DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a usage condition setting unit”, “a usage state determining unit”, and “a notification message providing unit” in claims 1-9.
The disclosure provides that the device for the modules, units, and subunits may be implemented in software and/or hardware (Specification [0022]) and that the program modules are aspects of a computer program product stored on a storage device (Specification [0106]). Therefore, the claim limitations will be interpreted to be a hardware AND software computer program product stored on a memory (see MPEP § 2181(II)(B) wherein when the supporting disclosure for a computer-implemented invention discusses the implementation of the functionality of the invention through hardware, software, or a combination of both, a question can arise as to which mode of implementation supports the means-plus-function limitation. The language of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires that the recited "means" for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Therefore, by choosing to use a means-plus-function limitation and invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant limits that claim limitation to the disclosed structure, i.e., implementation by hardware or the combination of hardware and software, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, the examiner should not construe the limitation as covering pure software implementation).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
5. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-19 are directed to an abstract idea of optimizing use of an auxiliary battery of a vehicle.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
An auxiliary battery power control apparatus comprising:
a usage condition setting unit configured to receive and store usage condition information related to use of an auxiliary battery of a vehicle;
a usage state determining unit configured to detect an available power capacity of the auxiliary battery and generate auxiliary battery usage state information for an external electronic device according to the usage condition information and the available power capacity, in response that the external electronic device is connected to the auxiliary battery; and
(c) a notification message providing unit configured to provide a notification message to a driver of the vehicle according to the auxiliary battery usage state information.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System/Apparatus
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations (b) recited in the bolded portion encompasses
mental processes, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
The claim does not specify how to detect an available power capacity of the auxiliary battery. With the BRI to the claim, it could just as easily relate to the acquisition of the data relating to an available power capacity of the auxiliary battery from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data in real-time. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitation (b) from practically being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen/paper or a generic computer.
Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 amounts to an abstract idea falling within the “Mental Process” grouping of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Under its BRI, the limitation (a) encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to generate auxiliary battery usage state information for an external electronic device.
Under its BRI, the limitation (c) encompasses an insignificant post-solution activity (i.e., transmitting or displaying the algorithm results), which does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim recites the additional elements of “a usage condition setting unit” and “a notification message providing unit” at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, they encompass generic input/output components and computing components (hardware & software) of a general-purpose computer. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself. Thus, the recitation of such generic computer components of a general-purpose computer and/or the mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a generic computer in claim 1 cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea 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 affect 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.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “heart” of pending claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of optimizing use of an auxiliary battery of a vehicle. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two above, each or the combination of the additional limitations in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or well-known techniques. The claim does not recite any additional element that can be treated as “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-9 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 2 and 5 recite: “detect a current value flowing from the auxiliary battery to the external electronic device” or “detect a current value flowing from the auxiliary battery to the external electronic device”. Under the BRI, each of these limitations encompasses an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. Further, as set forth in sections 6-9 below, techniques of “detect a current value flowing from the auxiliary battery to the external electronic device” are well-understood and/or conventional in the prior art but do not provide any inventive concepts or reflect a qualified improvement.
Claim 6 recites: “… response that the vehicle enters a start OFF state and thus a power of the auxiliary battery is not supplied to an internal electronic device of the vehicle”. Under the BRI, this limitation encompasses merely data characterization which can be viewed as an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of electrical grid monitoring and/or anomaly detection but does not amount to be meaningful to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 7-9 recite: “a plurality of external electronic devices including a first electronic device and a second electronic device are connectable to the auxiliary battery”. The elements of “a first electronic device” and “a second electronic device” are all recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify how these electronic devices are structured and/or configured to interact with the usage condition setting unit, the usage state determining unit, and/or the auxiliary battery such that the application of the abstract idea is not intended but amounts to be “significantly more” or reflects a qualified improvement.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 1-9 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alston et al. (US 8863540 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Alston discloses an auxiliary battery power control apparatus (Abstract; Fig. 5) and a method of operating the apparatus including a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method (e.g., the discharging process show in Fig. 11; see also col. 29, lines 4-19), wherein the apparatus comprising: a usage condition setting unit configured to receive and store usage condition information related to use of an auxiliary battery of a vehicle (col. 10, line 58 – col. 11, line 28; col. 24, lines 25-32; col. 26, lines 23-45); a usage state determining unit configured to detect an available power capacity of the auxiliary battery and generate auxiliary battery usage state information for an external electronic device (col. 29, lines 13-15: “the accessory may be the HVAC system 10 for heating or cooling the compartment of the vehicle”) according to the usage condition information and the available power capacity, in response that the external electronic device is connected to the auxiliary battery (col. 11, lines 56-58, 66 – col. 12, line 17); and a notification message providing unit configured to provide a notification message to a driver of the vehicle according to the auxiliary battery usage state information (col. 11, lines 29-40; col. 32, lines 29-36 and 55-60).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 11-12, Alston discloses: wherein the usage state determining unit is further configured to detect a current value flowing from the auxiliary battery to the external electronic device (col., 10, lines 40-42) and determine an expected amount of electrical energy of the external electronic device according to the current value and a target usage time (col., 16, lines 21-32), in response that the usage condition information is information related to the target usage time of the auxiliary battery (col., 16, lines 21-32: “the desired run time which was programmed into the user settings by the user using the user interface 51”; see also col. 39, lines 3-22); wherein the usage state determining unit is further configured to compare the expected amount of electrical energy with the available power capacity and generate, as the usage state information, information indicating whether the external electronic device is available, in response that the usage condition information is information related to the target amount of electrical energy (col., 16, lines 21-43; col. 39, lines 3-22).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 13-14, Alston discloses: wherein the usage state determining unit is further configured to compare a target amount of electrical energy of the auxiliary battery with the available power capacity and generate, as the usage state information, information indicating whether the external electronic device is available, in response that the usage condition information is information related to the target amount of electrical energy (col., 16, lines 21-43; col. 39, lines 3-22); wherein the usage state determining unit is further configured to detect a current value flowing from the auxiliary battery to the external electronic device (col., 10, lines 40-42) and generate information related to a chargeable time as the usage state information according to the current value (col., 10, lines 40-64: note, Alston determines the approximate state of sulfation of the battery plates in real-time; under the BRI to the claim, Alston’s “approximate state of sulfation of the battery plates” encompasses the so-called “information related to a chargeable time” recited in instant claims 4-5 and 13-14, considering that the state of sulfation directly affects how long it takes to recharge a battery back to full capacity. See also Alston, col 12 lines 60 - col 13 lines 10).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Alston discloses: wherein the usage state determining unit is further configured to determine the usage state information in response that the vehicle enters a start OFF state and thus a power of the auxiliary battery is not supplied to an internal electronic device of the vehicle (col. 4, lines 53-59; col. 29, lines 6-9).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Alston discloses: wherein, in response that a plurality of external electronic devices including a first electronic device (e.g., HVAC 10) and a second electronic device (e.g., engine starter 64) are connectable to the auxiliary battery (40), the usage condition information includes priority information related to the first electronic device and the second electronic device (col. 8, lines 28-38 and 59-67; col. 9, lines 35-39; col. 11, line 66 – col. 12, line 10: a determination is made of the minimum system disconnect voltage, i.e., the battery cut-out voltage, ensuring that sufficient electrical reserve power is available to start the engine).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Alston discloses: wherein the usage state determining unit is further configured to generate usage state information related to an external electronic device (e.g., HVAC 10) of a lower priority (by inherency, the engine starter 64 is of higher priority than the HVAC 10) based on a power consumption of the external electronic device of the lower priority between the first electronic device and the second electronic device (col. 11, lines 56-58, 66 – col. 12, line 17; col. 29, lines 13-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alston et al. in view of Bryan et al. (US 11390168 B1).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Alston is silent on: wherein the usage state determining unit is further configured to determine a summed current of a first current flowing from the auxiliary battery to the first electronic device and a second current flowing from the auxiliary battery to the second electronic device and generate the usage state information related to the external electronic device of the lower priority based on the first current and the summed current.
Bryan discloses a power control apparatus and method, comprising: a plurality of accessory devices including a first device (e.g., wheel torque generator) and a second device (e.g., 62 and/or 74 in Fig. 1) connectable to a power source (col. 6, lines 47-67; col. 7, lines 38-41); a usage state determining unit configured to determine a summed current of a first current flowing from the power source to the first device and a second current flowing from the power source to the second device and generate the usage state information (designating the lowest priority to the wheel torque generator) related to the device of the lower priority based on the first current and the summed current (col. 9, line 59 – col. 10, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Bryan’s scheme of prioritizing power needs to the plurality of external electronic devices (Alston, col. 8, lines 61-63) of the Alston apparatus/method, such that, based on the detected current value flowing from the auxiliary battery to each of the external electronic devices (Alston, col., 10, lines 40-42, col., 16, lines 21-32) and the determined expected amount of electrical energy of the external electronic device according to the current value and a target usage time (Alston, col., 16, lines 21-32), the usage state determining unit is further configured to determine the total power draw (current) from the auxiliary battery and generate the usage information of priority related to the external electronic device (e.g., microwave ovens, televisions, stereos, etc.) of the lower priority based on the load of high priority components and the summed current. Dong so would optimize the power consumption in compliance with the user preference (Bryan, col. 1, lines 47-60; col. 8, lines 43-49). It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220388369 A1 -- INTERFACE SYSTEM FOR CONNECTING A VEHICLE AND A TRANSPORT CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM
US 20240100906 A1 -- DYNAMIC MANAGEMENT OF VEHICLE FUNCTIONS ACCORDING TO POWER DEMAND
US 20180229786 A1 -- MODULAR HARNESS SYSTEM
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, 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 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights