DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to application filed on 9/10/2024. Claim(s) 1-22, 24-26 is/are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 11 contains a typographical error where “STARTT REQUEST” is misspelled. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form, clear, and concise (i.e., it is a run-on sentence and uses unnecessary reference characters).
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
- [0185] recites “forth time period” which appears to be a typographical error, where “forth” should be “fourth”.
- [0210] recites “in eighth time period” which appears to be a typographical error, where “in eighth time period” should be “in an eighth time period”.
Appropriate correction is required. Eighth
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3-9, 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “forth time period” which appears to be a typographical error, , where “forth” should be “fourth”.
Claim 15 recites “in eight time period”. While the scope of the claim(s) is reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending to “in an eighth time period”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“processing unit” in claim(s) 5, 13, described in Applicant’s specification as “a central processing unit (CPU) capable of executing various calculations”, [0039].
“storage unit” in claim(s) 9, 17, described in Applicant’s specification as “storage unit 620 such as a ROM that stores various kinds of information.”, [0088].
“measurement unit” in claim(s) 12, described in Applicant’s specification as “The inertial measurement unit 41 is, for example, a 9-axis sensor having functions of a 3-axis acceleration sensor, a 3-axis angular velocity sensor, and a 3-axis azimuth sensor, and detects a mounting posture of the control circuit 40.”, [0041].
“communication unit” in claim(s) 12, described in Applicant’s specification as “The BLE unit 44 is a communication device for performing BT connection (Bluetooth communication) with the portable terminal 8, the store tablet 60, or the like.”, [0041].
“acquisition unit” in claim(s) 24-26, described in Applicant’s specification as “The control circuit 40 of the electric bicycle 10 includes a measurement value acquisition unit 401 for acquiring a measurement value measured by a sensor provided in the electric bicycle 10.”, [0090], “The control circuit 40 includes, for example, a central processing unit (CPU) capable of executing various calculations, a random access memory (RAM) used as a work area of the CPU, and a storage medium such as a read only memory (ROM) storing various kinds of information.”, [0039].
“comparison unit” in claim(s) 24, described in Applicant’s specification as “The control circuit 40 of the electric bicycle 10 includes…a comparison unit 402 for comparing the measurement value with a predetermined determination threshold value.”, [0090], “The control circuit 40 includes, for example, a central processing unit (CPU) capable of executing various calculations, a random access memory (RAM) used as a work area of the CPU, and a storage medium such as a read only memory (ROM) storing various kinds of information.”, [0039].
“display generation unit” in claim(s) 25, described in Applicant’s specification as “a control unit 610 including a CPU capable of executing various calculations and a RAM used as a work area of the CPU…The control unit 610 includes…a display generation unit 613 that generates information for displaying after-mentioned check items 656 and the like on the store tablet 60.”, [0088].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18, 20-21, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-17, 20, the claims recite a “Management method” and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Management method for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body, the method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source, a measurement value that is at least one of
(A) a rotational state quantity of at least one of the power source, the wheel, and a power transmission path between the power source and the wheel, or a generated power amount, or
(B) a state quantity of an energy source configured to supply energy for the power source;
a comparison step of comparing, in a second time period after the first time period, the measurement value with a threshold value for the measurement value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “comparison step...” in the contexts of this claim encompass forming a judgement regarding how a measured value compares to a threshold. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea(s).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the 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(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Management method for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body, the method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source, a measurement value that is at least one of
(A) a rotational state quantity of at least one of the power source, the wheel, and a power transmission path between the power source and the wheel, or a generated power amount, or
(B) a state quantity of an energy source configured to supply energy for the power source;
a comparison step of comparing, in a second time period after the first time period, the measurement value with a threshold value for the measurement value.
For the following reason(s), 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(s) of “a measurement step of measuring, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source…”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity[ies]. The limitation amounts to mere data gathering (i.e. as a general means of gathering information for use in the “a comparison step...”, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additional elements that are considered extra-solution activities do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Moreover, limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., to control an aircraft engine), or as stated the preamble (“for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body”) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad. See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (“Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “for a vehicle…” is/are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to “significantly more”, as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (“simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use”), as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981), are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation(s) of “a measurement step…” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that is the measurement step is anything other than using well-known sensors to obtain vehicle data [0090, 0129]. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 24, the claim(s) recite(s) “An information processing device” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 24 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of “an acquisition unit” and “a comparison unit”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 18, 21, the claims recite a “Management method” and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
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.
Independent claim 18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Management method for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body, the method comprising:
a generation step of generating, in a ninth time period, information for displaying confirmation information that is information to be confirmed by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source, on a terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others, and
an acquisition step of acquiring, in tenth time period after the ninth time period, input information that is information input by the entity of manufacturing or others in accordance with execution confirmation information that is information for confirming that the entity of manufacturing or others has confirmed an item to be confirmed included in the confirmation information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “method of organizing human activity” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, the “generation step...” and the “acquisition step…” in the contexts of this claim encompass a social activity of generating information to provide to a person and in response, acquiring an input from the person. Accordingly, the claim recites at least two abstract idea(s).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the 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(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Management method for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body, the method comprising:
a generation step of generating, in a ninth time period, information for displaying confirmation information that is information to be confirmed by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source, on a terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others, and
an acquisition step of acquiring, in tenth time period after the ninth time period, input information that is information input by the entity of manufacturing or others in accordance with execution confirmation information that is information for confirming that the entity of manufacturing or others has confirmed an item to be confirmed included in the confirmation information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., to control an aircraft engine), or as stated the preamble (“for a vehicle which is configured by installation of a vehicle body and a power source mounted on the vehicle body”) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad. See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (“Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 18 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “for a vehicle…” is/are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to “significantly more”, as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (“simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use”), as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981), are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 25, the claim(s) recite(s) “An information processing device” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 25 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 18. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 18. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 18. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of “a display generation unit” and “an acquisition unit”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17, 20-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-12, 14, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper et al. (US 20210125421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper teaches Management method for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring, in a first time period, in a state where the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source drives a wheel connected to the power source by the power source (“The anticipated riding parameters (or stored riding parameters of the individual on past routes) may be compared with actual riding parameters 240 of the individual (e.g., riding parameter 240 information received in real-time or substantially real time as the individual is riding the light electric vehicle 235 along the route) to determine whether the light electric vehicle 235 may be experiencing a maintenance event.”, [0084], “the information from the one or more sensors may be used to determine performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235. The performance metrics of the light electric vehicle 235 may include a rechargeable battery usage rate of the light electric vehicle 235”, [0087], see also [0139-0140] and Fig. 7), a measurement value that is at least one of
(A) a rotational state quantity of at least one of the power source, the wheel, and a power transmission path between the power source and the wheel, or a generated power amount, or
(B) a state quantity of an energy source configured to supply energy for the power source (see “rechargeable battery usage rate of the light electric vehicle 235”, [0087]);
a comparison step of comparing, in a second time period after the first time period, the measurement value with a threshold value for the measurement value (“if the anticipated riding parameters are within a similarity threshold of the actual riding parameters 240, the light electric vehicle management system 205 may determine the light electric vehicle 235 is operating as expected…if the anticipated riding parameters are not within a similarity threshold of the actual riding parameters 240, the light electric vehicle management system 205 may determine that the light electric vehicle 235 is not operating as expected. As such, a maintenance event may be occurring and the light electric vehicle management system 205 may request light electric vehicle information 245 from the light electric vehicle 235.”, [0085], see also [0140] and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising a first generation step of generating, in a third time period after the second time period, display information for displaying a comparison result in the comparison step or a determination result based on the comparison result in the comparison step on a terminal used by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle (“If the light electric vehicle management system determines the individual can perform the action, the light electric vehicle management system generates (760) a notification. The notification may include the requested action, one or more instructions regarding how to perform the requested action, a current (or anticipated) location of the light electric vehicle and/or an incentive for the requesting individual to perform the action. The notification may be provided to a computing device associated with the requesting individual.”, [0143], see also “the light electric vehicle, or the rechargeable battery itself, may communicate current battery charge information for the rechargeable battery to the computing device of the user. In another example, the rechargeable battery and/or battery holster 120 and 140 may include a visual indicator to display the charge level of the rechargeable battery. As an addition or an alternative, the electrical vehicle, or the rechargeable battery itself, may communicate current battery charge information for the rechargeable battery to the network service, which can provide battery information to the computing device of the user. When this occurs, the user may be directed to a rechargeable battery kiosk 150. For example, the network service can transmit data, over one or more networks, to the computing device to cause the computing device to display information about a particular rechargeable battery kiosk 150 to travel to.”, [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, further comprising a second generation step of generating, in a forth time period before the first time period, information for displaying, on the terminal, confirmation information that is information to be confirmed by the entity of manufacturing or others with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source (“Method 700 begins when a system, such as, for example, a light electric vehicle management system, receives (710) a light electric vehicle use request. The request may be received in similar manner to any of those described herein and may include or be used to identify profile information of the requesting individual—including whether the individual has been trained or is otherwise certified to address one or more detected maintenance events. When the light electric vehicle use request is received, the light electric vehicle management system receives (720) or otherwise determines information associated with light electric vehicles associated with the location of the requesting individual.”, [0139]).
