DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 02/18/2026.
Claims 9-19 are new.
Claims 1-19 are pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-125714, filed on 08/01/2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
With regards to the objection to the specification. The amended title better describes the applicant’s invention. Therefore, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
With regards to U.S.C. 101 rejection made to claims 8 in the previous office action, the amendments made to independent claim 8 falls within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, the previous 101 rejection to claim 8 has been withdrawn.
With regards to U.S.C. 101 rejection made to claims 1-7 in the previous office action, the amendments made to independent claims 1, and 6-7 merely narrow the pre-solution activity of gathering data. Therefore, claims 1-7 remain rejected under U.S.C. 101. See the 101 rejection section below for further detail.
With regards to the 102 rejection to claims 1, and 6-8 in the previous office action the amendments made to the independent claims recite limitations that are not taught by of DOOLEY et al. (US 20220305945 A1; hereafter DOOLEY). Therefore, the 102 rejection to these claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of DOOLEY and further evidenced by ITO et al. (JP 2006071456 A; hereafter ITO).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an (apparatus, method, etc.) for claimed invention/solution. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case, the independent claims 1, and 6-8 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A determination system comprising:
a sensor configured to measure physical properties of a target battery installed in a vehicle; and
an information processing apparatus that is communicably connected to the sensor and comprises a controller, wherein
the controller is configured to
acquire vehicle identification information that identifies the vehicle,
acquire first battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired vehicle identification information,
acquire the physical properties of the target battery as measured by the sensor,
acquire second battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired physical properties,
compare the first battery identification information with the second battery identification information to determine authenticity of the target battery (mental process: a person can look at data corresponding to the first and compare it to data corresponding with the second battery), and
output a result of determination of the authenticity of the target battery.
wherein the controller is configured to determine a value of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor, as the physical properties of the target battery.
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 6-8, which are of similar scope to claim 1. Likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong I.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A determination system comprising:
a sensor configured to measure physical properties of a target battery installed in a vehicle; and
an information processing apparatus that is communicably connected to the sensor and comprises a controller, wherein
the controller is configured to
acquire vehicle identification information that identifies the vehicle,
acquire first battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired vehicle identification information,
acquire the physical properties of the target battery as measured by the sensor,
acquire second battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired physical properties,
compare the first battery identification information with the second battery identification information to determine authenticity of the target battery (mental process: a person can look at data corresponding to the first and compare it to data corresponding with the second battery), and
output a result of determination of the authenticity of the target battery.
wherein the controller is configured to determine a value of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor, as the physical properties of the target battery.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a sensor configured to measure physical properties of a target battery that is a battery installed in a vehicle”, the examiner submits that this limitation merely is a pre-solution activity of gathering data.
Additionally, the limitations “acquire vehicle identification information that identifies the vehicle”, “acquire first battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired vehicle identification information”, “acquire the physical properties of the target battery as measured by the sensor”, “acquire second battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired physical properties”, and “wherein the controller is configured to determine a value of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor, as the physical properties of the target battery.” only further narrow the limitations mentioned previously and thus are pre-solution activities for the same reasoning.
Regarding the additional limitation of “an information processing apparatus that is communicably connected to the sensor and comprises a controller”, the examiner submits that this limitation merely apply the judicial exception to a generic computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of “output a result of determination of the authenticity of the target battery”, the examiner submits that this limitation merely is a post-solution activity of transmitting data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) 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 in Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea and, therefore does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations “a sensor configured to measure physical properties of a target battery that is a battery installed in a vehicle”, “acquire vehicle identification information that identifies the vehicle”, “acquire first battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired vehicle identification information”, “acquire the physical properties of the target battery as measured by the sensor”, “acquire second battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired physical properties”, “output a result of determination of the authenticity of the target battery”, and “wherein the controller is configured to determine a value of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor, as the physical properties of the target battery.” as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of “a sensor configured to measure physical properties of a target battery that is a battery installed in a vehicle”, “acquire vehicle identification information that identifies the vehicle”, “acquire first battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired vehicle identification information”, “acquire the physical properties of the target battery as measured by the sensor”, “acquire second battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired physical properties”, “output a result of determination of the authenticity of the target battery”, and “wherein the controller is configured to determine a value of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor, as the physical properties of the target battery.” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)
“a sensor configured to measure physical properties of a target battery that is a battery installed in a vehicle”, “acquire vehicle identification information that identifies the vehicle”, “acquire first battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired vehicle identification information”, “acquire the physical properties of the target battery as measured by the sensor”, “acquire second battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired physical properties”, “output a result of determination of the authenticity of the target battery”, and “wherein the controller is configured to determine a value of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor, as the physical properties of the target battery.”… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982);
Claim 6 recites an controller that comprises the limitations disclosed in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites a method to operate the system detailed in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 8 recites a program that is utilized to perform the functions of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, and 6-8 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-5, and 9-16 do not overcome the 101 rejections made to the independent claims as these claims merely narrow the pre-solution activity of gathering data. Therefore, are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claims 17-19 do not overcome the 101 rejections made to the independent claims as these claims merely narrow the applied limitation. Therefore, are rejected for the same reasoning.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of DOOLEY as evidenced by ITO.
DOOLEY and ITO were cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, DOOLEY discloses a determination system ([0076]; “An authentication system 7 is provided to authenticate elements that interact with one another in the system 1. In some examples, this includes authenticating the charging station 3, the swappable battery 5 and the vehicle.”) comprising:
a sensor configured to measure physical properties of a target battery installed in a vehicle ([0215]; “During the process of authenticating the swappable battery 5, one or more voltage measurements of the battery 5 (or sensor data that can be used to derive the voltage of the battery 5) are sent to the authentication system 7.”); and
an information processing apparatus that is communicably connected to the sensor and comprises a controller ([0227]; “The processing device includes a processor 1510, a memory 1520 and an interface device 1540 that communicate with each other via a bus 1530. The memory 1520 stores instructions and data for implementing the method 300 described above, and the processor 1510 performs the instructions (such as a computer program) from the memory 1520 to implement the methods 300.”), wherein
the controller is configured to
acquire vehicle identification information that identifies the vehicle ([0107]; “In some examples, the charger processing device 21 is part of the distributed authentication system 7. The charger processing device 21 can receive information, such as from the swappable battery 5, the data store 11, and/or the vehicle 9 and perform the steps of authenticating the swappable battery 5 or other elements of the systems, and/or associating the first code 8 to the battery 5 to attest the battery was charged at the charging station 3.”),
acquire first battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired vehicle identification information ([0107]; “In some examples, the charger processing device 21 is part of the distributed authentication system 7. The charger processing device 21 can receive information, such as from the swappable battery 5, the data store 11, and/or the vehicle 9 and perform the steps of authenticating the swappable battery 5 or other elements of the systems, and/or associating the first code 8 to the battery 5 to attest the battery was charged at the charging station 3.”),
acquire the physical properties of the target battery as measured by the sensor ([0215]; “During the process of authenticating the swappable battery 5, one or more voltage measurements of the battery 5 (or sensor data that can be used to derive the voltage of the battery 5) are sent to the authentication system 7.”),
acquire second battery identification information that identifies a battery corresponding to the acquired physical properties ([0215]; “As a illustrative example, “Battery 0A” is known to have a voltage range of 395 to 401 volts. This characteristic of Battery 0A is stored in the data store 11… During the process of authenticating the swappable battery 5, one or more voltage measurements of the battery 5 (or sensor data that can be used to derive the voltage of the battery 5) are sent to the authentication system 7.”
Note: DOOLEY teaches obtaining voltage measurements that are utilized to identify the battery.),
compare the first battery identification information with the second battery identification information to determine authenticity of the target battery ([0215]; “The authentication system 7 can then compare the voltage measurements of the battery with the stored characteristics of the Battery 0A, and if the measurements fall within the stored characteristics, this can be used to assist in confirming authentication of that battery.”), and
output a result of determination of the authenticity of the target battery. ([0215]; “if the measurements fall within the stored characteristics, this can be used to assist in confirming authentication of that battery.”)
Although DOOLEY teaches determining whether the battery was swapped using physical properties of the battery DOOLEY does not teach the physical properties comprising magnetic flux of the battery.
However ITO does teach wherein the controller is configured to determine a value of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor, as the physical properties of the target battery. ([0016]; “A sensor chip 14 is disposed in the magnetic flux measurement gap Ga, and is equipped with a magnetic sensor made of a Hall element that detects magnetic flux B generated by a current I flowing through the bus bar 12.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY and ITO cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (measurements of vehicle batteries) and it would have been beneficial to identify the leakage flux of a vehicle car battery as a measure to identify the battery.
Regarding claim 5, DOOLEY discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally ITO discloses the controller is configured to acquire a measured value of leakage flux of the target battery as the physical properties of the target battery. ([0016]; “A sensor chip 14 is disposed in the magnetic flux measurement gap Ga, and is equipped with a magnetic sensor made of a Hall element that detects magnetic flux B generated by a current I flowing through the bus bar 12.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY and ITO cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (measurements of vehicle batteries) and it would have been beneficial to identify the leakage flux of a vehicle car battery as a measure to identify the battery.
Regarding claim 9, DOOLEY discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally ITO discloses the physical properties include a value of spatial distribution of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor. ([0005 & Fig. 8B]; “That is, FIG. 8B shows the relationship between the sensing magnetic field strength and the position in the gap. In the figure, the vertical axis represents the sensing magnetic field strength, and the horizontal axis represents the deviation in the Y direction (indicated by +Y and -Y in FIG. 8A) from the center of the gap Ga (indicated by C in FIG. 8A).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY and ITO cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (measurements of vehicle batteries) and it would have been beneficial to gathering spatial information when identifying the battery.
Claim 6 recites an controller that comprises the limitations disclosed in claim 1. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 7 recites a method to operate the system of claim 1. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 8 recites a program that is utilized to perform the functions of claim 1. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 10 recites an controller that comprises the limitations disclosed in claim 9. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 11 recites a method to operate the system of claim 9. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 12 recites a program that is utilized to perform the functions of claim 9. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 9, DOOLEY discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally ITO discloses the physical properties include a value of spatial distribution of surrounding magnetic flux formed by the plurality of cells, which is measured by the sensor. ([0005 & Fig. 8B]; “That is, FIG. 8B shows the relationship between the sensing magnetic field strength and the position in the gap. In the figure, the vertical axis represents the sensing magnetic field strength, and the horizontal axis represents the deviation in the Y direction (indicated by +Y and -Y in FIG. 8A) from the center of the gap Ga (indicated by C in FIG. 8A).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY and ITO cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (measurements of vehicle batteries) and it would have been beneficial to gathering spatial information when identifying the battery.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of DOOLEY as evidenced by ITO and further evidenced by WANG (WO 2023193176 A1).
WANG was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 2, DOOLEY in combination with ITO discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally WANG discloses a camera configured to capture and acquire an image of the vehicle ([0058]; “The application environment includes a station control host 102, a vehicle to be swapped 104, and a camera 106;”), wherein
the controller is configured to acquire the vehicle identification information based on a result of analysis of the image acquired by the camera. ([0058]; “The station control host 102 acquires the vehicle identification of the vehicle 104 to be swapped through the camera device 106”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO and WANG. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY, ITO, and WANG cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (measurements of vehicle batteries) and it would have been beneficial to utilize the camera disclosed by WANG as an alternative method of verifying the identity of the vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of DOOLEY as evidenced by ITO and WANG as applied to claim 2 above, and further evidenced by UNAGAMI.
UNAGAMI was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 3, DOOLEY in combination with ITO and WANG discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Additionally UNAGAMI discloses a case in which the vehicle identification information could not be acquired based on the result of analysis of the image, the controller is configured to perform at least one of outputting an alert and repeating acquisition of the image of the vehicle by the camera. ([0166]; “When the verification of said second transaction data is unsuccessful in Step S113 (N in S113), authentication server 30a transmits notification of the result to charging station 20 (S114).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO, WANG and UNAGAMI. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY, ITO, WANG, and UNAGAMI cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (measurements of vehicle batteries) and it would have been beneficial to incorporate a failsafe method in case situations occur where the camera is not capable of capturing an image of the vehicle. Such situations can include damaged lens, obscured view, etc.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of DOOLEY as evidenced by ITO as further evidenced by UNAGAMI.
Regarding claim 4, DOOLEY in combination with ITO discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally UNAGAMI discloses
the controller is configured to
receive, from a user, input of specific information for specifying the vehicle ([0088]; “For example, user authenticator 201 may obtain the ID and the password of the user from an input interface not illustrated in the drawings and perform password authentication using the ID and the password of the user.”), and
acquire the vehicle identification information based on the specific information for which input is received. ([0156]; “When charging station 20 determines that the user is an authorized user, charging station 20 unlocks a door to a charging space where already-charged battery 140 is placed in charging station 20, to permit opening of the door.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO and UNAGAMI. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY, ITO, and UNAGAMI cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (Battery verification for vehicles) and it would have been beneficial to allow the user to input information of their vehicle such as VIN number or license plate number as an alternative method for verifying the identity of the vehicle.
Claim 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of DOOLEY as evidenced by ITO and further evidenced by Glass et al. (GB 2594294 A; hereafter Glass).
Regarding claim 13, DOOLEY in combination with ITO discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Glass discloses leakage flux is acquired while measuring the target battery along a scanning direction, to acquire a spatial distribution of the leakage flux formed by the target battery. ([Fig. 2 & pg. 9 lines 16-18]; “An alternative embodiment of the apparatus 100 is provided as shown in Figure 2. In this alternative embodiment, one or more Hall effect sensors 20 are provided connected to a track system 30. The track system 30 includes moveable arms 32, which are mounted on tracks 34. The Hall effect sensor(s) 20 are mounted on the tracks such that they are able to move with the arms 32 to thereby measure the local current density at any location across the face of the cell 10.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO and Glass. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY, ITO, and Glass cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (Battery characteristic measurement) and it would have been beneficial to take leakage flux measurements throughout the entire battery system.
Regarding claim 16, DOOLEY in combination with ITO discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Glass discloses a value of changes in the magnetic field is acquired by the controller when the target battery is charged or discharged. ([pg. 9 lines 1-4]; “A load is then applied to the cell 10. This load may be a charging or discharging load. As a result of the load, a magnetic field is produced by the cell 10. Each Hall effect sensor 20 will then detect the magnetic field in the portion of the cell 10 that it is aligned with.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO and Glass. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY, ITO, and Glass cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (Battery characteristic measurement) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that magnetic field is typically measured when the battery is being charged or discharged.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of DOOLEY as evidenced by ITO and further evidenced by Mensah-Brown et al. (US 10247783 B2; hereafter Mensah-Brown).
Regarding claim 17, DOOLEY in combination with ITO discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Glass discloses the target battery includes a plurality of cells arranged in a grid. ([col. 4, lines 24-27]; “The battery pack, however, may be composed of any number of individual battery cells and battery cell modules connected in series or parallel or some combination thereof.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DOOLEY with ITO and Glass. This modification would have been obvious because both DOOLEY, ITO, and Glass cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (Battery characteristic measurement) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that battery cells are commonly connected in both series and parallel, which would be equivalent to a grid like layout.
Claim 18 recites an controller that comprises the limitations disclosed in claim 17. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 19 recites a program that is utilized to perform the functions of claim 17. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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 as well as overcoming the 101 rejection of the independent claim.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Mase (US 20120078444 A1); Discloses a system that verifies whether the battery currently mounted of the vehicle is valid based on received data.
Conclusion
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 BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights