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 Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 19 March 2026.
Claims 2-4 have been canceled.
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 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance (Step 2A-Prong 1): the feature amended independent claim 1 recites “the at least one processor is further configured to: acquire a current state of charge of the secondary battery mounted on the electric vehicle; 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 thus acquired, an electric cost of the electric vehicle, and a distance to the destination; … Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed subject matter inextricably requires physical objects such as "processor or computer (hardware)", "the GPS sensor", "vehicle speed sensor", "electric vehicle control unit", "map information server", and "weather information server" to dynamically acquire a state of charge of a battery associated with an electric vehicle, predict a future state of charge of the battery at a time of arrival at a destination of the electric vehicle, and further calculating weighted average scores of each of the possible travel routes of the electric vehicle, which are also not possible through a metal process. Therefore, the claimed invention is inextricably tied to a machine and does not represent "mental process". Therefore, the Applicant's claims are not similar to the alleged abstract idea.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, even if one were to arrive at a conclusion satisfying the Prong One of such analysis, assuming arguendo, to which the Applicant does not concede, the Applicant submits the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical implementation… Therefore, the claimed features provide technological improvements in the efficiency of "an electric vehicle" and the functionality of "a guidance system for electric vehicle". Accordingly, the Applicant has shown teachings in the Specification that describes a practical implementation of how power consumption by the electric vehicle is decreased and battery charging of the electric vehicle is improved by acquiring a future (predicted) state of charge of the battery of electric vehicle, determining multiple routes and corresponding weather information from remote servers, and generating a priority score for each route based on the predicted state of charge and the weather information of each route. Therefore, the Applicant has established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception, and improvements to the technology. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 recite patent eligible subject matter.
The Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts “the feature amended independent claim 1 recites “the at least one
processor is further configured to: acquire a current state of charge of the secondary battery mounted on the electric vehicle; 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 thus acquired, an electric cost of the electric vehicle, and a distance to the destination; … Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed subject matter inextricably requires physical objects such as "processor or computer (hardware)", "the GPS sensor", "vehicle speed sensor", "electric vehicle control unit", "map information server", and "weather information server" to dynamically acquire a state of charge of a battery associated with an electric vehicle, predict a future state of charge of the battery at a time of arrival at a destination of the electric vehicle, and further calculating weighted average scores of each of the possible travel routes of the electric vehicle, which are also not possible through a metal process. Therefore, the claimed invention is inextricably tied to a machine and does not represent "mental process". Therefore, the Applicant's claims are not similar to the alleged abstract idea.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the additional elements of "processor or computer (hardware)", "the GPS sensor", "vehicle speed sensor", "electric vehicle control unit", "map information server", and "weather information server" to perform these steps, the Examiner submits that the additional elements 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). 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.
Applicant asserts “the Applicant submits the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a
practical implementation …Therefore, the claimed features provide technological improvements in the efficiency of "an electric vehicle" and the functionality of "a guidance system for electric vehicle". Accordingly, the Applicant has shown teachings in the Specification that describes a practical implementation of how power consumption by the electric vehicle is decreased and battery charging of the electric vehicle is improved by acquiring a future (predicted) state of charge of the battery of electric vehicle, determining multiple routes and corresponding weather information from remote servers, and generating a priority score for each route based on the predicted state of charge and the weather information of each route. Therefore, the Applicant has established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception, and improvements to the technology. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 recite patent eligible subject matter.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim which does not require(s)/recite(s) the prevention of the “unexpected decrease in SOC and electricity shortage…” or “…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…” or “…efficiency of ‘an electric vehicle’…”. Further, the improvement alleged by the applicant is apparently an improved abstract idea (e.g. mental process) and not an improvement to any other technology or technical field. Furthermore, applicant asserts “the Specification that describes a practical implementation of how power consumption by the electric vehicle is decreased and battery charging of the electric vehicle is improved…” however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not reflect any “power consumption by the electric vehicle” or “battery charging of the electric vehicle”. Additionally, the Examiner submits the “determining…” and “generating…” steps are abstract ideas. Regarding the “acquiring…” step is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to mere pre-solution action (e.g. data gathering), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most
recently submitted by the applicant.
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, from among the first travel route and the one or more different travel routes, a travel route having a highest priority”, “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…”, “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 . 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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