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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-6 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 26-September-2023. Foreign priority has been claimed for JP-2022-181991 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 14-November-2022, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09-February-2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 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. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claim 1, the claim recites “a management method for managing [accident information], the management method comprising:
recording to a … ledger an owner of a body of a target vehicle and an owner of at least one power storage device included in the vehicle separately, the … ledger being implemented by a plurality of [people];
detecting an occurrence of an accident if a force detected … of the target vehicle exceeds a predetermined threshold value;
when an accident is detected with regard to the target vehicle, obtaining first owner information indicating an owner of the power storage device from the … ledger;
specifying the owner of the power storage device using the obtained first owner information; and
providing, to … the specified owner of the power storage device, a notification that informs the occurrence of the accident of the target vehicle.”
The limitation of the claim recited above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. device, terminal, sensor, etc.), recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, specifically under fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions. The method recited above is a process of recording information to a ledger, detecting accident by reading information (e.g. force data exceeds a predetermined threshold value), receiving and analyzing vehicle accident data, and providing a notification to the user regarding the accident. The invention is towards providing an insurance service for the vehicle accident, which provides insurance benefit, as disclosed by Specification:
(Item 5) “The computer device is a first server that provides an insurance service for damage of a power storage device for a vehicle … According to the above-described system, the insurance benefit can be facilitated to be appropriately determined based on the degree of damage of the power storage device and the degree of negligence of the vehicle user with regard to the accident. Further, the vehicle user can be facilitated to receive the insurance service”.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, under certain methods of organizing human activities.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of “device”, “terminal”, “sensor”, “distributed ledger”, and “node” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These additional elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, but are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: store data (e.g. record data to distributed ledger), read data (e.g. sensor detecting force), obtain data, specify data, and provide data (e.g. provide notification). Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to record, read, or provide data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activities) 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). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “the management method for managing a power storage device according to claim 1, wherein the data management device manages information indicating an owner of a vehicle-mounted power storage device and an owner of a vehicle body portion with regard to each of the plurality of vehicles, the management method comprising: when information indicating that an accident has occurred between the target vehicle and another vehicle is obtained, obtaining, from the data management device, the first owner information about the power storage device and second owner information indicating an owner of a vehicle body portion of the other vehicle; specifying a user of the other vehicle using the obtained second owner information; and providing, to a terminal of the specified user of the other vehicle, a notification that informs the owner of the power storage device.” The claim provides further details regarding the information, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites “a computer device comprising a processor and a storage that stores a program for causing the processor to perform the management method for managing a power storage device according to claim 1.” The claim provides further details regarding the computer device, which is still a generic computer system, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites “a management system for managing a power storage device, the management system including the computer device according to claim 3 and the data management device, wherein the data management device includes a storage that stores a distributed ledger, and a controller that registers, in the distributed ledger, transaction data including information indicating an owner of a vehicle-mounted power storage device with regard to each of the plurality of vehicles.” The claim provides further details regarding a storage device, which is still a generic computer system, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites “the management system for managing a power storage device according to claim 4, wherein the computer device is a first server that provides an insurance service for damage of a power storage device for a vehicle, the target vehicle for which the accident has occurred transmits an accident occurrence signal informing the occurrence of the accident, damage information indicating a degree of damage of the power storage device, and accident data indicating a situation of the target vehicle when the accident has occurred, and when the first server receives the accident occurrence signal, the first server performs determining a degree of negligence of a user of the target vehicle with regard to the accident based on the accident data, and determining an insurance benefit to be paid by the insurance service, based on the damage information and the degree of negligence.” The claim provides further details regarding the insurance service, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites “the management system for managing a power storage device according to claim 4, further comprising a plurality of exchange stations that each exchange a power storage device for a vehicle, the terminal of the owner of the power storage device is a second server that provides a lease service for leasing a power storage device for a vehicle, and when the second server receives the notification that informs the occurrence of the accident of the target vehicle, the second server permits one or more of the exchange stations to exchange the power storage device.” The claim provides further details regarding the exchange stations (e.g. leasing office), which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-6, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-6 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joodaki et al. (US 20170337753 A1), in view of Narayanaswami (US 20200200824 A1), and in view of Haslam et al. (US 11579633 B1).
