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 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 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:
“A server that calculates a lease fee of an electrically powered vehicle or a secondary battery of the electrically powered vehicle, the server comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires information about a degree of degradation of the secondary battery; and a control unit that calculates the lease fee using the information about the degree of degradation, wherein the control unit performs suppression processing for suppressing an increase of the lease fee, the increase of the lease fee being based on deterioration of a degree of discharging-caused degradation caused by discharging in response to a request for adjusting a power demand/supply state in a power system.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
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, steps of “calculates the lease fee using the information about the degree of degradation, wherein the control unit performs suppression processing for suppressing an increase of the lease fee” and “the increase of the lease fee being based on deterioration of a degree of discharging-caused degradation caused by discharging” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “discharging in response to a request for adjusting a power demand/supply state in a power system” 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. In the context of this claim, encompasses a user responding to a request and making a decision (“judgement”) to start discharging.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of Claim 5.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A server that calculates a lease fee of an electrically powered vehicle or a secondary battery of the electrically powered vehicle, the server comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires information about a degree of degradation of the secondary battery; and a control unit.
In Claim 5: A lease fee calculation method for calculating a lease fee of an electrically powered vehicle or a secondary battery of the electrically powered vehicle.
The additional elements in the preambles 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 element in the claim such as a server and a control unit are examples of a generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and not meaningful and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines to indicate a practical application. The limitation that generically recites an acquisition unit that acquires information about a degree of degradation of the secondary battery represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. 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.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4 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 meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
For example, additional elements in Claims 3 and 4 (arithmetic expression storage unit that stores arithmetic expression and a table storage unit that stores a table, respectively) represent insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data, they are recited in generality and, therefore, not meaningful to indicate a practical application and/or qualify for 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyan Kim et al. (US 20230182575), hereinafter ‘Kim’ in view of Kazuo Yamada (US 20080281732), hereinafter ‘Yamada’.
With regards to Claim 1, Kim discloses
A server that calculates a rental fee of an electrically powered vehicle or a secondary battery of the electrically powered vehicle (the battery service server may be configured to further receive an accumulative charging/discharging amount of the battery from the electric vehicle control device together with the diagnostic analysis data, calculate a usage fee of the battery according to the accumulative charging/discharging amount and the degree of degradation [0030]; a rental charging server operated by a battery rental company may be connected to the battery service server 30 to enable communication through the network 40 as an embodiment of the external server 80 [0192]), the server comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires information about a degree of degradation of the secondary battery; and a control unit that calculates the lease fee using the information about the degree of degradation (the battery service server may be configured to: (a) generate update information of a charging/discharging control logic of the battery according to the determined degree of degradation and provide the update information to the electric vehicle control device, (b) determine a residual value of the battery based on the determined degree of degradation, (c) determine a usage fee of the battery based on the determined degree of degradation [0017]).
Kim also discloses determining a fee corresponding to deterioration of a degree of discharging-caused degradation caused by discharging (generating update information of a charging/discharging control logic of the battery according to the determined degree of degradation and providing the update information to the electric vehicle control device; determining a residual value of the battery based on the determined degree of degradation; determine a usage fee of the battery based on the determined degree of degradation [0036]).
However, Kim does not disclose a lease fee and wherein the control unit performs suppression processing for suppressing an increase of the lease fee, the increase of the lease fee being based on deterioration of a degree of discharging-caused degradation caused by discharging in response to a request for adjusting a power demand/supply state in a power system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to use a lease fee instead of a rental fee when both types are related to battery capacity usage when the battery is not owned but used and the preference only reflects financial but not battery electrical capacity considerations and also because the instant application does not explain why this type of financial arrangement (lease) is preferred.
Yamada discloses deterioration of a degree of discharging-caused degradation caused by discharging in response to a request for adjusting a power demand/supply state in a power system (decrease of the remaining capacity due to the … discharging biases [0124]; Each energy storage system 400 controls the charging/discharging output based on the command value and the time information included in the received charging/discharging plan. FIG. 9 is an example of the charging/discharging output function of the energy storage system 400 with respect to the received command value [0130]).
Yamada also discloses performing charging based on a difference between the remaining dischargeable capacity and the dischargeable capacity of a newly provided battery, charging taking into account the remaining dischargeable capacity and deterioration of a battery pack is made possible and users equally bear charges [0094] and performing suppressing an increase of the leased battery’s power used ([0100] Dischargeable capacity charged in the battery pack A2 to be provided to the user: 1000 mAh, [0101] Dischargeable capacity remaining in the battery pack A1 taken back from the user: 500 mAh; [0102] Amount of battery capacity corresponding to degradation: 0 mAh; [0103] Charge to be paid by the user: 1000 mAh-500 mAh=500 mAh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Yamada to perform additional suppressing processing in addition to the calculated lease fee, as discussed above, due to the fact that discharging into the power system as/when directed, per corresponding request to adjust power, additionally reduces deterioration degree of the battery while benefiting other users of the system, and it would be predictable to one with ordinary skill in the art to compensate the lessee for this extra deterioration of the leased battery (i.e. reduce the calculated lease fee) by “suppressing an increase of the lease fee”.
With regards to Claim 2, Kim in view of Yamada discloses the claimed invention but does not specifically disclose the control unit calculates the lease fee based on a difference between a total amount of the degree of degradation of the secondary battery and the degree of discharging-caused degradation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Yamada to calculate the lease fee based on a difference between a total amount of the degree of degradation of the secondary battery and the degree of discharging-caused degradation that reduces the fee as explained in Claim 1 in order to calculate the net lease fee.
With regards to Claim 3, Kim in view of Yamada discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claims 1 and 2 including calculating the degree of discharging-caused degradation subtracted from a total amount of the degree of degradation of the secondary battery, i.e. “using the arithmetic expression”.
Kim also discloses storing a database with determined degree of degradation [0019, 0024, 0084, 0160].
However, Kim is silent on “storing an arithmetic expression for calculating the degree of degradation of the secondary battery based on a condition for executing the discharging”.
Yamada discloses discharging condition (This discharging condition can be appropriately selected [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Yamada to employ an arithmetic expression storage unit that stores an arithmetic expression for calculating the degree of degradation of the secondary battery based on a condition for executing the discharging for use in accurate calculation of a true lease fee.
With regards to Claim 5, Kim in view of Yamada discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yamada, and further in view of Mika Kirimoto (CN 105848978), hereinafter ‘Kirimoto’.
With regards to Claim 4, Kim in view of Yamada discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in Claim 1 as well as Claims 2/3.
Kim additionally discloses storing a table indicating a relationship a residual value of a battery capacity and the degree of degradation of the battery (the battery service server may be configured to calculate a residual value corresponding to the determined degree of degradation by referring to a residual value look-up table defining a residual value according to the degree of degradation of the battery, and provide the calculated residual value [0029]).
However, Kim does not specifically disclose a table storage unit that stores a table indicating a relationship between a condition for executing the discharging and the degree of degradation of the secondary battery, wherein the control unit derives the degree of discharging-caused degradation by referring to the table.
Kirimoto discloses a table storage unit that stores a table indicating a relationship between a condition for executing the discharging and the degree of degradation of the secondary battery (the charging times of current speed deterioration degree table (11) is recorded at a predetermined prescribed or the secondary battery condition of the discharge of the secondary battery deterioration degree of the deterioration degree table, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Yamada, in view of Kirimoto for the control unit to derive the degree of discharging-caused degradation by referring to the table that stores a table indicating a relationship between a condition for executing the discharging and the degree of degradation of the secondary battery to accurately monitor and control usage of the battery (selecting the maximum current rate and is set to the upper limit current value, Kirimoto, p.7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shinya Nishikawa et al. (US 20220355702) discloses calculating a degradation cost of batteries for each of the numbers of the one or more batteries, the degradation cost being calculated based on the amount of power consumption and on the number of batteries.
Takuma Kogo (US 20210075226) discloses a remaining capacity change model that estimates a temporal change of a remaining capacity which is based on charging/discharging and computing a charging/discharging plan of each of the plurality of energy storage systems based on the remaining capacity change model of each of the plurality of energy storage systems.
Takaaki Fukunishi et al. (US 20250102583) discloses machine learning of a relationship between the plurality of first degradation levels and the plurality of pieces of first log data of a battery during charge/discharge cycles.
Conclusion
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