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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 0 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The amendments to the claims provide a specific technological solution of estimating operating states and generating an operational report.
The generation unit and output unit are not insignificant post-solution activity because they are integrated with the acquisition unit and the estimation unit.
The heat map of claim 4 is generated for multiple vehicles over multiple intervals, and thus requires processing a large data set which exceeds the capabilities of the human mind.
Regarding argument A: The amended claims recite generic computer components (a “storage unit” and a processor which implements a plurality of units) which are used to perform an abstract idea. These amended limitations thus amount to no more than instructions to perform an abstract idea using a computer. Additionally, the recitation of generating “electronic data” amounts to no more than instructions to generate data (which could be generated in the human mind) using a computer.
Regarding argument B: While it is true that the generation unit and output unit in themselves are not insignificant post-solution activity, they are generic computer components used for, respectively, the abstract idea of generating operation data for a plurality of vehicles and the insignificant post-solution activity of displaying the data on a generic user terminal.
Regarding argument C: The broadest reasonable interpretation of generating a heatmap based on operating data is an action which can be performed by a person with the aid of pencil and paper; therefore, the limitation recites an abstract idea. The post-solution display thereof is further well understood, routine, and conventional in the art; therefore, the display of a time series heat map fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Step 1: Yes.) System claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
An operation management system comprising:
a storage unit storing a program: and
a processor configured to execute the program to implement:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire rechargeable battery data indicating a state of a rechargeable battery mounted on an electric vehicle, wherein the state of the rechargeable battery includes at least a measured current of the rechargeable battery;
an estimation unit configured to estimate an actual operating state of the electric vehicle based on the rechargeable battery data, wherein the estimation unit is configured to:
calculate a moving average of the measured current for each of a plurality of intervals set along a time axis, based on the rechargeable battery data;
use a threshold for distinguishing whether the electric vehicle is in an idling state to select a state of intervals in which the moving average of the measured current is equal to or greater than the threshold, from the plurality of intervals;
calculate an actual operating time of the electric vehicle based on a number of intervals comprising the set of intervals and a length of each interval; and
estimate the actual operating state based on the actual operating time;
a generation unit configured to generate electronic data representing a report indicating operation information that is based on the actual operating state, wherein the report includes information for actual operating states for a plurality of electric vehicles over the plurality of intervals;
an output unit configured to output the report by transmitting the electronic data to a user terminal to display the report.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this device determines a vehicle operation state based on a moving average of current supplied by a battery, and then interprets the operation state. This process can be performed in the human mind; therefore, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites a plurality of “unit[s]” which are part of a processor and generic “electronic data”, and thus constitute nothing more than generic computer components that amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretations of the actions of “acquir[ing] rechargeable battery data” and “output[ting] the report” fall within the insignificant extra-solution activities of receiving data and signal transmission. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements either amount to no more than instructions to perform the judicial exception on a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, these are all well-understood, routine, and conventional processes. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 7 and 8) are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 further define the abstract idea and are thus abstract for the same reasons. No additional elements are presented; therefore, claims 2-5 are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 introduces the additional element of a material handling vehicle. However, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of work vehicles. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8: As discussed in the previous action, the closest available art, Fan et al. teaches determining a rolling average of a current limit value as well as determining an operating state based on remaining energy. However, Fan et al. fails to teach a threshold for determination of an idling state based on the rolling average of the current value. In addition, the prior art fails to teach calculating an operating time based on a set of intervals in which the current is above the idling threshold.
Furthermore, Gómez-Quiles et al. (“A Novel Ensemble Method”) teaches a weekly pattern of electric vehicle power consumption across all of Spain (Gómez-Quiles Fig. 1) and predicting power consumption based on a moving average model (Gómez-Quiles – IV. Methodology, A. ARIMA). However, Gómez-Quiles et al. only teaches aggregate data, rather than data for a single vehicle, and additionally fails to use a threshold to distinguish whether an electric vehicle is in an idling state.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-6: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claim 1 and would thus be potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669