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 . Claims 1-6, and 9-10 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered.
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, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 10 is directed to a program (i.e., a machine or manufacture). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1, 9, and 10 is (claim 1 being representative):
acquire user information including a user's operation plan for the electric vehicle;
for each year, calculate, based on the user's operation plan, an amount of electric energy charged to and discharged from a battery that is used for travel of the electric vehicle and installed in the electric vehicle;
calculate a number of charging cycles for each year by dividing the amount of electric energy by a full charge capacity of the battery;
sequentially calculate a state of health of the battery at the beginning of each year based on the number of charging cycles calculated from the user information and deterioration information indicating a relationship between the user information and a deterioration degree of the battery, the deterioration degree being represented by the state of health of the battery;
determine a specific period specified for setting the lease period based on the user information and the deterioration information;
wherein the specific period is a period until a travelable distance per operation, which is the distance allowing one operation of the electric vehicle when the battery is fully charged, decreases to a user's travel distance per operation;
wherein the specific period is determined as a period up to a last year in which the travelable distance per operation is equal to or greater than the user's travel distance per operation; and
output the specific period.
The abstract idea steps italicized above constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performing evaluations and determinations based on user input, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. This is supported by paragraph 0002 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to leasing electric vehicles and determining a lease period based on projected battery deterioration, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, covers commercial activity. This is further supported by paragraph 0002 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: A period setting system; processor; a display.
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements: a display.
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements: A period setting program; a computer; a display.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs [0015] – [0018] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Regarding claims 2-6, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 4-5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kurimoto (US 20200290477) in view of Xu (US 20130085696) in further view of Kim (US 20130311016).
Claims 1, 9, and 10
Regarding claim 1, Kurimoto discloses (claim 1 being representative):
(claim 1) A period setting system for setting a lease period of an electric vehicle, the system comprising: {“A battery lending system according to an aspect of the present disclosure lends a battery to a user. The battery lending system includes a vehicle configured to be equipped with the battery for traveling, and a server that manages a lending fee to be paid by the user for lending of the battery.” (paragraph 0008).}
(claim 1) a processor and {“The server includes a communication device that communicates with the vehicle, and a processor that provides the vehicle with a notification for permitting traveling of the vehicle only for a period in which an index indicating a degree of progress of deterioration of the battery changes by a specified amount, when the user pays the lending fee.” (paragraph 0013).}
(claim 1) a display {“User interface 17 is configured to provide the user with a variety of information about vehicle 1, and receive various operations by the user. User interface 17 is implemented, for example, by a touch panel-equipped monitor of a car navigation system.” (paragraph 0079).}
(claim 9) A period setting method for setting a lease period of an electric vehicle, the method comprising: {“A battery lending method according to still another aspect of the present disclosure is a method for lending a battery for traveling mountable on a vehicle to a user” (paragraph 0026).}
(claim 10) A period setting program for setting a lease period of an electric vehicle, the program causing a computer to execute processing comprising: {“Although each step is implemented by software processing by vehicle 1 (ECU 10) or fee charging server 2 (application server 20), it may be implemented by dedicated hardware (electric circuitry) fabricated within vehicle 1 or fee charging server 2.” (paragraph 0116).}
wherein the processor is configured to acquire user information including a user's operation plan for the electric vehicle {The system can get a user’s travel distance per day (i.e., a form of operation plan) and use it to advise on parameters related to a lease (paragraphs 0120-0121, 0156-0159).}
wherein the specific period is determined as a period up to a last year in which the travelable distance per operation is equal to or greater than the user's travel distance per operation {The system supports determining a future usable period for the EV by predicting battery deterioration, estimating remaining EV travel distance based on the deterioration progression, and using the user’s actual travel distance data to determine how long the vehicle remains usable for the user’s travel needs. paragraphs 0156, 0158}
output the specific period to the display {A server outputs the estimated remaining travel distance (i.e., lease end period) to the user via the vehicle or smartphone (paragraphs 0117, 0122, 0156, 0172).}
Kurimoto does not disclose, however, Xu, in a similar field of endeavor directed to obtaining the degradation of a battery, teaches:
for each year, calculate, based on the user's operation plan, an amount of electric energy charged to and discharged from a battery that is used for travel of the electric vehicle and installed in the electric vehicle; {The system supports collecting and processing battery charge/discharge information, operation parameters, vehicle parameters, and user information regarding EV battery usage to determine degradation. [0065] – [0067]}
calculate a number of charging cycles for each year by dividing the amount of electric energy by a full charge capacity of the battery; {Charged/discharged power amounts are used together with “rated full capacity” and charge/discharge cycle information to determine battery degradation. [0045], [0065] – [0066]}
sequentially calculate a state of health of the battery at the beginning of each year based on the number of charging cycles calculated from the user information and deterioration information indicating a relationship between the user information and a deterioration degree of the battery, the deterioration degree being represented by the state of health of the battery; {The system supports sequentially updating a battery degradation model using user information, operation parameters, charge/discharge information, and DCL history data to compute degradation and SOH values over time. [0061] – [0066], [0121], [0144] – [0145]}
determine a specific period specified for setting the lease period based on the user information and the deterioration information; {The system supports battery rental operations in which battery degradation information, user information, and residual values are used to determine rental fees and battery usage decisions. [0033], [0065], [0125] – [0127], [0146]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the battery lending and optimization of battery use features of Kurimoto to include the battery health determination features of Xu to improve battery utilization. (See paragraph 0123 of Xu).
The combination of Kurimoto and Xu does not teach, however, Kim, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a Distance to Empty (DTE) calculation method for an electric vehicle, teaches:
wherein the specific period is a period until a travelable distance per operation, which is the distance allowing one operation of the electric vehicle when the battery is fully charged, decreases to a user's travel distance per operation; {The system supports calculating a distance to empty (DTE) representing the distance an electric vehicle can travel based on available battery energy and deterioration conditions. [0047] – [0048], [0111] – [0114]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Kurimoto and Xu to include the driving range determination features of Kim, to improve distance to empty calculation accuracy. (See paragraph 0023 of Kim).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim teaches the limitations set forth above. Kurimoto further discloses:
the deterioration degree of the battery includes a deterioration degree of the battery with respect to an amount of charge and discharge of the battery. {The capacity retention, used as an index of battery deterioration, is affected by the amount of charge or discharge, including total charge current and number of charge/discharge cycles (paragraphs 0006, 0091, 0092, 0096).}
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim teaches the limitations set forth above. Kurimoto further discloses:
the deterioration degree of the battery includes a deterioration degree of the battery depending on time. {Time-based deterioration is one of the key factors contributing to battery deterioration, independent of user behavior or charge/discharge activity (paragraphs 0090, 0094).}
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim teaches the limitations set forth above. Kurimoto further discloses:
the deterioration degree of the battery includes a deterioration degree of the battery related to a charging mode of the battery. {Different charging modes (e.g., normal charging vs timer charging) affect the progression of battery deterioration. The system evaluates and provides feedback based on the user’s selected charging mode, recognizing its impact on battery health (paragraphs 0165, 0170, 0173).}
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim, in further view of Reeves (US 20210091439).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, while the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
the deterioration degree of the battery includes a deterioration degree of the battery related to an electricity cost of the electric vehicle.
However, Reeves, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a vehicle battery pack designed for use in a battery exchange system, teaches:
the deterioration degree of the battery includes a deterioration degree of the battery related to an electricity cost of the electric vehicle. {Battery wear or degradation is quantified during vehicle use and directly factored into the total cost of battery energy, including electricity cost and the wear cost attributable to battery usage conditions (paragraphs 0027, 0029-0030, 0046, 0048).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim to include the battery data collection and analysis of Reeves, to accurately track battery wear during the useful life of the battery. (see paragraph 0006 of Reeves).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim in further view of Ropel (US 20240144747).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, while the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
the deterioration degree of the battery includes a deterioration degree of the battery related to equipment provided in the electric vehicle.
However, Ropel, in a similar field of endeavor directed to facilitating mitigating degradation of a battery located on an electric vehicle, teaches:
the deterioration degree of the battery includes a deterioration degree of the battery related to equipment provided in the electric vehicle. {The vehicle may disable equipment, such as air conditioner, to mitigate further degradation. This indicates that operation of vehicle equipment contributes to battery deterioration. Also, “operation of the battery modules can be controlled to provide power to a first vehicle component (e.g., a high value component) while ceasing power to a second vehicle component (e.g., a low value component), e.g., to enable a journey to be completed, to lessen degradation of a module(s), and the like.” (emphasis added) (paragraphs 0074, 0158).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Kurimoto, Xu, and Kim to include the EV battery performance review features of Ropel, to improve state-of-charge (SOC), state-of-health (SOH), and the like, at the battery. (see paragraph 0002 of Ropel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/25/2026 have been carefully considered.
Claim Objections
Claim objections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112
The original §112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, examiner directs applicant to the analysis above.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to patentability under 35 U.S.C. §103 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.
Regarding any arguments concerning the dependent claims, examiner notes that they are predicated on the independent claims, which have been amended. For the same reason as above, these arguments are moot. Examiner directs applicant’s attention to the claim analysis above.
In summary, examiner has responded to all arguments and found them unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights