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 .
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 11-20, these claims present an method according to the apparatus of claims 1-10. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-10 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11-20. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 11-20 are process claims which present a process of using the system as claimed in claims 1-10, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
There are two separate requirements set forth in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that applicants regard as their invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
With regard to claims 1, 11 and 20, each of these claims recites a limitation, “calculate a storage battery charge level based on the one or more battery characteristics and the storage period” (emphasis added), which does not recite a mathematic relationship, formula, or calculation. Therefore, is not clear how to calculate a storage battery charge level based on two entities having two different measurement units. It is common and consistent to those skilled in the art that the basic measurement unit of “battery characteristics” is ampere (A), volt (V), Ampere-hours (Ah), or Watt-hours (Wh); and the basic measurement unit of “storage period” is time such as seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, etc. (emphasis added). Therefore, it is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art how to “calculate a storage battery charge level based on the one or more battery characteristics and the storage period” (emphasis added). In brief, this limitation fails to particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant.
With regard to claims 2-10 and 12-19, these claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependencies directly or indirectly from the base claims, respectively.
The essential purpose of patent examination is to determine whether or not the claims are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. Therefore, the uncertainties of claim scope should be removed as much as possible. The structure, which goes to make up the device, must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The eligibility analysis in the following rejection reflects both the 2019 PEG and the new form paragraphs published for use with the 2019 PEG.
With regard to claims 1, 11 and 20, each of these claims recites “determine one or more battery characteristics for at least one battery of the apparatus, the battery characteristics associated with a charge of the at least one battery”. The limitation of determining one or more battery characteristics for at least one battery of the apparatus, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculate the one or more battery characteristics for at least one battery of the apparatus.
Similarly, each of these claims also recites “determine a storage period for the apparatus, the storage period defining a period of time where the apparatus is not in use”. The limitation of determining a storage period for the apparatus, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that the storage period defining a period of time where the apparatus is not in use.
In addition, each of these claims further recites “calculate a storage battery charge level based on the one or more battery characteristics and the storage period, the storage battery charge level comprising a minimum battery charge level that allows operation of the apparatus after the storage period without providing additional charge to the at least one battery during the storage period”. The limitation of calculating a storage battery charge level based on the one or more battery characteristics and the storage period, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating a storage battery charge level based on the one or more battery characteristics and the storage period.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of these claims recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the determining and calculating steps. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of calculating information based on a determined battery characteristics and storage period) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Each of these claims is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Each of these claims is not patent eligible.
With regard to claims 7 and 17, each of these claims further recites a limitation, “by the processor to set a standard battery charge level” or “setting a standard battery charge level”, which is mere performing mathematical calculations recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
With regard to claims 9 and 18, each of these claims further recites a limitation, “by the processor to provide a notification” or “providing a notification”, which is mere data output recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation is recited as being performed by a computer (processor). The computer is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer.
With regard to claims 2-6, 8, 10, 12-16 and 19, these claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependencies directly or indirectly from the base claims, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Shimayama et al. (CN 102170163 A) relates to a storage system by charging and discharging of a plurality of battery module group. The power storage system comprises an assembled battery and a control device; the control device controls a charging mode in which the assembled battery is charged and a discharging mode in which the assembled battery is discharged, and charging mode is performed at time period of late-night power and controlled in such a way that: the assembled battery is charged through a constant current control based on a predetermined current value in the beginning of the charging mode and is charged through a constant voltage in the end of the charging mode; the power storage system also comprises a determination part that determines whether an apparatus except for the power storage system is in active at time period of late-night power; the controlling part constantly controls the current value for charging the assembled battery in the charging mode when the equipment is in operation to be less than the value when the equipment is not in operation. Thus, even if the apparatus consuming electrical power except for the storage battery is in active at night, the storage battery can be charged when the consumed electrical power at night is not beyond the electrical power capacity. However, Shimayama et al. fails to disclose the allowable subject matter stated in the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance above.
Yoichi et al. (JP 3720290 B2) relates to a method and apparatus for detecting the amount of electricity charged to a battery during the charging using the detected charging efficiency. The charging start time is a starting time of charging operation from an active state of an electrode in which a passive film is not formed on the electrode of the battery, and based on a pattern of change with time of the charging current of the battery. It is determined whether or not an electrode is in the active state, and in the active state, the amount of charge stored in the battery by charging is determined by the battery charging efficiency detection method. However, Yoichi et al. fails to disclose the allowable subject matter stated in the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance above.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858