DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to an Abstract Idea.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 1 is directed to a method/process and an apparatus, which falls within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Claim 1 is directed to an Abstract Idea, specifically, mathematical concepts and mental processes. The claim recites the steps:
generating information,
converting information,
transmitting information,
receiving information
determining whether another device is legitimate.
These steps involve mathematical calculations and evaluations that can be performed in
the human mind or with a pen and paper, including:
collecting data (generating information),
analyzing data (converting and comparing information), and
making a determination (determining whether the device is legitimate).
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception in the form of mathematical concepts
and mental processes.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claim recites, “encryption processing,” this additional element merely applies the Abstract Idea using generic components and does not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
The claims do not require:
an EV,
battery charging
electrical control
preventing charging
modifying hardware operation.
The recited encryption processing step is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to applying the Abstract Idea in a generic technical environment.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Prong 2: Additional elements
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements include:
a public key
a confirmation apparatus
an encryption processing unit
a storing unit
These elements are recited a high level of generality and represent well understood,
routine, conventional activities in the relevant field of electric vehicle charging and data processing.
Taken individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add a specific limitation beyond the Abstract Idea that is not well understood, routine and conventional.
Hence, claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are not patent eligible.
These claims are recited at a high level of generality and perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing, transmitting, receiving, processing and displaying information. These elements merely implement the Abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1 and 20 recite the limitations “first information…second information…third information…fourth information…fifth information…sixth information…seventh” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should recite, “ a first information…a second information…a third information…a fourth information…a fifth information…a sixth information…a seventh information”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a third information" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no corresponding “a first information” or “a second information” to require “a third information”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "fifth information" in line 8.. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should recite, “a fifth information.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a third information" in line 8.. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no corresponding “a first information” or “a second information” to require “a third information.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 18, 20 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 11-16, 18, 22 – 28, 30, 32, and 34 of copending Application No. 18/878/067 USPG 20250391934 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are covered by the reference claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Application: 18547699
USPGPUB: 20250391934
Claim 1:
A confirmation method for confirming, by a confirmation apparatus, whether a to-be-confirmed apparatus is a legitimate apparatus, the confirmation method comprising: converting first information based on second information to generate third information; transmitting the third information to the to-be-confirmed apparatus; receiving, from the to-be-confirmed apparatus, (i) fifth information generated through inverse conversion, by the to-be-confirmed apparatus, of the third information based on fourth information paired with the second information or (ii) sixth information generated through information processing, by the to-be-confirmed apparatus, on the fifth information in accordance with a predetermined first algorithm; and (a) comparing the first information with the fifth information if the fifth information is received, or (b) if the sixth information is received, (i) comparing seventh information to be generated through information processing on the first information in accordance with the first algorithm with the sixth information or (ii) comparing the first information with eighth information to be generated through information processing on the sixth information in accordance with a second algorithm related to the first algorithm.
Claim 2:
An information processing method comprising:
performing first confirmation by confirming, by a first apparatus, whether or not a second apparatus is a legitimate apparatus; and performing second confirmation by confirming, by the second apparatus, whether or not the first apparatus is a legitimate apparatus.
Claim 1:
A confirmation method for confirming, by a confirmation apparatus, whether a to-be-confirmed apparatus is a legitimate apparatus, the confirmation method comprising: converting first information based on second information to generate third information; transmitting the third information to the to-be-confirmed apparatus; receiving, from the to-be-confirmed apparatus, (i) fifth information generated through inverse conversion, by the to-be-confirmed apparatus, of the third information based on fourth information paired with the second information or (ii) sixth information generated through information processing, by the to-be-confirmed apparatus, on the fifth information in accordance with a predetermined first algorithm; and (a) comparing the first information with the fifth information if the fifth information is received, or (b) if the sixth information is received, (i) comparing seventh information to be generated through information processing on the first information in accordance with the first algorithm with the sixth information or (ii) comparing the first information with eighth information to be generated through information processing on the sixth information in accordance with a second algorithm related to the first algorithm.
Claim 9:
The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the performing the first confirmation has:
generating, by the first apparatus, third information by converting first information based on second information; transmitting, by the first apparatus, the third information to the second apparatus; receiving, by the first apparatus, from the second apparatus, (i) fifth information generated by the second apparatus by inversely converting the third information based on fourth information paired with the second information or (ii) sixth information generated by the second apparatus by performing information processing on the fifth information in accordance with a predetermined first algorithm; and (a) comparing, by the first apparatus, the first information with the fifth information if the fifth information is received; or (b) (i) comparing, by the first apparatus, seventh information to be generated by performing information processing on the first information in accordance with the first algorithm with the sixth information or (ii) comparing, by the first apparatus, the first information with eighth information to be generated by performing information processing on the sixth information in accordance with a second algorithm related to the first algorithm, if the sixth information is received, and/or the performing the second confirmation has: generating, by the second apparatus, third information by converting first information based on second information; transmitting, by the second apparatus, the third information to the first apparatus; receiving, by the second apparatus, from the first apparatus, (i) fifth information generated by the first apparatus by inversely converting the third information based on fourth information paired with the second information or (ii) sixth information generated by the first apparatus by performing information processing on the fifth information in accordance with a predetermined first algorithm; and (a) comparing, by the second apparatus, the first information with the fifth information if the fifth information is received; or (b) (i) comparing, by the second apparatus, seventh information to be generated by performing information processing on the first information in accordance with the first algorithm with the sixth information or (ii) comparing, by the second apparatus, the first information with eighth information to be generated by performing information processing on the sixth information in accordance with a second algorithm related to the first algorithm, if the sixth information is received.
Claim 16:
A confirmation apparatus which confirms whether a to-be-confirmed apparatus is a legitimate apparatus, the confirmation apparatus comprising:a third information generation unit which converts first information based on second information to generate third information; a third information transmission unit which transmits the third information to the to-be-confirmed apparatus; a response reception unit which receives, from the to-be-confirmed apparatus, (i) fifth information generated through inverse conversion, by the to-be-confirmed apparatus, of the third information based on fourth information paired with the second information or (ii) sixth information generated through information processing, by the to-be- confirmed apparatus, on the fifth information in accordance with a predetermined first algorithm; and a comparison unit which (a) compares the first information with the fifth information if the fifth information is received, or (b) if the sixth information is received, (i) compares seventh information to be generated through information processing on the first information in accordance with the first algorithm with the sixth information or (ii) compares the first information with eighth information to be generated through information processing on the sixth information in accordance with a predetermined second algorithm.
Claim 22:
An information processing apparatus configured to be able to transmit and receive information to and from another information processing apparatus, the information processing apparatus comprising: a confirmation unit which confirms whether or not the another information processing apparatus is a legitimate apparatus; a confirmation information reception unit which receives, from the another information processing apparatus, confirmation information indicating that the another information processing apparatus is executing processing for confirming whether or not the information processing apparatus is a legitimate apparatus; and a certification information transmission unit which, if the confirmation information reception unit receives the confirmation information, transmits, to the another information processing apparatus, certification information indicating that the information processing apparatus is a legitimate apparatus.
Claim 20
A computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a program
that causes a computer to execute a confirmation method, wherein, the confirmation method is a method for confirming, by a confirmation apparatus, whether a to-be-confirmed apparatus is a legitimate apparatus, and the confirmation method includes: converting first information based on second information to generate third information; transmitting the third information to the to-be-confirmed apparatus; receiving, from the to-be-confirmed apparatus, (i) fifth information generated through inverse conversion, by the to-be-confirmed apparatus, of the third information based on fourth information paired with the second information or (ii) sixth information generated through information processing, by the to-be-confirmed apparatus, on the fifth information in accordance with a predetermined first algorithm; and (a) comparing the first information with the fifth information if the fifth information is received, or (b) if the sixth information is received, (i) comparing seventh information to be generated through information processing on the first information in accordance with the first algorithm with the sixth information or (ii) comparing the first information with eighth information to be generated through information processing on the sixth information in accordance with a second algorithm related to the first algorithm.
Claim 34:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program which causes a computer to execute: performing first confirmation by confirming, by a first apparatus, whether or not a second apparatus is a legitimate apparatus; and performing second confirmation by confirming, by the second apparatus, whether or not the first apparatus is a legitimate apparatus, and/or to execute: confirming, by an information processing apparatus configured to be able to transmit and receive information to and from another information processing apparatus, whether or not the another information processing apparatus is a legitimate apparatus; receiving, by the information processing apparatus, from the another information processing apparatus, confirmation information indicating that the another information processing apparatus is executing processing for confirming whether or not the information processing apparatus is a legitimate apparatus; and transmitting, by the information processing apparatus, to the another information processing apparatus, certification information indicating that the information processing apparatus is a legitimate apparatus, if the confirmation information is received in the receiving the confirmation information.
Dependent Claims 2-15, 17, 18, and 21 inherit and fail to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 16 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Us 10011181 B2 Vehicle-To-Vehicle Charging System Dudar; Aed M. Et Al.
Us 20200384879 A1 Battery Managing System Ebisu; Hiromitsu Et Al.
Us 10836269 B2 Parking Lot Bumper Inductive Charger Farkas; Michael
Us 20100274656 A1 Electric Energy Grid-Vehicle Exchange Genschel; Rainer Et Al.
Us 20160294206 A1 Authenticating Battery Pack Hiromasa T Et Al.
Us 20230069338 A1 Battery Swapping Method Huang; Zhenhui Et Al.
Us 20200126322 A1 Position Of Charging Station Kimura; Mitsuki
Us 20230264583 A1 Vehicle Recognition Lee; Zachary Jordan Et Al.
Us 20230015794 A1 Battery Exchange Method And System Liao; En-Yi Et Al.
Us 20100230188 A1 Exchangeable Battery Modules Nguyen; Tuan
Us 20170033408 A1 Portable And Modular Energy Storage O'hora; Gerard
Us 20210001744 A1 Battery Management System Suzuki; Daisuke
Us 20220383402 A1 Battery Management System Takemura; Masashi Et Al.
Us 20230219454 A1 Battery Swap Authentication Method Wang; Chao Et Al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights