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 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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites acquiring, with respect to a battery that is to be reused by a business operator, first information relating to deterioration of the battery when starting reuse of the battery, acquiring second information regarding a usage environment of the battery by the business operator, acquiring third information regarding performance of the battery that is required by the business operator, and outputting a recovery time of the battery after the business operator uses the battery, in accordance with the first information, the second information, and the third information which has been identified as falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts. As acquiring data with respect to a battery and outputting a recovery time “in accordance” with the acquired information amounts to mere observations, evaluations and judgments that can be performed in the human mind, insofar as what is structurally recited.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the information processing device and control unit merely read as tools for performing the abstract idea in a computer environment; as neither the information processing device or control unit are improved during the performance or result of the abstract idea.
The recited battery and business operator read as additional elements that generically link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the battery nor business is improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. Therefore, the identified additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the identified additional elements, neither alone or in combination, are improved by the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 further define the identified abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more as the claim merely defines the abstract idea relative to a field of use.
Claim 4 further defines the abstract idea by defining the outputted result. The output results has no impact on the identified additional elements. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 5 further defines the abstract idea by reciting when the information is acquired. However, the further defined abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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 4 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 4 recites in line 2 “a recovery time of the battery”. Is this a different recovery time than the one recited in line 8 of claim 1? To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as --the recovery time of the battery--. However, clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita et al. (2021/0081875A1).
With respect to claim 1, Morita et al. teaches in Fig. 1 an information processing device (100/200/300) comprising a control unit (300) configured to execute acquiring, with respect to a battery (i.e. a battery product; as read in the abstract) that is to be reused by a business operator (i.e. a Morita et al. teaches the repurposed battery being used by an operator in a wind power or solar light storage; [0024]), first information relating to deterioration of the battery when starting reuse of the battery (as Morita et al. teaches locating data indicating a result of a degradation diagnosis; [0027]), acquiring second information regarding a usage environment of the battery by the business operator (i.e. a targeted battery product found in the specification data; [0025]), acquiring third information regarding performance of the battery that is required by the business operator (i.e. as Morita et al. teaches included in the specification data is the required performance of the battery product; [0016] [0024]), and outputting a recovery time of the battery (as [0056-0058] teaches using the data collected to output diagnostic data) after the business operator uses the battery, in accordance with the first information, the second information, and the third information (as the diagnostic data includes deterioration prior to remanufacturing, the use of that battery and required performance after remanufacturing and using that data to aid in diagnosis the battery product).
With respect to claim 2, Morita et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the information processing device (100/200/300) wherein the second information contains at least one of information regarding a type of renewable energy for charging the battery (as Morita et al. teaches the battery product specification data details green energy uses [0024]).
With respect to claim 3, Morita et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the information processing device (100/200/300) wherein the third information contains information regarding a lower limit value of a capacity of the battery (as Morita et al. teaches in [0034] receiving data that includes calculated lower limits of a capacity of the battery).
With respect to claim 4, Morita et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the information processing device (100/200/300) wherein the control unit (300) outputs, as the recovery time of the battery, a time at which the performance of the battery no longer satisfies the performance of the battery that is required by the business operator (as the control unit performing the steps in Fig. 7 details in s405-407, outputting to the intended operator the recovery time of the battery and a time which the battery would no longer satisfy the needed requirements based on the acquired information created during the remanufacturing plan).
With respect to claim 5, Morita et al. teaches in Fig. 1 the information processing device (100/200/300) wherein the control unit (300) acquires the first information from a vehicle (10) equipped with the battery before reuse of the battery [0022], and acquires the second information and the third information from a terminal (50) of the business operator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al. (2003/0105601) which teaches a PC that accesses a web page provided by a managing server through Internet and transmits battery information file to the server. The server reads and analyzes the information file and transmits analytical results to the PC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights