DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-5 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1 and 5 have been amended. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Applicants have amended claims 1 and 5 to clarify that the claims meet subject matter eligibility requirements. As amended, claim 1 recites a system comprising a server and an electrically powered vehicle. The server includes a processor that acquires information on a capacity retention of the secondary battery from the electrically powered vehicle. The processor specifics a region in which stay time of the electrically powered vehicle in a predetermined period is longest based on position information and action history of the electrically powered vehicle. The specified region is determined as a usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle. Regional attributes of the usually-used area are determined based on correlation information stored in the memory. A reference value of the lease fee is calculated, based on regional attributes of a first environment. Two lease fees are calculated. The first is calculated based on the reference value fee and the degree of degradation of the secondary battery. The second is calculated by correcting the first lease fee on the basis of a correction coefficient corresponding to the capacity retention when the regional attributes is a second environment in which the degree of degradation of the secondary battery is likely to be higher than the first environment, the correction coefficient being less than 1. A correction of the lease fee is performed as a reduced increase of the lease fee based on deterioration of the degree of degradation when the usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle is the second environment, compared to the first environment. Claim 5 is similarly amended.
Given these clarified features, it is evident that the claims recite more than a mere generic computer. That is, the system including the server and the electrically powered vehicle form a particular machine. Data acquired by the EV is used to advantageously, and in a technologically improved manner, determine a reduced lease increase when secondary battery reduced capacity results from the vehicle being used in an environment (hot or cold) where deterioration is more likely. The claims accordingly also clearly recite a practical application. Technological means are used to determine the usually used area, and from these environment impacts on the leased battery capacity are taken into account. Lastly, a technological improvement is clearly recited.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The aforementioned system including a server and electronically powered vehicle can be argued to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see use (MPEP 2106.05(h). The examiner respectfully notes “a processor ‘that’ controls the server...” is an element in the steps that 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 component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The examiner notes further notes the data acquired by the EV is used ... determine a reduced lease increase when secondary battery reduced capacity results from the vehicle being used in an environment (hot or cold) where deterioration is more likely. ... determine the usually used area, and from these environment impacts on the leased battery capacity are taken into account, which are argued as the purported improvement, is an improvement, but this argued improvement lies within the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the argued additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the examiner notes employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more than the judicial exception, see (MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The technological steps described above are more than mere pre-solution activity, but are rather essential in determining environmental impacts on the leased battery capacity. Applicants note that In re Desjardins clarifies that improvements in computational performance, learning behavior, storage, data sets, and data structures can all qualify as patent-eligible technological advancements. Here the claims clearly recite a technological improvement to a particular machine - the system of a server and EV - to better determine a usually used area, and from that more accurate environmental effects on battery capacity reduction, which are reflected in a reduced increase in lease fee. Accordingly, the claims presented herein, as amended, make clear that a technological advancement is recited. Accordingly, the rejection under 35U.S.C. 101 must be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of determining environmental impacts on the leased battery capacity... [and] to better determine a usually used area, and from that more accurate environmental effects on battery capacity reduction, which are reflected in a reduced increase in lease fee is noted to be part of the Abstract Idea and not found to be an improvement to a particular machine - the system of a server and EV. The aforementioned system to a particular machine - the system of a server and EV is found to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see (MPEP 2106.05(h). The examiner respectfully notes “a processor ‘that’ controls the server...” is an element in the steps that 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 component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the examiner notes employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more than the judicial exception, see (MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/11/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim(s) 1-5 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-5 are directed to a machine and/or process. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim 5, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
specifies the region as a usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle;
determines the regional attributes of the usually-used area based on the correlation information;
calculates a reference value of the lease fee, the reference value being a lease fee which the regional attributes is a first environment;
calculates a first lease fee based on the reference value of the lease fee and the degree of degradation of the secondary battery;
calculates a second lease fee by correcting the first lease fee on the basis of the correction coefficient corresponding to the capacity retention when the regional attributes is a second environment in which the degree of degradation of the secondary battery is likely to be higher than the first environment, the correction coefficient being less than 1;
performs a correction of the lease fee as a reduced increase of the lease fee based on deterioration of the degree of degradation when the usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle is the second environment compared to when the usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle is the first environment; and
notifies the lease fee corrected by the correction
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations includes for claim 1, and similar claim 5, calculating a lease fee of a secondary battery leased based on degree of degradation (i.e., stores regional attributes, a correction coefficient and correlation information correlating the regional attributes and regions; acquire information of a degree of degradation of the secondary battery including information of a capacity retention of the secondary battery from the electrically powered vehicle, specifies a region in which stay time of the electrically powered vehicle in a predetermined period is longest based on position information and action history of the electrically powered vehicle; specifies the region as a usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle; determines the regional attributes of the usually-used area based on the correlation information; calculates a reference value of the lease fee, the reference value being a lease fee which the regional attributes is a first environment; calculates a first lease fee based on the reference value of the lease fee and the degree of degradation of the secondary battery; calculates a second lease fee by correcting the first lease fee on the basis of the correction coefficient corresponding to the capacity retention when the regional attributes is a second environment in which the degree of degradation of the secondary battery is likely to be higher than the first environment, the correction coefficient being less than 1; performs a correction of the lease fee as a reduced increase of the lease fee based on deterioration of the degree of degradation when the usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle is the second environment compared to when the usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle is the first environment; and notifies the lease fee corrected by the correction, thus, claim 1 and similar claim 5, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite "commercial interactions".
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and similar claim 5, recites a server w/ a memory and processor that controls the server to... acquire... from the electrically powered vehicle or a mobile terminal used by user of the electrically powered vehicle/notify... to the electrically powered vehicle. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, page 5, lines 15-18 and page 6, lines 10-14). These elements in the steps 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 component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, “A system comprising a server and an electrically powered vehicle” as claimed generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see use (MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and similar claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim 5 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim 5 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does 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, the additional elements of: for Claim 1 recites a server w/ a memory and processor that controls the server to... acquire... from the electrically powered vehicle or a mobile terminal used by user of the electrically powered vehicle/notify... to the electrically powered vehicle; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim 5 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim 5 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-4, claims 2-4 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to or CMoHA (i.e. recite "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) as they recite further features related to “adjustment”/“calculation”. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Reasons For No Prior Art Rejection
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The closest prior art of record:
Kurimoto et al. (US 2020/0290477 A1) discusses A battery lease system lends a battery to a user. The battery lease system includes a vehicle configured to be equipped with the battery for traveling, and a server that manages a lease fee to be paid by the user for lease of the battery. The vehicle permits traveling of the vehicle only for a period in which a capacity retention ratio changes by a specified amount, when the user pays the lease fee, the capacity retention ratio indicating a degree of progress of deterioration of the battery (Abstract).
Igata et al. (US 2019/0156409 A1) discusses A management server is configured to perform a process including: setting a basic fee of a first monthly fee when a utilization manner is battery lease; setting discount rates based on the weight, capacity, manufacturer, degree of initial deterioration, amount of power consumption, number of times of performing quick electric charging, utilization region, and utilization period of the battery; determining the first monthly fee; setting a basic fee of a second monthly fee when the utilization manner is vehicle lease; setting discount rates based on the weight of the battery, a utilization region of the vehicle, and a utilization period; determining the second monthly fee; and determining a total monthly fee (Abstract).
However, the prior art of record as cited as noted above, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious:
A system comprising a server and an electrically powered vehicle, wherein the server calculates a lease fee of a secondary battery leased to an electrically powered vehicle, the server comprising
a memory that stores regional attributes, a correction coefficient and correlation information correlating the regional attributes and regions, and
a processor that:
controls the server to acquire information of a degree of degradation of the secondary battery including information of a capacity retention of the secondary battery from the electrically powered vehicle from the electrically powered vehicle; and
the processor specifies a region in which stay time of the electrically powered vehicle in a predetermined period is longest based on position information and action history of the electrically powered vehicle;
specifies the region as a usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle;
determines the regional attributes of the usually-used area based on the correlation information;
calculates a reference value of the lease fee, the reference value being a lease fee which the regional attributes is a first environment;
calculates a first lease fee based on the reference value of the lease fee and the degree of degradation of the secondary battery;
calculates a second lease fee by correcting the first lease fee on the basis of the correction coefficient corresponding to the capacity retention when the regional attributes is a second environment in which the degree of degradation of the secondary battery is likely to be higher than the first environment, the correction coefficient being less than 1;
performs a correction of the lease fee as a reduced increase of the lease fee based on deterioration of the degree of degradation when the usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle is the second environment compared to when the usually-used area of the electrically powered vehicle is the first environment; and
notifies the lease fee corrected by the correction to the electrically powered vehicle.
Therefore, the prior art made of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claims.
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 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 ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626