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 the Claims
In the communication filed on 02/21/2024 claims 1-4 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 6 is missing a label for the y-axis. To overcome this objection, amend Fig. 6 to add the label for the y-axis (i.e., vertical axis) as supported by the specification in lines 8-9 of page 8. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Management Apparatus for Determining a Priority for the Electric Power Supply to an Electric Power Trade Market”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a use duration acquisition portion, an index acquisition portion, an allowable reference value acquisition portion, a determination portion, and a guideline reference value acquisition portion in claims 1 and 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In page 5 lines 1-6 of the applicant’s disclosure the use duration acquisition portion 121, the index acquisition portion 122, the allowable reference value acquisition portion 123, the determination portion 125, and the guideline reference value acquisition portion 124 within control part 120 as illustrated in Fig. 2 may be implemented using hardware such as ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit), a PLD (Programmable Logic Device), or a FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus as identified in Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test outlined in MPEP 2106.
The claims recite receiving data, performing calculations, and making determinations based on the received data and calculations which are considered exceptions because the limitations fall under the methods of mental processes and mathematical concepts groupings of the abstract ideas as identified in Step 2A Prong One.
The limitations from claim 1 that are considered exceptions are the following:
“a use duration acquisition portion that acquires a use duration of a battery provided on a movable body”;
“an index acquisition portion that acquires an index indicating a degradation state of the battery”;
“an allowable reference value acquisition portion that acquires an allowable reference value which becomes a criterion of whether or not to allow a supply of electric power from the battery to an electric power trade market and is determined in accordance with the use duration of the battery”; and
“a determination portion that determines a priority for determining whether or not to supply electric power to the electric power trade market in accordance with the use duration of the battery, the index, and the allowable reference value”.
These limitations are considered abstract ideas because these could be done mentally by an individual with the aid of pen and paper to perform calculations in order to determine a priority for determining whether or not to supply electric power to the electric power trade market in accordance with the use duration of the battery, the index, and the allowable reference value.
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application because managing information using a memory device and a processor are generic structures with insignificant, extra-solution activities of receiving data, calculating data, and determining data does not make it practical as identified in Step 2A Prong Two.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor is only used to receive, calculate, and determine the abstract ideas with no additional practical use added as a limitation as identified in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-4 are rejected because they are only further the abstract idea without additional practical use or significant structure. The dependent claims further add to the abstract idea by providing additional details as to how the data is obtained or calculated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (USPGPN 20200384887; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in the Japanese Office Action using JP-2020195208-A), and further in view of Shiyama et al. (USPGPN 20190377029; identified by the applicant in the IDS and cited in the Japanese Office Action using JP-2018160074-A).
With respect to independent claim 1, Yokoyama teaches a management apparatus (Fig. 1; management device 100) comprising:
a use duration acquisition portion that acquires a use duration of a battery provided on a movable body (Fig. 1; ¶[08]; the management device 100 includes an acquisition unit configured to acquire remaining performance and information indicating a use period of the on-vehicle battery 310 in vehicle 300).
Yokoyama teaches an index acquisition portion that acquires an index indicating a degradation state of the battery ([¶[75]; “...a degree of influence caused by the deterioration of the on-vehicle battery 310...” is understood to be obtained by the management device 100 or a portion within).
Yokohama teaches an allowable reference value acquisition portion that acquires an allowable reference value which becomes a criterion of whether or not to allow a supply of electric power from the battery to an electric power trade market and is determined in accordance with the use duration of the battery (Fig. 6, steps S5-S7; ¶[92]; the system obtains a first threshold value and compares this to the remaining performance value of the battery in step S5 to determine whether to allow frequency regulation of charging from the grid and discharging to the grid in step S7 (e.g., allowing supply of electric power to an electric power trade market) or not allow by restricting V2G in step S6).
Yokohama teaches a determination portion that determines whether or not to supply electric power to the electric power trade market in accordance with the use duration of the battery, the index, and the allowable reference value (Fig. 6; as cited above the determination is made in step S5 considering the remaining performance and the first threshold value. It is understood the degree of influence regarding the state of deterioration of the battery is taken into consideration and compared with the threshold value as noted in ¶[75] “...a degree of influence caused by the deterioration of the on-vehicle battery 310 is equal to or less than a threshold value...”).
However, Yokohama fails to explicitly teach determining a priority.
Shiyama teaches determining a priority (¶[121-124]; the batteries are ranked by priority based on how their actual deterioration compares with a target and their usage).
Ranking the batteries allows for the system to prioritize certain batteries to better control their degradation over time. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adapted Shiyama’s prioritization to Yokohama’s electric power system management device. The advantage of this being categorizing the batteries with similar performance and keeping usable items in service making it cheaper to maintain (see ¶[31] of Shiyama).
With respect to claim 2, Yokohama teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Yokohama teaches determined in accordance with a difference between the index and the allowable reference value (¶[75]; “...a degree of influence caused by the deterioration of the on-vehicle battery 310 is equal to or less than a threshold value...” the comparison determines a difference between the degree of influence and the threshold value).
With respect to claim 3, Yokohama teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, Yokohama teaches a guideline reference value acquisition portion that acquires a guideline reference value which is determined in accordance with the use duration of the battery and is determined as a guideline of the degradation state of the battery which supplies electric power to the electric power trade market (Figs. 4 and 6, step S8; ¶[92-94] in step S8 the second threshold value is determined in accordance with the remaining performance of the battery which places the system to perform between the frequency control SOC and the lower limit SOC in order to curb deterioration when supplying power to the electric power grid).
However, Yokohama fails to explicitly teach wherein the priority is determined in accordance with a first value obtained by subtracting the allowable reference value from the index and a second value obtained by subtracting the allowable reference value from the guideline reference value.
As cited above, Yokohama teaches the first threshold value, the second threshold value, the remaining performance, and the degree of influence are compared using greater-than, less-than, or equal criteria. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to derive by subtraction the difference between the values given the values are evaluated using greater-than or less-than comparison. The advantage of this being turning a qualitative comparison into a quantitative one.
With respect to claim 4, Yokohama teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Although, Yokohama fails to explicitly teach wherein the priority is a ratio of the first value to the second value, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to divide the values determined from subtraction in order to provide a normalized measure that may be expressed as a ratio. The advantage of this being the quantified comparison may be expressed as a percentage.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Nakamura (USPGPN 20220239101) is about a server that manages demand response for a power grid using multiple resources, including vehicles with batteries. The server receives data from a vehicle, such as battery state of charge and event history showing whether charging or discharging occurred. If the vehicle’s battery state changes but the server does not receive the expected history information, the server treats the wireless communication as unreliable.
Murayama (USPGPN 20140320062) describes a system for managing a fleet of shared electric vehicles. The system watches for signs that each vehicle’s battery is aging, such as mileage, internal resistance, or charge/discharge history use order. The system ranks the vehicles so that the less-degraded batteries are used sooner and the more-degraded batteries are used later.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights