DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 08/11/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 4, 9, 13-14 and 19 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 1-12, 15-18, and 20-21 are pending in this application.
Priority
This application claims priority of Chinese Patent Application No. 202311057521.6 filed August 22, 2023 and International Application No. PCT/CN2024/106642 filed July 22, 2024. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 5, 7-9, 1-12, 15-18, and 20-21 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.
Claims are properly drawn to statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, a manufacture).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, Claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative independent claim recites, obtaining, by a server, a location of a user terminal, and determining a second battery exchange station closest to the user terminal;
determining, by the server, a battery level threshold based on a distance between the second battery exchange station and the user terminal, and sending the battery level threshold to the user terminal; receiving, by the server, a delivery request sent by the user terminal, wherein the delivery request is sent in response to a confirmation instruction, the confirmation instruction is input by a first user in response to a delivery prompt information, and the delivery prompt information is output by the user terminal in response to a live-streaming application running, a shooting apparatus being used, and state information of a first portable power not meeting a preset condition; the delivery prompt information is used to prompt whether to replace the first portable power; and the state information of the first portable power comprises a remaining battery level or a power supply parameter, and the state information of the first portable power not meeting the preset condition comprises the remaining battery level of the first portable power being less than or equal to the battery level threshold; determining, by the server, a first battery exchange station within a preset distance range from the location of the user terminal in response to the delivery request; determining, by the server, a second portable power that matches the delivery request from portable powers comprised in the first battery exchange station, wherein the delivery request contains power requirement information, and the power requirement information comprises a device attribute parameter of a power-consumption device, wherein the device attribute parameter is obtained through statistics collection by the first portable power on the power-consumption device, the device attribute parameter comprises one or more of a power consumption parameter or an interface type of the power-consumption device, and the device attribute parameter is sent to the user terminal by the first portable power; and outdoor activity indication information input by the first user in response to the delivery prompt information, wherein the outdoor activity indication information comprises one or more of a duration of continued usage of a portable power or a type of outdoor activity generating, by the server, a delivery task for the second portable power based on the location of the user terminal and indication information of the second portable power, wherein the indication information of the second portable power comprises identification information and location information; and sending, by the server, the delivery task for the second portable power to a delivery terminal, wherein the delivery task indicates that the second portable power is to be delivered to the location of the user terminal.
Independent claims 1, 7 and 8 as a whole directed toward an abstract idea of Receiving location and battery status information, determining a battery exchange station based on proximity, calculating a threshold and prompting the user, receiving a delivery request and matching a portable power unit to user/device/activity parameters and generating and sending a delivery task. These steps are related to organizing human activity, logistics, and fundamental economic practices (e.g., resource allocation, scheduling, matching supply to demand, prompting for action).
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using “server,” “user terminal,” “memory”, “user interface”, “exchange station” and “delivery terminal,” that recite that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the additional elements of the processor memory fail to recite a practical application because they are instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above.
Claim 2, 11 and 17: recite abstract ideas similar to those discussed above in connection with independent claims wherein determining the second portable power that matches the delivery request from portable powers comprised in the first battery exchange station comprises: obtaining, by the server, the power requirement information contained in the delivery request; determining, by the server, target interface types and a target battery capacity that match the power requirement information; and determining, by the server, the second portable power from rentable portable powers comprised in the first battery exchange station based on the target interface types and the target battery capacity.
Claim 3, 12 and 18: recite abstract ideas similar to those discussed above in connection with independent claims wherein determining the second portable power from rentable portable powers comprised in the first battery exchange station based on the target interface types and the target battery capacity, comprises: matching, by the server, interface types of each rentable portable power comprised in the first battery exchange station with the target interface types and a battery capacity of each rentable portable power with the target battery capacity, to obtain a matching degree of each rentable portable power; and determining, by the server, a rentable portable power with the highest matching degree as the second portable power.
Claim 5, 10, 15-16, 20 and 21: recite abstract ideas similar to those discussed above in connection with independent claims adding indication information of delivering an interface conversion device to the delivery task, in response to interface types of the second portable power matching the target interface types in part or not matching the target interface types at all.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Reasons for Allowability Over the Prior Art
Closes prior art of records JP 2004/298326 which relates to a battery arrangement method and battery arrangement system for a battery-powered portable respiratory gas supply device for supplying respiratory gas to users of the battery-powered portable respiratory gas supply device, such as patients with respiratory diseases, and a computer program for executing this battery arrangement method. CN 110 912 973 A pertains to the technical field of mobile power supply control, in particular to a method for reminding a mobile terminal of information on available mobile power supply when the mobile terminal is in a low battery state. It is therefore known to the skilled person trying to solve the problem identified above. US 20210389145 A1 teaches determining one or more preferred routes for an electric vehicle powered by a battery. Such methods include determining multiple candidate routes from a starting point to a destination. Each candidate route includes one or more segments, each segment associated with a slope and a distance. Such methods include, for each candidate route, estimating a route battery discharge amount and a route duration of travel based on a discharge profile for the battery and the slopes and distances associated with the segments of the candidate route. However upon further search and consideration, claims limitations as whole when considered in orderly combination are non-obvious combination of limitations which are not fairly taught by prior art of records.
Response to Arguments
As to the remark, Applicant asserted that claim 1 does not merely recite organizing human activity or implementing a fundamental economic practice. Rather, claim 1 recites specific operations involving a first portable power and a power-consumption device…These limitations recite the collection and communication of technical parameters concerning a power-consumption device and the use of such parameters in determining a compatible portable power. Amended claim 1 reflects an improvement in the technical field of portable power management. Claim 1 requires the first portable power to obtain, through statistics collection on the power-consumption device, a device attribute parameter comprising a power consumption parameter and/or an interface type, and to send the device attribute parameter to the user terminal. The server therefore does not simply match a generic power source to a user request based on arbitrary rules, but determines a matching replacement portable power based on a delivery request containing technical information. The first portable power is not merely a generic computer invoked as a tool for performing the alleged abstract idea. Rather, claim 1 specifically requires the first portable power itself to obtain the device attribute parameter through statistics collection on the power-consumption device and to send the obtained device attribute parameter to the user terminal. Moreover, the Office has not established that these additional elements, individually or in their ordered combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. On the contrary, the Office expressly recognized that the claim limitations as a whole, when considered in orderly combination, are a non-obvious combination of limitations which are not fairly taught by prior art of record. (Office Action Page 7) Although the inquiries under 101 and 103 are distinct, the Office’s finding further supports that the record does not establish that the claimed ordered combination is merely well-understood, routine, and conventional.”
Examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s remark and would like to point out to applicant that collecting device specifications (power consumption, interface type) is routine data gathering, not a technical innovation. The claim doesn’t specify how the statistics are collected or what makes the collection non-routine Simply gathering device specifications and transmitting them is not a technical operation that transforms the abstract idea into practical application. Collecting device statistics is routine database processing and Transmitting collected data is routine network transmission. The subject matter of the data does not make the operation technical. Collecting data about technical devices is still just data collection—a routine operation. The claim does not describe a non-routine mechanism for collecting or processing the data. The claim does not solve a specific technical problem or produce a non-obvious technical result. Simply using technical data as input to a business decision does not transform the business decision into a technical operation. The additional elements (device attribute collection and transmission) are well-known and routine. These elements do not amount to ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea of supply chain management and order fulfillment. The ordered combination is merely a routine application of known techniques to a business problem. The applicant relies on the Office’s § 103 non-obviousness finding to argue that the claim is patent-eligible under § 101. However, § 101 and § 103 are distinct inquiries. A claim can be non-obvious under § 103 while still being directed to an abstract idea under § 101. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that non-obviousness is insufficient to render a claim patent-eligible. Therefore, the § 103 non-obviousness finding does not overcome the § 101 rejection
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NEHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
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.
/NEHA PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights