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 .
Specification
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 17, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, in this case the exception is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.03), without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 10
Step 2A – Prong One:
The limitations of these claims recite the following:
perform authenticity determination
evaluate a charging device serving as a delivery source
These limitations recite an abstract ideas, specifically mental process on a generic computer or in a computer environment (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)) because the electric vehicle battery authenticity determination could be done with the help of a computer.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The scope of the independent claim limitations incorporate the following additional elements:
Information processing apparatus, a processor, and a non-transitory computer readable medium
Acquiring a magnetic field distribution
Outputting evaluation of the charging device
These additional elements listed above, or combination of these elements, amount to nothing more than simply reciting the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’, MPEP 2106.05(f). The system elements, a processor and a memory, to implement the abstract idea amount to mere instructions to apply it using generic computer components. Further, additional elements that recite generic computer-implemented steps, like acquiring a magnetic field distribution and outputting the evaluation of the charging device, to determine the authenticity of an electric vehicle battery are recited at a high level of generality amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea without any improvement to technology, technical field, or to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements, whether evaluated individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the combination of additional elements is evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea of determining the authenticity of a rechargeable electric vehicle battery. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims –
Claim 2-4 further recite the abstract idea of determining whether the battery is a genuine product or a non-genuine product by comparing magnetic field distributions of the target battery with the magnetic field distribution of a genuine battery. The limitation recites performing a mental process in a computer environment and is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 further recites the abstract idea of calculating a statistical evaluation value of the charging device. This limitation recites a mathematical concept, using the average of the evaluation values of a ward or region (reference applicant’s specification ¶0062) and is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of a processor and outputting a statistical value evaluation. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this additional element does not add significantly more.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of a processor and outputting a statistical value evaluation. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this additional element does not add significantly more.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a processor and outputting a list of the evaluation of charging devices. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this additional element does not add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2020/0203661 A1, and further in view of Okano et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2023/0120475 A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 10, Steiner teaches the following limitations:
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
(¶0051 – the battery kiosk battery control system includes a processing unit to receive and send information, including status information, to the charging system; battery status information is received to determine a charging rate for each rechargeable battery and determine which battery slot to place a battery or which battery should be taken by an individual)
deliver a charged battery to the user in place of the battery, based on a result of the authenticity determination
(¶0052-53 – the check-in system authenticates information about a rechargeable battery when an individual initiates a battery exchange process for a fully charged battery)
output evaluation of the charging device
(¶0074 – the battery kiosk has display screens to output visual indicators to guide an individual through the rechargeable battery exchange process)
However, Steiner does not teach the following limitations:
acquire a magnetic field distribution of a battery that is installed in a vehicle, but Okano does teach acquire a magnetic field distribution of a battery that is installed in a vehicle
(¶0036 – the magnetic field measurer measures the target battery cell magnetic field characteristics and outputs the measured value of the magnetic field characteristics to the controller; see also ¶0033 – the controller is a hardware processor such as a CPU executing a software program)
perform authenticity determination on whether the battery is a genuine product based on the magnetic field distribution of the battery, but Okano does teach perform authenticity determination on whether the battery is a genuine product based on the magnetic field distribution of the battery
(¶0056 – the battery type determining device is configured to determine whether the target battery cell has a magnetic field characteristic value that indicates that the battery is a genuine product or a non-genuine product); see also (¶0007 – a battery determining device includes a hardware processor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the known technique of Okano to evaluate a magnetic field distribution to determine whether a battery was genuine with the teaching of Steiner to authenticate a rechargeable battery when a user exchanges it. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the magnetic field distribution authentication of Okano with the rechargeable battery authentication process of Steiner to further ensure that a user of electric vehicles operates a vehicle with a genuine battery to ensure optimal performance.
Regarding Claim 2, Steiner and Okano teach all of the limitations above. Steiner does not teach, but Okano teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine 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
(¶0056 – the battery type determining device is configured to determine whether the target battery cell has a magnetic field characteristic value that indicates that the battery is a genuine product or a non-genuine product); see also (¶0007 – a battery determining device includes a hardware processor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the known technique of Okano to evaluate a magnetic field distribution to determine whether a battery was genuine with the teaching of Steiner to authenticate a rechargeable battery when a user exchanges it. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the magnetic field distribution authentication of Okano with the rechargeable battery authentication process of Steiner to further ensure that an electric vehicle driver operates a vehicle with a genuine battery to ensure optimal performance. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of battery authentication, as disclosed by Steiner, to the known techniques of determining genuine electric vehicle batteries using magnetic fields, as disclosed by Okano to provide confidence to drivers that they would replace their battery with a charged genuine electric vehicle battery, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Steiner and Okano teach all of the limitations above. Steiner does not teach, but Okano teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate a frequency at which the battery is determined as the genuine product
(¶0056 – the battery type determining device is configured to determine whether the target battery cell has a magnetic field characteristic value that indicates that the battery is a genuine product or a non-genuine product); see also (¶0007 – a battery type determining device includes a hardware processor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the known technique of Okano to evaluate a magnetic field distribution to determine whether a battery was genuine with the teaching of Steiner to authenticate a rechargeable battery when a user exchanges it. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the magnetic field distribution authentication of Okano with the rechargeable battery authentication process of Steiner to further ensure that an electric vehicle driver operates a vehicle with a genuine battery to ensure optimal performance. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of battery authentication, as disclosed by Steiner, to the known techniques of determining genuine electric vehicle batteries using magnetic fields, as disclosed by Okano to provide confidence to drivers that they would replace their battery with a charged genuine electric vehicle battery, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, Steiner and Okano teach all of the limitations above. Steiner does not teach, but Okano teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate a frequency at which the battery is determined as a non-genuine product that is not the genuine product
(¶0056 – the battery type determining device is configured to determine whether the target battery cell has a magnetic field characteristic value that indicates that the battery is a genuine product or a non-genuine product); see also (¶0007 – a battery determining device includes a hardware processor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the known technique of Okano to evaluate a magnetic field distribution to determine whether a battery was genuine with the teaching of Steiner to authenticate a rechargeable battery when a user exchanges it. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the magnetic field distribution authentication of Okano with the rechargeable battery authentication process of Steiner to further ensure that an electric vehicle driver operates a vehicle with a genuine battery to ensure optimal performance. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of battery authentication, as disclosed by Steiner, to the known techniques of determining genuine electric vehicle batteries using magnetic fields, as disclosed by Okano to provide confidence to drivers that they would replace their battery with a charged genuine electric vehicle battery, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2020/0203661 A1 and Okano et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2023/0120475 A1, and further in view of Panainte et al, US Patent Application Publication US 2024/0161555 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Okano and Steiner teach all of the limitations above. However, Okano and Steiner do not fully teach, but Panainte fully teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a statistical value of the evaluation of the charging device by one of classification of a region to which the charging device belongs, day of week, weekdays and holidays, and a period of time
(¶0049-50 – the electric vehicle station selector generates a charging station recommendation via a machine learning operation ,which may utilize historical instances of charging; the electric vehicle station selector neural network receives parameters from history module to include location coordinates module and period of time charging parameters)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the known techniques of Okano and Steiner to determine genuine electric vehicle batteries with the charging station evaluation and recommendation teaching of Panainte to ensure that electric vehicle drivers would be able to find a charging station that met the charging needs of their vehicles and effectively operate their vehicles in a safe and efficient manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the battery authentication teachings of Steiner and Okano with the known techniques of Panainte to ensure that driver would be able to find a charging station with genuine charged batteries to replace their depleted battery. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of battery authentication using magnetic fields, as disclosed by Steiner and Okano, to the known techniques of mapping electric vehicle charging stations, as disclosed by Panainte to provide confidence to drivers that they would find a reputable charging station that would deliver them charged genuine batteries for their electric vehicle, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Okano and Steiner teach all of the limitations above. However, Okano and Steiner do not fully teach, but Panainte fully teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to output the evaluation of the charging device by mapping the evaluation on a map
(¶0027 – directions to charging station recommendations can be overlaid on a digitized map presented to the driver of the electric vehicle)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the known techniques of Okano and Steiner to determine genuine electric vehicle batteries with the charging station evaluation and recommendation teaching of Panainte to ensure that electric vehicle drivers would be able to find a charging station that met the charging needs of their vehicles and effectively operate their vehicles in a safe and efficient manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the battery authentication teachings of Steiner and Okano with the known techniques of Panainte to ensure that driver would be able to find a charging station with genuine charged batteries to replace their depleted battery. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of battery authentication using magnetic fields, as disclosed by Steiner and Okano, to the known techniques of mapping electric vehicle charging stations, as disclosed by Panainte to provide confidence to drivers that they would find a reputable charging station that would deliver them charged genuine batteries for their electric vehicle, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7, Okano, Steiner and Panainte teach the limitation from Claim 6. However, Okano and Steiner do not fully teach, but Panainte fully teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to output a statistical value of evaluation of a charging device that belongs to a ward for each of wards that are included in the map
(¶0027 – directions to charging station recommendations can be overlaid on a digitized map presented to the driver of the electric vehicle); see also (¶0043 – the feature extraction module detects additional features of an alternating or direct current signal from the charging station and assign a weighting factor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the known techniques of Okano and Steiner to determine genuine electric vehicle batteries with the charging station evaluation and recommendation teaching of Panainte to ensure that electric vehicle drivers would be able to find a charging station that met the charging needs of their vehicles and effectively operate their vehicles in a safe and efficient manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the battery authentication teachings of Steiner and Okano with the known techniques of Panainte to ensure that driver would be able to find a charging station with genuine charged batteries to replace their depleted battery. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of battery authentication using magnetic fields, as disclosed by Steiner and Okano, to the known techniques of mapping electric vehicle charging stations, as disclosed by Panainte to provide confidence to drivers that they would find a reputable charging station that would deliver them charged genuine batteries for their electric vehicle, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, Okano and Steiner teach all of the limitations above. However, Okano and Steiner do not fully teach, but Panainte fully teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to output a list in which evaluation of charging devices is listed for each of the charging devices
(¶0026 – the computing device recommends charging stations to the driver based on a charging process parameter, a request by the driver’s navigation system, and/or the age of the electric vehicle)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the known techniques of Okano and Steiner to determine genuine electric vehicle batteries with the charging station evaluation and recommendation teaching of Panainte to ensure that electric vehicle drivers would be able to find a charging station that met the charging needs of their vehicles and effectively operate their vehicles in a safe and efficient manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the battery authentication teachings of Steiner and Okano with the known techniques of Panainte to ensure that driver would be able to find a charging station with genuine charged batteries to replace their depleted battery. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of battery authentication using magnetic fields, as disclosed by Steiner and Okano, to the known techniques of mapping electric vehicle charging stations, as disclosed by Panainte to provide confidence to drivers that they would find a reputable charging station that would deliver them charged genuine batteries for their electric vehicle, because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to RAHUL SHARMA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3058. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8-5 CT.
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,
Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/RAHUL SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights