DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered. Claim 6 has been added. Claims 1-6 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidooshi (JP 2023020688 A) in view of Hashimoto (JP 2010198279 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kidooshi teaches an information providing system that provides carbon footprint information of a battery pack mounted on a vehicle, the information providing system comprising one or more processors ([0010]), the one or more processors being configured to:
acquire the carbon footprint information including first CO2 emission amount information and second CO2 emission amount information ([0030] and [0188]),
acquire first CO2 emission amount information obtained by converting an amount of emission of greenhouse gas associated with manufacturing the battery pack and the vehicle into a CO2 emission amount; ([0030], [0048], and [0190], where raw CO2 emissions, which are recognized as a type of greenhouse gas emission, are obtained and converted into a numerical CO2 emission amount);
calculate second C02 emission amount information, the second C02 emission amount information representing a C02 amount obtained by converting an amount of emission of greenhouse gas emitted during primary use of the battery pack in the vehicle into a C02 emission amount; and ([0188-0189]);
and provide a requester with results of an eco-authentication request in response to a request from the requester ([0025]).
Kidooshi teaches that the results of an eco-authentication request are transmitted back to the device that requested the authentication. This authentication is based off analysis of the carbon footprint information, including the first and second carbon information ([0194-0195]), but the carbon information including the first C02 emission amount information and the second C02 emission amount information is not explicitly included with the displayed authentication result.
However, as Kidooshi teaches that the displayed authentication result allows emission reduction in the battery to be grasped ([0199-0200]), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to include the carbon information including the first C02 emission amount information and the second C02 emission amount information in the displaying of the eco-authentication result based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of ensuring that a user can properly grasp the amount of CO2 emission reduction in the battery. This allows the operator to view the authentication results and corresponding amount of CO2 reduction as necessary per their needs.
Kidooshi teaches calculating the second CO2 emission based on the amount of CO2 emitted when charging the battery ([0188-0189]), but is not privy to how this is calculated, and does not teach that the processor is configured to acquire a C02 emission coefficient through communication with a server of an external institution, and calculate the second CO2 emission amount information based on the C02 emission coefficient and a total amount of charging power for charging the battery pack with an external charger during primary use.
In the same field of endeavor, Hashimoto teaches:
acquiring a C02 emission coefficient through communication with a server of an external institution ([0011] and [0029], where a CO2 emission coefficient is obtained by a map based on the time and location where charging takes place so that the CO2 produced by the electric company as necessary to charge the battery is determined; see [0002-0004] of Hashimoto, incorporating by reference a teaching from [0041] of Tonegawa (JP 2007185083 A), wherein this CO2 emission coefficient map is received from an external “power information server”);
and calculate the second CO2 emission amount information based on the CO2 emission coefficient and a total amount of charging power for charging the battery pack with an external charger during primary use ([0011] and [0029], where the total CO2 emission amount for charging the battery is calculated “based on the amount of electricity used to charge battery 3…and the CO2 emission coefficient for the electric power company”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Kidooshi so that the second CO2 emission amount is calculated with a CO2 emission coefficient based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Hashimoto, of accurately calculating the CO2 emissions of electric vehicles in accordance with the type of power generation used by the electric power company to produce the electricity necessary for the charging of the battery, as an accurate amount of CO2 emissions is dependent on this information ([0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Kidooshi teaches wherein the carbon footprint information further includes third CO2 emission amount information obtained by converting an amount of emission of greenhouse gas emitted during reuse of the battery pack into a CO2 emission amount ([0106] and [0191]).
Regarding claim 3, Kidooshi teaches wherein the requester includes a user that reuses the battery pack or a user that desires to reuse the battery pack ([0112], where the requester is a “reuse business operator”).
Regarding claim 4, Kidooshi teaches wherein:
the requester is a user that desires to reuse the battery pack ([0106]);
and the one or more processors are configured to set a price of the battery pack to be presented to the user in response to a diagnosis result ([0081]).
Kidooshi teaches setting a price of the battery based on a diagnosis result, and while the components of the diagnosis result are used to estimate the carbon footprint information, Kidooshi does not explicitly teach that the price is based off the carbon footprint information.
However, as Kidooshi teaches that the authentication information, which is produced from the carbon information and includes the carbon information per the previous combination, can be used by a customer to assess the selling price of a battery ([0099] and [0112]), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have a seller of the battery use the authentication information, including the carbon information, to set the selling price based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the price of the battery is an "appropriate price". This ensures that sellers list their batteries for an appropriate prices in the same manner in which the invention of Kidooshi allows buyers to check and see what a battery’s appropriate price is.
Regarding claim 5, Kidooshi teaches:
wherein the carbon footprint information further includes fourth CO2 emission amount information obtained by converting an amount of emission of greenhouse gas emitted in a disposal process of the battery pack into a CO2 emission amount ([0209] and [0213], where the CO2 emissions during recycling are calculated).
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto teaches :
acquiring location information from the vehicle upon completion of charging ([0014-0015], where the location where “charging took place” is identified); and
calculating the second CO2 emission amount information based on the location information, the C02 emission coefficient, and the total amount of charging power ([0011] and [0029], where the location of charging is to discern the electric power company to so as to obtain the CO2 emission coefficient from the map, which is multipled by the total charging power to produce the CO2 emission amount from charging, i.e. the second CO2 emission amount).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/01/2026 with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights