatus” alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitations “a first processing apparatus” , “a second processing apparatus”, it is noted that sending information over a network has been recognized in the courts as being Well Understood Routine and Conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Therefore, claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman (2017/0225662) in view of Boury (2015/0100396).
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Newman teaches methods for:
controlling battery replacement at a plurality of battery replacement stations each equipped with a battery that replaces a battery mounted on at least one electrically powered vehicle, the battery mounted on the at least one electrically powered vehicle being a first battery, the battery equipped at each of the plurality of battery replacement stations being a second battery (Abstract).
A first processing apparatus that performs processing for replacing a first battery mounted on at least one electrically powered vehicle (see Figure 3, 10) and a second battery stored at each of a plurality of battery replacement stations with each other (see Figure 3, 44, 46 and 48).
A second processing apparatus for receiving from a user of the electrically powered vehicle, a request for registration a specific battery replacement station among the plurality of battery replacement stations (see figure 3 and figure 4, step 410 for receiving a request for battery replacement operation and paragraph 0046 for the control system 38 may identify a battery replacement station 36 closest to the vehicle 10 or otherwise based on proximity. In other embodiments, the control system 38 may determine the battery replacement station 36 based on other status information, such as a station that is selected in the request, an availability of charged battery packs 20 at various stations, a type of vehicle 20 (e.g., make, model, etc.), the date, time of day, or a desired time for the battery replacement operation, a travel plan, an associated subscription plan, etc. The selected battery replacement station 36 may be any of the stations 44, 46, 48 );
With respect to the second processing apparatus for determining a first incentive to be granted to the user when the user uses the home station for battery replacement of the electrically powered vehicle, wherein the determining a first incentive includes setting the first incentive to be greater than a second incentive to be granted to the user when the user uses a battery replacement station other than the home station for battery replacement of the electrically powered vehicle. Newman teaches on paragraph 0038 “allows a servicing company to offer a subscription-type product to consumers” and on paragraph 0046 “ identify a battery replacement station 36 closest to the vehicle 10 or otherwise based on proximity). Newman is silent as to a first incentive includes setting the first incentive to be greater than a second incentive to be granted to the user when the user uses a station other than the home station. Boury teaches at abstract “Incentive Network incentivizes traffic to merchant storefronts by tying member merchants and member users into an integrated incentive network that incentivizes member users to become repeat visitors to member merchant sites through the use of network points. Such points not only may be earned at any member merchant site, but may also be redeemed at any member merchant site. Member merchants may additionally offer their own unique points redeemable only at their sites in order to increase repeat business. Also, network points may be redeemable at a higher value/discount when redeemed at the same member merchant site at which they were earned”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in Newman for the first incentive to be greater than a second incentive to be granted to the user when the user uses a station other than the home station because such a modification incentivizes member users to become repeat visitors to member merchant sites.
With respect to claim 2, Newman further teaches wherein the determining a first incentive includes setting the first incentive to be granted to be greater for a battery replacement station registered as the home station in fewer electrically powered vehicles (paragraph 0038 “allows a servicing company to offer a subscription-type product to consumers” and on paragraph 0046 “ identify a battery replacement station 36 closest to the vehicle 10 or otherwise based on proximity).
With respect to claim 3, Newman teaches the request is received, the request being directed to a battery replacement station registered as the home station in other electrically powered vehicles, the number of other electrically powered vehicles being larger than a prescribed first number threshold value (step 410 for receiving a request for battery replacement operation and paragraph 0046 for the control system 38 may identify a battery replacement station 36 closest to the vehicle 10 or otherwise based on proximity…….an associated offer subscription plan). Newman is silent as to rejecting the request received. Official Notice is taken that it is old and well known to reject an offer, a meeting, invitation, an appointment or the like in order to clarify one’s choice and protect your time. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included rejecting the request for battery replacement of Newman in order to allow rejecting requests that cannot be honored or kept.
With respect to claims 4-5, Newman further teaches further comprising giving the user a notification that encourages registration as the home station, of a battery replacement station a frequency of use of which by the user is higher than a prescribed frequency threshold value; the number of other electrically powered vehicles being smaller than a prescribed number threshold value, the notification being a notification that encourages registration of the used or booked battery replacement station as the home station (see paragraph 0041 for the coordinating device 53 may be configured to alert a user via a message to a client device 40. The message may indicate information such as a need for a replacement battery pack 20, a status of a replacement battery pack 20, etc. The coordinating device 53 may further be configured to schedule a battery pack charging operation at a future time).
Claim 7 recites a degree of deterioration of the second battery that replaces the first battery of the electrically powered vehicle based on the first incentive is lower than a degree of deterioration of the second battery that replaces the first battery of the electrically powered vehicle based on the second incentive. Official Notice is taken that it old and well known to take into account the degree of deterioration/declining of batteries before they are replaced, in order to save time and make sure that the batteries are in good condition. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included in the combination of the second incentive of Neman in combination with Boury to have included taking into account the degree of deterioration of the second battery that replaces the first battery in order to save time and make sure that the new batteries are in good condition.
References of record but not applied in the current rejections:
EP 3699 836 A1 teaches determining charging strategies for under0charge batteries within a battery charging station.
Article by Ferreira, titled “Smart Electric Vehicle Charging System” teaches control of power available in the electrical network based on BW paradigms are emerging, like the Electric Vehicle historical data}, and later, the proposed system, integrated on ‘ (EV), the Smart Grids (SG), the Vehicle-to-Grid a SG, also could execute tasks related with EM Grinding the (V2G)}, and the Electrical Markets (2M}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights