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 Status
The claims filed 10/31/2025 are examined herein.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-9 are pending.
Claims 2 and 4 are currently amended.
Claims 6-9 are new.
Claims 2, 8, and 9 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 2, 4, and 6-9 invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been considered. The claims are no longer considered as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in view of the current amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103
The prior rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of cancelation of the claims.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 2, 4, and 6-9 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 2 is amended to define a communication structure of the claimed warranty-terms setting system, as communicating with a subject mobile unit and another mobile unit over a communication network. Applicant argues that this communication allows the processor of the warranty-terms setting system to retrieve respective usage history information by a first user from the mobile unit and the other mobile unit, which is then used to correct the remaining-lifetime consumption degree of the subject mobile unit by the first user.
The argument is not persuasive. The argued additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Here, the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality in the application of the abstract idea in a manner which does not convey a technological improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the limitation, considered with the claims as a whole, does not provide a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility framework, nor does it provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “an other” instead of “another”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2, 4, and 6-9 are directed to a system or method and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent system claim 2 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent method claim 8 and independent system claim 9. Claim 2 recites the limitations of:
2. (Currently Amended) A warranty-terms setting system communicating with a subject mobile unit and an other mobile unit different from the subject mobile unit over a communication network, comprising a processor configured to:
retrieve respective usage history information by a first user from the subject mobile unit and the other mobile unit;
recognize a time-point-of-determination remaining-lifetime indicative of a remaining lifetime of the subject mobile unit at a point of determination;
predict a remaining-lifetime consumption degree based on the usage history information on the other mobile unit by the first user who starts using the subject mobile unit after the point of determination, the remaining-lifetime consumption degree being indicative of to what degree the remaining lifetime of the subject mobile unit has been consumed per predetermined period in which the first user uses the subject mobile unit;
calculate, based on the remaining-lifetime consumption degree, a predicted remaining-lifetime decreasing period indicative of a predicted period in which a remaining lifetime of the subject mobile unit decreases from the time-point-of- determination remaining lifetime to a predetermined criterion value or lower when it is assumed that the first user uses the subject mobile unit after the point of determination;
set warranty terms for the subject mobile unit based on the predicted remaining-lifetime decreasing period; and
correct the remaining-lifetime consumption degree based on the usage history information of the subject mobile unit by the first user,
wherein the processor is configured to:
re-calculate the predicted remaining lifetime decreasing period based on the corrected remaining-lifetime consumption degree, and
reset the warranty terms based on the predicted remaining lifetime decreasing period calculated based on the corrected remaining-lifetime consumption degree.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite commercial or legal interactions, as they pertain to setting warranty terms based on calculating and recalculating usage and/or consumption. The claim limitations delineated in bold above also recite a fundamental economic practice, as they pertain to setting warranty terms based on calculating and recalculating usage and/or consumption. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions or a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The recitation of the processor and communication with mobile units in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 8 and 9 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 2: processor, mobile unit, another mobile unit, communication network
Claim 8: processor, mobile unit, another mobile unit, communication network
Claim 9: processor, mobile unit, another mobile unit, communication network
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 2, 8, and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware 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. See Applicant’s specification para. 0019-0021 about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d), if applicable. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 2, 8, and 9 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 4, 6, and 7 further define the abstract idea that is present in independent claim 2 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claim 7 recites the additional element of communicating with a terminal device over the communication network to display warranty terms. Similar as to in claim 2, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 2, 4, and 6-9 are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2023/0182575 A1) discloses a battery service providing system and method, battery service providing system including a battery service server for collecting diagnostic analysis data including operation characteristic information of a battery and driving characteristic information of an electric vehicle from an electric vehicle control device and providing update information of a charging/discharging control logic of the battery according to the degree of degradation determined from the diagnostic analysis data to the electric vehicle control device, determining a residual value or a usage fee of the battery based on the determined degree of degradation, transmitting the usage fee or the residual value of the battery to an external server, or setting a warranty flag for the battery whose charging and discharging is controlled according to the update information of the charging/discharging control logic.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693