Regarding claim 4, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the confirmation information includes information on an installation state of the vehicle body and the power source (see “information associated with light electric vehicles.”, [0139]).
Regarding claim 5, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein
the vehicle is provided with an information processing unit (“a system having at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor. The memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations”, [0005]) configured to perform a comparison between the measurement value and the threshold value in the comparison step, and the
confirmation information includes information on an installation state of the information processing unit to the vehicle (see “information associated with light electric vehicles.”, [0139]).
Regarding claim 10, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
the measurement value in the measurement step includes a plurality of measurement values (“actual riding parameters 240 of the individual (e.g., riding parameter 240 information received in real-time or substantially real time as the individual is riding the light electric vehicle 235 along the route)”, [0084]),
the threshold value in the comparison step includes a plurality of threshold values (“if the anticipated riding parameters are within a similarity threshold of the actual riding parameters 240”, [0085]), and
the display information in the first generation step includes an overall determination result that is the determination result as a whole based on the comparison result between each of the plurality of measurement values and corresponding each of the plurality of threshold values (“the light electric vehicle management system 205, may detect maintenance events, determine the cause of the maintenance events and determine how to address the maintenance events for a number of different light electric vehicles individually or at the same time or substantially the same time.”, [0066], see also [0105, 0119]).
Regarding claim 11, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
the display information in the first generation step includes the measurement value measured in the measurement step (“the rechargeable battery and/or battery holster 120 and 140 may include a visual indicator to display the charge level of the rechargeable battery. As an addition or an alternative, the electrical vehicle, or the rechargeable battery itself, may communicate current battery charge information for the rechargeable battery to the network service, which can provide battery information to the computing device of the user. When this occurs, the user may be directed to a rechargeable battery kiosk 150. For example, the network service can transmit data, over one or more networks, to the computing device to cause the computing device to display information about a particular rechargeable battery kiosk 150 to travel to.”, [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
the measurement value in the measurement step is measured by a measurement unit provided in the vehicle and transmitted to the terminal via a communication unit provided in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Cooper teaches The management method for a vehicle according to claim 2, further comprising:
a second acquisition step of acquiring first identification information that is identification information of the vehicle (“the light electric vehicle management system 305 may determine or identify one or more light electric vehicles 335 that are in or otherwise associated with the location of the individual”, [0117]) and second identification information that is identification information of the entity of manufacturing or others (“once the individual has been identified by the rider profile information 345, the rider profile system 310 may access securely stored profile information of the individual in order to determine riding habits of the individual, a riding profile of the individual a rider type of the individual, whether the individual is authorized or is otherwise trained to address one or more maintenance events and/or perform one or more services on light electric vehicles 335, a current location of the individual, past routes taken by the individual, and so on.”, [0116]),
an association step of associating, in a seventh time period before the first time period, the first identification information with the second identification information (“Once one or more light electric vehicles 335 in or around the location of the individual are identified, the maintenance system 315 may determine whether any of the identified light electric vehicles 335 are experiencing, have experienced and/or are anticipated to experience a maintenance event.”, [0117]).
Regarding claim 18, Cooper teaches Management method for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the method comprising:
a generation step of generating, in a ninth time period, information for displaying confirmation information that is information to be confirmed by an entity of manufacturing or others which is any one of a manufacturing entity, a managing entity, an owning entity, or a use entity of the vehicle with regard to the vehicle configured by installation of the vehicle body and the power source, on a terminal used by the entity of manufacturing or others (“If the light electric vehicle management system determines the individual can perform the action, the light electric vehicle management system generates (760) a notification. The notification may include the requested action, one or more instructions regarding how to perform the requested action, a current (or anticipated) location of the light electric vehicle and/or an incentive for the requesting individual to perform the action. The notification may be provided to a computing device associated with the requesting individual.”, [0143], see also “the light electric vehicle, or the rechargeable battery itself, may communicate current battery charge information for the rechargeable battery to the computing device of the user. In another example, the rechargeable battery and/or battery holster 120 and 140 may include a visual indicator to display the charge level of the rechargeable battery. As an addition or an alternative, the electrical vehicle, or the rechargeable battery itself, may communicate current battery charge information for the rechargeable battery to the network service, which can provide battery information to the computing device of the user. When this occurs, the user may be directed to a rechargeable battery kiosk 150. For example, the network service can transmit data, over one or more networks, to the computing device to cause the computing device to display information about a particular rechargeable battery kiosk 150 to travel to.”, [0060]), and
an acquisition step of acquiring, in tenth time period after the ninth time period, input information that is information input by the entity of manufacturing or others in accordance with execution confirmation information that is information for confirming that the entity of manufacturing or others has confirmed an item to be confirmed included in the confirmation information (“The light electric vehicle management system may receive a confirmation, from the computing device of the requesting individual, that the requesting individual will perform the requested action.”, [0144], see also “When the user arrives at the rechargeable battery kiosk 150, the user may exchange the light electric vehicle's current battery with another rechargeable battery housed by the rechargeable battery kiosk 150, thereby enabling the light electric vehicle to continue or resume operation. In some instances, the user can use the client application executing on the computing device of the user to locate and/or select a rechargeable battery kiosk 150, receive directions to the rechargeable battery kiosk 150, and initiate a battery swap with the rechargeable battery kiosk 150 when the user arrives at its location.”, [0061]).
Regarding claim 20, Cooper teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a management program for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the program causing a computer to execute the method of claim 1 (“The computing device 1100 may include at least one processing unit 1110 and a system memory 1120. The system memory 1120 may include, but is not limited to…non-volatile storage (e.g., read-only memory), flash memory, or any combination of such memories. The system memory 1120 may also include an operating system 1130 that control the operation of the computing device 1100 and one or more program modules 1140. The program modules 1140 may be responsible for gathering or determining rider profile information, light electric vehicle information, riding habit information, and so on. The memory may also store this received/determined information 1150 or otherwise provide access to this information.”, [0170],“A number of different program modules and data files may be stored in the system memory 1120. While executing on the processing unit 1110, the program modules 1140 may perform the various processes described above.”, [0172], see also [0005]).
Regarding claim 21, Cooper teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a management program for a vehicle (“electric bicycle 130”, Fig. 1) which is configured by installation of a vehicle body (“bicycle frame”, [0056], Fig. 1) and a power source (“rechargeable battery”, [0055-0056], “The rechargeable battery may be secured to the electric bicycle 130 by a battery holster 140.”, [0056], Fig. 1) mounted on the vehicle body, the program causing a computer to execute the method of claim 18 (“The computing device 1100 may include at least one processing unit 1110 and a system memory 1120. The system memory 1120 may include, but is not limited to…non-volatile storage (e.g., read-only memory), flash memory, or any combination of such memories. The system memory 1120 may also include an operating system 1130 that control the operation of the computing device 1100 and one or more program modules 1140. The program modules 1140 may be responsible for gathering or determining rider profile information, light electric vehicle information, riding habit information, and so on. The memory may also store this received/determined information 1150 or otherwise provide access to this information.”, [0170],“A number of different program modules and data files may be stored in the system memory 1120. While executing on the processing unit 1110, the program modules 1140 may perform the various processes described above.”, [0172], see also [0005]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s