As per Claim 1, Joodaki discloses a management method for managing a power storage device, the management method comprising:
…
when an accident is detected with regard to the target vehicle ([0048] “FIGS. 9 and 10 illustrate a preferred sequence of steps performed by the vehicle sudden event detection processing unit 300 and AMH 130 when a sudden event is detected by the active accelerometer 340 in the vehicle 110. As discussed above, the accident reporting process is initiated when the accelerometer 340 detects an abrupt acceleration/deceleration that exceeds a pre-defined threshold that is indicative of an auto accident”), obtaining first owner information indicating an owner of the power storage device from the [system] ([0048] “When this occurs, either the active accelerometer 340 or the vehicle sudden event detection processing unit 300 initiates a remote function call to the Accident Management API 255 of AMH 130” wherein [0049] “The Accident Management API 255 causes the AMH processing unit 200 to retrieve the vehicle ID, owner name, and car make/model of the vehicle 110 from database 140 and/or storage 240 (Step 910)”);
specifying the owner of the power storage device using the obtained first owner information ([0053] “From the vehicle ID, the AMH processing unit 200 also retrieves the vehicle owner's insurance provider and ID number from database 140 or memory 210 (Step 1030). The AMH processing unit 200 determines whether the vehicle owner's insurance provider is a participating insurance provider (Step 1040)”); and
providing, to a terminal of the specified owner of the power storage device, a notification that informs the occurrence of the accident of the target vehicle ([0056] “software application running on the insurance provider server 170 automatically logs the incident in an insurance provider database 180, including the data/information received from AMH 130 relating to the accident (Step 1110). One or more processors in the insurance provider server 170 transmit a communication over network 120 to a mobile device 150 used by the vehicle owner or operator” or see also Claim 1 “transmit a prompt to a mobile device associated with an owner or operator of the vehicle, the prompt requesting that the owner or operator photograph a license plate of any other vehicle involved in the accident and record video of the accident scene”).
Although Joodaki teaches of storing various data to a database, the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose of utilizing a distributed ledger. However, Narayanaswami teaches:
recording to a distributed ledger an owner of a body of a target vehicle and an owner of at least one power storage device included in the vehicle separately ([0042] “According to the exemplary embodiments, a blockchain may be used for creating a shared immutable ledger that records the various events during the lifecycle of a battery and may make relevant subsets of the data to various interested parties participating in a blockchain network. The participants in the battery charging blockchain network may include the following: auto manufacturer(s), battery manufacturer(s), charging stations, energy suppliers for recharging the batteries, battery reconditioning/maintenance entities, battery regulators, car owner(s), passenger(s), leasing agency(s), car and battery dealer(s), lender(s), transport agency(s), transporter(s), and etc. Details about the battery, such as manufacturer, date of manufacture, location of manufacture, lot number, composition, etc. may be collected and stored on the blockchain ledger.”), the distributed ledger being implemented by a plurality of nodes ([0028] “A decentralized database is a distributed storage system which includes multiple nodes that communicate with each other. A blockchain is an example of a decentralized database which includes an append-only immutable data structure resembling a distributed ledger capable of maintaining records between mutually untrusted parties”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize distributed ledger to record data as in Narayanaswami in the system executing the method of Joodaki with the motivation of offering to [0036] “improve the functionality of a computing system by implementing a method for monitoring of batteries in blockchain-based systems” and provide [0037] “immutable accountability, security, privacy, permitted decentralization, availability of smart contracts, endorsements and accessibility that are inherent and unique to the blockchain” as taught by Narayanaswami over that of Joodaki.
Although Joodaki teaches of utilizing various sensors to detect an occurrence of an accident by comparing various data to thresholds, the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose of utilizing an impact force sensor. However, Haslam teaches:
detecting an occurrence of an accident if a force detected by an impact force sensor of the target vehicle exceeds a predetermined threshold value ([Col 3 Lines 7-12] “At operation 105, the detection of the triggering event may be based, in part, on the type of triggering event. For example, some triggering events may be detected based on measurements from accelerometers or force sensors in a vehicle that exceed a predetermined threshold indicative of an accident or other impact involving the vehicle”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize impact force sensor as in Haslam in the system executing the method of Joodaki with the motivation of offering to improve the accuracy of automatically detecting vehicle accidents as taught by Haslam over that of Joodaki.
As per claim 3, Joodaki teaches a computer device comprising a processor and a storage that stores a program for causing the processor to perform the management method for managing a power storage device according to claim 1 ([0019] “FIG. 1 is an illustrative network environment 100 in which an accident management hub (AMH) 130 may be implemented. The network environment 100 may include one or more vehicles 110 having at least one vehicle sudden event detection processor or CPU (300 in FIG. 3) that communicates wirelessly over one or more networks 120 with the AMH 130. As will be discussed in greater detail below with respect to FIG. 3, the vehicle(s) 110 include sensors, video cameras, etc. that collect and store data just prior to the occurrence of an accident, which data is transmitted to the AMH 130 over network 120”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joodaki, in view of Narayanaswami, in view of Haslam, and in view of Santora (US 20150058045 A1).
As per claim 2, Joodaki may not explicitly disclose, but Santora teaches the management method for managing a power storage device according to claim 1, wherein the data management device manages information indicating an owner of a vehicle-mounted power storage device and an owner of a vehicle body portion with regard to each of the plurality of vehicles, the management method comprising:
when information indicating that an accident has occurred between the target vehicle and another vehicle is obtained, obtaining, from the data management device, the first owner information about the power storage device and second owner information indicating an owner of a vehicle body portion of the other vehicle ([0029] “According to one exemplary embodiment, sensors may be placed within the bumpers and doors of automobiles, such as passenger cars. When any part of a vehicle that is equipped with the present system hits or bumps another vehicle equipped with the same type of system, whether it be bumper to bumper, door to door, or bumper to door, etc., these sensors can detect the impact and exchange information with one another”);
specifying a user of the other vehicle using the obtained second owner information ([0049] “The information related to the impact can include, for example, license number of the second vehicle, driver information of a driver of the second vehicle, insurance information pertaining to the second vehicle, an image of the second vehicle, a video capturing the impact, and/or a unique identification information. The driver information can include name of the driver, driver's license number and state issuing the driver's license”); and
providing, to a terminal of the specified user of the other vehicle, a notification that informs the owner of the power storage device ([0040] “However, if both cars in the accident have the system or apparatus, then an alert is sent to both owner's mobile device, and the information of each driver (in the form of an identification number, for example) is exchanged between both drivers, along with being sent to an online secure database, where both drivers can be identified” or see also [0051] “Alternatively, the information related to the impact can be can be sent directly from the control module 20 to a mobile device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize exchanging information and alerting each owners associated with the accident as in Santora in the system executing the method of Joodaki, wherein Joodaki already teaches of alerting the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, with the motivation of offering to provide [0014] “improved collision notification system that is easier to install when compared to prior art systems and one that works independently, sometimes without the need of embedded vehicular subsystems” and also provide [0015] “an improved collision notification system that automatically gathers information pertaining to parties or vehicles involved in an accident” as taught by Santora over that of Joodaki.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joodaki, in view of Narayanaswami, in view of Haslam, and in view of NAGLA et al. (US 20180018723 A1).
As per claim 4, Joodaki may not explicitly disclose, but NAGLA teaches a management system for managing a power storage device, the management system including the computer device according to claim 3 and the data management device, wherein
the data management device includes
a storage that stores a distributed ledger ([0213] “The blockchain storage 322 may be configured to store information associated with the blockchain, such as the blockchain ledger, blockchain entries, information stored on various blocks, linkages between blocks, and rules associated with the blockchain, etc.”), and
a controller that registers, in the distributed ledger, transaction data including information indicating an owner of a vehicle-mounted power storage device with regard to each of the plurality of vehicles ([0101] “A block of the vehicle record may store various data elements for the vehicle and transaction information, for example, the nature of the transaction, parties to the transaction, document sections, contractual clauses, version information, and/or electronic representatives or derivatives of the same … The transaction data can include ownership information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the blockchain system as in NAGLA in the system executing the method of Joodaki, with the motivation of offering to provide a [0198] “simplified and/or potentially more trustworthy maintenance (e.g., through using a specific declarative architecture model), and improved operational efficiency as previously manual and/or cumbersome tasks may be aided and/or automated using the blockchain” and [0199] “aid with modelling, expressing complex relationships and/or dependencies, manipulations, and analyses, etc.” as taught by NAGLA over that of Joodaki.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joodaki, in view of Narayanaswami, in view of Haslam, in view of NAGLA, and in view of Kawahara et al. (US 20030233261 A1).
As per claim 5, Joodaki may not explicitly disclose, but Kawahara teaches the management system for managing a power storage device according to claim 4, wherein
the computer device is a first server that provides an insurance service for damage of a power storage device for a vehicle ([0042] “Meanwhile, there is an insurance center 30 which handles the transaction of accident based on the automobile insurance system, and the automobile 5 and the insurance center 30 can be communicated with each other through a network 100”),
the target vehicle for which the accident has occurred transmits an accident occurrence signal informing the occurrence of the accident, damage information indicating a degree of damage of the power storage device, and accident data indicating a situation of the target vehicle when the accident has occurred ([0054] “The sensor 15 is provided to initiate the emergency notification system 18 provided in the automobile 5. In other words, the censor 15 is automatically operated with an impact above a certain level (impact sensor), vibration (vibration censor), pattern recognition of an accident sound (sound censor) or the like” wherein [0059] “When the automatic call or manual call is started, the following data is transmitted to aforementioned each place through a communicating device 19 via satellite or the like” and see [0060-0078] for all the information associated with the accident being transmitted, such as the positional information, driving state, speed, braking and handling operation, sensor information, etc.), and
when the first server receives the accident occurrence signal ([0014] “When the occurrence of the accident was detected, the insurance center which handles the insurance transaction for the automobile accident is informed of the fact of the occurrence of the accident and the driving state before and after the accident”), the first server performs
determining a degree of negligence of a user of the target vehicle with regard to the accident based on the accident data ([0088] “Then, referring to FIG. 7, the kind of the accident is input at step S20. Fault determination database is searched and a standard ratio and correction elements are displayed at step S21. The data is input to the fault ratio assessment screen to find the corrected ratio at step S22. Thus obtained data is registered in an accident issue database at step S23”), and
determining an insurance benefit to be paid by the insurance service, based on the damage information and the degree of negligence ([0088] “An amount of insurance is computed by referring the amount of the damages to the accident issue database based on the data in which fault ratio assessment was performed at step S26. The result is output as insurance payment statement and various kinds of reports at step S27”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the insurance system as in Kawahara in the system executing the method of Joodaki, with the motivation of offering to provide convenience to the user involved in the accident by automatically providing accident related information to the insurance company to improve efficiency and accuracy for claims processing as taught by Kawahara over that of Joodaki.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joodaki, in view of Narayanaswami, in view of Haslam, in view of NAGLA, and in view of Konrardy et al. (US 20210116256 A1).
As per claim 6, Joodaki may not explicitly disclose, but Konrardy teaches the management system for managing a power storage device according to claim 4, further comprising a plurality of exchange stations that each exchange a power storage device for a vehicle,
the terminal of the owner of the power storage device is a second server that provides a lease service for leasing a power storage device for a vehicle ([0152] “The selection of the repair facility may include a determination that the repair facility is capable of providing the necessary repairs, has a sufficient stock of components determined to be required, and/or is able to perform the repairs within timing and budgetary constraints. Selection may further include communicating with the repair facility (either automatically by the on-board computer 114, the smart home controller 185, and/or the personal electronic device 189, or server 140 or manually by a person associated with the vehicle 108, the smart home 187, and/or the personal electronic device 189) to schedule or confirm an appointment for the repairs”), and
when the second server receives the notification that informs the occurrence of the accident of the target vehicle ([0160] “FIG. 6 illustrates a flow diagram of an exemplary salvage assessment method 600 for automatically determining damage and/or salvage potential for components of an autonomous vehicle, smart home, and/or personal electronic device. Such method 600 may be implemented following a collision or other loss-event associated with a vehicle 108, a smart home 187, and/or a personal electronic device 189 to determine which components are damaged and which components may be salvaged for use as replacement parts in other autonomous vehicles, smart homes, and/or personal electronic devices”), the second server permits one or more of the exchange stations to exchange the power storage device ([0200] “In some embodiments, the response may include automatically scheduling repair or replacement of the sensor, which may include arranging for the sensor to be repaired or replaced by a repair service provider, as discussed elsewhere herein”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the system to replace the damaged components following a vehicle accident as in Konrardy in the system executing the method of Joodaki, with the motivation of offering to improve the method for assessment of salvage potential for a vehicle after accident as taught by Konrardy over that of Joodaki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 5, filed 22-October-2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the additional elements are generic components merely applied to implement the abstract idea by performing its basic functionalities (e.g. recording data to a distributed ledger, sensor reading data, read data, provide notifications, etc.), wherein mere “apply it” is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5 to 6, with respect to the prior art rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sastinsky (US 20200055421 A1) discloses [0047] “The EoL machine learning engine 140 can comprise computational resources executing a set of machine learning models or algorithms having a goal of accurate and reliable ABEL determinations. Such ABEL determination can be utilized by primary and or secondary power cell markets to promote the full usage of power cell capacity and significantly reducing and/or eventually eliminating waste. In providing accurate, unmanipulated and immutable ABEL reports to users 177—such as prospective used vehicle owners, current vehicle 194 owners, second life battery assemblers, prospective used battery-powered device buyers, current owners of battery-powered devices 193, or other entities that may otherwise use, view or process the output of the computing system 100—the computing system 100 and distributed ledger 185 offers a technical solution to various technical problems existing in the field of secondary power cell use”;
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 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 HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights