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 Status
The claims filed 9/16/2025 are entered.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1 and 13 are independent.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, and 13 are currently amended.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-12, and 14 are original.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2023/0261331 A1) in view of Avary (US 2016/0128016 A1) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Applicant’s arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the new grounds of rejection herein.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that Avary does not disclose transmitting a first notification from the server to the vehicle.
The argument is not persuasive. Avary discloses that the system returns a welcome message to the new registered owner with display of an interactive screen for set up of and subscription to available services (see para. 0064). Avary discloses the interactive interface may include an in-vehicle computer touch screen/webpage by which the owner enters in information to set up subscription services (see para. 0061-0062).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morton (US 2023/0261331 A1) in view of Avary (US 2016/0128016 A1), further in view of Kurimoto (US 2020/0334722 A1) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-14 stand rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues that the claims now include a feature to control discharge of the battery (see Remarks, pg. 8).
The argument is not persuasive. The limitation to control discharge of the battery is described at a high level of generality such that it does not convey a technical improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the additional element is merely used as a tool for applying the identified abstract idea which encompasses administering battery lease agreements in the form of contracts. As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not provide a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2, nor does it provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 2-12 and 14 are not persuasive as they rely on the argument addressed above.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-14 are directed to systems (machines), and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 14. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A server that communicates with a vehicle including a power storage device, the server comprising:
a communication device that communicates with the vehicle; and
a processing device configured to:
determine whether an owner of the vehicle has changed from a first owner to a second owner, wherein the first owner has a first lease contract for leasing the power storage device,
based upon the determination that the owner has changed from the first owner to the second owner, determine whether the second owner has entered into a lease contract for leasing the power storage device,
based upon the determination that the second owner has not entered into the lease contract, generate a restriction command for restricting discharge of the battery,
based upon the generation of the restriction command, transmit the restriction command to the vehicle through the communication device to control a processor of the vehicle to restrict discharge of the battery.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite commercial or legal interactions, as they pertain to agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial or legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The communication device and processing device in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claim 13 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
communication device; processing device
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification pp. 9-10 about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 13 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 13 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-14 are not patent-eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avary (US 2016/0128016 A1) in view of NissanConnect (“Terms and Conditions”), further in view of Renault (“How to prevent RCI from disabling battery charging”).
Regarding claim 1, Avary teaches a server that communicates with a vehicle including a power storage device, the server comprising:
a communication device that communicates with the vehicle (see para. 0024-0025); and
a processing device configured to:
determine whether an owner of the vehicle has changed from a first owner to a second owner (see para. 0026-0029).
Avary does not explicitly disclose, but NissanConnect teaches wherein the first owner has a first lease contract for leasing the power storage device (“In case you have entered into a battery lease agreement for your electric Vehicle, Nissan may provide the lease company with the battery and location data required to administer and fulfill the leasing agreement, including the locking or unlocking of battery charging or to enforce the fulfilment of contractual claims”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Avary to include the feature taught by NissanConnect.
The modification would have merely been the application of a known technique, i.e. separate lease of a battery, to a known method ready for improvement, i.e. purchase of a vehicle, yielding predictable results. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of NissanConnect to the teachings of Avary would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such battery lease features into similar vehicles. Further, applying battery leases to Avary would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would reduce up-front costs associated with purchase of a vehicle.
Avary, as discussed above, teaches determining that the owner has changed from the first owner to the second owner. Avary does not explicitly disclose, but Renault teaches determining whether the second owner has entered into a lease contract for leasing a power storage device, based upon the determination that the second owner has not entered into the lease contract, generate a restriction command for restricting discharge of the battery, based upon the generation of the restriction command, transmit the restriction command to the vehicle through the communication device to control a processor of the vehicle to restrict discharge of the battery (see Post #23, displaying refusal of charging because of contract; Post #25 discussing battery rental cars being sold as “battery owned”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Avary further to include the features of Renault.
The modification would have merely been the application of a known technique, i.e. restriction of battery charging based on lease contracts, to a known method ready for improvement, i.e. management of services when transferring ownership of a vehicle, yielding predictable results. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Renault to the teachings of Avary would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such battery restriction features into similar vehicles. Further, applying battery restriction features to Avary would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the battery rental company to enforce contracts. Note that NissanConnect already teaches providing the lease company with the battery and location data required to administer and fulfil the leasing agreement, including the locking or unlocking of battery charging or to enforce the fulfilment of contractual claims.
Regarding claim 2, Avary teaches wherein the communication device is configured to communicate with a first management server that stores registered owner information indicating a registered owner who is registered as an owner of the vehicle when a vehicle inspection of the vehicle is performed, and the processing device acquires the registered owner information from the first management server through the communication device, and determines according to the registered owner information whether or not the owner has been changed (see para. 0063).
Regarding claim 4, Avary teaches wherein the processing device acquires the registered owner information every predetermined period of time (see para. 0040).
Regarding claim 5, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein based on determining that the owner has been changed to the second owner, the processing device transmits a first notification for prompting the second owner to enter into the second lease contract to the vehicle through the communication device (see Avary, para. 0067-0068).
Regarding claim 8, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein based on that the second owner enters into the second lease contract, the processing device transmits, to the vehicle through the communication device, a second notification for prompting the second owner to enter into an insurance contract for the power storage device (see Avary, para. 0067-0068, wherein “insurance contract” may be reasonably interpreted as covering lease contracts (e.g., vehicle lease agreements often contain loss damage waivers, indemnity clauses, or lessor-provided insurance)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein the processing device is configured to be capable of executing upper limit setting processing for setting an upper limit value of the discharge power, and the upper limit setting processing includes first setting processing for setting the upper limit value to a first value based on determining the second owner enters into the second lease contract and the second owner does not enter into an insurance contract for the power storage device, and second setting processing for setting the upper limit value to a second value higher than the first value when the second owner enters into the second lease contract and the second owner enters into the insurance contract (NissanConnect & Renault).
Regarding claim 11, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein the processing device executes processing for providing an incentive to the first owner when receiving a transfer notification indicating that the first owner transfers the vehicle (see Avary, para. 0005, wherein the incentive is protection of sensitive data).
Regarding claim 12, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein the processing device executes processing for providing an incentive to the first owner when receiving a first cancel notification indicating that the first owner cancels the first lease contract (see Avary, para. 0005, wherein the incentive is protection of sensitive data).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons. The claim limitation “insurance contract” may be reasonably interpreted as covering lease contracts (e.g., vehicle lease agreements often contain loss damage waivers, indemnity clauses, or lessor-provided insurance).
Regarding claim 14, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein the processing device executes processing for providing an incentive to the first owner when receiving a second cancel notification indicating that the first owner cancels the first insurance contract (see Avary, para. 0005, wherein the incentive is protection of sensitive data).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avary (US 2016/0128016 A1) in view of NissanConnect (“Terms and Conditions”), further in view of Renault (“How to prevent RCI from disabling battery charging”), further in view of Kurimoto (US 2020/0334722 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Avary does not explicitly disclose, but Kurimoto teaches wherein the communication device is configured to communicate with a second management server, the second management server stores payment status information indicating a payment status of a lease fee for the power storage device, the lease fee is set by the first lease contract as a fee that the first owner is required to pay for leasing the power storage device, and the processing device acquires the payment status information from the second management server through the communication device, and acquires the registered owner information when the payment status information indicates non-payment of the lease fee over a predetermined threshold period of time (see para. 0122-0123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server of Avary further to include the feature taught by Kurimoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to determine whether a fee charging condition is satisfied (see Kurimoto, para. 0122-0123).
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avary (US 2016/0128016 A1) in view of NissanConnect (“Terms and Conditions”), further in view of Renault (“How to prevent RCI from disabling battery charging”), further in view of Toyota Connected Services (“Connected Services by Toyota and Service Connect Management Guide”).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Avary, as discussed above with regards to the base claim, discloses presenting options for a user to subscribe to services. Avary does not explicitly disclose, but Toyota Connected Services teaches wherein a processing device determines that a second owner does not enter into a second lease/insurance contract when receiving, through the communication device, a first disapproval signal indicating that the second owner does not enter into the second contract (see pg. 15, wherein a user may choose “No Thanks” to services trials, communication, or auto insurance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Avary further to include the features of Toyota Connected Services.
The modification would have merely been the application of a known technique, i.e. waiver of services, to a known method ready for improvement, i.e. management of services when transferring ownership of a vehicle, yielding predictable results. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Toyota Connected Services to the teachings of Avary would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such waiver options into similar interfaces. Further, applying waiver features to Avary would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to save money.
Regarding claim 7, the combination as set forth with regards to the base claim teaches wherein the processing device transmits a cancel command for canceling a restriction of the discharge power to the vehicle through the communication device when the processing device receives, after receiving the first disapproval signal (Toyota Connected Services), a lease contract approval signal approving that the second owner enters into the second lease contract (NissanConnect & Renault).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kurimoto (US 2020/0290477 A1) discloses a battery lease system for lending 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693