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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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, 3, 5, and 7-18 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“An information processing apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured to calculate, based on measured data of a voltage value and a charge amount of a rechargeable battery which is controlled for charge/discharge according to a charge/discharge command value, first information indicating a change of the voltage value with respect to the charge amount; and acquire second information indicating a reference change of a voltage value with respect to a charge amount in accordance with a range of the voltage values in the measured data and estimate a state of the rechargeable battery based on the first information and the second information, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a reference state of the rechargeable battery in accordance with a range of the voltage value, the processing circuitry is configured to determine a reference range of the charge amount in accordance with a range of the voltage value in the measured data; the information processing apparatus further comprising: corrector circuitry configured to correct information indicating the reference state in accordance with a ratio or a difference between a size of the range of the charge amount in the measured data and a size of the reference range of the charge amount, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine a state of the rechargeable battery based on the corrected information, including determining whether the battery is normal or abnormal; and further comprising circuitry to display whether the state of the rechargeable battery is normal or abnormal.”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, step of “calculate, based on measured data of a voltage value and a charge amount of a rechargeable battery which is controlled for charge/discharge according to a charge/discharge command value, first information indicating a change of the voltage value with respect to the charge amount” is treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “…in accordance with a range of the voltage values in the measured data”, “estimate a state of the rechargeable battery based on the first information and the second information”, …determine a reference state of the rechargeable battery in accordance with a range of the voltage value,… determine a reference range of the charge amount in accordance with a range of the voltage value in the measured data; … correct information indicating the reference state in accordance with a ratio or a difference between a size of the range of the charge amount in the measured data and a size of the reference range of the charge amount” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, feature in “in accordance with a range of the voltage values in the measured data” in the context of this claim, encompasses a user (selectively) acquiring second information indicating a reference change of a voltage value with respect to a charge amount according to range of measured voltages (observation/judgement). Similarly, the “estimate a state of the rechargeable battery” step and “determine a reference state of the rechargeable battery in accordance with a range of the voltage value,… determine a reference range of the charge amount in accordance with a range of the voltage value in the measured data” involves a user judging/evaluating the state of the battery and the reference state based on known first and second observed information and in accordance with the ranges of observed voltage values.
Additionally, the step of “correct information indicating the reference state in accordance with a ratio or a difference between a size of the range of the charge amount in the measured data and a size of the reference range of the charge amount” is treated as a mathematical relationship step (MPEP 2106.04.II: “construing the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation”) and according to the Specification [0052].
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 16-18.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: An information processing apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry; acquire second information indicating a reference change of a voltage value with respect to a charge amount; corrector circuitry; circuitry to display whether the state of the rechargeable battery is normal or abnormal;
In Claim 16: An information processing method; acquiring second information indicating a reference change of a voltage value with respect to a charge amount; displaying whether the state of the rechargeable battery is normal or abnormal;
In Claim 17: A non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer program stored therein which causes a computer to perform processes; acquiring second information indicating a reference change of a voltage value with respect to a charge amount; displaying; whether the state of the rechargeable battery is normal or abnormal
In Claim 18: An information processing system, comprising: a rechargeable battery which is controlled for charge/discharge according to a charge/discharge command value; and processing circuitry; acquire second information indicating a reference change of a voltage value with respect to a charge amount; corrector circuitry; circuitry to display whether the state of the rechargeable battery is normal or abnormal.
The additional elements in the preambles of independent claims are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as a processing circuitry (Claims 1 and 18), a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer program stored therein which causes a computer to perform processes (Claim 17) are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines. The limitation that generically a rechargeable battery which is controlled for charge/discharge according to a charge/discharge command value (Claim 18) represents insignificant represent extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitations that recite acquiring second information indicating a reference change of a voltage value with respect to a charge amount correspond to mere data gathering steps of insignificant extra-solution activity. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
For example, a step of displaying abnormality, is disclosed by Yamamoto and Hanyu.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 3, 5, and 7-15 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.13): First applicant submits the claims are not merely limited to mathematical concepts or mental processes. For example, claim 1 recites different processing circuitry … then further recites features of a "corrector circuitry". Such features are directed to physical elements of circuitry and are not merely directed to mathematical concepts nor mental processes … applicant submits the claims as currently written are clearly directed to a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to a practical application. Generically recited “circuitry” is not a particular machine to indicate a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I: It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two.)
The Applicant argues (p.14): The claims also recite a further practical application in further reciting the processing circuitry "determining whether the battery is normal or abnormal" and 'further comprising circuitry to display whether the state of the rechargeable battery is normal or abnormal".
The Examiner submits that these limitations correspond to a step of outputting results that was found insignificant extra-solution activity that does not demonstrate a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h): 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)).
35 U.S.C. 103, 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 2/26/2026, with respect to Claims 1 and 16-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the above claims has been withdrawn. Claim 6 has been cancelled and the corresponding rejection in the NFOA 11/26/2025 becomes moot.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
With regards to Claim 1 (similarly in Claims 16-18), the closest prior art, the closest prior art, Yamamoto, Hanyu, Takegami, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the information processing apparatus (that) comprises a corrector configured to correct information indicating the reference state in accordance with a ratio or a difference between a size of the range of the charge amount in the measured data and a size of the reference range of the charge amount, and the processing circuitry is configured to determine a state of the rechargeable battery based on the corrected information, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857