DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a first Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
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 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category (MPEP 2106.03). The claim recites an information processing device comprising a concrete device (one or more processors). Thus, the claim is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitations identified as reciting a judicial exception include “judge whether or not the acquired state information satisfies a predetermined condition…”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims judgement is an observation or evaluation based on obtained information and information stored. These observations or evaluations are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The recitation of a processor in this claim does not negate the mental nature of the limitation because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.4(d)).
The claim recites the additional elements of “at least one processor”, “acquire state information relating to a state of a battery installed in a vehicle” and “output the state information as a subject for diagnosing the battery”. The processor is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is a processor) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physically or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the computer component does not affect this analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(I)).
The additional element of “acquire state information” is an insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering incidental to the limitation. The additional element of “output the state information” is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided on how the information is output) that is merely extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Step 2B: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (MPEP 2106.05). Additional elements identified in prong two of step 2A were considered insignificant extra-solution activities (mere data gathering and generic presentation of collected and analyzed data). The recitation of mere data gathering is recited at a high level of generality, and as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. Similarly, mere outputting data is also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, the additional elements individually or in combination with the judicial exception do not provide an inventive concept; so, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a generic instruction to “apply” the judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2:
Step 1: The claim recites an information processing device comprising a concrete device (one or more processors). Thus, the claim is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Limitations identified as reciting a judicial exception include “judge that the state information satisfies the predetermined condition when at least one of a case in which the number of times of starting relating to the state information is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, and a case in which the activated time period relating to the state information is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, is satisfied”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims judgement is an observation or evaluation based on obtained information and information stored. These observations or evaluations are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Additional limitations include “the at least one processor” and “acquire the state information that includes a number of times of starting in which the vehicle was started and set in an on state, and an activated time period over which the vehicle was in the on state”. The additional element of “acquire state information” is an insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering incidental to the limitation. The processor is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer
Step 2B: Additional elements identified in prong two of step 2A were considered insignificant extra-solution activities (mere data gathering). The recitation of mere data gathering is recited at a high level of generality, and as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, the additional elements individually or in combination with the judicial exception do not provide an inventive concept; so, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a generic instruction to “apply” the judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 3:
The analysis of independent claim 1 still applies to claim 3. Claim 3 does not include any additional limitation outside of general extra-solution activity. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 4:
Step 1: The claim recites an information processing device comprising a concrete device (one or more processors). Thus, the claim is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Limitations identified as reciting a judicial exception include “in a case in which an index, which expresses a degree of dispersion in the lowest voltages, is greater than or equal to a third threshold, judge that the state information satisfies the predetermined condition”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims judgement is an observation or evaluation based on obtained information and information stored. These observations or evaluations are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Additional limitations include “the at least one processor” and “acquire, as the state information, lowest voltages outputted by the battery at times when the vehicle was started”. The additional element of “acquire state information” is an insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering incidental to the limitation.
Step 2B: Additional elements identified in prong two of step 2A were considered insignificant extra-solution activities (mere data gathering). The recitation of mere data gathering is recited at a high level of generality, and as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. The processor is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, the additional elements individually or in combination with the judicial exception do not provide an inventive concept; so, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a generic instruction to “apply” the judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 5:
Step 1: The claim recites an information processing device comprising a concrete device (one or more processors). Thus, the claim is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Limitations identified as reciting a judicial exception include “judge whether or not the predetermined condition is satisfies by using, as the index, a cumulative value obtained by totaling, for a predetermined number of times relating to starting the vehicle, difference values respectively derived by squaring a difference between the lowest voltage the battery actually outputted and the lowest voltage outputted by the battery a previous time, in starting of the vehicle of two successive times”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims judgement is an observation or evaluation based on obtained information and information stored. These observations or evaluations are acts that can be practically performed in the human mind and with pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Additional limitations include “the at least one processor”, which merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
Step 2B: Additional elements identified in prong two of step 2A were considered to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
Consequently, for the reasons discussed above, the additional elements individually or in combination with the judicial exception do not provide an inventive concept; so, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a generic instruction to “apply” the judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Regarding independent claim 8:
The analysis of the information processing method of claim 8 is substantially the same as claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding independent claim 9:
The analysis of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 9 is substantially the same as claim 1 discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by NAMIKI, US 2020/0384884.
Re claims 1, 8, and 9:
NAMIKI discloses an information processing device comprising:
At least one processor that is configured to:
Acquire state information relating to a state of a battery installed in a vehicle (i.e., acquisition unit 191 acquires physical quantity data representing physical quantities relating to a state of battery 110 [0033] [0035] [Figure 1]);
Judge whether or not the acquired state information satisfies a predetermined condition relating to the battery (i.e., determination unit 192 determine whether or not a physical quantity represented by the physical quantity data satisfies a predetermined condition [0033] [0037] [0038]); and
In a case in which the state information satisfies the predetermined condition, output the state information as a subject for diagnosing the battery (i.e., transmission unit 193 transmits the physical quantity data to server 200 when the predetermined condition is satisfied [0033] [0045] [0046]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAMIKI, US 2020/0384884 in view of SAKAKIBARA, US 2016/0231390.
Re claim 2:
NAMIKI teaches the information processing device of claim 1, but does not teach the state information includes a number of times of starting in which the vehicle was started and set in an on state, and an activated time period over which the vehicle was in the on state, and judge that the state information satisfies the predetermined condition when at least one of a case in which the number of times of starting relating to the state information is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, and a case in which the activated time period relating to the state information is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, is satisfied.
SAKAKIBARA teaches an information processing device, configured to acquire state information relating to a state of a battery installed in a vehicle, wherein the state information includes a number of times of starting in which the vehicle was started and set in an on state, and an activated time period over which the vehicle was in the one state (i.e., the number of start times of engine 12 started with power supplied by battery 10 and the used period of time of the battery [0030] [0032] [0073]). The processing device judges that the state information satisfies a predetermined condition when the number of times of starting in which the vehicle was started and set in an on state is satisfied and a case in which the activated time period relating to the state information is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, is satisfied [0073]-[0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of SAKAKIBARA in the device of NAMIKI for the purpose of determining whether starting performance of the battery is degraded.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAMIKI, US 2020/0384884 in view of NAMIKI, 2022/0317189 (hereinafter referred to as NAMIKI 2022).
Re claims 6-7:
NAMIKI teaches the information processing device of claim 1, but does not teach the at least one processor is configured to generate a learned model that has been machine learned in order to judge suitability, as the subject, of the state information; the at least one processor configured to generate the learned model by executing machine learning by using, as learning data, the state information acquired in the past and suitabilities, as the subject, of the state information.
NAMIKI 2022 teaches an information processing device wherein at least one processor is configured to generate a learned model that has been machine learned in order to judge suitability, as the subject, of the state information [0031] [0034] [0065]-[0067]; the at least one processor configured to generate the learned model by executing machine learning by using, as learning data, the state information acquired in the past and suitabilities, as the subject, of the state information [0048]-[0051] [0065]-[0067] [0069]-[0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further incorporate the teachings of NAMIKI 2022 in the device of NAMIKI for the purpose of improving accuracy of estimating state of charge/state of health of the battery (NAMIKI 2022 [0016] [0086] [0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA A GUDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7607. If the Examiner cannot be reached by telephone, she can be reached through the following e-mail address: laura.gudorf@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:00-4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Lee, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-2398. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LAURA A GUDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights