Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on December 17th, 2024 and in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on February 6th, 2026. Claims 1, 2, and 5-11 are pending.
Examiner Note
3. Rahul Sharma is no longer continuing prosecution on application number 18/983,498. It has been transferred to Examiner Jessica Lemieux.
Priority
4. Application 18/983,498 was filed on February 6th, 2026 which is a has foreign priority to JP2023-217172 filed on December 22nd, 2023.
Examiner Request
5. The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claims 1, 9, and 10 overcome the abstract nature of the previously recited evaluation by specifying that the charging device is evaluated “by calculating a frequency at which a battery delivered from the charging device is determined to be the genuine product.” Applicant further argues that this replaces a vague mental step with a specific mathematical operation, provides a technical improvement, and provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment further specifies how the charging-device evaluation is determined, but does not change the character of the underlying evaluation. The claims continue to determine whether batteries satisfy an authenticity criterion and evaluate the charging device based on the results of those determinations. Calculating the frequency at which batteries delivered from the charging device are determined to be genuine further defines the analysis used to arrive at the evaluation and does not, by itself, cause the claim to cease reciting an abstract idea.
7. Applicant’s argument that the amendment provides a technical improvement is likewise not persuasive. The alleged improvement is in the information generated from the authenticity determinations, i.e., calculating a frequency representing how often batteries delivered from the charging device are determined to be genuine, rather than an improvement to the operation of the battery, magnetic-field measurement technology, charging device, vehicle, or computer. The claims do not recite an improved technique for acquiring or measuring the magnetic-field distribution or otherwise improve the underlying technology. Rather, the magnetic-field distribution provides the information used in the authenticity determination, and the resulting determinations are used to calculate and output the claimed frequency.
8. Applicant’s reliance on Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is also not persuasive. Although the amendment provides additional specificity concerning the analysis performed, the claims continue to acquire information concerning the battery, analyze that information to determine authenticity, further analyze the resulting determinations by calculating a frequency, and output the calculated result. The recitation of a particular calculation does not establish a technological improvement to the manner in which the underlying information is acquired, processed, or displayed. Further, Applicant’s assertion that the frequency calculation provides an inventive concept under Step 2B is not persuasive because the frequency calculation forms part of the recited abstract evaluation itself. The additional elements beyond the abstract evaluation do not, individually or as an ordered combination, provide significantly more for the reasons discussed in the rejection below. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
9. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive to the extent that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter as presently amended. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either individually or in combination, evaluating a charging device serving as a delivery source based on the results of authenticity determinations by calculating a frequency at which batteries delivered from the charging device are determined to be genuine, and outputting the calculated frequency as the evaluation of the charging device, as recited in combination with the other claim limitations of claims 1, 9, and 10. Accordingly, the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn.
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.
10. Claims 1, 2, and 5-11 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes).
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 9 and 10 recite the following:
perform authenticity determination on whether the battery is a genuine product based on the magnetic field distribution of the battery; and
evaluate a charging device serving as a delivery source of the battery that is installed in the vehicle among charging devices that charge a battery that is brought by a user and deliver a charged battery to the user in place of the battery, based on a result of the authenticity determination by calculating a frequency at which a battery delivered from the charging device is determined to be the genuine product
These limitations recite an abstract idea, specifically a mental process involving an evaluation or judgment. The claims determine whether a battery is a genuine product based on information regarding the battery and evaluate the charging device based on the results of the authenticity determinations. The amended limitation further specifies that the evaluation is performed by calculating a frequency at which batteries delivered from the charging device are determined to be genuine. This calculation further defines the evaluation being performed and does not remove the recited evaluation from the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 10 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 further recite the following additional elements:
an information processing apparatus, processor, and/or non-transitory computer-readable recording medium;
acquiring a magnetic field distribution of a battery that is installed in a vehicle;
outputting the calculated frequency as the evaluation of the charging device.
These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The information processing apparatus, processor, and computer-readable recording medium merely provide the computer environment in which the abstract idea is performed. The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer or processor itself. Acquiring the magnetic field distribution provides the information used to perform the authenticity determination. The claims do not recite an improvement to the manner in which the magnetic field distribution is acquired or measured. Rather, the acquired magnetic field distribution is used as data in performing the claimed authenticity determination. Further, outputting the calculated frequency as the evaluation of the charging device merely outputs the result of the claimed evaluation. The claims do not require the calculated frequency to alter operation of the battery, charging device, vehicle, processor, or another technological component. Therefore, the additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The information processing apparatus, processor, and computer-readable recording medium merely implement the abstract idea using computer components. Acquiring the magnetic field distribution provides the data used in performing the authenticity determination and constitutes data gathering activity associated with performing the recited abstract idea. Outputting the calculated frequency communicates the result of the evaluation and constitutes post-solution output activity. Such data gathering and output activity do not, individually or in combination with the other additional elements, amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 10 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claim 2 further recites determining whether the battery is a genuine product based on a comparison between the magnetic field distribution of the battery and a magnetic field distribution of a genuine battery. This limitation further specifies the authenticity determination by comparing information concerning the battery with reference information and determining whether the battery is genuine based on that comparison. The limitation therefore further defines the recited abstract evaluation and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 5 further recites calculating a statistical value of the evaluation of the charging device based on a classification of a region to which the charging device belongs, day of week, weekdays and holidays, or a period of time. This limitation further analyzes the evaluation information by calculating a statistical value according to specified classifications. The limitation further defines the abstract analysis and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 6 further recites outputting the evaluation of the charging device by mapping the evaluation on a map. Mapping the evaluation on a map merely presents the result of the claimed evaluation in a particular format. The limitation does not improve the functioning of the computer, charging device, battery, or another technology and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 7 further recites outputting a statistical value of evaluation of a charging device that belongs to a ward for each of the wards included in the map. This limitation further organizes and outputs the evaluation information according to geographic classifications. The limitation therefore further analyzes and presents the results of the abstract evaluation and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 8 further recites outputting a list in which evaluation of charging devices is listed for each of the charging devices. This limitation merely presents the results of the claimed evaluation in list form and does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. Accordingly, the limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 11 further recites determining whether the battery is a genuine product based on a comparison between the magnetic field distribution of the battery and a magnetic field distribution of a genuine battery, evaluating a frequency at which the battery is determined to be the genuine product, and evaluating a frequency at which the battery is determined to be a non-genuine product. The comparison of the magnetic field distributions further specifies the authenticity determination, while evaluating the frequencies of genuine and non-genuine determinations further specifies the analysis performed using the results of those determinations. These limitations therefore further define the recited abstract evaluation. The additional limitations do not improve the manner in which the magnetic field distribution is acquired or measured and do not improve the operation of the battery, charging device, vehicle, or computer. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1, 2, and 5–11 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
11. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 9 and 10
Steiner et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0220366 A1, teaches a battery exchange system in which a battery brought by a user is received and authenticated and a charged battery is selected and made available to the user. However, Steiner does not teach determining the authenticity of batteries delivered from a particular charging device and using the results of such determinations to evaluate the charging device.
Okano et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0120475 A1, teaches determining whether a battery is genuine or non-genuine based on magnetic-field characteristics and contemplates use of the battery determining device in connection with battery-exchange infrastructure. However, Okano does not teach aggregating authenticity determinations for batteries delivered from a particular charging device, calculating a frequency at which batteries delivered from that charging device are determined to be genuine, or using such a frequency as an evaluation of the charging device.
McBrayer et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,499,871 B1, teaches evaluating a supplier based on historical product-quality information, including calculating a supplier quality rating based on the number of good units delivered by the supplier relative to the total units received from the supplier. However, McBrayer does not teach battery authenticity determinations, battery exchange or charging devices, or evaluating a charging device based on the frequency at which batteries delivered from that charging device are determined to be genuine.
Accordingly, the prior art of record, considered individually and in combination, does not teach or suggest evaluating a charging device serving as a delivery source of a battery based on results of authenticity determinations by calculating a frequency at which batteries delivered from the charging device are determined to be genuine, and outputting the calculated frequency as the evaluation of the charging device, as required by independent claims 1, 9, and 10.
Conclusion
12. 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 JESSICA LEMIEUX whose telephone number is (571)270-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, TARIQ HAFIZ can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
