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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/5/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation “a degree of deterioration” in line 8 and claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, recites the same limitation in line 5. It is unclear if these instances are the same or distinct. For purposes of examination the limitation(s) will be interpreted as being the same.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 are directed to a product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, “stores identification information… when the…device is replaced…and also the identification information…is rewritten…transmit a first signal”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations of determining if a device is replaced is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional element of a mobile body, control device is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology, apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a particular technical field and applied to the mobile body (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites, in part, “authenticating a manager…switching…signal in response to a request”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites, in part, “when receiving the first signal…terminal makes annunciation”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites no additional elements (the mobile terminal is considered a generic computing component that merely can aid a mental process) that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites, in part, “acquiring a degree of deterioration…determining…transmitting a second signal”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). These limitations of acquiring a degree of deterioration and transmitting a signal, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites, in part, “transmit a third signal…acquiring a degree of deterioration…transmitting a fourth signal”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). These limitations of acquiring a degree of deterioration and transmitting a signal, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220329092A1 Ikui ("Ikui").
Claim 1:
A mobile body, comprising:
a power storage device; and
a control device, wherein
the control device stores identification information of a first power storage device when the first power storage device is installed in the mobile body as the power storage device, and
the control device is configured to, when the first power storage device is replaced with a second power storage device, and also the identification information of the first power storage device stored in the control device is rewritten to identification information of the second power storage device, transmit a first signal making notification to those outside of the mobile body that the power storage device is replaced. (Ikui at least the abstract, FIG. 14, [0093], [0096]: “to output an identification normality signal indicating that the first identification information and the second identification information have matched.”, [0151]: “battery station 160, the ID management unit 520 may read out the above-mentioned information indicating the correspondence stored in the memory 454 and output the read out information to the requestor of the above-mentioned request.”)
Claim 3:
A management system, comprising:
the mobile body according to claim 1; and
a mobile terminal, wherein when receiving the first signal, the mobile terminal makes annunciation that the power storage device is replaced. (Ikui at least [0151])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikui in view of JP2023050216A Shintani et al ("Shintani", machine translation provided).
As per claim 2, Ikui teaches the invention as described above. Ikui does not disclose:
the control device is configured to execute authenticating a manager of the mobile body, and switching between permission and prohibition of transmission of the first signal in response to a request from the manager.
Shintani teaches the aforementioned limitation (Shintani at least [0027]: “information processing apparatus authenticates the user”, [0006]: “acquirer that acquires replacement permission information for permitting the second user to replace the replaceable battery being charged”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ikui with the aforementioned limitations taught by Shintani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the convenience of a user in the use of a vehicle using a battery (Shintani [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if aforementioned deficiencies are cured.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 4, US20230023729A1 Hom teaches a battery monitoring system that generates a notification of a fault when the state of health of a battery is degraded to the point of needed to be replaced (Hom [0033]). However, Hom and the prior art are silent on determining if a replacement was necessary, after the battery is replaced, and if the replacement was not necessary to send a signal to revert to the original battery. Claim 5 recites similar allowable subject matter as claim 4 wherein the prior art is silent on determining if the replacement of the battery (which was already done and installed) was necessary, before rewriting the identification of the battery in the storage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights