DETAILED ACTION
This Final office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed March 18, 2026.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 6-9 are newly added.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim is directed towards, “wherein the controller is configured to determine the storage period based on data received via a network from a second terminal different from the terminal of the collection company”. The claim is directed toward new matter with respect to having a terminal different from the terminal of the collection company. The originally filed specification [12-23] describes the terminals between collection and dealer, however, the terminals, as discussed and described in the specification, can be the same type of terminal architecturally. The specification does not provide written description support for a different terminal of the terminal for the collection company. As such, claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for being directed towards new matter with respect to the second terminal different from the terminal of the collection company.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of Step 1, claims 1-9 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of step 2(a)(1), independent claim 1 is directed towards, “the processing method including either a recycling process in which the plurality of batteries are reused as resources, or a rebuilding process in which the plurality of batteries are used in a rebuild in which some or all of parts are reused, acquire the stored battery information; determine whether an amount of batteries included in the acquired battery information exceeds collection amount which is an amount that a collection company can collect; in a case where the amount of batteries included in the acquired battery information exceeds the collection amount, determine, among the plurality of batteries that are subjected to either the recycling process in which the batteries are reused as resources, or the rebuilding process in which the batteries are used in a rebuild in which some or all of the parts are reused, a high priority be given to collection of batteries that are to be subjected to the rebuilding process, wherein the determining among the plurality of batteries that are subjected to the rebuilding process is based on a deterioration rate of each of the plurality of batteries and a storage period for each of the plurality of batteries; and output, to a terminal of the collection company, instruction information for instructing collection of the plurality of batteries in accordance with the determined priority for the collection of the plurality of batteries”. The claims are describing a commercial activity in terms of recycling/rebuilding batteries and providing an instruction for collecting. This is considered based on the claims providing a recycling process that is determined using the storage period and battery information including recycling, reuse, and rebuilding. The claims are describing a business relation/commercial activity that falls into the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human activity.
Further, the claim is directed towards a collection, high level analysis, and display of the results. The claim provides determining information regarding a priority of batteries and outputting an instruction to collect. A person with pen and paper would be able to observe and judge to collect batteries based on a priority based on rebuilding/recycling. As such, the claims are describing an additional abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 1 are, “An information processing apparatus including a database and a controller, wherein the database storing battery information including a processing method for each of a plurality of batteries, the controller comprising at least one processor configured to, from the database”. The apparatus, processor, and controller are described in the originally filed specification [26] and figures 1 and 2. Based on the consideration, the additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the identified abstract idea(s). As such, the claim is not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). The additional elements of claim 1 are, “An information processing apparatus including a database and a controller, wherein the database storing battery information including a processing method for each of a plurality of batteries, the controller comprising at least one processor configured to, from the database”. The apparatus, processor, and controller are described in the originally filed specification [26] and figures 1 and 2. Based on the consideration, the additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the identified abstract idea(s). As such, the claim is not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-7 are further describing the identified abstract idea and are not directed towards further additional elements. The claims are directed towards, “wherein determining the priority includes determining that a battery that has been stored for a long period of time is given a high priority among the one or more batteries to be subjected to the rebuilding process”, “wherein determining the priority includes determining the priority of a battery that has been stored for a predetermined period or longer, among the one or more batteries to be subjected to the rebuilding process, to be lower than the priority of a battery that has been stored for a period shorter than the predetermined period”, “wherein determining the priority includes determining that a battery that has been stored for a short period of time is given a high priority among the one or more batteries to be subjected to the rebuilding process”, and “wherein determining the priority includes determining a priority order in descending order of an amount of a predetermined type of metal according to a type of metal and an amount of the metal contained in a battery to be subjected to the recycling process, the predetermined type of metal includes at least any of a precious metal, a base metal, or a rare metal”, “wherein determining the priority comprises setting a storage threshold based on the deterioration rate of each of the plurality of batteries, wherein batteries of the plurality of batteries having a storage time below the storage threshold have a higher priority than batteries of the plurality of batteries having the storage time equal to or greater than the storage threshold”, and “wherein the controller is configured to determine the storage threshold as a storage time at which a deterioration rate change of each of the plurality of batteries is equal to or less than a threshold deterioration rate change”. The claims further describe both the commercial activity and mental process abstract ideas. The claims provide aspects of the determination through both the recycling/rebuilding determination (commercial activity) and the high level of analysis in terms of priority determination (mental process). There are no additional elements beyond those considered above. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Dependent claims 8 and 9 are further describing additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein instructing collection of the plurality of batteries comprises instructing an autonomous vehicle to move to a location wherein the plurality of batteries are stored” and “wherein the controller is configured to determine the storage period based on data received via a network from a second terminal different from the terminal of the collection company”. The claims are further describing instructing an autonomous vehicle and a second terminal. The terminal and autonomous vehicles are described in the originally filed specification [12-15] {terminal} and [24] {autonomous vehicle}. The terminal and vehicle are merely described as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. This is further considered an idea of a solution with respect to the autonomous vehicle as the specification support merely provides the idea of an autonomous vehicle to collect based on the received instruction. There is no specific description in terms of a technical improvement beyond utilizing an autonomous vehicle that has received instructions to perform the collection. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified above. Refer to MPEP 2016.05(f).
In terms of Step 2(a)(I), Independent claim 9 is directed towards, “the processing method including either a recycling process in which the plurality of batteries are reused as resources, or a rebuilding process in which the plurality of batteries are used in a rebuild in which some or all of parts are reused: acquire the stored battery information from the database; determine whether an amount of batteries included in the acquired battery information exceeds collection amount which is an amount that a collection company can collect; in a case where the amount of batteries included in the acquired battery information exceeds the collection amount, determine, among the plurality of batteries that are subjected to either the recycling process in which the batteries are reused as resources, or the rebuilding process in which the batteries are used in a rebuild in which some or all of the parts are reused, a high priority be given to collection of batteries that are to be subjected to the rebuilding process, wherein the determining among the plurality of batteries that are subjected to the rebuilding process is based on a deterioration rate of each of the plurality of batteries and a storage period for each of the plurality of batteries; and output instruction information for instructing collection of the plurality of batteries in accordance with the determined priority for the collection of the plurality of batteries, The claims are describing a commercial activity in terms of recycling/rebuilding batteries and providing an instruction for collecting. This is considered based on the claims providing a recycling process that is determined using the storage period and battery information including recycling, reuse, and rebuilding. The claims are describing a business relation/commercial activity that falls into the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human activity.
Further, the claim is directed towards a collection, high level analysis, and display of the results. The claim provides determining information regarding a priority of batteries and outputting an instruction to collect. A person with pen and paper would be able to observe and judge to collect batteries based on a priority based on rebuilding/recycling. As such, the claims are describing an additional abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 9 are, “a battery collection system comprising: an autonomous vehicle; and an information processing apparatus including a database and a controller, wherein the database storing battery information including a processing method for each of a plurality of batteries, the controller comprising at least one processor configured to; wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to receive the output and travel to a storage location of the plurality of batteries in response to receiving the output”. The apparatus, processor, and controller are described in the originally filed specification [26] and figures 1 and 2. Based on the consideration, the additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the identified abstract idea(s). The additional elements further include an autonomous vehicle. The specification describes the vehicle in paragraph [24]. The vehicle is merely described as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. This is further considered an idea of a solution with respect to the autonomous vehicle as the specification support merely provides the idea of an autonomous vehicle to collect based on the received instruction. There is no specific description in terms of a technical improvement beyond utilizing an autonomous vehicle that has received instructions to perform the collection. As such, the claim is not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). The additional elements of claim 9 are, “a battery collection system comprising: an autonomous vehicle; and an information processing apparatus including a database and a controller, wherein the database storing battery information including a processing method for each of a plurality of batteries, the controller comprising at least one processor configured to; wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to receive the output and travel to a storage location of the plurality of batteries in response to receiving the output”. The apparatus, processor, and controller are described in the originally filed specification [26] and figures 1 and 2. Based on the consideration, the additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the identified abstract idea(s). The additional elements further include an autonomous vehicle. The specification describes the vehicle in paragraph [24]. The vehicle is merely described as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. This is further considered an idea of a solution with respect to the autonomous vehicle as the specification support merely provides the idea of an autonomous vehicle to collect based on the received instruction. There is no specific description in terms of a technical improvement beyond utilizing an autonomous vehicle that has received instructions to perform the collection. As such, the claim is not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed March 18, 2026 on pages 10-11 regarding the prior art rejection. Examiner agrees. The prior art rejection has been withdrawn as the claims are beyond the combination of considered prior art as considered. The specific combination of elements for the determination of the rebuild, recycle, and reuse and instruction to collect the battery based on the determination is beyond the considered prior art. As such, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn from claims 1-9, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added claim limitations.
In response to the arguments filed March 18, 2026 on pages 7-10 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations are directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments are with respect to the claim limitations that are beyond a person practically performing in the human mind. The consideration provides that the claims are directed towards collecting information regarding the battery (rebuild, reuse, recycle) and sending instructions to collect the battery based on the storage and deterioration. Specifically, the claim is merely providing a priority based on a deterioration rate and storage period. The analysis is a high level analysis that is based on the collected information that a person would able to observe and determine mentally with pen and paper. Though the claims discuss and allege that the deterioration rate is beyond mental processing, there is no specific algorithm, model, or written description that is beyond collecting information and high level analyzing the information to output an instruction based on the storage period and deterioration rate. Examiner further notes that the claims are also considered an abstract idea under the certain method of organizing human activity grouping. As such, claim 1 is directed towards an abstract idea grouping under step 2(a)(1), as per the amended claim limitations above.
The arguments continue in terms of the 2(a)(II) and 2(b) analysis and consideration for the additional elements. The additional elements of the computer aspects and elements were considered generic technology. This is further based on the amended claim limitations for the terminals and other computer architecture that is provided in the claim limitation. The claims also describe an autonomous vehicle that is receiving the output instructions to collect. Examiner notes that claim 1 is merely outputting the instructions (which is sent to a vehicle in dependent claim 8) and claim 9 includes the autonomous vehicle in the independent claim received instructions for the output. The autonomous vehicle is described in the originally filed specification [24]. The autonomous vehicle is merely described as tool to implement the abstract idea. The autonomous vehicle is receiving the instruction to collect and drive to the location. This is not describing a technical improvement in terms of the autonomous vehicle or instructions to autonomous route a vehicle. Further, the specification and claim limitations are describing the autonomous vehicle in terms of being an idea of a solution. There is no specific description in terms of a technical improvement beyond utilizing an autonomous vehicle that has received instructions to perform the collection. As such, the additional elements are not transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, claim 1 is maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-9 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nishizawa [2014/0019001] (battery recycling);
Obata [2015/0093611] (rebuild and reinstall vehicle battery);
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 ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights