DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the amendment filed 7/2/2026.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations
Due to the amendment filed 7/2/2026, the limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) no longer apply.
Claim Objections
Due to the amendment filed 7/2/2026, the objection of claim 6 has been withdrawn. However, a new objection to claim 7 has been made in the present Office action.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
On page 9 of the Remarks filed 7/2/2026, the Applicant contends that Hershkovitz fails to disclose the feature of “the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the supply site when a predetermined condition is met, and to not guide the vehicle to the supply sit when the predetermined condition is not met.” The Applicant further contends that Hershovitz does not disclose not adding the service station as a waypoint when certain conditions are not met.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111); therefore, this limitation merely encompasses providing guidance to a supply site based on any predefined criteria. As is known to one of ordinary skill, software that performs an operation in response to meeting predefined criteria will not perform the same operation when the same predefined criteria is not met, otherwise, the predefined criteria would serve no role. The omission of the operation is the known default operational state. Thus, when Hershkovitz provides guidance for navigation to a battery service station that matches criteria specified by a user or provided in a profile (i.e. “when a predetermined condition is met”) (see ¶0175-0176, ¶0178), Hershkovitz inherently teaches not providing guidance for navigation to the same battery service station when the battery service station does not match the same criteria (i.e. “when the predetermined condition is not met”). The limitation of “predetermined condition” is broad and undefined in the claim, such that Hershkovitz’s disclosure of selecting a battery service station that matches a battery service station specified by a user or criteria in a profile qualifies as meeting a “predetermined condition.” For example, in light of ¶0075 and Figure 9 of Hershkovitz, when the battery service station specified by the user is a charge station 912-1, guidance is provided to the charge station 912-1, and when the battery service station specified by the user is a battery exchange station 910-1 (i.e. not charge station 912-1), guidance is provided to battery exchange station 910-1 (i.e. not provided to charge station 912-1).
Further, there are no claimed steps that require any active algorithmic evaluation of the predetermined condition being met (or not being met). The limitation merely requires the claimed “guiding device” to do nothing “when the predetermined condition is not met,” which simply characterizes the passive non-occurrence of guidance, rather than a separate active evaluation step.
In order to demonstrate the broadness of the claims, a second rejection of the independent claims is provided below. Specifically, the independent claims present the “replacement site” as unused, with all claimed operations directed to the “supply site.” The “replacement site” is presented as an optional alternative, such that prior art is not required to be applied to the limitation of the “replacement site,” as discussed in detail in the second rejection of the independent claims below.
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowable subject matter provided in the Office action mailed 4/10/2026 has been maintained in the present Office action; however, due to the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below, incorporating the allowable subject matter into the independent claims would no longer place the application in a condition for allowance.
Examiner’s Note
Upon further review of the claims, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are newly applied to claims 1-14. Because this represents a new ground of rejection not necessitated by an amendment, this Office action is made non-final pursuant to MPEP 7006.07(a).
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office action, except within the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections which follow specific formatting guidelines detailed therein.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
An additional prior art rejection of the independent claims is provided and labeled as (second).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation of:
presenting the first information is that the display device displays…
presenting the second information is that the display device displays…
presenting the second information is that the display device displays…
The phrase “is that” is unclear, and the limitations are recommended to be amended as “presenting the…information comprises displaying, on the display device,…,” for example.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 11 recites the limitation of the search device including the central processing unit, the storage device, and the indication device, while claim 1, from which claims 5 and 11 depend, recite the guiding device including a central processing unit, a storage device, and an indication device. If both the “search device” and “guiding device” include the same components, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if these devices are nested inside of one another or are separate physical entities that share a single computing system. The scope of these limitations cannot be reasonably determined.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of each candidate for the target of guiding. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no preceding “candidate” is claimed, and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if the “each candidate” is related to particular search results, in light of the overall claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of the control device in the fifth line of claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the limitation of “a control device” has been removed in the amendment filed 7/2/2026. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if this limitation is intended to be the “central processing unit” or a separate and distinct control device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 5 by dependency.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A navigation system configured to guide a vehicle including an energy storage device which is attachable and detachable, the navigation system comprising a guiding device configured to present information for guiding the vehicle to at least one of a replacement site and a supply site, the guiding device including a central processing unit, a storage device, and an indication device having a display device, wherein:
the replacement site is a site where the energy storage device is replaced;
the supply site is a site where an energy supply facility is provided, the energy supply facility supplying energy to the energy storage device;
the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the supply site when a predetermined condition is met, and to not guide the vehicle to the supply site when the predetermined condition is not met.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of guide the vehicle to the supply site when a predetermined condition is met, and to not guide the vehicle to the supply site when the predetermined condition is not met.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “predetermined condition” is conditional data. This limitation encompasses a human merely deciding to navigate to a battery charging station upon considering information. No active vehicle control operations or specialized vehicle sensors are claimed.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “guiding device.” That is, other than reciting “a guiding device,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “guiding device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. predetermined condition) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine whether to guide the vehicle to the supply site). Such observations or evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “guiding device”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “guiding device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The recitation of the “central processing unit, storage device, and an indication device having a display” as being included in the “guiding device” is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. central processing unit) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. guide the vehicle to the supply site when a predetermined condition is met) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
a guiding device configured to present information for guiding the vehicle to at least one of a replacement site and a supply site, the guiding device including a central processing unit, a storage device, and an indication device having a display device.
The element of “guiding device” defined as including “a central processing unit, a storage device, and an indication device having a display device” merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The presented “information” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general presenting of information) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “display device” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “display device” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “vehicle” contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., guide the vehicle); therefore, the “vehicle” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Additionally, the “guide” operations associated with the abstract idea discussed above are recited at a high level of generality and thus pertain to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites additional elements of:
an energy storage device which is attachable and detachable,
the replacement site is a site where the energy storage device is replaced, and
the supply site is a site where an energy supply facility is provided, the energy supply facility supplying energy to the energy storage device.
The “energy storage device” contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation); therefore, the “energy storage device” limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Further limiting the “replacement site” to be a site where the energy storage device is replaced and the “supply site” to be a site where an energy supply facility is provided, the energy supply facility supplying energy to the energy storage device represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. The “replacement site” and “supply site” merely serve as destinations without any particular controlled operations claimed in relation to either site.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, a vehicle and guiding device including a central processing unit, a storage device, and a display device were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the vehicle and energy supply facility as conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the central processing unit, storage device, and display are anything other than conventional computing components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that storing and retrieving information in memory, and receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-12
Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of:
the guiding device is configured to determine whether or not the vehicle includes first equipment for allowing an energy supply from the energy supply facility to the energy storage device; and
the predetermined condition includes a fact that the vehicle includes the first equipment.
The “determine” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. vehicle) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine whether the vehicle includes first equipment). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “guiding device” as performing the “determine” step is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “central processing unit” of the “guiding device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Further limiting the “predetermined condition” to include a fact that the vehicle includes the first equipment represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of:
the guiding device is configured to present first information when the predetermined condition is not met, the first information guiding the vehicle to the replacement site and not guiding the vehicle to the supply site; and
the guiding device is configured to present any one of second information and third information when the predetermined condition is met, the second information guiding the vehicle to both the replacement site and the supply site, the third information guiding the vehicle to the supply site and not guiding the vehicle to the replacement site.
The “present” steps, as drafted, are simple cognitive processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. predetermined condition) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determining whether the predetermined condition is met). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “guiding device” as performing the “present” steps is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “central processing unit” of the “guiding device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The “guiding” operations associated with the abstract idea discussed above are recited at a high level of generality and thus pertain to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of:
the guiding device is configured to determine whether or not an abnormality has occurred in second equipment for allowing the energy storage device to be attached to and detached from the vehicle; and
the guiding device is configured to present the third information when it is determined that the vehicle includes the first equipment and that an abnormality has occurred in the second equipment.
The “determine” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. data pertaining to second equipment) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine whether or not an abnormality has occurred in second equipment). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “guiding device” as performing the “determine” step is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “central processing unit” of the “guiding device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The “present” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general presenting of third information) upon a generally recited condition (i.e. the vehicle includes the first equipment and an abnormality has occurred in the second equipment) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of:
a search device configured to search for the replacement site existing in a predetermined area, the search device including the central processing unit, the storage device, and the indication device, wherein:
with regard to the replacement site found in the predetermined area through the search, the guiding device is configured to acquire stock information indicating stock status of an energy storage device for replacement that is available to be attached to the vehicle in place of the energy storage device, and configured to determine, by using the stock information, whether or not the replacement site has the energy storage device for replacement in stock; and
the guiding device is configured to present the third information when it is determined that the vehicle includes the first equipment and that the replacement site including the energy storage device for replacement in stock does not exist in the predetermined area.
The “search” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. predetermined area) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. search for the replacement site in the predetermined area). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “determine” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. stock information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine whether the replacement site has the energy storage device using the stock information). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitations of the “search device” as performing the “search” step and the “guiding device” as performing the “determine” step are recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “central processing unit” of the “search device” or “guiding device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The “acquire” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of stock information with regard to the replacement site) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “present” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general presenting of third information) upon a generally recited condition (i.e. the vehicle includes the first equipment and the replacement site does not exist in the predetermined area) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The elements of “central processing unit,” “storage device,” and “indication device” merely act in their ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of:
each of the energy storage device of the vehicle and the energy storage device for replacement is an electrical storage device configured to be attachable and detachable by a replacement apparatus;
the replacement site is a site where the replacement apparatus is provided;
when it is determined that the replacement site including the energy storage device for replacement in stock exists in the predetermined area, the guiding device is configured to decide on, by using the stock information, the replacement site including the energy storage device for replacement that satisfies a predetermined requirement, as a target of guiding; and
the predetermined requirement is set with regard to at least one of stored electricity amount, maximum output electric power, maximum regenerated electric power, and capacity of the electrical storage device.
The “decide” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. stock information and predetermined requirement) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. decide on the replacement site that satisfies a predetermined requirement) upon a generally recited condition (i.e. when the energy storage device is in stock in the predetermined area). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “guiding device” as performing the “decide” step is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “central processing unit” of the “guiding device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Further limiting the “energy storage devices” to be an electrical storage device configured to be attachable and detachable by a replacement apparatus represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The “energy storage device of the vehicle” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose electric vehicle environment.
Further limiting the “replacement site” to be a site where the replacement apparatus is provided represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The limitation of “the predetermined requirement is set” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general setting a predetermined requirement with regard to generally recited data) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of:
the display device is configured to display information to a user of the vehicle;
presenting the first information is that the display device displays the replacement site and does not display the supply site on a map, or that the display device displays the replacement site and the supply site on the map, each in a distinguishable form, in order to guide the vehicle driven by the user;
presenting the second information is that the display device displays the replacement site and the supply site on a map in order to guide the vehicle driven by the user; and
presenting the third information is that the display device displays the supply site and does not display the replacement site on a map, or that the display device displays the replacement site and the supply site on the map, each in a distinguishable form, in order to guide the vehicle driven by the user.
Further limiting the “display device” to display information to a user of the vehicle represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The “presenting the first information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of the replacement site on a map) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “presenting the second information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of the replacement and supply sites on a map) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “presenting the third information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of the supply site on a map) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “display” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “display” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of the guiding device further includes a speaker, in addition to the display device.
Further limiting the “guidance device” to include a speaker represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
No technological details are recited with respect to the “speaker” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “speaker” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of:
the guiding device is configured to decide on a target of guiding including at least one of the replacement site and the supply site when a stored energy amount in the energy storage device mounted on the vehicle becomes less than a reference value; and
the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the target of guiding.
The “decide” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. stored energy amount and reference value) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. decide on a target when a stored energy amount is less than a reference value). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “guiding device” as performing the “decide” step is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “central processing unit” of the “guiding device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The “guide” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general guiding of the vehicle to the target) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of an input device that receives a request for guiding from a user, wherein:
the guiding device is configured to decide on a target of guiding including at least one of the replacement site and the supply site when the input device receives the request for guiding; and
the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the target of guiding.
The “decide” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. request for guiding) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. decide on a target when a request for guiding is received). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “guiding device” as performing the “decide” step is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “central processing unit” of the “guiding device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The “guide” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general guiding of the vehicle to the target) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a search device configured to search for the replacement site existing in a predetermined area, the search device including the central processing unit, the storage device, and the indication device, wherein:
when at least one replacement site is to be a target of guiding, the guiding device is configured to acquire stock information with regard to each candidate for the target of guiding found in the predetermined area through the search, the stock information indicating stock status of an energy storage device for replacement that is available to be attached to the vehicle in place of the energy storage device; and
the guiding device is configured to decide on the target of guiding by using the stock information, and to guide the vehicle to the target of guiding.
The “search” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. predetermined area) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. search for the replacement site in the predetermined area). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “decide” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. stock information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. decide on the target using the stock information). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitations of the “search device” as performing the “search” step and the “guiding device” as performing the “decide” step are recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “central processing unit” of the “search device” or “guiding device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
The “acquire” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of stock information with regard to each candidate for the target) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “guide” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general guiding of the vehicle to the target) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The elements of “central processing unit,” “storage device,” and “indication device” merely act in their ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 11 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of:
the display device being configured to display information to a user of the vehicle, the central processing unit being configured to control the display device;
when the vehicle includes a plurality of the energy storage devices, the control device is configured to classify the target of guiding as any one of a first replacement site and a second replacement site, the first replacement site having stock status that allows all of the plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle to be replaced, the second replacement site having stock status that allows only one or some of the plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle to be replaced; and
the display device is configured to display the first replacement site and the second replacement site in a form that allows the user to distinguish between the first replacement site and the second replacement site.
The “classify” step, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. target) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. classify the target as a first or second replacement site). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “control device” as performing the “classify” step is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. “control device”) as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Further limiting the “first replacement site” to have stock status that allows all of the plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle to be replaced and the “second replacement site” to have stock status that allows only one or some of the plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle to be replaced represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The “display” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general display of the first and second replacement site) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “display device” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “display device” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 13
Claim 13. A vehicle comprising:
a navigation system configured to guide the vehicle; and
an electrical storage device as an energy storage device which is attachable and detachable, wherein
the vehicle is configured to be able to travel by using electricity output from the electrical storage device,
the navigation system includes a guiding device configured to present information for guiding the vehicle to at least one of a replacement site and a supply site, the guiding device including a central processing unit, a storage device, and an indication device having a display device,
the replacement site is a site where the energy storage device is replaced,
the supply site is a site where an energy supply facility is provided,
the energy supply facility supplying energy to the energy storage device, and
the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the supply site when a predetermined condition is met, and to not guide the vehicle to the supply site when the predetermined condition is not met.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system or apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 13, with respect to step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 13, with respect to step 2A prong two.
Further, the claim recites the additional elements of:
a navigation system configured to guide the vehicle, and
the vehicle is configured to be able to travel by using electricity output from the electrical storage device.
The “navigation system” and “vehicle” contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and are merely objects on which the method operates (e.g., guide the vehicle); therefore, the “navigation system” and “vehicle” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Further limiting the “vehicle” to be able to travel by using electricity output from the electrical storage device represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 13, with respect to step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Claim 14
Claim 14. A navigation system configured to guide a vehicle including an energy storage device, the navigation system comprising a guiding device configured to present information for guiding the vehicle to at least one of a replacement site and a supply site, the guiding device including a central processing unit, a storage device, and an indication device having a display device, wherein:
the replacement site is a site where the energy storage device is replaced;
the supply site is a site where an energy supply facility is provided, the energy supply facility supplying energy to the energy storage device; and
the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the replacement site when a predetermined condition is met, and to not guide the vehicle to the replacement site when the predetermined condition is not met.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 14, with respect to step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 14, with respect to step 2A prong two.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 14, with respect to step 2B
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 1-14 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hershkovitz et al. (US 2010/0094496 A1), hereinafter Hershkovitz.
Claim 1
Hershkovitz discloses the claimed navigation system configured to guide a vehicle (see Figure 1, depicting electric vehicle network 100, described as providing guidance to an electric vehicle based on an energy plan in ¶0033) including an energy storage device (i.e. battery pack 104) which is attachable and detachable (see ¶0121, regarding that one or more battery packs 104 are coupled/decoupled to the frame of the electric vehicle 102 via battery pack lock module 202, so as to be exchanged at battery exchange stations, as described in ¶0099), the navigation system comprising a guiding device configured to present information for guiding the vehicle to at least one of a replacement site and a supply site (see ¶0150, regarding that energy-aware navigation module 332 executes the energy plan, defined as including a navigation plan from a current location of the electric vehicle to battery service stations, e.g., charge station or battery exchange station; Figure 7C, depicting an example route 714 from a current location of electric vehicle 102 to battery exchange station 712), the guiding device including a central processing unit, a storage device, and an indication device having a display device (see Figure 3, depicting electric vehicle control system 107 as including CPU 302, display device 306, and memory 310, in which energy-aware navigation module 332 resides, as further described in ¶0124, ¶0135), wherein:
the replacement site is a site where the energy storage device is replaced (see ¶0099, regarding battery exchange station are for exchanging one or more battery packs 104; Figure 16, depicting the overall battery exchange process, described as including operations of decoupling batteries from the battery bay and coupling new batteries to the battery bay in ¶0251-¶0270; Figure 9, depicting battery exchange stations 910-1, 910-2 on map 901);
the supply site is a site where an energy supply facility is provided, the energy supply facility supplying energy to the energy storage device (see ¶0099, regarding charge stations are for charging the one or more battery packs 104; Figure 17, depicting the overall battery charging process, described as including operations of enabling current flow between the charge station 1704 and electric vehicle in ¶0271-0280; Figure 9, depicting charge stations 912-1, 912-2 on map 901).
Hershkovitz further discloses that the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the supply site when a predetermined condition is met, and to not guide the vehicle to the supply site when the predetermined condition is not met (see ¶0175-0176, with respect to step 604 of Figure 6, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects a suitable battery service station that is able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle based on profile 352 that includes user preferences, driving history of the user, previous battery service stations used by the user, etc. and/or a battery service station specified by the user and verifies that the selected battery service station can service the battery of the electric vehicle, where the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint in order to provide guidance for navigation, as described in ¶0178, with respect to step 608). Given that the battery service stations of Hershkovitz include separate and distinct battery exchange stations and charge stations (see Figure 9, depicting battery exchange stations 910-1, 910-2 and charge stations 912-1, 912-2), Hershkovitz discloses the guidance to a charge station (i.e. “supply site”) under particular “predetermined conditions” that are not met when performing guidance to a battery exchange station (i.e. “replacement site”).
Claim 2
Hershkovitz further discloses that the guiding device is configured to determine whether or not the vehicle includes first equipment for allowing an energy supply from the energy supply facility to the energy storage device (see ¶0106, regarding that a charger 108 that receives energy from an energy source via conductive or inductive coupling may or may not be included in electric vehicle 102, where data representing the battery status, i.e. unique identifier, manufacturer, and model number of the battery pack, is received from BMS 206 of vehicle 102, as described in ¶0117), and the predetermined condition includes a fact that the vehicle includes the first equipment (see ¶0173-0176, with respect to steps 602 and 604 of Figure 6, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects a suitable battery service station that is able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle based on profile 352 that includes previous battery service stations used by the user and/or a battery service station specified by the user and verifies that the selected battery service station can service the battery of the electric vehicle, where the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint in order to provide guidance for navigation, as described in ¶0178, with respect to step 608). A charge station (i.e. “supply site”) cannot be considered a suitable battery service station in Hershkovitz under the condition in which charger 108 is not included in electric vehicle 102. Further, conditions provided in profile 352 in which the previous battery service stations include a charge station inherently teaches “a fact that the vehicle includes the first equipment,” given that charger 108 is required to receive energy from an energy source via conductive or inductive coupling of a charge station in Hershkovitz. The “fact” may additionally be provided by the battery service station specified by the user in Hershkovitz. There is no claimed relationship between the “fact” and the “determine” step.
Claim 3
Hershkovitz further discloses that the guiding device is configured to present first information when the predetermined condition is not met, the first information guiding the vehicle to the replacement site and not guiding the vehicle to the supply site (see ¶0175-0176, with respect to step 604 of Figure 6, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects a suitable battery service station that is able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle based on profile 352 that includes previous battery service stations used by the user and/or a battery service station specified by the user and verifies that the selected battery service station can service the battery of the electric vehicle, where the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint in order to provide guidance for navigation, as described in ¶0178, with respect to step 608). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, given that the battery service stations of Hershkovitz include separate and distinct battery exchange stations and charge stations (see Figure 9, depicting battery exchange stations 910-1, 910-2 and charge stations 912-1, 912-2), Hershkovitz discloses the guidance to a battery exchange station (i.e. “replacement site”) when the “predetermined condition” discussed in the rejection of claim 2 is not met, such that the “first information” is taught by the displayed route to the battery exchange station (e.g., see Figure 7B, depicting route 714 to battery exchange station 712).
Hershkovitz further discloses that the guiding device is configured to present any one of second information and third information when the predetermined condition is met, the second information guiding the vehicle to both the replacement site and the supply site, the third information guiding the vehicle to the supply site and not guiding the vehicle to the replacement site (see ¶0175-0176, with respect to step 604 of Figure 6, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects a suitable battery service station that is able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle based on profile 352 that includes previous battery service stations used by the user and/or a battery service station specified by the user and verifies that the selected battery service station can service the battery of the electric vehicle, where the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint in order to provide guidance for navigation, as described in ¶0178, with respect to step 608). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, given that the battery service stations of Hershkovitz include separate and distinct battery exchange stations and charge stations (see Figure 9, depicting battery exchange stations 910-1, 910-2 and charge stations 912-1, 912-2), Hershkovitz discloses the guidance to a charge station (i.e. “supply site”) when the “predetermined condition” discussed in claim 2 is met, such that the “third information” is taught by the displayed route to the charge station.
Claim 5
Hershkovitz further discloses a search device configured to search for the replacement site existing in a predetermined area (see ¶0173, with respect to Figure 6, regarding the method of determining suitable battery service stations within a theoretical maximum range of the current location), the search device including the central processing unit, the storage device, and the indication device (see Figure 3, depicting electric vehicle control system 107 as including CPU 302, display device 306, and memory 310, in which energy-aware navigation module 332 resides, as further described in ¶0124, ¶0135), wherein:
with regard to the replacement site found in the predetermined area through the search, the guiding device is configured to acquire stock information indicating stock status of an energy storage device for replacement that is available to be attached to the vehicle in place of the energy storage device, and configured to determine, by using the stock information, whether or not the replacement site has the energy storage device for replacement in stock (see ¶0173, regarding that suitable battery services stations are determined within a theoretical maximum range of the current location, where a suitable battery service station is determined as having the type of battery packs that are compatible with the electric vehicle and the compatible battery packs are charged, where a number and type of suitable charged battery packs available at the respect battery service station are provided by control center 130, as described in ¶0108); and
the guiding device is configured to present the third information when it is determined that the vehicle includes the first equipment and that the replacement site including the energy storage device for replacement in stock does not exist in the predetermined area (see ¶0178, regarding energy-aware navigation module 332 adds the selected battery service station as a waypoint to provide guidance for the route, where the selected battery service station is defined as being able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle in ¶0175-0176).
Claim 6
Hershkovitz further discloses that:
each of the energy storage device of the vehicle and the energy storage device for replacement is an electrical storage device configured to be attachable and detachable by a replacement apparatus (see ¶0121, regarding that one or more battery packs 104 are coupled/decoupled to the frame of the electric vehicle 102 via battery pack lock module 202, so as to be exchanged at battery exchange stations, as described in ¶0099);
the replacement site is a site where the replacement apparatus is provided (see ¶0099, regarding battery exchange station are for exchanging one or more battery packs 104; Figure 16, depicting the overall battery exchange process, described as including operations of decoupling batteries from the battery bay and coupling new batteries to the battery bay in ¶0251-¶0270; Figure 9, depicting battery exchange stations 910-1, 910-2 on map 901);
when it is determined that the replacement site including the energy storage device for replacement in stock exists in the predetermined area, the guiding device is configured to decide on, by using the stock information, the replacement site including the energy storage device for replacement that satisfies a predetermined requirement, as a target of guiding (see ¶0173, regarding that suitable battery services stations are determined within a theoretical maximum range of the current location, where a suitable battery service station is determined as having the type of battery packs that are compatible with the electric vehicle and the compatible battery packs are charged, where a number and type of suitable charged battery packs available at the respect battery service station are provided by control center 130, as described in ¶0108); and
the predetermined requirement is set with regard to at least one of stored electricity amount, maximum output electric power, maximum regenerated electric power, and capacity of the electrical storage device (see ¶0173, regarding that the suitable battery service station has compatible battery packs that are charged). Only one of the limitations of stored electricity amount, maximum output electric power, maximum regenerated electric power, or capacity of the electrical storage device is required to be taught by the claim language. Hershkovitz is applied to teach the limitation of “stored electricity amount” as fully charged.
Claim 7
Hershkovitz further discloses that the display device is configured to display information to a user of the vehicle (see ¶0124, regarding energy-aware navigation module 332 determines routes, destinations, and battery service locations for display on display device 306 of electric vehicle 102).
Hershkovitz further discloses presenting the first information is that the display device displays the replacement site and does not display the supply site on a map, or that the display device displays the replacement site and the supply site on the map, each in a distinguishable form, in order to guide the vehicle driven by the user (see ¶0175-0176, with respect to step 604 of Figure 6, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects a suitable battery service station that is able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle, where the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint in order to provide guidance for navigation, as described in ¶0178, with respect to step 608). As depicted in Figures 7A-7C and Figure 9 of Hershkovitz, battery exchange stations and charge stations are displayed differently. Only one of the limitations of “displays the replacement site and does not display the supply site on a map” or “displays the replacement site and the supply site on the map, each in a distinguishable form” is required to be taught by prior art. Hershkovitz is applied to teach the limitation of “displays the replacement site and the supply site on the map, each in a distinguishable form.”
Hershkovitz further discloses presenting the second information is that the display device displays the replacement site and the supply site on a map in order to guide the vehicle driven by the user (see ¶0175-0176, with respect to step 604 of Figure 6, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects a suitable battery service station that is able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle, where the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint in order to provide guidance for navigation, as described in ¶0178, with respect to step 608). As depicted in Figures 7A-7C and Figure 9 of Hershkovitz, battery exchange station and charge stations are displayed differently.
Hershkovitz further discloses presenting the third information is that the display device displays the supply site and does not display the replacement site on a map, or that the display device displays the replacement site and the supply site on the map, each in a distinguishable form, in order to guide the vehicle driven by the user (see ¶0175-0176, with respect to step 604 of Figure 6, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects a suitable battery service station that is able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle, where the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint in order to provide guidance for navigation, as described in ¶0178, with respect to step 608). As depicted in Figures 7A-7C and Figure 9 of Hershkovitz, battery exchange station and charge stations are displayed differently. Only one of the limitations of “displays the supply site and does not display the replacement site on a map” or “displays the replacement site and the supply site on the map, each in a distinguishable form” is required to be taught by prior art. Hershkovitz is applied to teach the limitation of “displays the replacement site and the supply site on the map, each in a distinguishable form.”
Claim 8
Hershkovitz further discloses that the guiding device further includes a speaker, in addition to the display device (see ¶0124, regarding user interface 305 includes display device 306 and speakers).
Claim 10
Hershkovitz further disclose an input device that receives a request for guiding from a user (see ¶0124, regarding user interface 210 receives commands from a user and generates user interface objects to be displayed on display device 306), wherein:
the guiding device is configured to decide on a target of guiding including at least one of the replacement site and the supply site when the input device receives the request for guiding (see ¶0175, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects the battery service station based on a battery service station specified by the user); and
the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the target of guiding (see ¶0178, regarding the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint for use by energy-aware navigation module 332 to provide guidance).
Claim 11
Hershkovitz further discloses a search device configured to search for the replacement site existing in a predetermined area (see ¶0173, with respect to Figure 6, regarding the method of determining suitable battery service stations within a theoretical maximum range of the current location), the search device including the central processing unit, the storage device, and the indication device (see Figure 3, depicting electric vehicle control system 107 as including CPU 302, display device 306, and memory 310, in which energy-aware navigation module 332 resides, as further described in ¶0124, ¶0135), wherein:
when at least one replacement site is to be a target of guiding, the guiding device is configured to acquire stock information with regard to each candidate for the target of guiding found in the predetermined area through the search, the stock information indicating stock status of an energy storage device for replacement that is available to be attached to the vehicle in place of the energy storage device (see ¶0173, regarding that suitable battery services stations are determined within a theoretical maximum range of the current location, where a suitable battery service station is determined as having the type of battery packs that are compatible with the electric vehicle and the compatible battery packs are charged, where a number and type of suitable charged battery packs available at the respect battery service station are provided by control center 130, as described in ¶0108); and
the guiding device is configured to decide on the target of guiding by using the stock information, and to guide the vehicle to the target of guiding (see ¶0178, regarding energy-aware navigation module 332 adds the selected battery service station as a waypoint to provide guidance for the route, where the selected battery service station is defined as being able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle in ¶0175-0176).
Claim 13
Hershkovitz discloses the claimed vehicle (i.e. electric vehicle 102, depicted in Figure 1) comprising a navigation system configured to guide the vehicle (see ¶0104, regarding electric vehicle 102 includes electric vehicle control system 107 that provides energy-aware navigation), and an electrical storage device as an energy storage device which is attachable and detachable (see ¶0121, regarding that one or more battery packs 104 are coupled/decoupled to the frame of the electric vehicle 102 via battery pack lock module 202, so as to be exchanged at battery exchange stations, as described in ¶0099), wherein the vehicle is configured to be able to travel by using electricity output from the electrical storage device (see ¶0099, regarding the distance that electric vehicle 104 travels is defined by the charge of the battery pack 104), as further discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14
Hershkovitz discloses the claimed navigation system configured to guide a vehicle (see ¶0104, regarding electric vehicle 102 includes electric vehicle control system 107 that provides energy-aware navigation), as further discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 1, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito et al. (US 2010/0106401 A1), hereinafter Naito.
Claim 1 (second)
Naito discloses the claimed navigation system configured to guide a vehicle including an energy storage device (see ¶0028, regarding vehicle control system 3 includes navigation system 1 installed in vehicle 2, drive motor 5, and battery unit 6 having a plurality of batteries, where navigation system 1 executes a route search to the destination and outputs guidance along a set guidance route using the liquid crystal display 15 or speaker 16, as described in ¶0029) which is attachable and detachable (see ¶0034, regarding that the first battery 7A and second battery 7B included in battery unit 6 are each independently removable from vehicle 2), the navigation system comprising a guiding device configured to present information for guiding the vehicle to at least one of a replacement site and a supply site (see ¶0107, regarding liquid crystal display 15 or speaker 16 provides a route from the travel start location to the charging facility; ¶0049, regarding that the charging facility is selected as suitable for charging first battery 7A or second battery 7B of vehicle 2). Only one of the replacement site or supply site is required to be taught by prior art; Naito is applied to the limitation of “supply site.”
Naito further discloses that the guiding device including a central processing unit, a storage device, and an indication device having a display device (see ¶0038, ¶0046, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that navigation system 1 includes CPU 51, RAM 52, ROM 53, and liquid crystal display 15), the supply site is a site where an energy supply facility is provided, the energy supply facility supplying energy to the energy storage device (see ¶0044, regarding that the charging facility is a supply facility having dedicated charging equipment for recharging a battery which serves as a power supply source for the drive motor), the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the supply site when a predetermined condition is met (see ¶0066-0067, with respect to steps S6 and S7 of Figure 6, regarding that when it is determined that it is not possible to make a round trip without recharging batteries 7A, 7B (S6: NO), charging facilities are searched for along the travel route, where a route from the travel start location to the selected charging facility is communicated to the driver via the liquid crystal display 15, as described in ¶0107 and ¶0112), and to not guide the vehicle to the supply site when the predetermined condition is not met (see ¶0066, with respect to step S6 of Figure 6, regarding that when it is determined that it is possible to make a round trip without charging the batteries 7A, &b (S6: YES), the charging facility introduction processing program is finished without selection of a charging facility).
Since the claim requires either the “replacement site” or the “supply site,” the prior art only needs to teach one of the alternative limitations. Having applied Naito to the limitation of the “supply site,” the prior art need not teach the features further limiting the “replacement site,” such as the replacement site is a site where the energy storage device is replaced.
Claim 9
Naito further discloses that the guiding device is configured to decide on a target of guiding including at least one of the replacement site and the supply site when a stored energy amount in the energy storage device mounted on the vehicle becomes less than a reference value (see ¶0064-0067, with respect to steps S5, S6, and S7 of Figure 6, regarding that when the sum of the SOC values of the first battery 7A and second battery 7B is equal to or more than the required energy amount, it is determined that it is possible to make a round trip without charging batteries 7A, 7B at a charging facility on the way, such that when it is determined that it is not possible to make a round trip (i.e. SOC is greater than the required energy amount), charging facilities are searched for along the travel route, where the charging facility candidate closest to the travel start location is selected as the most suitable charging facility for vehicle 2, as described in ¶0104), and the guiding device is configured to guide the vehicle to the target of guiding (see ¶0107, ¶0112, regarding that a route from the travel start location to the selected charging facility is communicated to the driver via the liquid crystal display 15). Since the claim requires either the “replacement site” or the “supply site,” the prior art only needs to teach one of the alternative limitations. Naito is applied to the limitation of “supply site.”
Claim 13 (second)
Naito discloses the claimed vehicle (i.e. vehicle 2, depicted in Figure 1) comprising a navigation system, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is configured to be able to travel by using electricity output from the electrical storage device (see ¶0044, regarding that the battery serves as a power supply source for the drive motor of the vehicle).
Claim 14 (second)
Naito discloses the claimed navigation system configured to guide a vehicle, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hershkovitz.
Claim 12
Hershkovitz further discloses the display device being configured to display information to a user of the vehicle, the central processing unit being configured to control the display device (see ¶0124, regarding energy-aware navigation module 332 determines routes, destinations, and battery service locations for display on display device 306 of electric vehicle 102).
Hershkovitz further discloses that when the vehicle includes a plurality of the energy storage devices, the control device is configured to classify the target of guiding as any one of a first replacement site and a second replacement site (see ¶0175-0176, regarding that the selected battery service station may be either a battery exchange station or a charge station, where electric vehicle 102 is defined as including one or more battery packs 104, each including one or more batteries in ¶0098). The claimed “classify” step is not influenced by the “plurality of batteries.”
Hershkovitz further discloses the display device is configured to display the first replacement site and the second replacement site in a form that allows the user to distinguish between the first replacement site and the second replacement site (see ¶0175-0176, with respect to step 604 of Figure 6, regarding that the energy-aware navigation module 332 selects a suitable battery service station that is able to service the battery packs of the electric vehicle, where the selected battery service station is added as a waypoint in order to provide guidance for navigation, as described in ¶0178, with respect to step 608). As depicted in Figures 7A-7C and Figure 9 of Hershkovitz, battery exchange stations and charge stations are displayed differently. The claimed “display” is not influenced by the “stock status.”
While Hershkovitz does not explicitly disclose that the first replacement site having stock status that allows all of the plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle to be replaced, the second replacement site having stock status that allows only one or some of the plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle to be replaced, Hershkovitz teaches the selection of a suitable service station based on a number of suitable charged battery packs available at the respective battery service station (see ¶0108); therefore, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to define the “first replacement site” as having a number of suitable charged battery packs to account for the “plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle” and the “second replacement site” as having a number of suitable charged battery packs to account for “only one or some of the plurality of energy storage devices,” given this claimed feature does not influence the “classify” or “display” steps discussed above.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first replacement site of Hershkovitz as having stock status that allows all of the plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle to be replaced, and the second replacement site of Hershkovitz as having stock status that allows only one or some of the plurality of energy storage devices included in the vehicle to be replaced, with the predictable result of providing particular numbers of suitable charged battery packs available at the respective battery service station (¶0108 of Hershkovitz) that would be “obvious to try” by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per MPEP 2106.05(I), the novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
The closest prior art of record, Hershkovitz, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed guiding device is configured to determine whether or not an abnormality has occurred in second equipment for allowing the energy storage device to be attached to and detached from the vehicle; and the guiding device is configured to present the third information when it is determined that the vehicle includes the first equipment and that an abnormality has occurred in the second equipment, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, prior art systems are well-known to determine whether or not an abnormality has occurred in a battery pack (i.e. “energy storage device”), so as to perform reactive safety operations of a vehicle, e.g., see ¶0122 of Lagnedahl et al. (US 2019/0160948 A1), and prior art systems are well-known to determine whether or not an abnormality has occurred in a claw arms (i.e. “second equipment”) for allowing a battery to be attached and detached from a vehicle, so as to perform reactive safety operations of a battery swapping station, e.g., see ¶0135-0139 of Chen et al. (translation of WO 2024/016254 A1). However, no reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach presenting “third information” defined as “guiding the vehicle to the supply site and not guiding the vehicle to the replacement site” in claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, when it is determined that the vehicle includes the “first equipment” defined as “allowing an energy supply from the energy supply facility to the energy storage device” in claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, and that an abnormality has occurred in the “second equipment” defined as “allowing the energy storage device to be attached to and detached from the vehicle,” in light of the overall claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Hershkovitz et al. (US 2015/0039391 A1) teaches selecting a battery service station from charge stations for recharging the batteries of electric vehicles and battery exchange stations for replacing the batteries of electric vehicles (see ¶0024), where a map is displayed indicating respective demand for battery services in one or more geographical areas (see ¶0031), Pedersen (US 2018/0238698 A1) teaches determining a suggested route by considering locations of charging stations that are in range of the present location of the EV requesting battery charging or replacement assistance (see ¶0116), and Ota et al. (US 2022/0019245 A1) teaches the determination of a takeoff and landing site as a battery replacement facility or battery charging facility based on takeoff and landing site information (see ¶0160).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights