CTNF 18/946,840 CTNF 80614 DETAILED ACTION This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed November 13, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims. The instant application is a continuation of application no. 18003747, now abandoned. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18003747 , filed on December 29, 2022 . Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: System and Method for Approving the Reuse of Electric Vehicle Battery for an End-use; Approving the Secondary Reuse of an Electric Vehicle Battery Based on Battery State of Health or the like . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent Claims 1 and 12 , the claims are directed to the abstract idea of battery analytics. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process). The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, battery analytics (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to determining the reuse grade of a battery for an electric vehicle (Specification: Paragraph 17 – “…reuse grade may include each of a used car reuse grade, an ESS (energy Storage System) grade and a resource recover grade”, wherein battery analytics is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “receive”, “store”, “calculate”, “store”, “determine” “query”, and “transmit” recite functions of the battery analytics are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The step of calculate a state-of-health of the battery is also directed to an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. The intended purpose of independent claims 1 and 12 appears determine the reuse grade (type/category of reuse) for an electric car battery based a calculated state-of-health metric. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are generic computer elements: memory, processor, and device. See 2106.04(a). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: memory, processor, and device. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 1, Element 10). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's battery analytics in the general field of business management/marketing and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited memory, processor, database, and device," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process). The claimed steps of calculate a state of health of the battery and determine a reuse grade all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a memory, processor, database, and device nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receive battery characteristic data and query one or more databases are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of transmit the requested reuse grade is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic memory, processor, database, and device are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No). As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receive, query and transmit steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No). The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 , the claims are directed to the abstract idea of battery analytics and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1 and 12. Claims 2 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the reuse grade to include information for state of health regions (bands, intervals, levels, zones, etc.) having a different grade value (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the reuse grade values to user car, energy storage or resource recovery (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4 and 15 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a reuse approval message, transmitting reuse battery information, receiving battery warehouse certification message, storing battery identification code (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 16 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the reuse company management system is an energy storage or resource recovery management system (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6, 9, 17, and 19 further limit the abstract idea to storing state of health history, comparing a reuse grade with a previous reuse grade and transmitting the reuse grade (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the device to a battery diagnosis device or portable terminal (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by receiving battery characteristics, storing battery characteristics, calculating a state of health, storing the state of health, determining a reuse grade, querying one or more databases, and transmitting a second requested reuse grade (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a battery residual value request, querying one or more databased, determining a battery residual value and transmitting a battery residual value (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by storing transaction information in one or more databases (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer. Further regarding claims 1-20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a memory, processor, database, and device at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1, Element 10). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360. Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine. Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer. Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions. Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a memory, processor, and devices merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1, Element 10). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borger et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210249704 in view of official notice . Regarding Claims 1 and 12 Borger et al., discloses a system (Paragraph 21) and method comprising: Receive battery characteristics data of a battery of an electric vehicle; Store battery characteristic data in one or more databases (Paragraphs 67, 81, 82, 85, 99; Claim 1) with a corresponding battery identification code (Paragraphs 82, 85, 87); Calculate a state of health of the battery based on the battery characteristic data (Paragraphs 15-17, 20, 65, 68, 69, 80, 95, 97, 101); Store the state of health of the battery in the one or more databases with the corresponding battery identification code (Paragraphs 67, 81, 82, 85, 99); Determine a reuse grade (level, category, classification, etc.) corresponding to a state of health value based on predefined reuse grade information (e.g. categorization variable; Paragraphs 64, 65, 67, 97; Claims 1, 4, 5, 6); and In response to a reuse grade calculation request (Paragraphs 99, 100): Query one or more databases using a requested battery identification code to determine a request reuse grade (Paragraphs 85, 87); and Transmit the requested reuse grade to a device (Paragraphs 80, 95, 99, 100). Borger et al. does not expressly disclose that the system comprises one or more processors or memory (i.e. a generic computer) as claimed. Official notice is taken that it is old and well known to utilize generic computers comprising one or more processors, coupled memory and the like to perform battery diagnostics, battery management and the like. Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following references: Ibi et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110239445 (Paragraph 37); Shoa et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180149708 (Figure 3; Paragraph 43). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Borger et al., would have benefited from utilizing a computer to perform the method steps in view of official notice, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding Claims 2 and 13 , Borger et al. discloses a system and method wherein the predetermined reuse grade information includes a plurality of state of health regions (ranges, thresholds, bands, levels, etc.) each state of health region associated with a different reuse grade (Paragraphs 65, 68, 69, 80, 95, 97, 101; Claims 1, 4, 5, 6). Regarding Claims 6 and 17 , Borger et al. discloses a system and method further comprising: Store the state of health history of the battery in one or more databases (Paragraphs 67, 81, 82, 85, 99); Compare the reuse grade with a previous reuse grade (Paragraphs 24, 44, 45); and Transmit reuse grade change information in response to a change in the reuse grade (Paragraphs 80, 95, 99, 100). Regarding Claim 7, Borger et al. discloses a system and method wherein the device is a battery diagnosis device or a portable terminal (Paragraph 21) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-5, 8-11, 14-16 and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a system and method further comprising: receiving a reuse approval message; transmitting battery reuse information containing a battery identification code of a reuse- approved battery to a reuse company management system; receiving a battery warehousing certification message from the reuse company management system, the battery warehousing certification message containing the battery identification code of a reuse battery; and storing the battery identification code included in the battery warehousing certification message in the one or more databases with a reuse company identification as recited in claims 4 and 15. The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a system and method further comprising: receive, from an ESS management system, a battery characteristic for a reuse battery, the battery characteristic including a voltage profile according to a state-of-charge (SOC) or a current profile according to a state-of-charge (SOC) for the reuse battery; store the battery characteristic in the one or more databases with a corresponding battery identification code of the reuse battery; calculate a SOH of the reuse battery based on the battery characteristic data of the reuse battery; store the SOH of the reuse battery in the one or more databases with the corresponding battery identification code of the reuse battery; determine a reuse grade of the reuse battery corresponding to the SOH of the reuse battery based on the predefined reuse grade information; and in response to a receiving reuse grade calculation request received from the ESS management system: query the one or more databases using a second requested battery identification code of the reuse battery to determine a second requested reuse grade; and transmit the second requested reuse grade of the reuse battery to the ESS management system as claimed in dependent claims 8 and 18. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ibi et al., U.S. Patent No. 20110239445 discloses a system and method for categorizing, grading and ranking electric vehicle batteries reuse/use based on battery characteristics/performance (Paragraphs 5, 74, 82, 83, 87). Mikuriya et al., U.S. Patent No. 7119517 discloses a system and method for classifying battery reuse based on a plurality of battery quality levels (DETX 212; Claims 1, 3, 10, 12) Kanada, U.S. Patent No. 10663526 discloses a system and method for determining a classification grade for an EV battery and determining if a battery can be reused based on received/measured battery characteristics including historical battery characteristics. Lih et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190178943 discloses a system and method for determining/evaluation a state of health of a battery and grading the battery - remaining lifespan, failure risk, etc. (P68; Claim 1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM. 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6724. 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. SCOTT L. JARRETT Primary Examiner Art Unit 3625 /SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 3 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 6 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 7 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 8 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 9 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 10 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 11 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 12 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 13 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 14 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 15 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 18/946,840 Page 16 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights