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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment/response of 17 June 2026 and RCE of 23 July 2026.
Claims 1 and 5-18 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argued:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A . . . the features of amended independent claim 1 recites “[a] guidance system comprising . . . the electric vehicle comprises a GPS sensor configured to detect a position of the electric vehicle during travel, a vehicle speed sensor . . . and a vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) configured to transmit position information and speed information in real time to the guidance system via network . . . acquire, from a weather information server, first weather information of the first travel route . . . Therefore, these elements involve real-time sensor signals, battery telemetry, and temperature-dependent electrochemical behavior, none of which can be performed mentally. . . This is a technical battery model, not a mental process, since a human cannot mentally model electrochemical capacity degradation.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A . . . Applicant has shown a teaching in the specification that describes how the claimed invention system improves EV operation by preventing low-temperature-induced SOC loss . . . Furthermore, The amended claim 1 now explicitly ties route selection to: “reducing a risk of electricity shortage caused by temperature-dependent battery capacity reduction.” This is a technical improvement to EV operation, not mere data presentation. . . The recommended route is used by the ECU to adjust EV control systems. Thereby, the amended claim recites: “the recommended travel route is usable by the vehicle electronic control unit to adjust an energy consumption mode or a battery temperature control system.” This is a physical control action affecting: Battery heating, Energy consumption, and Charging behavior. . . Thus, the claimed features amount to improvement in the technology of information processing systems and therefore reflect a practical implementation of alleged judicial exception. . . Applicant respectfully submits that taking all the claim elements of amended independent claim 1, individually, and in combination, amended independent claim 1 as a whole amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
The Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts “Regarding Prong One of Step 2A . . . the features of amended independent claim 1 recites “[a] guidance system comprising . . . the electric vehicle comprises a GPS sensor configured to detect a position of the electric vehicle during travel, a vehicle speed sensor . . . and a vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) configured to transmit position information and speed information in real time to the guidance system via network . . . acquire, from a weather information server, first weather information of the first travel route . . . Therefore, these elements involve real-time sensor signals, battery telemetry, and temperature-dependent electrochemical behavior, none of which can be performed mentally. . . This is a technical battery model, not a mental process, since a human cannot mentally model electrochemical capacity degradation.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere nominal recitation of “at least one processor”, “GPS sensor”, “vehicle speed sensor”, “electric vehicle control unit”, “map information server” and “weather information server” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. These additional elements of “at least one processor”, “GPS sensor”, “vehicle speed sensor”, “electric vehicle control unit”, “map information server” and “weather information server” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer component(s). Further, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language because the “model electrochemical capacity degradation” is not apparently claimed.
Applicant asserts “Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A . . . Applicant has shown a teaching in the specification that describes how the claimed invention system improves EV operation by preventing low-temperature-induced SOC loss . . . Furthermore, The amended claim 1 now explicitly ties route selection to: “reducing a risk of electricity shortage caused by temperature-dependent battery capacity reduction.” This is a technical improvement to EV operation, not mere data presentation. . . The recommended route is used by the ECU to adjust EV control systems. Thereby, the amended claim recites: “the recommended travel route is usable by the vehicle electronic control unit to adjust an energy consumption mode or a battery temperature control system.” This is a physical control action affecting: Battery heating, Energy consumption, and Charging behavior. . . Thus, the claimed features amount to improvement in the technology of information processing systems and therefore reflect a practical implementation of alleged judicial exception. . . Applicant respectfully submits that taking all the claim elements of amended independent claim 1, individually, and in combination, amended independent claim 1 as a whole amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued improvements directed to “reducing a risk of electricity shortage caused by temperature-dependent battery capacity reduction” is apparently an improved process for reducing risk which would be an improved abstract idea and not sufficient to integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the limitation “wherein the recommended travel route is usable by the vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) to adjust an energy consumption mode or a battery temperature control system of the electric vehicle”, the limitation appears to be “apply it” limitation and is recited at a high-level of generality, since the limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to performing an existing process – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. Furthermore, applicant asserts “Integrating temperature-dependent battery degradation, Predicting SOC using corrected electric cost, Prioritizing routes to avoid low-temperature exposure, . . . Therefore, this combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued limitations are recited at a high-level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity, and would apparently encompass that which is well-understood, routine, conventional as indicated in applicant’s filed specification paragraphs [0002] – [0005]. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “wherein the prediction of the predicted state of charge includes correcting the electric cost based on a temperature-dependent battery capacity reduction characteristics of the secondary battery and an increase in electric power consumption in low temperature travel”, “score a number of passes through the one or more low temperature areas by referring to a function representing a temperature-dependent penalty” and “wherein the recommended travel route is usable by the vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) to adjust an energy consumption mode or a battery temperature control system of the electric vehicle” that are not supported by the original description, which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure. For example, the paragraphs that appear to somewhat address the concept that is similar to what is described in the claim have been found in paragraph [0048] “Note that SOC prediction unit 118 may correct the electric cost of electric vehicle 3 based on the predicted average temperature in the traveling on each travel route.”, paragraph [0043] “For example, for each of the plurality of travel routes, route priority determination unit 115 scores the number of passes through the low temperature area, the predicted SOC of battery pack 41 at the time of arrival at the destination, and the distance to the destination, and calculates the priority of each travel route by weighted averaging the plurality of scores” and paragraph [0087] “ . . . power supply system 40 in which the temperature control system is mounted, a change in battery temperature due to heating is reflected in the low temperature score, and an increase in power consumption due to heater operation is reflected in the SOC score. Therefore, guidance system 1 according to the present exemplary embodiment can be used as it is. By using guidance system 1 according to the present exemplary embodiment and the temperature control system in combination, power consumption of the temperature control system can be suppressed”. The applicant’s specification paragraph [0048] appears to describe correcting the electric cost based on the predicted average temperature and [0043] appears to describe scoring the number of passes through the low temperature area. Further, paragraph [0087] appears to describe the temperature control system of the electric vehicle; however, the specification does not appear to describe, in sufficient detail, “. . . correcting the electric cost based on a temperature-dependent battery capacity reduction characteristics of the secondary battery and an increase in electric power consumption in low temperature travel”, “score a number of passes through the one or more low temperature areas by referring to a “wherein the prediction of the predicted state of charge includes correcting the electric cost based on a temperature-dependent battery capacity reduction characteristics of the secondary battery and an increase in electric power consumption in low temperature travel”, “score a number of passes through the one or more low temperature areas by referring to a function representing a temperature-dependent penalty” and “wherein the recommended travel route is usable by the vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) to adjust an energy consumption mode or a battery temperature control system of the electric vehicle” are new matter and does not evidence that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 12, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 5-18 are 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 1, the claim recites “score the predicted state of charge of the secondary battery . . . representing a temperature-dependent battery characteristic”. It is unclear to the Examiner what the metes and bounds “a temperature-dependent battery characteristic” are from the teachings of the specification.
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 12, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “…detect a position of the electric vehicle during travel…”, “…detect a speed of the electric vehicle during travel…”, generate route guidance information based on first the travel route thus acquired and the first weather information thus acquired ”, “determine, based on the first weather information, whether one or more low temperatures areas including a temperature lower than a threshold value is present on the first travel route”, wherein in response to the at least one processor determining that said one or more low temperature areas in present on the first travel route”, “recommend a travel route with a smallest number of the one or more low temperature areas…”, “predict a predicted state of charge of the secondary battery at a time of arrival at a destination based on the current state of charge of the secondary battery…wherein the prediction of the predicted state of charge includes correcting the electric cost …”, “determine priorities of a plurality of travel routes, the plurality of travel routes including the first travel route and the one or more different travel routes, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: score a number of passes through the one or more low temperature areas…score the predicted state of charge of the secondary battery at the time of arrival at the destination…score the distance to the destination by referring to a third table in which a higher score is assigned…”, and “calculate a priority of each travel route of the plurality of travel routes by weighted averaging scores of the number of passes…” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (e.g. mental process) and/or mathematical concepts grouping (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and data structure). For example, “generate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person devising travel routes/guidance information based on collected data (e.g. weather information and travel route for an electric vehicle) and choosing a route with the highest priority (e.g. route with the least low temperature areas). The mere nominal recitation of a system, at least one processor, an electric vehicle, a GPS sensor, a vehicle speed sensor, vehicle electronic control unit, map information server, weather information server, display, or voice synthesis application does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping because they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such the claim recites at least one abstract idea (e.g. mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “acquire a first travel route of an electric vehicle that is equipped with a secondary battery, wherein”, “transmit position information and speed information in real time to the guidance system via a network”, “the first ravel route being acquired from a map information server based on the position information free of weather information”, “acquire, from a weather information server, first weather information on the first travel route”, “the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire, from the map information server, one or more different travel routes different from the first travel route”, “acquires, from the weather information server, weather information on the one or more different travel routes”, “transmit, via the network, the recommendation of the travel route to the vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) of the electric vehicle”, “wherein the route guidance information is subjected to at least one of a group consisting of: display on a display of the electric vehicle, conversion into a voice by a voice synthesis application to be output from a speaker, and transmission via the network to an operation management terminal device external to the electric vehicle”, and “wherein, the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire a current state of charge of the secondary battery mounted on the electric vehicle” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to mere pre– or post – solution actions (e.g. data gathering and outputting data), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As to the limitation “wherein the recommended travel route is usable by the vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) to adjust an energy consumption mode or a battery temperature control system of the vehicle”, the limitation appears to be “apply it” limitation, since the limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to performing an existing process – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “at least one processor”, “electric vehicle”, “GPS sensor”, “ vehicle speed sensor”, “ vehicle electronic control unit”, “ map information server”, “weather information server”, “display”, and “voice synthesis application” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer. The components merely automate the aforementioned steps and thus do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “acquire a first travel route of an electric vehicle that is equipped with a secondary battery, wherein”, “transmit position information and speed information in real time to the guidance system via a network”, “the first ravel route being acquired from a map information server based on the position information free of weather information”, “acquire, from a weather information server, first weather information on the first travel route”, “the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire, from the map information server, one or more different travel routes different from the first travel route”, “acquires, from the weather information server, weather information on the one or more different travel routes”, “transmit, via the network, the recommendation of the travel route to the vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) of the electric vehicle”, “wherein the route guidance information is subjected to at least one of a group consisting of: display on a display of the electric vehicle, conversion into a voice by a voice synthesis application to be output from a speaker, and transmission via the network to an operation management terminal device external to the electric vehicle”, and “wherein, the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire a current state of charge of the secondary battery mounted on the electric vehicle” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As to the limitation “wherein the recommended travel route is usable by the vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) to adjust an energy consumption mode or a battery temperature control system of the vehicle”, the limitation appears to be “apply it” limitation, since the limitation invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to performing an existing process – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “at least one processor”, “electric vehicle”, “GPS sensor”, “ vehicle speed sensor”, “ vehicle electronic control unit”, “ map information server”, “weather information server”, “display”, and “voice synthesis application” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions apply the exception using a general purpose or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11 and 12 , claim 11 recites a method, and claim 12 recites non-transitory machine-readable recording medium, both of which fall within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 11 and 12 recite similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claims are not eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1 . All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claims 5-10, and 13-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 5-10, and 13-18 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the limitation of claim 6 “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to correct,…, the predicted state of charge of the secondary battery at the time of arrival at the destination…” further the abstract idea.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights