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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed May 29,2025, the Examiner has updated and maintained the 35 USC § 101 and 103 rejection.
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 1-7 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. The added limitation that states, “receiving, by the information processing device, a power supply request to charge the battery from the user terminal”, the applicant’s specification is silent to the aforementioned limitation. The applicant’s specification, states “In S 1 of FIG. 6, the control unit 11 acquires temperature information of the battery 34 of the vehicle 3 from the vehicle 3 upon receiving a power supply request from the user terminal 2.”, this is not equivalent to the applicant’s amendment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not ascertain from the applicant’s specification that [0003,0027, 0028], teaches or suggest that the power supply receives a request to charge a battery. Furthermore, the limitation that states, “instructs the vehicle to run a motor of the vehicle to raise the battery temperature in response to determining that the user has operated the user terminal to select raising the battery temperature” the applicant’s specification does not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation. Applicant’s specification merely states, “In S3, the control unit 11 calculates the reduction amount of the charging fee when the predetermined work of raising the temperature of the battery 34 is performed. The predetermined work may be, for example, running the vehicle 3 before charging”, this is not equivalent to the limitation.
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 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claim 1
receiving, a power supply request to charge the battery from the user terminal:
acquiring, temperature information from the vehicle, the temperature information indicating a battery temperature of the battery;
estimating by, a charging period of the vehicle based on the acquired temperature information and a charging fee in accordance with the charging period; and
determining whether a user has operated the user terminal to select raising the battery temperature, wherein the vehicle to run a motor of the vehicle to raise the battery temperature in response to determining that the user has select raising the battery temperature calculates a discount amount of the charging fee in a case where the vehicle raises the battery temperature is performed, and notifies the user of the discount amount in a case where the vehicle raises the battery temperature.
The limitations of independent claim 1 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” because the claims disclose (in summary) acquiring temperature information of a battery and calculating a reduction amount of the charging fee. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using information processing device and user terminal. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of acquiring and calculating such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 information processing device and user terminal amounts to no more than mere instruction 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. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-7 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-7 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. Also note in regards to claim 3, the worker terminal, amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely further recites an abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (US 2020/0175614) in view of Blatchley et al. (US 2017/0008375)
Claim 1: Fox discloses an information processing method performed by an information processing device configured to communicate with a user terminal and a vehicle that includes a battery, the information processing method comprising: receiving, by the information processing device, a power supply request to charge the battery from the user terminal: ([0022], The charging station 30 includes a set of internal components 800a and a set of external components 900a, further illustrated in FIG. 5. The charging station 30 has a control computer 32, which is linked to the interface 38, the internal components 800a, and a charger) estimating by an information processing device and a charging fee in accordance with the charging period; ([0017], discloses receiving a discount based on the amount of time spent at the charging station) calculates a discount amount of the charging fee in a case where the vehicle [0017]and but does not explicitly disclose, acquiring, by the information processing device, temperature information from the vehicle, the temperature information indicating a battery temperature of the battery-a charging period of the vehicle based on the acquired temperature information determining whether a user has operated the user terminal to select raising the battery temperature, wherein the information processing device instructs the vehicle to run a motor of the vehicle to raise the battery temperature in response to determining that the user has operated the user terminal to select raising the battery temperature, raises the battery temperature and notifies the user terminal of the discount amount in a case where the vehicle raises the battery temperature. However Blatchley discloses acquiring, by the information processing device, temperature information from the vehicle, the temperature information indicating a battery temperature of the battery-a charging period of the vehicle based on the acquired temperature information determining whether a user has operated the user terminal to select raising the battery temperature, wherein the information processing device instructs the vehicle to run a motor of the vehicle to raise the battery temperature in response to determining that the user has operated the user terminal to select raising the battery temperature, raises the battery temperature and notifies the user terminal of the discount amount in a case where the vehicle raises the battery temperature. (see for example [0029] . The vehicle may be preconditioned by heating the battery, the cabin, or both via the wall power prior to departure. The controller 51 may receive input from a user stating the next departure time (or next planed usage time) or may estimate a departure time based on customer habits. Based on this departure time, the controller will begin preconditioning one or more of the vehicle systems at an appropriate time prior to departure.) [0019], A battery energy control module (BECM) 33 may be in communication with the traction battery 24. The BECM 33 may act as a controller for the traction battery 24 and may also include an electronic monitoring system that manages temperature and charge state of each of the battery cells. The traction battery 24 may have a temperature sensor 31 such as a thermistor or other temperature gauge. The temperature sensor 31 may be in communication with the BECM 33 to provide temperature data regarding the traction battery)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference of Fox to include acquiring, by the information processing device, temperature information from the vehicle, the temperature information indicating a battery temperature of the battery-a charging period of the vehicle based on the acquired temperature information determining whether a user has operated the user terminal to select raising the battery temperature, wherein the information processing device instructs the vehicle to run a motor of the vehicle to raise the battery temperature in response to determining that the user has operated the user terminal to select raising the battery temperature, raises the battery temperature and notifies the user terminal of the discount amount in a case where the vehicle raises the battery temperature as taught by Blatchley since such would solve a limitation of appropriately provide a service to the owner of the vehicle Claim 2: Fox discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
settling the charging fee after discounting the charging fee by the discount amount, before charging the battery; [0041] and
settling the reduced discount amount, when in response to determining the battery temperature is not raised. [0042, 0049]
Claim 3: Fox discloses information processing method according to claim 1
Wherein the vehicle further includes a battery heater and the information processing method further comprises: granting operation authority of battery heater to a worker terminal of a worker terminal of a worker that performs charging in response to determining that the user has operated the user terminal to select raising the temperature of the battery.
However Blatchley discloses Wherein the vehicle further includes a battery heater and the information processing method further comprises: granting operation authority of battery heater to a worker terminal of a worker terminal of a worker that performs charging in response to determining that the user has operated the user terminal to select raising the temperature of the battery.[0019]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation authority in Fox to include Wherein the vehicle further includes a battery heater and the information processing method further comprises: granting operation authority of battery heater to a worker terminal of a worker terminal of a worker that performs charging in response to determining that the user has operated the user terminal to select raising the temperature of the battery as taught by Blatchley since such would solve a limitation service server has access to control heating of the power (see paragraph [0019]( Blatchley)).
Claim 4: Fox discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature information is acquired by estimating the temperature of the battery from at least one of a season and a traveling history of the vehicle. [0005, 0035 and 0036] Claim 6: Fox discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the user terminal is a device selected from the group consisting of a mobile phone, a smart phone, a wearable device, and a tablet. [0030]
Claim 7: Fox discloses the information processing method according to claim 3, wherein the vehicle is associated with a digital key, and the information processing device grants the operation authority of the battery heater to the worker terminal by transmitting the digital key of the vehicle to the worker terminal. [0064]
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (US 2020/0175614) in view of Blatchley et al. (US 2017/0008375) in further view of Igata et al. (US 2019/0156379)
Claim 5: Fox discloses the information processing method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose determining whether the vehicle is a rental car; acquiring vehicle data of second vehicle to acquire the temperature information in response to the determination that the vehicle is a rental car, the second vehicle being a vehicle that is routinely used by a user
However Igata discloses determining whether the vehicle is a rental car; acquiring vehicle data of second vehicle to acquire the temperature information in response to the determination that the vehicle is a rental car, the second vehicle being a vehicle that is routinely used by a user 0012, 0014, 0045])
Both Fox and Igata teach the use of electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use the determining a rental vehicle of Igata before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the method to be used in Fox. The rational for doing so is that applying the known technique of determining a vehicle is a rental vehicle as disclosed in Igata to the known method of the use of a electric vehicle as described by Fox yields an improved and predictable result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant addresses the 35 USC 101 rejection by arguing that the amended claims are an improvement in the field of improving accuracy in estimating charging fee for recharging vehicle battery under challenging temperature conditions. The Examiner respectfully disagrees per MPEP 2106.05(a) - If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The applicant has not provided any citation of the specification that that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant does not appear to have any limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot due to the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622