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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 12/30/2025. Claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over You have been fully considered and the amended portion of determining degree of degradation of the battery is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of You and Haga JP 2021124419 A as detailed below.
With respect to applicant’s argument/remark that You does not use the scheduling optimizer to determine a status of the battery, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As discloses below, You teaches, in Paragraph 0137 “battery capacity loss”, and in Paragraphs 0159-0163, “fading model” and both of these parameters are related to a status of the battery calculated by the electric vehicle simulator 114.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/30/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to applicant’s argument that claim 1 is directed to a system including multiple specialized, non-generic, components, and recites a particular and non-conventional data flow between the specialized components, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The multiple devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of managing data, and acquiring data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claims 1 and 10, the applicant claims “based on a change in the determined degree of degradation of the battery of the vehicle compared to a previous degree of degradation” and points out to Paragraphs 0205-0207 of the published specification for support. A review of said paragraphs and the entire specification does not recite a comparison to a previous degree of degradation. Accordingly, said limitation is not supported in the specification.
Claims 2-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 10, the applicant claims ““based on a change in the determined degree of degradation of the battery of the vehicle compared to a previous degree of degradation”. However, said “previous degree of degradation” is not recited in the specification. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with the limitation “previous”. Is it during a previous drive cycle of the vehicle, is during a previous day, month, year, etc. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated in view of claims 7 and 16 as by inputting the vehicle data into an artificial intelligence model and diagnosing the degree of degradation of the battery using the artificial intelligence model.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) managing an autonomous driving platform, acquiring vehicle data and battery data, managing an energy management software, receiving and transmitting vehicle data and an update request, determining a degree of degradation of a battery, generating an updated energy management software and transmitting said software.
The limitations of managing an autonomous deriving platform, providing the vehicle data, managing and updating an energy management software, and determining a degree of degradation of a battery, generating an updated energy management software, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “servers”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “servers” language, managing an autonomous deriving platform, providing the vehicle data and managing and updating an energy management software ” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally deciding on an energy software update to provide to a vehicle based on analyzing the received data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements, a platform managing server, a vehicle data managing server, and a service server, to perform the recited steps. The servers are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of acquiring data, receiving and transmitting data, the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the acquiring/receiving/transmitting data are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and battery condition data for use in the managing and providing steps), and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting a result, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 (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.
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 element of using servers to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of acquiring/receiving/transmitting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 11-18 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 2 and 11 recite a service and that is part of the mental process. Claims 3-4, and 12-13 recite hardware or software and is analyzed similar to the servers. Claims 5-6, 8-9, 14-15, and 17-18 are part of the mental process. Claims 7 and 16 recite an artificial intelligence model. Said artificial intelligence model is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You US 2023/0303091 A1 (hence You) in view of Haga JP 2021124419 A (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Haga).
In re claims 1 and 10, You discloses techniques for controlling electric vehicles (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a platform managing server configured to manage an autonomous driving platform of a vehicle wherein the autonomous driving platform supports autonomous driving of the vehicle (Fig.1, #105, #116, #120-#124 and Paragraphs 0031, 0034 “the processing platform 105 can comprise multiple networked processing devices, such as a plurality of servers”, and 0035);
a vehicle data managing server separate from the platform managing server and configured to: acquire vehicle data including driving data related to driving of the vehicle and battery data related to a state of a battery of the vehicle (Fig.1, #108, and Paragraph 0033);
and a service server configured to manage energy management software for one or more energy management services (Fig.1, #112, #114, Paragraph 0034 “the processing platform 105 can comprise multiple networked processing devices, such as a plurality of servers”, Fig.2, Paragraph 0095, Fig.9, and Paragraphs 0183 and 0213),
wherein the platform managing server is further configured to: receive the vehicle data from the vehicle data managing server (Paragraph 0034 and Paragraph 0068);
transmit the received vehicle data and a request for updated energy management software to the service server (Fig.3, Paragraphs 0136-0137, );
receive the updated energy management software from the service server (Paragraphs 0237-0242);
and perform an update to autonomous driving software of the autonomous driving platform based on the updated energy management software received from the service server (Fig.9, and Paragraphs 0183 and 0211-0213), and
wherein the service server is configured to: receive the vehicle data from the platform managing server (Fig.3, and Paragraphs 0136-0137);
determine a degree of degradation of the battery of the vehicle based on the vehicle data (Paragraph 0137 “battery capacity loss”, and Paragraphs 0159-0163 “fading model”);
generate the updated energy management software based on a change in the determined degree of degradation of the battery of the vehicle (Paragraph 0171);
and transmit the updated energy management software to the platform managing server (Paragraphs 0237-0242)
However, You discloses the scheduling optimizer and the electric vehicle simulator as part of the processing platform (Fig.1) according to a first embodiment and doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a service server separate from the platform managing server and the vehicle data managing server
the determined degree of degradation of the battery of the vehicle compared to a previous degree of degradation
Nevertheless, You discloses in another embodiment, the optimization system comprises an optimizer, and the simulation system comprises a simulator and both, the optimization system or optimizer and the simulation system or simulator may be onsite or located in a remote central management system (Paragraphs 0242-0243) and teaches the following:
a service server separate from the platform managing server and the vehicle data managing server
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the You reference to include a service server attached or separate from the platform managing server and the vehicle data managing server, as taught by You’s second embodiment, as a matter of design choice, since the applicant has not disclosed that having all servers separate solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the servers being attached or separate (You, alternative embodiment, Paragraphs 0243-0245).
Nevertheless, Haga discloses a battery deterioration determination device for determining deterioration of a battery (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the determined degree of degradation of the battery of the vehicle compared to a previous degree of degradation (Paragraph 0023)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the You reference to include determining the deterioration of the battery using an AI model, as taught by Haga, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the deterioration probability as compared with the case of using a single first calculation model (Haga, Paragraph 0012).
In re claims 2 and 11, You teaches the following:
wherein the one or more energy management services includes at least one of a service for providing a diagnosis result obtained by diagnosing the state of the battery of the vehicle, a service for providing a life analysis result of the battery of the vehicle, or a service for providing a usage guide of the battery of the vehicle (Fig.2, and Paragraph 0095)
In re claims 3 and 12, You teaches the following:
wherein the autonomous driving platform includes at least one of a hardware module or autonomous driving software supporting the autonomous driving of the vehicle (Fig.1, and Paragraph 0028)
In re claims 5 and 14, You teaches the following:
wherein the predefined event is at least one of (i) a determination by the vehicle data managing server to update the autonomous driving software or (ii) detected replacement of the battery of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0040, 0073, and 0075)
In re claims 6 and 15, You teaches the following:
wherein the platform managing server is configured to transfer the vehicle data received from the vehicle data managing server to the service server in response to (i) an update request for the energy management software or (ii) a determination that the vehicle data matches one or more of the energy management services (Paragraphs 0038-0039)
In re claims 7 and 16, Haga teaches the following:
wherein the service server is configured to: update the energy management software using the vehicle data received from the platform managing server by inputting the vehicle data into an artificial intelligence model and diagnosing the degree of degradation of the battery using the artificial intelligence model (Paragraph 0023)
In re claims 8 and 17, You teaches the following:
wherein the platform managing server is configured to transmit the updated autonomous driving software to the vehicle data managing server (Fig.1, #112, Fig.2, Paragraph 0095, Fig.9, and Paragraphs 0183 and 0213)
In re claims 9 and 18, You teaches the following:
wherein the vehicle data managing server is configured to transmit the updated autonomous driving software to the vehicle wirelessly (Fig.1, #104)
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You and Haga, and further in view of Gupta et al US 10,196,086 B2 (hence Gupta).
In re claims 4 and 13, You discloses the claimed invention including a processor, a sensor module, and a power management module (Fig.1, #101 and Paragraph 0033) but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a camera module
Nevertheless, Gupta discloses trajectory control for autonomous vehicles (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a camera module (Fig. 1, #110, and Col.3, Lines 35-55)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the You reference to include a camera, as taught by Gupta, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to capture images outside of the vehicle (Gupta, Col.4, Lines 53-61).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669