Detailed Office Action
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 02/17/2026. The applicant has amended claim 1. Applicant has canceled claims 2-5. Applicant has newly added claims 6-10. Claims 1 and 6-10 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 6-10 remain pending in the application.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 02/17/2026 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections previously set forth. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “the claim as a whole integrates any abstract idea the Office alleged to exist into a practical application”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Because the claims only recite mental processes and insignificant extra solution activities, there are no additional elements that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the claim cannot provide significantly more by making an improvement to the technology as an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(a) Section II, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea…is not an improvement in technology”).
See below for detailed rejection.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 02/17/2026, with regard to the rejections of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, however are respectfully not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that “Kistu fails to explicitly or inherently disclose calculating a first evaluation value or a second evaluation value” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kitsu teaches both an evaluation value and an evaluation value which is an evaluation value of the driving battery alone based on the second data separately from the first data (see at least Kitsu (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.18 para.3 and pg.27 para.3] the battery authentication server 130 according to the battery information and diagnostic data, calculating the evaluation score (evaluation level) of the battery, and determining whether to grant authentication according to the evaluation score calculated...the authentication of different levels can be granted according to the content of the diagnosis processing). As presently drafted the limitation of “evaluation value” remains broad and generic, the calculated evaluation score described in Kitsu explicitly teaches an “evaluation value which is an evaluation value of the driving battery alone”. Further, Kitsu teaches “based on the second data separately from the first data”, because Kitsu does not teach a first evaluation value for the used vehicle based on first data, it would be obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art the calculate such a value separately from a first evaluation value.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that “Kitsu and Hyoen do not describe a first evaluation value and a second evaluation value” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kitsu teaches a second evaluation value for the same reasons as discussed above. Hyoen teaches “wherein the control unit calculates a first evaluation value, which is an evaluation value of the first vehicle as a used vehicle, based on the first data” (see at least Hyoen [English Translation pg.2 para.2 and pg.6 para.6] The present invention relates to a battery charge history management system for an electric vehicle, and more particularly, to manage a charge history for a battery used in an electric vehicle, evaluate the battery value, and charge a battery of an electric vehicle so that it can be used for used transactions of electric vehicles...based on the battery residual value information, it is possible to prepare a standard for calculating the sale price of a used electric vehicle). Here, the calculation of the sale price of the used electric vehicle is analogous to “an evaluation value of the first vehicle as a used vehicle, based on the first data”.
Please see detailed rejection below.
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) are:
“a control unit” in Claim 1 is being interpreted as a generic processor
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1, the following limitations are indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention for reasons which will be explained below, “calculating an evaluation value for the first vehicle based on the first data and the second data, wherein the control unit is configured to execute calculating a first evaluation value…calculating a second evaluation value…”.
The Claim recites “calculating an evaluation value” then goes on to recite “calculating a first evaluation value” and “calculating a second evaluation value”. It is unclear if the “evaluation value” is the same or different from either or both of the “first evaluation value” and “second evaluation value”. For sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner construes the first sentence “calculating an evaluation value for the first vehicle based on the first data and the second data” to mean that the control unit is capable of calculating a plurality of evaluation values based on the first and second data, and the following sentences regarding the “first” and “second” evaluation values to further describe what the plurality of evaluation values can be. However, correction and clarification is necessary to overcome the indefiniteness.
Claims 6-10 are dependent upon independent Claim 1 and are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon rejected Claim 1.
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 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
101 Analysis - With respect to Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed towards an information processing device which is directed to the statutory category of a machine. Therefore Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis- Step 2A Prong One:
Regarding Prong One 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 process.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites, inter alai:
“An information processing device, comprising:
a control unit configured to execute:
obtaining first data relating to a status of a first vehicle including a driving battery;
acquiring second data relating to a status of the driving battery; and
calculating an evaluation value for the first vehicle based on the first data and the second data, wherein the control unit is configured to execute calculating a first evaluation value, which is the evaluation value as a used vehicle, based on the first data,
calculating a second evaluation value, which is the evaluation value as the driving battery, based on the second data separately from the first data, wherein the second evaluation value includes the evaluation value in a case where the driving battery is redistributed, the evaluation value in a case where the driving battery is rebuilt, and the evaluation value in a case where resources are taken out of the driving battery,
acquiring a plurality of bid data sets in which the status of the driving battery and the evaluation value are associated with each other from terminals associated with a plurality of business operators,
calculating the second evaluation value based on the second data and the plurality of bid data sets,
determining a recycling method for the first vehicle based on comparing the first evaluation value with the second evaluation value, and
outputting the determined recycling method, wherein
the second data includes a battery model of the driving battery, State of Health (SoH) of the driving battery, a number of times of charge and discharge of the driving battery, and a maximum power of the driving battery.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, “calculating” and “determining” in the context of this claim, all encompass a person looking at available data and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either manually or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As drafted, the above claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), that are merely completed via generic computer components. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Regarding Prong Two 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 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 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”):
Claim 1 recites, inter alai:
“An information processing device, comprising:
a control unit configured to execute:
obtaining first data relating to a status of a first vehicle including a driving battery;
acquiring second data relating to a status of the driving battery; and
calculating an evaluation value for the first vehicle based on the first data and the second data, wherein the control unit is configured to execute calculating a first evaluation value, which is the evaluation value as a used vehicle, based on the first data,
calculating a second evaluation value, which is the evaluation value as the driving battery, based on the second data separately from the first data, wherein the second evaluation value includes the evaluation value in a case where the driving battery is redistributed, the evaluation value in a case where the driving battery is rebuilt, and the evaluation value in a case where resources are taken out of the driving battery,
acquiring a plurality of bid data sets in which the status of the driving battery and the evaluation value are associated with each other from terminals associated with a plurality of business operators,
calculating the second evaluation value based on the second data and the plurality of bid data sets,
determining a recycling method for the first vehicle based on comparing the first evaluation value with the second evaluation value, and
outputting the determined recycling method, wherein
the second data includes a battery model of the driving battery, State of Health (SoH) of the driving battery, a number of times of charge and discharge of the driving battery, and a maximum power of the driving battery.”
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 of “a control unit…”, this limitation merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining…” and “acquiring…”, these limitations merely describe the sending and receiving of data which are an insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitation of “outputting…” this limitations merely describes the display of data which is an insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
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. 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.
Step 2B Analysis:
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 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 element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the act of collecting data and displaying data amounts to no more than merely storing and displaying information of the exception and thus is an extra-solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 6-10, no claim further adds a limitation that introduces any practical applications to the claimed invention, the dependent claims merely add more mental process, mathematical concepts, and post-solution activities and are thus not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 6-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitsu (CN 115692898 A) in view of Hyoen (KR 20220073304 A), Iimura (JP 2004287617 A), Morita et al (CN 112529215 A), and Chow et al (US 20160209472 A1). Hereafter referred to as Kitsu, Hyoen, Iimura, Morita, and Chow respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Kitsu teaches an information processing device comprising a control unit (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.9 para.3] The terminal device 20 includes a control unit 21 for controlling the entire terminal)
configured to execute:
obtaining first data relating to a status of a first vehicle including a driving battery (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.5 para.4] vehicle-mounted measuring device 40 mounted on the vehicle, measuring the...the use time (discharge time) of the battery mounted on the vehicle, the charging time and the charging time information related to the charging)
acquiring second data relating to a status of the driving battery (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.5 para.4] vehicle-mounted measuring device 40 mounted on the vehicle, measuring the...the charging time and the charging time information related to the charging)
calculating an evaluation value for the first vehicle based on the first data and the second data, wherein the control unit is configured to execute…calculating a second evaluation value, which is the evaluation value as the driving battery, based on the second data separately from the first data (see at least Kitsu (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.18 para.3 and pg.27 para.3] the battery authentication server 130 according to the battery information and diagnostic data, calculating the evaluation score (evaluation level) of the battery, and determining whether to grant authentication according to the evaluation score calculated...the authentication of different levels can be granted according to the content of the diagnosis processing)
wherein the second evaluation value includes the evaluation value in a case where the driving battery is redistributed, the evaluation value in a case where the driving battery is rebuilt, and the evaluation value in a case where resources are taken out of the driving battery (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.18 para.3 and pg.40 para.6, pg.13 para.4, pg.58 para.2] the battery authentication server 130 according to the battery information and diagnostic data, calculating the evaluation score (evaluation level) of the battery, and determining whether to grant authentication according to the evaluation score calculate...In the case of repairing the battery cell, the SOH of the electric core is improved, therefore, the evaluation score of the electric core is increased, and the result is that the evaluation score of the whole battery is also increased…under the condition of unable to repair and regenerate the battery, recycling the operator to disassemble the battery, and removing impurities to extract and so on, so as to extract the recyclable material…when the battery module or battery core is reused for other vehicle-mounted battery or fixed battery, it also can consider the discharge of CO2 emission suppression amount caused by reusing the battery module or battery core for the life cycle CO2 discharge of the vehicle-mounted battery or fixing battery)
However, Kitsu does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to execute calculating a first evaluation value, which is the evaluation value as a used vehicle, based on the first data.
Hyoen, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit is configured to execute calculating a first evaluation value, which is the evaluation value as a used vehicle, based on the first data (see at least Hyoen [English Translation pg.2 para.2 and pg.6 para.6] The present invention relates to a battery charge history management system for an electric vehicle, and more particularly, to manage a charge history for a battery used in an electric vehicle, evaluate the battery value, and charge a battery of an electric vehicle so that it can be used for used transactions of electric vehicles...based on the battery residual value information, it is possible to prepare a standard for calculating the sale price of a used electric vehicle).
Therefore, 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 the system set forth in Kitsu to contain a system for wherein the control unit is configured to execute calculating a first evaluation value, which is the evaluation value as a used vehicle, based on the first data with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the reliability and transparency of monetarily valuing used vehicles as discussed in Hyoen (see at least Hyoen [English Translation pg.6 para.3] it can provide transparency in pricing, which can improve the reliability of used electric vehicle transactions).
Further, Kitsu does not explicitly teach acquiring a plurality of bid data sets in which the status of the driving battery and the evaluation value are associated with each other from terminals associated with a plurality of business operators, and calculating the second evaluation value based on the second data and the plurality of bid data sets.
Iimura, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches acquiring a plurality of bid data sets in which the status of the driving battery and the evaluation value are associated with each other from terminals associated with a plurality of business operators (see at least Iimura [English Translation pg.3 para.5 and pg.5 para.1] the used car price assessment support system of the present invention accumulates and stores successful vehicle data such as the type, year, equipment, defects, repair history, repair details, and successful bid price of a large number of used cars traded at an auction...Then, as shown in FIG. 9, the screen is switched to a defect degree input screen in which the degree of defect can be inputted step by step for each part. Then, the assessor inputs the size, type, etc. of the defect of the subject vehicle. Then, the same input is made for all the defects of the exterior. When the exterior input is completed, the process proceeds to the electrical system input in step 8, and as shown in FIG. 10, a screen for inputting the presence or absence of a failure in the electrical system such as an air conditioner, lamps, and a battery is displayed. The status of the electrical system is entered according to this screen display)
calculating the second evaluation value based on the second data and the plurality of bid data sets (see at least Iimura [English Translation pg.4 para.4 and pg.5 para.5 and pg.5 para.1] The vehicle received assessment vehicle data such as the model, year, equipment, defects, repair history, and repair details of the assessment target vehicle, and compares the assessment vehicle data with the successful bid vehicle data stored and stored in the successful bid vehicle database. Calculate the appropriate price of the vehicle to be assessed....All the assessment vehicle data thus input is transmitted to the web server 1 via the Internet communication network 2. Therefore, the price assessment program 5 calculates the appropriate price of the vehicle to be assessed based on the successful bid price of the vehicle data that is the closest from the large number of successful vehicle data stored and stored in the successful vehicle database. The price information thus calculated is transmitted to the client machine 3 via the Internet communication network 2 and displayed on the display of the client machine as illustrated in FIG. For this reason, the assessor can easily determine the purchase price, the transfer price, and the like according to the actual market price by referring to the displayed price....the assessor inputs the size, type, etc. of the defect of the subject vehicle. Then, the same input is made for all the defects of the exterior. When the exterior input is completed, the process proceeds to the electrical system input in step 8, and as shown in FIG. 10, a screen for inputting the presence or absence of a failure in the electrical system such as an air conditioner, lamps, and a battery is displayed).
Therefore, 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 the system set forth in Kitsu to contain a system for acquiring a plurality of bid data sets in which the status of the driving battery and the evaluation value are associated with each other from terminals associated with a plurality of business operators, and calculating the second evaluation value based on the second data and the plurality of bid data sets with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the price assessment of used vehicles by implanting a wide variety of values associated with the vehicle in order to increase the accuracy as discussed in Iimura (see at least Iimura [English Translation, pg.6 para.1] the price assessment program stores a wide variety of exterior developments, interior developments, and developments for restoration history input that differ for each vehicle model…the status of the assessed vehicle is always accurately input without being affected by the assessor's skills or thinking, and a fair assessment price is calculated).
Further, Kitsu does not explicitly teach determining a recycling method for the first vehicle based on comparing the first evaluation value with the second evaluation value, and outputting the determined recycling method.
Morita, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches determining a recycling method for the first vehicle based on comparing the first evaluation value with the second evaluation value and outputting the determined recycling method (see at least Morita [English Translation pg.3 para.4-6, pg.5 para.2, pg.7 para.3-5, pg.8 para.3] the reproduction plan of the battery product comprises the battery data of the secondary battery which can be recycled as the secondary battery used in the battery product; providing the recycling condition for the owner of the first secondary battery...The reproduction plan of the battery product includes battery data of a secondary battery that can be recovered as a secondary battery used in a battery product, and is made using specification data....the reproduction support server 100 under the condition that the seller promise the reproduction plan, in order to recycle the secondary battery according to the plan to provide the plan to the battery recovery support server 200...in the battery database, the diagnostic data and various battery associated data other than the date and time data associated with the identifier establishing association registration…The data related to the vehicle carrying the secondary battery may include, for example, the vehicle type of the vehicle, the annual payment, the driving distance, and the like. Because the older vehicle and the vehicle with a long distance of travel have the possibility that the owner is studying the possibility of rejection, it is also possible to take into account the data associated with the vehicle in the decision of the recovery conditions described later…The reproduction plan creation unit 105 receives a search result of the battery database from the database search unit 104. and the reproduction plan making part 105 based on the search result…The reproduction plan providing unit 106 receives the reproduction plan from the reproduction plan making unit 105, and supplies it to the seller terminal 40 via the vendor front server 50).
Therefore, 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 the system set forth in Kitsu to contain a system for determining a recycling method for the first vehicle based on comparing the first evaluation value with the second evaluation value and outputting the determined recycling method with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the choice of recycling method by informing the decision based on different types of data and calculated parameters as disclosed in Morita.
Further, Kitsu does not explicitly teach wherein the second data includes a battery model of the driving battery, State of Health (SoH) of the driving battery, a number of times of charge and discharge of the driving battery, and a maximum power of the driving battery.
Chow, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the second data includes a battery model of the driving battery, State of Health (SoH) of the driving battery, a number of times of charge and discharge of the driving battery, and a maximum power of the driving battery (see at least Chow [Abstract and ¶ 47, 51, 53, 26] estimating first status information of a battery based on battery information acquired from the battery…The first estimator 110 estimates first status information of the battery, based on battery information acquired from the battery. The first status information may include, for example, an internal parameter of an equivalent model corresponding to the battery from the battery information using the equivalent model…a method and apparatus for estimating a remaining useful life of a battery may apply a statistical analysis scheme to user history information, in order to accurately estimate the remaining useful life despite the partial charging and discharging of the battery…Additionally, a point in time at which a fully charged battery reaches a discharge limit that is defined as a state of charge (SOC) of 10% or a low cut-off voltage may be determined based on an internal resistance and a capacity of the battery. A full capacity may indicate an actually available battery capacity…such a full capacity may be represented as an amount of charge to be released or stored at a charge and discharge (charge/discharge) rate…The battery information may include at least one of a voltage, a current, a temperature, a cycle count, and a partial cycle count of the battery).
Therefore, 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 the system set forth in Kitsu to contain a system for wherein the second data includes a battery model of the driving battery, State of Health (SoH) of the driving battery, a number of times of charge and discharge of the driving battery, and a maximum power of the driving battery with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the available data by including battery parameters that are well known and commonly used in the field of vehicle batteries.
Regarding Claim 6, Kitsu in view of Hyoen, Iimura, Morita, and Chow teach all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Kitsu further teaches wherein the second data further includes an operation history of a safety device in the driving battery or a state of a plurality of cells of the driving battery (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.6 para.1] diagnostic devices 50, 60, 70, 90 such as a hand-held diagnostic device, measuring the current value and voltage value of the battery loaded on the vehicle or detached from the vehicle and so on, and estimating the SOH (State of Health;) representing the deterioration degree of the battery, healthy condition). diagnosis device 50, 60, 70, 90 such as measuring the current value of the battery pack, voltage value, temperature, and SOC (State of Charge; charging state), estimating the SOH of the battery pack. In addition, diagnostic devices 50, 60, 70, 90 pairs of battery modules or battery cells decomposed from the battery pack, using the module as unit or the electric core as unit to measure the current value, voltage value, temperature, and SOC, estimating SOH).
Regarding Claim 7, Kitsu in view of Hyoen, Iimura, Morita, and Chow teach all limitations of Claim 6 as set forth above. Kitsu further teaches wherein the second data is generated based on results of battery measurement at a service facility or a dealer (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.5 para.3] Maintenance and second-hand car operators' diagnosis equipment 50 is prepared for maintenance operators, maintenance sites for second-hand car operators, office and the like, and equipment responsible for the maintenance of vehicles or batteries. The disassembly operator of the diagnosis device 60 is prepared to disassemble the factory of the operator, office and so on, from the vehicle disassembling the battery responsible for the device).
Regarding Claim 8, Kitsu in view of Hyoen, Iimura, Morita, and Chow teach all limitations of Claim 7 as set forth above. However, Kitsu does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to, in response to the first evaluation value being higher than the second evaluation value, execute determining the recycling method as maintaining the first vehicle as the used vehicle.
Hyoen, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit is configured to, in response to the first evaluation value being higher than the second evaluation value, execute determining the recycling method as maintaining the first vehicle as the used vehicle (see at least Hyoen [English Translation pg.5 para.12] the vehicle value evaluation calculation unit 400 receives a vehicle value inquiry from the vehicle seller, and receives the estimated remaining battery value information through the battery condition information management unit 200, together with the vehicle condition information management unit 300 . By receiving vehicle state information and battery state information from the vehicle, it can be calculated by evaluating the relative value of the vehicle among a plurality of vehicles registered in the vehicle information database (DB) as a percentage, and using this, it is possible to calculate the electric vehicle It can be reflected in the used price).
Therefore, 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 the system set forth in Kitsu to contain a system for wherein the control unit is configured to, in response to the first evaluation value being higher than the second evaluation value, execute determining the recycling method as maintaining the first vehicle as the used vehicle with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the evaluation of the used vehicle by implementing the use of battery information as discussed in Hyoen (see at least Hyoen [English Translation pg.6 para.3] based on the battery residual value information, it is possible to prepare a standard for calculating the sale price of a used electric vehicle, so that the transaction is activated in the electric vehicle used transaction and a reasonable purchase can be made by the buyer. In addition, it can provide transparency in pricing, which can improve the reliability of used electric vehicle transactions).
Regarding Claim 9, Kitsu in view of Hyoen, Iimura, Morita, and Chow teach all limitations of Claim 8 as set forth above. Kitsu further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to, in response to the second evaluation value being higher than the first evaluation value, execute determining the recycling method as removing the driving battery (see at least Kitsu [English Translation pg.38 para.6, pg.13 para.4] if the SOH is less than a predetermined threshold value, it is set to be unable to repair and regeneration, if the SOH is more than the predetermined threshold value, it is set to be capable of repairing and regenerating...under the condition of unable to repair and regenerate the battery, recycling the operator to disassemble the battery, and removing impurities to extract and so on, so as to extract the recyclable material).
Regarding Claim 10, Kitsu in view of Hyoen, Iimura, Morita, and Chow teach all limitations of Claim 9 as set forth above. However, Kitsu does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to, in response to determining the recycling method as removing the driving battery, execute outputting the determined recycling method having the evaluation value being highest among the case where the driving battery is redistributed, the case where the driving battery is rebuilt, and the case where resources are taken out of the driving battery.
Morita, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit is configured to, in response to determining the recycling method as removing the driving battery, execute outputting the determined recycling method having the evaluation value being highest among the case where the driving battery is redistributed, the case where the driving battery is rebuilt, and the case where resources are taken out of the driving battery (see at least Morita [English Translation pg.5 para.2, pg.3 para.4-6] the reproduction support server 100 under the condition that the seller promise the reproduction plan, in order to recycle the secondary battery according to the plan to provide the plan to the battery recovery support server 200...the reproduction plan of the battery product comprises the battery data of the secondary battery which can be recycled as the secondary battery used in the battery product; providing the recycling condition for the owner of the first secondary battery; The recycling condition is used for recycling the first secondary battery corresponding to the first battery data... the vendor computer comprises a processor. in the secondary battery recycling system, a processor, the specification data representing the requirement performance of the battery product is sent to the re-production support server, receiving the re-production plan of the battery product from the re-production support server; The reproduction plan of the battery product includes battery data of a secondary battery that can be recovered as a secondary battery used in a battery product).
Therefore, 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 the system set forth in Kitsu to contain a system for wherein the control unit is configured to, in response to determining the recycling method as removing the driving battery, execute outputting the determined recycling method having the evaluation value being highest among the case where the driving battery is redistributed, the case where the driving battery is rebuilt, and the case where resources are taken out of the driving battery with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of outputting a decision made by the system so the output information may be used to carry out a method.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH A YANOSKA whose telephone number is (703)756-5891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 5:00pm (Pacific Time).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/JOSEPH ANDERSON YANOSKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights