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
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 07/14/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 15, 17, 18, and 20 have been amended.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 9-15, recites “wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB, and wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle” which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure.
Claim 15, lines 13-18, recites “wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB, and wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle” which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure.
Claim 18, lines 15-21, recites “wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB, and wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle” which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure.
.
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected because they depend directly from claims 1, 15, and 18.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-14 are directed to a method, claims 15-17 are directed to using a charging control apparatus to perform the method, and claims 18-20 are directed to a charging control system. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A charging control method performed by a charging control system, the method comprising:
receiving driving information of an electric vehicle;
monitoring a state of a battery within the electric vehicle;
determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to a final destination; and
recommending, after it is determined that the electric vehicle is not feasible to drive to the final destination, a charging amount for the battery using the received driving information and the monitored state of the battery;
wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery,
wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB, and
wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“receiving driving information of an electric vehicle” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“monitoring a state of a battery within the electric vehicle” ibecause math is used to calculate SoH. The behavior is modeled mathematically using differential equations representing equivalent circuit models or electrochemical reactions. These equations dictate how the software dynamically scales charging current to prevent thermal runaway. The statistical math such as calculating variance or deviation between individual cell voltages to trigger balancing circuits.
“determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to a final destination” is directed to math because it involving calculations for battery capacity, energy consumption rates, and real-time range estimation.
“recommending, after it is determined that the electric vehicle is not feasible to drive to the final destination, a charging amount for the battery using the received driving information and the monitored state of the battery” is directed to math because the system computes the current energy level, calculate the gap between the current SoC and the required energy to reach the destination, adjusting for the non-linear changing speed of the battery.
“wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery” is directed to math because math is used to calculate battery degradation by analyzing changed in internal resistance and capacity attenuation.
“wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” is directed to math because the charging behavior of the battery is directed to match the SoH through strict mathematical and algorithmic modeling. The math equation is dynamically updated to the new, degraded full capacity value dictated by the SoH.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “vehicle's feasibility” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "monitoring a state of a battery within the electric vehicle; determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to a final destination; and recommending, after it is determined that the electric vehicle is not feasible to drive to the final destination, a charging amount for the battery using the received driving information and the monitored state of the battery; wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery, wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A charging control method performed by a charging control system” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving driving information of an electric vehicle” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring a state of a battery within the electric vehicle” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to a final destination” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“recommending, after it is determined that the electric vehicle is not feasible to drive to the final destination, a charging amount for the battery using the received driving information and the monitored state of the battery” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely obtaining data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Step 2B:
“A charging control method performed by a charging control system” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving driving information of an electric vehicle” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring a state of a battery within the electric vehicle” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to a final destination” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“recommending, after it is determined that the electric vehicle is not feasible to drive to the final destination, a charging amount for the battery using the received driving information and the monitored state of the battery” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
“wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
“wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
“wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15 is similar to claim 1 but recites a charging control apparatus comprising: at least one processor; a network interface configured; a memory configured; a data collection unit configured; a monitoring unit configured; and a control unit configured. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 15 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 15.
Claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea similar to claim 1. The additional elements (i.e., A charging control system comprising: a network interface configured to receive monitoring information regarding a battery within an electric vehicle; a memory configured to load a charging amount recommendation program using the monitoring information regarding the battery; and at least one processor configured to execute the charging amount recommendation program, wherein the charging amount recommendation program includes instructions to perform the steps as in claim 1) are recited at a high level of generality, necessary, routine, or conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. When considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See Alice Corp. and 2014 Interim Guidance.
Regarding claims 2, 16, and 19, “wherein receiving the driving information comprises receiving at least one of charging scheduling data of the electric vehicle, driving pattern data of the electric vehicle, final destination data of the electric vehicle, or data detected by external sensors of the electric vehicle” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 20, “wherein monitoring the state of the battery comprises determining a State of Health (SoH), a State of Life (SoL), a State of Balance (SoB), and a State of Safety (SoS) of the battery” is directed to math because the it uses inputs like voltage, current, and temperature to calculate these metrics.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein determining the SoH of the battery comprises determining a rate of decrease of a chargeable capacity of the battery using a charging scheduling data of the electric vehicle” is directed to math because determining the SoH of the battery by calculating the rate of decrease in the chargeable capacity using a charging scheduling data is fundamentally a mathematical and analytical process.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein determining the SoH of the battery comprises determining a rate of decrease of a chargeable capacity of the battery using temperature data and/or impact data detected by external sensors of the electric vehicle” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 6, “wherein determining the SoL of the battery comprises: calculating a cycle where a chargeable capacity of the battery is reduced below a minimum standard SoC level; and using a rate of decrease of the chargeable capacity of the battery” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 7, “wherein determining the SoB of the battery comprises calculating, when the battery is a battery pack including a plurality of individual cells, differences between state indicators of the individual cells within the battery pack” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein determining the SoS of the battery comprises classifying the SoS of the battery into grades, wherein the grades comprise good, caution, and danger grades” is directed to math because this classification is a data driven process that uses quantitative metrics to evaluate quantitative safety risks through statistical modeling, mathematical function and calculations.
Regarding claim 9, “outputting a warning message to a communication controller of the electric vehicle when the SoS of the battery is classified as the caution grade” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 10, “limiting the driving of the electric vehicle when the SoS of the battery is classified as the danger grade” is directed to math because SoC is calculated as a percentage of total releasable capacity relative to nominal capacity. Algorithms classify the SoC into zones safe, warning, and danger based on boundary conditions and threshold values. When the SoC hits the danger grade, the battery management system limits power, a process dictated by calculating the maximum allowable charge/discharge current and voltage.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to the final destination comprises: calculating the electric vehicle's drivable distance based on the monitored state of the battery; and determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to the final destination based on the calculated drivable distance” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 12, “wherein calculating the electric vehicle's drivable comprises: updating state information of the battery using the electric vehicle's driving pattern; and calculating the electric vehicle's drivable distance using the updated state information of the battery” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 13, “wherein recommending the charging amount for the battery comprises displaying locations of charging stations that may be stopped at between a current location of the electric vehicle and the final destination” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 14, “acquiring a machine learning model that has learned the monitored state of the battery; and determining a charging amount to be recommended for the battery using the machine learning model” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 directly addresses this technological problem. By actively determining the physical state of the battery, specifically its State of Health, State of Balance, and historical charging behavior, the claimed method proactively downwardly adjusts the recommended charging amount when degradation or imbalance is detected. Thus, the determined battery states function as an active control condition that calibrates the charging parameters presented to the driver. This prevents the driver from attempting to overcharge a degraded battery, thereby preserving battery life, improving charging efficiency, and mitigating safety risks. Because the claims tie the data analysis to this specific technological improvement, they successfully integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Response: The examiner disagreed. The addition step of “wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery” is directed to math because math is used to calculate SoH. The behavior is modeled mathematically using differential equations representing equivalent circuit models or electrochemical reactions. These equations dictate how the software dynamically scales charging current to prevent thermal runaway. The statistical math such as calculating variance or deviation between individual cell voltages to trigger balancing circuits; “wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” is directed to math because the charging behavior of the battery is directed to match the SoH through strict mathematical and algorithmic modeling. The math equation is dynamically updated to the new, degraded full capacity value dictated by the SoH.roc The behavior is modeled mathematically using differential equations representing equivalent circuit models or elecdegradation by analyzing changed in internal resistance and capacity attenuation; “wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” is directed to math because the charging behavior of the battery is directed to match the SoH through strict mathematical and algorithmic modeling. The math equation is dynamically updated to the new, degraded full capacity value dictated by the SoH.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “vehicle's feasibility” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "monitoring a state of a battery within the electric vehicle; determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to a final destination; and recommending, after it is determined that the electric vehicle is not feasible to drive to the final destination, a charging amount for the battery using the received driving information and the monitored state of the battery; wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery, wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A charging control method performed by a charging control system” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving driving information of an electric vehicle” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring a state of a battery within the electric vehicle” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to a final destination” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“recommending, after it is determined that the electric vehicle is not feasible to drive to the final destination, a charging amount for the battery using the received driving information and the monitored state of the battery” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely obtaining data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
Step 2B:
“A charging control method performed by a charging control system” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving driving information of an electric vehicle” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring a state of a battery within the electric vehicle” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining the electric vehicle's feasibility of driving to a final destination” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“recommending, after it is determined that the electric vehicle is not feasible to drive to the final destination, a charging amount for the battery using the received driving information and the monitored state of the battery” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
“wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
“wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
“wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.-AA, improving
-Applicant argues that the prior do not teach “wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery,
wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB, and wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle”.
Response: The steps of “wherein monitoring the state of the battery includes determining a State of Health (SoH) of the battery, a charging behavior of the battery, and a State of Balance (SoB) of the battery, wherein the charging amount is downwardly adjusted based on at least one of the determined SoH, the charging behavior of the battery, or the determined SoB, and wherein the downwardly adjusted charging amount is displayed through a display of the electric vehicle” was not described in the specification. Claims 1, 15, and 18 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as discussed above.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Booth et al. (US2020/0198472 A1) disclose a powertrain system of an electric vehicle, comprising: a motor; a battery; and a controller communicatively coupled to the motor and the battery, the controller structured to: receive one or more parameters indicative of a state of charge of the battery; and adjust a state of charge target based on the one or more parameters; wherein the controller is further structured to generate a command, the command structured to adjust operation of at least one of the motor, the battery, an engine, or a motor-generator unit responsive to the adjustment of the state of charge target; wherein the command is further structured to cause the engine to operate according to a determined power amount.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights