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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 1, 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-210083, filed on December 27, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 1, 2023 and December 12, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 7-8, “an unauthorized manner” should read “the unauthorized manner”.
Claim 2, lines 6-7, “an unauthorized manner” should read “the unauthorized manner”.
Claim 4, line 3, “unauthorized replacement” should read “the unauthorized replacement”.
Claim 4, lines 4-5, “an unauthorized manner” should read “the unauthorized manner”.
Claim 5, line 4, “an unauthorized manner” should read “the unauthorized manner”.
Claim 6, line 2, “an unauthorized manner” should read “the unauthorized manner”.
Claim 9, line 10, “replacement of the power storage device” should read “the replacement of the power storage device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“one or more storage devices” in claim 7.
“electronic control device” in claims 8-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 9, the limitation “the data recorded immediately before start of the electronic control device” at lines 10-11 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a data recorded immediately before start of the electronic control device”.
Further, the limitation “the data recorded immediately after the start” at line 11 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a data recorded immediately after the start”.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claim (claim 1) recites the limitation of “determining whether a power storage device provided in a vehicle has been replaced” and “determining whether replacement of the power storage device has been performed in an unauthorized manner when a determination that the power storage device has been replaced is made, wherein the determining as to whether the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner includes determining whether the replacement has been performed at an authorized site”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and determines whether a power storage device provided in a vehicle has been replaced; determines whether replacement of the power storage device has been performed in an unauthorized manner; and determines whether the replacement has been performed at an authorized site. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply determining whether a power storage device provided in a vehicle has been replaced; and determining whether replacement of the power storage device has been performed in an unauthorized manner when a determination that the power storage device has been replaced is made, wherein the determining as to whether the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner includes determining whether the replacement has been performed at an authorized site in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-7 depend from claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, in claim 2, the additional limitations of “acquiring data about the power storage device measured in the vehicle” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The “determining whether the power storage device has been replaced based on whether the data have become discontinuous” and “determining whether the replacement has been performed in an authorized manner based on whether a position of the vehicle at a time when the data have become discontinuous is the authorized site” are further steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by a human using a pen and paper using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). As a further example, in claim 6, the “notifying a user of the vehicle to suggest replacing an unauthorized power storage device attached to the vehicle through unauthorized replacement and charging the user of the vehicle a cost for replacement of the unauthorized power storage device” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As such, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meißner et al., US 2021/0392416 A1, hereinafter referred to as Meißner.
As to claim 1, Meißner teaches a vehicle management method comprising:
determining whether a power storage device provided in a vehicle has been replaced (see at least paragraphs 170 regarding identifying a vehicle battery replacement event or other state-related event for the vehicle battery 6. For example, the data 32 may be monitored over time to build up one or more voltage profiles for the battery 6. Changes in the battery voltage profile may then be used to identify when the battery 6 in a vehicle 4 has been replaced or another state-related event has occurred); and
determining whether replacement of the power storage device has been performed in an unauthorized manner when a determination that the power storage device has been replaced is made (see at least paragraph 118 regarding the time and/or date of an identified battery replacement event is also logged by a processor of the telematics device. Alongside the location of the battery replacement event, this temporal information may be transmitted to a server, e.g. for display to the fleet manager. … The fleet manager is therefore provided with real-time information as to the location of battery replacement events, and the fleet manager can therefore check that battery replacement events are taking place in approved facilities. Unwanted and unauthorised battery replacement events may therefore be detected in a location which deviates from a typical place, such as a garage or a roadside. See also at least paragraphs 170-171 regarding determining the current location of the vehicle to which the TCU 10 is connected. This location data may also be sent from the TCU 10 to the external server 16, and the location of any battery-related events may therefore also be determined, for example allowing a fleet manager to check if a battery was replaced at an approved location), wherein
the determining as to whether the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner includes determining whether the replacement has been performed at an authorized site (see at least paragraph 118 regarding the time and/or date of an identified battery replacement event is also logged by a processor of the telematics device. Alongside the location of the battery replacement event, this temporal information may be transmitted to a server, e.g. for display to the fleet manager. … The fleet manager is therefore provided with real-time information as to the location of battery replacement events, and the fleet manager can therefore check that battery replacement events are taking place in approved facilities. Unwanted and unauthorised battery replacement events may therefore be detected in a location which deviates from a typical place, such as a garage or a roadside. See also at least paragraphs 170-171 regarding determining the current location of the vehicle to which the TCU 10 is connected. This location data may also be sent from the TCU 10 to the external server 16, and the location of any battery-related events may therefore also be determined, for example allowing a fleet manager to check if a battery was replaced at an approved location).
As to claim 2, Meißner teaches wherein: the determining as to whether the power storage device has been replaced includes
acquiring data about the power storage device measured in the vehicle (see at least Abstract regarding receiving vehicle battery voltage measurements from a telematics device (10) connected to or incorporating a voltage monitoring unit for the vehicle battery (6); and one or more processors (18) configured to process the vehicle battery voltage measurements. The processor(s) (18) monitor the voltage measurements in a first time window corresponding to an engine off state and assess when the voltage measurements in the first time window indicate a step change in voltage magnitude at a given time. See also at least paragraphs 87-89), and
determining whether the power storage device has been replaced based on whether the data have become discontinuous (see at least Abstract regarding receiving vehicle battery voltage measurements from a telematics device (10) connected to or incorporating a voltage monitoring unit for the vehicle battery (6); and one or more processors (18) configured to process the vehicle battery voltage measurements. The processor(s) (18) monitor the voltage measurements in a first time window corresponding to an engine off state and assess when the voltage measurements in the first time window indicate a step change in voltage magnitude at a given time. The step change is then used to automatically identify a vehicle battery replacement event. See also at least paragraphs 87-89 regarding registering an interruption in the power supply from the battery and assessing whether the step change at a given time coincides with the interruption in the power supply to verify the battery replacement event); and
the determining as to whether the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner includes determining whether the replacement has been performed in an authorized manner based on whether a position of the vehicle at a time when the data have become discontinuous is the authorized site (see at least paragraphs 117-118 regarding the time and/or date of an identified battery replacement event is also logged by a processor of the telematics device. Alongside the location of the battery replacement event, this temporal information may be transmitted to a server, e.g. for display to the fleet manager. The fleet manger may therefore build up over time an overview of where and when battery replacement events occur. As mentioned above, any of the methods disclosed herein may further comprise: generating a notification of a battery replacement event or other state-related event. In at least some embodiments, the method further comprises: transmitting the notification to one or more display devices associated with the vehicle (optionally via the telematics device), with a driver of the vehicle (e.g. a driver's mobile device), and/or with a vehicle fleet manager (e.g. a fleet manager display device). When a battery replacement event occurs, the fleet manager may be provided with a notification via Mail/Web notification or via SMS. The fleet manager is therefore provided with real-time information as to the location of battery replacement events, and the fleet manager can therefore check that battery replacement events are taking place in approved facilities. Unwanted and unauthorised battery replacement events may therefore be detected in a location which deviates from a typical place, such as a garage or a roadside).
As to claim 4, Meißner teaches executing at least one of processes of recording that unauthorized replacement has been performed, making a notification that unauthorized replacement has been performed, and restricting use of the vehicle when a determination that the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner is made (see at least paragraphs 117-118 regarding generating a notification of a battery replacement event or other state-related event. In at least some embodiments, the method further comprises: transmitting the notification to one or more display devices associated with the vehicle (optionally via the telematics device), with a driver of the vehicle (e.g. a driver's mobile device), and/or with a vehicle fleet manager (e.g. a fleet manager display device). When a battery replacement event occurs, the fleet manager may be provided with a notification via Mail/Web notification or via SMS. The fleet manager is therefore provided with real-time information as to the location of battery replacement events, and the fleet manager can therefore check that battery replacement events are taking place in approved facilities. Unwanted and unauthorised battery replacement events may therefore be detected in a location which deviates from a typical place, such as a garage or a roadside. The Examiner notes that Meißner teaches “making a notification that unauthorized replacement has been performed” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, and the “making a notification that unauthorized replacement has been performed” reads on the entire limitation).
As to claim 7, Meißner teaches a computer system comprising:
one or more processors (see at least Abstract regarding one or more processors. See also at least paragraphs 167-168); and
one or more storage devices configured to store a program that causes the one or more processors to execute the vehicle management method according to claim 1 (see at least paragraphs 144 and 167-168).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meißner et al., US 2021/0392416 A1, hereinafter referred to as Meißner, in view of KIM et al., US 2025/0175026 A1, hereinafter referred to as KIM, respectively.
As to claim 3, Meißner does not explicitly teach wherein the data about the power storage device includes remaining stored power amount data that indicate transitions in a remaining stored power amount of the power storage device; or the determining as to whether the power storage device has been replaced includes determining whether the remaining stored power amount data have become discontinuous based on whether the remaining stored power amount data include a time when the remaining stored power amount of the power storage device is increased by a predetermined amount or more while the power storage device is not being charged.
However, KIM teaches wherein the data about the power storage device includes remaining stored power amount data that indicate transitions in a remaining stored power amount of the power storage device (see at least paragraph 68-72 regarding identifying the remaining battery capacity set in the first table 610 as, e.g., 50 mAh when the identified recharge entry time is measured as 40 minutes after being measured as a time exceeding, e.g., 40 minutes (min). See also at least paragraph 80); and the determining as to whether the power storage device has been replaced includes determining whether the remaining stored power amount data have become discontinuous based on whether the remaining stored power amount data include a time when the remaining stored power amount of the power storage device is increased by a predetermined amount or more while the power storage device is not being charged (see at least paragraph 68-72. See also at least paragraph 80 regarding when the remaining battery capacity value of the other electronic device (e.g., the first electronic device 201a) has no change as compared with the remaining capacity value identified at the time of being manufactured or shipped out or is increased over the previously identified remaining battery capacity, the electronic device 201a may identify that the other electronic device is a newly replaced one or has its battery replaced with a new battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of KIM which teaches wherein the data about the power storage device includes remaining stored power amount data that indicate transitions in a remaining stored power amount of the power storage device; and the determining as to whether the power storage device has been replaced includes determining whether the remaining stored power amount data have become discontinuous based on whether the remaining stored power amount data include a time when the remaining stored power amount of the power storage device is increased by a predetermined amount or more while the power storage device is not being charged with the system of Meißner as both systems are directed to a system and method for monitoring voltage measurements and determining the state of a battery, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the data about the power storage device includes remaining stored power amount data that indicate transitions in a remaining stored power amount of the power storage device; and determining whether the remaining stored power amount data have become discontinuous based on whether the remaining stored power amount data include a time when the remaining stored power amount of the power storage device is increased by a predetermined amount or more while the power storage device is not being charged and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Meißner.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meißner et al., US 2021/0392416 A1, hereinafter referred to as Meißner, in view of FUJITA et al., JP 2021077448 A, hereinafter referred to as FUJITA, respectively.
As to claim 5, Meißner does not explicitly teach setting an upper limit value that restricts output power of an unauthorized power storage device attached to the vehicle through unauthorized replacement when a determination that the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner is made.
However, such matter is taught by FUJITA (see at least paragraphs 92-95 regarding the fraud determination unit 268 determines, for example, whether the odometer value acquired at a predetermined interval is continuously increasing (step S102). If it is determined that the battery charge continues to increase, the acquisition unit 264 acquires the usage history of the detachable battery 100 (step S104). Next, the fraud determination unit 268 determines whether the increase in the odometer value is less than a threshold value derived based on the usage history of the detachable battery 100 (step S106). If it is determined in the processing of step S102 that the odometer value acquired at a predetermined timing is not continuously increasing, if it is determined in the processing of step S106 that the increase in the odometer value is not less than a threshold value (is equal to or greater than the threshold value), or if it is determined in the processing of step S110 that the difference between the actual electricity consumption information and the electricity consumption information is not less than a predetermined value (is equal to or greater than the predetermined value), the fraud determination unit 268 determines that the detachable battery 100 has been fraudulently used (step S116)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of FUJITA which teaches setting an upper limit value that restricts output power of an unauthorized power storage device attached to the vehicle through unauthorized replacement when a determination that the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner is made with the system of Meißner as both systems are directed to a system and method for monitoring voltage measurements and determining the state of a battery, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of setting an upper limit value that restricts output power of an unauthorized power storage device attached to the vehicle through unauthorized replacement when a determination that the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner is made and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Meißner.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meißner et al., US 2021/0392416 A1, hereinafter referred to as Meißner, in view of FUJITA et al., JP 2021077448 A, hereinafter referred to as FUJITA, and further in view of FUJIWARA, US 2012/0050054 A1, hereinafter referred to as FUJIWARA, respectively.
As to claim 6, Meißner does not explicitly teach when a determination that the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner is made, charging the user of the vehicle a cost for replacement of the unauthorized power storage device.
However, such matter is taught by FUJITA (see at least paragraph 91 regarding if the fraud determination unit 268 determines that the removable battery 100 has been used fraudulently, the replacement control unit 262 causes the display unit 235 to display information (warning information) indicating that the battery has been used fraudulently. The exchange control unit 262 also controls the user to temporarily or permanently prohibit the lending of the charged detachable battery 100, or to impose a predetermined penalty on the user, such as making the user pay a fine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of FUJITA which teaches charging the user of the vehicle a cost for replacement of the unauthorized power storage device when a determination that the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner is made with the system of Meißner as both systems are directed to a system and method for monitoring voltage measurements and determining the state of a battery, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of charging the user of the vehicle a cost for replacement of the unauthorized power storage device when a determination that the replacement has been performed in an unauthorized manner is made and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Meißner.
Meißner, as modified by FUJITA, does not explicitly teach notifying a user of the vehicle to suggest replacing an unauthorized power storage device attached to the vehicle through unauthorized replacement.
However, such matter is taught by FUJIWARA (see at least paragraphs 75-90 regarding a message that encourages the user of the vehicle 10 to stop the use of the non-compliant battery and to switch to a compliant battery is transmitted. This message is displayed on the display unit 15 of the vehicle 10 or on a cellular phone of the user. In other words, step 52 serves as a contact unit in the organization for sending a message that advises the user of the vehicle 10 to use a compliant battery, based on the recorded information in the recording device. A message is transmitted from the administrative organization to the vehicle manufacturer of the vehicle 10. This message is transmitted from the server ADOS 26 to the server VHMS 24, and is recorded to the recording device of the server VHMS 24. The message may look like "A non-compliant battery is used in a vehicle "A (i.e., a vehicle's proper name)" of your company, which should only use an authenticated standard battery. Advise the vehicle owner to replace the non-compliant battery at owner's earliest convenience, and advise vehicle maintenance stations to use compliant batteries only." This message is for notifying the vehicle manufacturer of the vehicle 10 about the use of the abnormal battery in the vehicle 10. This message advises the vehicle manufacturer to take necessary measures to correct the abnormal condition regarding the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of FUJIWARA which teaches notifying a user of the vehicle to suggest replacing an unauthorized power storage device attached to the vehicle through unauthorized replacement with the system of Meißner, as modified by FUJITA, as both systems are directed to a system and method for monitoring parameters of a battery and determining the state of the battery, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of notifying a user of the vehicle to suggest replacing an unauthorized power storage device attached to the vehicle through unauthorized replacement and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Meißner as modified by FUJITA.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meißner et al., US 2021/0392416 A1, hereinafter referred to as Meißner, in view of ITO et al., US 2021/0024099 A1, hereinafter referred to as ITO, respectively.
As to claim 8, Meißner teaches a vehicle management system comprising:
a vehicle that includes a power storage device and an electronic control device (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 167-168 regarding the vehicle 4 includes an internal combustion engine or electric engine 5, a battery 6 and an alternator (or DC-DC converter for an electric engine) 8 which can charge the battery 6 during operation of the vehicle 4. The TCU 10 also comprises a voltage monitoring unit 29, processor 26, memory 28, GPS receiver 30, and transceiver 14 for external communications, Meißner); and
a server configured to communicate with the vehicle (see at least FIG.1 and paragraphs 167-168 regarding a telematics device in the form of a telematics control unit (TCU) 10 is plugged into the OBD port 9 and is in communication with an external server 16 which receives the vehicle battery information, Meißner), wherein
the electronic control device is configured to
measure and record data about the power storage device (see at least paragraphs 167-169 regarding the data 32 including battery voltage measurements may be collected during different phases of an engine cycle such as when the vehicle 4 is not in operation (engine off state), during cranking (for an ICE vehicle) or start-up (for EVs) of the engine 5, or during normal operation whilst driving (engine on state). Ideally the battery voltage measurements are obtained regularly so as to monitor the vehicle battery at all times, regardless of vehicle use. Battery voltage measurements are obtained by the voltage monitoring unit 29, Meißner),
determine whether the data have become discontinuous because of replacement of the power storage device (see at least paragraphs 167-172 regarding monitoring the voltage of a vehicle battery (e.g. in an ICE vehicle) before and after a power disconnect event. In this example the TCU 10 is powered by the vehicle battery 6, in which case the TCU 10 will not send any data 32 to the external server 16 to be used for battery voltage profiling when the battery is removed. Upon replacement of the battery 6, the TCU 10 will again begin to send data 32 to the sever 16; there will therefore be a first battery voltage profile 38 prior to the power disconnect (i.e. interruption) and a second battery voltage profile 40 after the power disconnect (i.e. interruption) when the (same or different) battery 6 has been replaced, Meißner), and
transmit a signal that indicates a position of the vehicle at a time when the data have become discontinuous to the server when a determination that the data have become discontinuous is made (see at least paragraph 118 regarding the time and/or date of an identified battery replacement event is also logged by a processor of the telematics device. See also at least paragraphs 167-173 regarding once collected by the TCU 10, the data 32 which is sent to the external server 16 may be processed and analysed using algorithms and machine learning to automatically identify a vehicle battery replacement event or other state-related event for the vehicle battery 6. The GPS receiver 30 may be used to determine the current location of the vehicle to which the TCU 10 is connected. This location data may also be sent from the TCU 10 to the external server 16, and the location of any battery-related events may therefore also be determined, for example allowing a fleet manager to check if a battery was replaced at an approved location. Upon replacement of the battery 6, the TCU 10 will again begin to send data 32 to the sever 16; there will therefore be a first battery voltage profile 38 prior to the power disconnect (i.e. interruption) and a second battery voltage profile 40 after the power disconnect (i.e. interruption) when the (same or different) battery 6 has been replaced, Meißner), and
the server is configured to
determine whether the position of the vehicle indicated by the signal is an authorized site determined in advance when the signal is received (see at least paragraph 118 regarding the time and/or date of an identified battery replacement event is also logged by a processor of the telematics device. Alongside the location of the battery replacement event, this temporal information may be transmitted to a server, e.g. for display to the fleet manager. … The fleet manager is therefore provided with real-time information as to the location of battery replacement events, and the fleet manager can therefore check that battery replacement events are taking place in approved facilities. Unwanted and unauthorised battery replacement events may therefore be detected in a location which deviates from a typical place, such as a garage or a roadside. See also at least paragraphs 167-173 regarding determining the current location of the vehicle to which the TCU 10 is connected. This location data may also be sent from the TCU 10 to the external server 16, and the location of any battery-related events may therefore also be determined, for example allowing a fleet manager to check if a battery was replaced at an approved location, Meißner).
Meißner does not explicitly teach restricting use of the vehicle when the position of the vehicle indicated by the signal is not the authorized site.
However, such matter is taught by ITO (see at least paragraphs 77-78 regarding when, for example, the prohibited area R is stored in the storage device of the car navigation system 28 and the control unit of the car navigation system 28 determines that the current location of the vehicle 14 has entered the prohibited area R based on the positioning signal, the control unit 12 stops the control of the traveling of the vehicle 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of ITO which teaches restricting use of the vehicle when the position of the vehicle indicated by the signal is not the authorized site with the system of Meißner as both systems are directed to a system for monitoring and controlling vehicle operations based on the real-time data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of restricting use of the vehicle when the position of the vehicle indicated by the signal is not the authorized site and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Meißner.
As to claim 10, Meißner teaches a vehicle management system comprising:
a vehicle that includes a power storage device and an electronic control device (see at least FIGS. 1-2 and paragraphs 167-168 regarding the vehicle 4 includes an internal combustion engine or electric engine 5, a battery 6 and an alternator (or DC-DC converter for an electric engine) 8 which can charge the battery 6 during operation of the vehicle 4. The TCU 10 also comprises a voltage monitoring unit 29, processor 26, memory 28, GPS receiver 30, and transceiver 14 for external communications, Meißner); and
a server configured to communicate with the vehicle (see at least FIG.1 and paragraphs 167-168 regarding a telematics device in the form of a telematics control unit (TCU) 10 is plugged into the OBD port 9 and is in communication with an external server 16 which receives the vehicle battery information, Meißner), wherein
the electronic control device is configured to transmit, to the server, a measurement result of each of data about the power storage device and a position of the vehicle together with a measurement time (see at least paragraph 118 regarding the time and/or date of an identified battery replacement event is also logged by a processor of the telematics device. See also at least paragraphs 167-173 regarding once collected by the TCU 10, the data 32 which is sent to the external server 16 may be processed and analysed using algorithms and machine learning to automatically identify a vehicle battery replacement event or other state-related event for the vehicle battery 6. The GPS receiver 30 may be used to determine the current location of the vehicle to which the TCU 10 is connected. This location data may also be sent from the TCU 10 to the external server 16, and the location of any battery-related events may therefore also be determined, for example allowing a fleet manager to check if a battery was replaced at an approved location. Upon replacement of the battery 6, the TCU 10 will again begin to send data 32 to the sever 16; there will therefore be a first battery voltage profile 38 prior to the power disconnect (i.e. interruption) and a second battery voltage profile 40 after the power disconnect (i.e. interruption) when the (same or different) battery 6 has been replaced, Meißner), and
the server is configured to
save the data about the power storage device and the position of the vehicle received from the vehicle together with the measurement time (see at least paragraph 114 regarding the battery voltage measurements transmitted from the telematics device to the server may be stored before being processed according to the methods disclosed herein. In embodiments the method may comprise receiving the battery voltage measurements from the telematics device, and storing battery voltage measurements in a database for use in the methods described herein. The step of obtaining battery voltage measurements may then comprise obtaining the data from the database. It will be appreciated that the battery voltage measurements may be received and stored in a database at a first server and then obtained from the database by another server which implements the methods described herein, or the first server may both receive and store the battery voltage measurements and then carry out the processing according to the methods disclosed herein. See also at least paragraphs 167-173, Meißner),
determine whether the saved data about the power storage device have become discontinuous because of replacement of the power storage device (see at least paragraphs 167-173 regarding monitoring the voltage of a vehicle battery (e.g. in an ICE vehicle) before and after a power disconnect event. In this example the TCU 10 is powered by the vehicle battery 6, in which case the TCU 10 will not send any data 32 to the external server 16 to be used for battery voltage profiling when the battery is removed. Upon replacement of the battery 6, the TCU 10 will again begin to send data 32 to the sever 16; there will therefore be a first battery voltage profile 38 prior to the power disconnect (i.e. interruption) and a second battery voltage profile 40 after the power disconnect (i.e. interruption) when the (same or different) battery 6 has been replaced, Meißner),
determine whether the position of the vehicle at a time when the data have become discontinuous is an authorized site determined in advance when a determination that the data have become discontinuous (see at least paragraph 118 regarding the time and/or date of an identified battery replacement event is also logged by a processor of the telematics device. Alongside the location of the battery replacement event, this temporal information may be transmitted to a server, e.g. for display to the fleet manager. … The fleet manager is therefore provided with real-time information as to the location of battery replacement events, and the fleet manager can therefore check that battery replacement events are taking place in approved facilities. Unwanted and unauthorised battery replacement events may therefore be detected in a location which deviates from a typical place, such as a garage or a roadside. See also at least paragraphs 167-173 regarding determining the current location of the vehicle to which the TCU 10 is connected. This location data may also be sent from the TCU 10 to the external server 16, and the location of any battery-related events may therefore also be determined, for example allowing a fleet manager to check if a battery was replaced at an approved location, Meißner).
Meißner does not explicitly teach restricting use of the vehicle when the position of the vehicle at the time when the data have become discontinuous is not the authorized site.
However, such matter is taught by ITO (see at least paragraphs 77-78 regarding when, for example, the prohibited area R is stored in the storage device of the car navigation system 28 and the control unit of the car navigation system 28 determines that the current location of the vehicle 14 has entered the prohibited area R based on the positioning signal, the control unit 12 stops the control of the traveling of the vehicle 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of ITO which teaches restricting use of the vehicle when the position of the vehicle at the time when the data have become discontinuous is not the authorized site with the system of Meißner as both systems are directed to a system for monitoring and controlling vehicle operations based on the real-time data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of restricting use of the vehicle when the position of the vehicle at the time when the data have become discontinuous is not the authorized site and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Meißner.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meißner et al., US 2021/0392416 A1, hereinafter referred to as Meißner, in view of ITO et al., US 2021/0024099 A1, hereinafter referred to as ITO, and further in view of MIYASATO et al., JP 2020043689 A, hereinafter referred to as MIYASATO, respectively.
As to claim 9, Meißner teaches wherein the vehicle is configured to travel using power output from the power storage device (see at least paragraph 79 regarding Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) have two types of batteries: a high-voltage battery pack which is responsible for delivering power to the drivetrain, Meißner);
the vehicle further includes an auxiliary battery that supplies power to a power source circuit of the electronic control device (see at least paragraph 79 regarding a low-voltage (12V or 24V) battery which powers the electric components (lights, electronic systems, etc.), Meißner); and
when the electronic control device is brought into a stopped state with the auxiliary battery disconnected from the power source circuit and thereafter the electronic control device is started with the auxiliary battery connected to the power source circuit again, the electronic control device determines whether the data have become discontinuous because of replacement of the power storage device by comparing the data recorded immediately before start of the electronic control device and the data recorded immediately after the start (see at least paragraphs 99-101 regarding building up voltage profiles during engine off periods, and optionally during engine start-up/driving periods, and comparing voltage profiles before and after the given time of the step change. A statistical comparison can be made to identify discernible changes that verify a battery replacement event occurred at the given time. However, it has been found that determining one or more voltage profiles is not essential. The method may simply assess when the voltage measurements indicate a step change in voltage magnitude by determining a mean or average resting voltage in the first time window (i.e. when the vehicle is in an engine off state). Taking into account that the voltage measurements in the first time window typically fall in magnitude from an initial value to a minimal resting voltage after a certain rest period (as the surface charge accumulated during driving wears off), this approach may look at a mean value for the minimal resting voltage. What is meant by the minimal resting voltage is the minimum value measured for the resting voltage in any given instance of the first time period, i.e. in any given resting period when the engine is off. Thus, in one or more embodiments, monitoring the voltage measurements in the first time window comprises: determining a minimal resting voltage in each instance of the first time window, calculating a mean value for the minimal resting voltage from multiple instances of the first time window, and assessing when there is a step change in the mean value. As is described above, a step change may be assessed as a change of at least 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, or more. Optionally, the step change in the mean value is compared with a threshold value to determine whether to automatically identify a battery replacement event. The threshold value may be a preset value (e.g. 0.5 V or 1.0 V for a 12 V battery) or a value that is set dynamically based on the mean value at any given time, Meißner).
Meißner, as modified by ITO, does not explicitly teach the power storage device is configured to supply power to the auxiliary battery.
However, such matter is taught by MIYASATO (see at least paragraph 26 regarding the control system for the vehicle Ve shown in FIG. 1 is configured to periodically supply power from the main battery 6 to the auxiliary battery 7 to charge the auxiliary battery 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MIYASATO which teaches the power storage device is configured to supply power to the auxiliary battery with the system of Meißner, as modified by ITO, as both systems are directed to a system and method for monitoring battery data and determining the status of the battery based on the battery data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having the power storage device is configured to supply power to the auxiliary battery and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Meißner as modified by ITO.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Unagami et al. (US 20140129829 A1) regarding a system for detecting an unauthorized charge/discharge device.
Verheijen et al. (US 20220026492 A1) regarding a system for determining a state of health (SOH) and state of charge (SOC) of the battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666