DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application No. 18/919,387 filed on 10/17/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 16 (although not verbatim, but contain the same concept) recite the following:
A battery service system, comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors;
wherein the memory stores instructions that when executed configure the one or more processors to:
receive diagnostic analysis data corresponding to an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery, the diagnostic analysis data including:
an operation characteristic of the battery; or
a driving characteristic of the electric vehicle;
determine a degree-of-degradation of the battery from the diagnostic analysis data;
generate update information for a charging/discharging control logic of the battery according to the determined degree-of-degradation; and
provide the update information to the electric vehicle;
wherein the memory stores instructions that when executed further configure the one or more processors to:
(a) determine a residual value of the battery based on the determined degree-of-degradation and transmit the residual value to an external server; and/or (b) determine a usage free of the battery based on the determined degree-of-degradation and transmit the usage fee to an external server.
The aforementioned bolded steps have been determined to be an abstract idea of a mental process that merely gathers diagnostic information about a battery, determines various parameters such as degree-of-degradation of the battery, and outputs the updated battery information to the electric vehicle which is similar to the concepts deemed by the courts to be abstract such as collecting, analyzing, and displaying available data in Electric Power Group.
Each of the steps can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to perform simple numerical analysis based on the diagnostic data received relating to the battery of the electric vehicle in order to determine a degree-of-degradation of the battery from the diagnostic analysis data. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, this can be as simple as determining the degree-of-degradation based on the number of charging cycles the battery has undergone.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception in to a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claims do contain the additional elements of a processor, memory, electric vehicle, and battery. However, each of the additional elements are claimed at such a high generality that they merely function as tools to apply the abstract idea, or more particularly, as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The courts have determined 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 do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
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 technological field. 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.
For at least the reasons above, the additional elements, in combination with the abstract idea of itself, are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements, considered both individually or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and convention additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
While claims 1-20 are currently rejected under §101, the subject matter of claims 1-20 would be allowable if the 101 rejection was overcome by way of amendment or persuasive argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P INGRAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668