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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to application filed on 11/26/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-16 are pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s comment on claim interpretation is persuasive. Claim elements no longer invokes 112(f)
Regarding Applicant’s argument on 101 rejection, the argument is considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues monitoring battery operation can not be performed in human mind. Examiner disagree. As a initial matter, at this level of breadth, such monitoring is similar to Electric Power Group’s collecting information and analyzing it, which is part of mental process. Second, at this level of bread, monitoring can be collecting information and making analysis (as noted above), which can also be performed by a person with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, examiner notes this argument doesn’t apply to claim 16 as claim 16 only requires information being provided. Examiner would recommend further amend claim 16 (or cancel claim 16) in future amendment as this claim appear to be more abstract than the other claims.
Regarding art rejection, the argument is persuasive. Art rejection have been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-8, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, with the exception of physical hardware such as physical fuel cell and server, the entire body of the claim all recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the body of the claim, when viewed as a group, describe a series of step to match a candidate fuel cell to a user. This is following rules, creating business relationship, and/or forming contracts. All of which falls within certain methods of organizing human activities. Further, this also falls into mental process as these can be performed in human mind by making determination and judgement. Therefore, claim is recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements are the physical hardware that’s just being the subject of the recited abstract idea (e.g., the fuel cell that’s being evaluated) or a generic computer component that’s instructed to perform the abstract idea (e.g., server). Whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, these additional elements are nothing more than mere generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use, which wouldn’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above in step 2A prong 2, where the analysis is still applicable in step 2B, the additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, these additional elements are nothing more than mere generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They wouldn’t provide an inventive concept either. Therefore, the claims is not eligible.
The dependent claim and the other set of claim merely further limit the abstract idea or can be similarly analyzed as claim 1. They would also arrive at the same conclusion and these claims are also not eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628