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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received April 23, 2026.
Claims 1-3 and 8-11 are amended. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Independent claims 1, 10, and 11:
An information processing method the method comprising: acquiring deterioration degree, a charging rate, and initial full charge capacity of a battery mounted on an electric mobile object at a rental start time of the battery; calculating a power amount of the battery at the rental start time based on the deterioration degree, the charging rate, and the initial full charge capacity; calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the power amount less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the power amount less than current full charge capacity based on the power amount; and outputting the rental fee.
The abstract idea in the independent claims understood as a mental process or a certain method of organizing human activity. It is a mental process because each step is one that could be done mentally as observation or judgment. First, the acquired information can be observed by reading power bars or other readouts (there is no technical recitation of how information is received, only that it is “acquired”). Then, one could perform calculations mentally to determine the power amount by following an equation, or one could perform this on pen and paper, an acceptable mental process step. Then one could follow on and calculate a rental fee using a different equation, and finally output the fee by speaking it or writing it on paper.
This is also a certain method of organizing human activity because it is a commercial interaction of determining a rental fee based on some inputs. Determining a rental fee is a commercial interaction because it sets a contract between parties to allow one party to rent from another. The steps take information about a battery, perform some calculations, then determine a rental fee. Therefore the steps describe setting a fee for renting an electric vehicle.
For these reasons, the independent claims recite either a mental process or a certain method of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements alone or in combination amount to no more than applying a generic computing device to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional elements are:
Claim 1: method in a computer.
Claim 10: An information processing device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory memory having stored thereon executable instructions, which cause the processor to perform
Claim 11:
A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program that causes a computer to function to
These additional elements are generic computer elements because claims 1, 10 and 11 are a method on a computer, a computer system, or a medium storing information to perform the abstract idea steps. In combination they amount to no more than modules or other programming elements implemented on a computer operating in its ordinary capacity. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Apply it elements, which are all of the above, are not a practical application of an abstract idea and therefore claims 1, 10, and 11 do not recite a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in the practical application section is carried over and repeated here: for the same reason that there is not a practical application of an abstract idea, there is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-9 further define the abstract idea of claim 1 with various calculations that one could perform on paper or would make up a commercial interaction and without additional elements that would be a practical application of an abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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(s) 1-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurimoto et al., US PGPUB 20200290477 A1 (“Kurimoto”) in view of Sakakibara et al., US PGPUB 20160355098 A1 (“Sakakibara”).
Per claims 1, 10, and 11, which are similar in scope, Kurimoto teaches An information processing method in a computer, the method comprising: acquiring deterioration degree and initial full charge capacity of a battery mounted on an electric mobile object at a rental start time of the battery in par 08: “A battery lending system according to an aspect of the present disclosure lends a battery to a user. The battery lending system includes a vehicle configured to be equipped with the battery for traveling, and a server that manages a lending fee to be paid by the user for lending of the battery.” This teaches a battery mounted on an electric mobile object (vehicle – has electricity).
Then see par 013: “The server includes a communication device that communicates with the vehicle, and a processor that provides the vehicle with a notification for permitting traveling of the vehicle only for a period in which an index indicating a degree of progress of deterioration of the battery changes by a specified amount, when the user pays the lending fee.” This teaches acquiring a deterioration degree.
Then see par 090: “In battery lease system 100 configured as described above, battery 15 deteriorates as time elapses or as a travel distance of vehicle 1 increases. Hence, the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15 is calculated to recognize the degree of progress of deterioration of battery 15.” Further teaching deterioration degree.
Then see par 091: “Full charge capacity CO in the initial state is already known from specifications of battery 15. On the other hand, full charge capacity C at present can be calculated as described below. For example, during external charging of vehicle 1, ECU 10 obtains, from monitoring unit 151, the OCV of battery 15 at the start of charging, the OCV of battery 15 at the end of charging, and a charging current amount AAh for battery 15 from the start of charging to the end of charging. Further, ECU 10 converts a difference between the OCV at the start of charging and the OCV at the end of charging into an SOC difference ASOC, with reference to an SOC-OCV curve stored beforehand in memory 102. Then, ECU 10 calculates full charge capacity C of battery 15 according to the following equation (1) indicating that the ratio between SOC difference ASOC and charging current amount AAh is equal to the ratio between the SOC difference=100% and full charge capacity.” Teaches acquiring initial full charge capacity.
Then see par 0100: “Referring to FIG. 5A, first, a lease contract is made between the user and the lease company. When the user pays an initial lease fee according to the lease contract (or when the user agrees to make payment), the user is permitted to start using vehicle 1. In this example, the user is allowed to use vehicle 1 for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases from 100% to 95%.” Which teaches rental start time.
Then, Kurimoto teaches calculating a remaining capacity of the battery at the rental start time based on the deterioration degree and the initial full charge capacity in pars 90-91: "In battery lease system 100 configured as described above, battery 15 deteriorates as time elapses or as a travel distance of vehicle 1 increases. Hence, the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15 is calculated to recognize the degree of progress of deterioration of battery 15. In the present embodiment, a capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 is used as the index. Capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 represents the ratio of a full charge capacity C of battery 15 at present to a full charge capacity CO of battery 15 in an initial state (for example, at the time of manufacturing) (Q=C/CO).”
Full charge capacity CO in the initial state is already known from specifications of battery 15. On the other hand, full charge capacity C at present can be calculated as described below. For example, during external charging of vehicle 1, ECU 10 obtains, from monitoring unit 151, the OCV of battery 15 at the start of charging, the OCV of battery 15 at the end of charging, and a charging current amount AAh for battery 15 from the start of charging to the end of charging. Further, ECU 10 converts a difference between the OCV at the start of charging and the OCV at the end of charging into an SOC difference ASOC, with reference to an SOC-OCV curve stored beforehand in memory 102. Then, ECU 10 calculates full charge capacity C of battery 15 according to the following equation (1) indicating that the ratio between SOC difference ASOC and charging current amount AAh is equal to the ratio between the SOC difference=100% and full charge capacity C:" this teaches c as remaining capacity being calculated according to deterioration degree SOC difference ASOC. The SOC-OCV curve that is used in calculating C is determined using the degrees of deterioration as shown in par 093: “It should be noted that, as the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15, instead of or in addition to capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15, full charge capacity C (unit: Ah or Wh) of battery 15 may be used, or the EV travel distance (unit: km) of vehicle 1 may be used.” Full charge capacity c is remaining charge capacity.
See also:
par 097: Accordingly, in the present embodiment, a decrease of capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 is allowed by an amount corresponding to a lease fee (corresponding to a “lending fee” in the present disclosure) paid by the user to a lease company. Then, when capacity retention ratio Q that decreases as vehicle 1 is used reaches a lower limit value of a range allowed corresponding to the lease fee, charging/discharging of battery 15 is prohibited so as to prevent a further decrease of capacity retention ratio Q, unless the user pays an additional lease fee.
091: " Full charge capacity CO in the initial state is already known from specifications of battery 15. On the other hand, full charge capacity C at present can be calculated as described below. For example, during external charging of vehicle 1, ECU 10 obtains, from monitoring unit 151, the OCV of battery 15 at the start of charging, the OCV of battery 15 at the end of charging, and a charging current amount AAh for battery 15 from the start of charging to the end of charging. Further, ECU 10 converts a difference between the OCV at the start of charging and the OCV at the end of charging into an SOC difference ASOC, with reference to an SOC-OCV curve stored beforehand in memory 102. Then, ECU 10 calculates full charge capacity C of battery 15 according to the following equation (1) indicating that the ratio between SOC difference ASOC and charging current amount AAh is equal to the ratio between the SOC difference=100% and full charge capacity C:
C=ΔAh/ΔSOC×100 "
090: "In battery lease system 100 configured as described above, battery 15 deteriorates as time elapses or as a travel distance of vehicle 1 increases. Hence, the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15 is calculated to recognize the degree of progress of deterioration of battery 15. In the present embodiment, a capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 is used as the index. Capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 represents the ratio of a full charge capacity C of battery 15 at present to a full charge capacity CO of battery 15 in an initial state (for example, at the time of manufacturing) (Q=C/CO)."
093: "It should be noted that, as the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15, instead of or in addition to capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15, full charge capacity C (unit: Ah or Wh) of battery 15 may be used, or the EV travel distance (unit: km) of vehicle 1 may be used." Travel distance is equivalent to remaining capacity because it teaches the amount of distance one can travel which is directly proportional to the amount of energy (aka remaining capacity) left in the battery.
[0094] FIG. 4 is a view showing an example of a manner of deterioration of battery 15. In FIG. 4 and FIGS. 5A to 5D described later, the axis of abscissas represents an elapsed time from the initial state of battery 15. The axis of abscissas may be read as the travel distance of vehicle 1. The axis of ordinates represents capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15.
Then, Kurimoto teaches calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity based on the remaining capacity in par 96-97: "On the other hand, in a common car lease, a lease fee is determined according to a period set by a lease contract for a vehicle (in addition thereto or instead thereof, a maximum travel distance of the vehicle), and thus the user has less motivation (incentive) to suppress progress of deterioration of the battery.
Accordingly, in the present embodiment, a decrease of capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 is allowed by an amount corresponding to a lease fee (corresponding to a “lending fee” in the present disclosure) paid by the user to a lease company. Then, when capacity retention ratio Q that decreases as vehicle 1 is used reaches a lower limit value of a range allowed corresponding to the lease fee, charging/discharging of battery 15 is prohibited so as to prevent a further decrease of capacity retention ratio Q, unless the user pays an additional lease fee. That is, vehicle 1 becomes unable to travel. Therefore, the user attempts to slow the decrease rate of capacity retention ratio Q as much as possible so as to reduce payment of the lease fee, and thereby deterioration of battery 15 is suppressed. As a result, excessive deterioration of battery 15 can be suppressed, the economic value of battery 15 can be maintained, and the amount of collected recyclable batteries 15 can be increased." Decrease in capacity retention that is calculated into the rental fee teaches battery having the power less than the current full charge capacity.
Pays an additional lease fee teaches rental start time under a broadest reasonable interpretation because a new lease fee is a new rental start time.
Then Kurimoto teaches calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity based on the remaining capacity in par 0112: "Referring to FIGS. 8 and 9, in fee plan B, lease fee F becomes lower as capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 decreases. More specifically, lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q ranges from 100% to 95% is set to W. Lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q ranges from 95% to 90% is set to X that is lower than W (W>X). Lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q ranges from 90% to 85% is set to Y that is further lower than X (W>X>Y). Lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q falls below 85% is set to Z that is the lowest (W>X>Y>Z)."
par 0113: "As capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 decreases, the EV travel distance of vehicle 1 decreases, and thus the value of battery 15 is reduced. Therefore, by setting lease fee F to become lower with a decrease in capacity retention ratio Q as in fee plan B, the user can more feel that lending fee F is reasonable." As Q = C/CO, Q is proportionate to C which is remaining capacity, and CO under a broadest reasonable interpretation teaches current full charge capacity as it is not a defined term and teaches the full charge at charging being a number greater than or equal to C, the remaining capacity.
Kurimoto then teaches and outputting the rental fee in pars 100-101: “Referring to FIG. 5A, first, a lease contract is made between the user and the lease company. When the user pays an initial lease fee according to the lease contract (or when the user agrees to make payment), the user is permitted to start using vehicle 1. In this example, the user is allowed to use vehicle 1 for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases from 100% to 95%. As vehicle 1 is used, capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 decreases. In the example shown in FIG. 5B, actual capacity retention ratio Q (indicated by a solid line designated as Lact) decreases following predicted curve Lpre, and reaches Q=95% at a time tl. Then, the user of vehicle 1 receives an inquiry as to whether to pay a lease fee for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases from 95% to 90%. When the user pays the lease fee, the user is allowed to use vehicle 1 for the period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases from 95% to 90%.”
Kurimoto does not teach charging rate.
Sakakibara teaches a vehicle charge control device. See abstract.
Sakakibara teaches charging rate in pars 026-027: “The charge rate calculation unit 32 is an exemplary calculation unit that calculates a charge rate of the battery 11. The charge rate calculation unit 32 calculates, for example, an SOC of the battery 11.
The charge rate correction unit 33 is an exemplary correction unit that corrects the charge rate of the battery 11 calculated by the charge rate calculation unit 32, based on the behavior of the acceptance current I of the battery 11. The charge rate correction unit 33 corrects the SOC of the battery 11 based on the behavior (the temporal variation) of the acceptance current I measured by the current measurement unit 22, in accordance with, for example, a known charge acceptance characteristic regarding the battery 11. The charge acceptance characteristic is a characteristic indicating a relationship between the acceptance current I and the SOC. The charge rate correction unit 33 utilizes, for example, data representing the charge acceptance characteristic measured in advance with regard to the battery 11." The SOC of the battery is corrected with the calculated charging rate.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lease rate of a battery powered vehicle teaching of Kurimoto with the charging rate teaching of Sakakibara because Sakakibara teaches in par 005 that a charge rate of a battery has to be corrected based on the current that the battery is being given. This helps to both determine deterioration and limit deterioration see par 025. One would be motivated to combine Sakakibara with Kurimoto because Sakakibara’s teaching helps determine the SOC of the battery (state of charge) which Kurimoto is also determining, directly, in determining full charge and deterioration. This would enable a more accurate determination of these values which Kurimoto uses to determine lease rates to prevent user deterioration of a battery. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Kurimoto with Sakakibara.
Per claim 2, Kurimoto and Sakakibara teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Kurimoto further teaches wherein in the calculating a rental fee, the rental fee is calculated by multiplying the remaining capacity at the rental start time by a predetermined constant in par 110: “As shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, in fee plan A, lease fee F is constant irrespective of capacity retention ratio Q. In contrast, in fee plan B, lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases by the specified amount (deterioration period) is set to a value corresponding to capacity retention ratio Q.”
Per claim 3, Kurimoto and Sakakibara teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Kurimoto further teaches wherein in the calculating a rental fee, deterioration degree of the battery at a scheduled rental end time of the battery are estimated, a remaining capacity at the scheduled rental end time is calculated based on the deterioration degree, , and the initial full charge capacity of the battery at the scheduled rental end time, and a value obtained by subtracting the remaining capacity at the scheduled rental end time from the power amount at the rental start time is multiplied by a predetermined constant to calculate the rental fee in par 112-113: "Referring to FIGS. 8 and 9, in fee plan B, lease fee F becomes lower as capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 decreases. More specifically, lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q ranges from 100% to 95% is set to W. Lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q ranges from 95% to 90% is set to X that is lower than W (W>X). Lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q ranges from 90% to 85% is set to Y that is further lower than X (W>X>Y). Lease fee F for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q falls below 85% is set to Z that is the lowest (W>X>Y>Z).
As capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 decreases, the EV travel distance of vehicle 1 decreases, and thus the value of battery 15 is reduced. Therefore, by setting lease fee F to become lower with a decrease in capacity retention ratio Q as in fee plan B, the user can more feel that lending fee F is reasonable."
Kurimoto does not teach charging rate.
Sakakibara teaches a vehicle charge control device. See abstract.
Sakakibara teaches charging rate in pars 026-027: “The charge rate calculation unit 32 is an exemplary calculation unit that calculates a charge rate of the battery 11. The charge rate calculation unit 32 calculates, for example, an SOC of the battery 11.
The charge rate correction unit 33 is an exemplary correction unit that corrects the charge rate of the battery 11 calculated by the charge rate calculation unit 32, based on the behavior of the acceptance current I of the battery 11. The charge rate correction unit 33 corrects the SOC of the battery 11 based on the behavior (the temporal variation) of the acceptance current I measured by the current measurement unit 22, in accordance with, for example, a known charge acceptance characteristic regarding the battery 11. The charge acceptance characteristic is a characteristic indicating a relationship between the acceptance current I and the SOC. The charge rate correction unit 33 utilizes, for example, data representing the charge acceptance characteristic measured in advance with regard to the battery 11." The SOC of the battery is corrected with the calculated charging rate.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lease rate of a battery powered vehicle teaching of Kurimoto with the charging rate teaching of Sakakibara because Sakakibara teaches in par 005 that a charge rate of a battery has to be corrected based on the current that the battery is being given. This helps to both determine deterioration and limit deterioration see par 025. One would be motivated to combine Sakakibara with Kurimoto because Sakakibara’s teaching helps determine the SOC of the battery (state of charge) which Kurimoto is also determining, directly, in determining full charge and deterioration. This would enable a more accurate determination of these values which Kurimoto uses to determine lease rates to prevent user deterioration of a battery. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Kurimoto with Sakakibara.
Per claim 4, Kurimoto and Sakakibara teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Kurimoto further teaches wherein in the calculating a rental fee, an operation rate in past of a battery station in which the battery is placed is calculated, a first coefficient set for the battery station is calculated based on the operation rate that is calculated, and the first coefficient that is calculated is multiplied by the rental fee in par 168-169: "When ratio R2 is less than 20% (YES in S709), fee charging server 2 advances the processing to S711. In S711, fee charging server 2 provides vehicle 1 with information that it is desirable to continue the present charging manner, because progress of deterioration of battery 15 can be suppressed suitably (at a high level) by the charging manner of battery 15 in vehicle 1 employed up to the present (proper use of timer charging and normal charging).
Further, when ratio R2 is more than or equal to 20% and less than 40% (YES in S710), fee charging server 2 advances the processing to S712. Also in S712, fee charging server 2 provides vehicle 1 with information that it is desirable to continue the present charging manner in vehicle 1. This is because progress of deterioration of battery 15 can be suppressed to a certain degree (at an average level) by the charging manner of battery 15 employed up to the present."
Per claim 5, Kurimoto and Sakakibara teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Kurimoto further teaches wherein in the calculating a rental fee, a rental ratio at which a plurality of batteries are rented in past is calculated for each of a plurality of predetermined charging rate ranges, a second coefficient set for each of the plurality of predetermined charging rate ranges is calculated based on the rental ratio for each of the plurality of predetermined charging rate ranges that is calculated, and the rental fee is multiplied by the second coefficient set for a range corresponding to the charging rate of the battery among the plurality of predetermined charging rate ranges in par 159: “Fee charging server 2 compares calculated ratio R1 with two determination values that are less than 1 (in this example, ⅓ and ½). When ratio R1 is less than 1, the actual value of the travel distance per day of vehicle 1 is shorter than the EV travel distance of vehicle 1. Accordingly, traveling of vehicle 1 can be entirely performed by EV traveling. In addition, even after traveling is entirely performed by EV traveling, the power stored in battery 15 may have a margin.”
See also par 167: “As described above, in order to suppress deterioration of battery 15, it is desirable to shorten the time for which battery 15 is left in a high SOC state as much as possible. Therefore, in S708, fee charging server 2 calculates a ratio R2 of the time for which battery 15 is left in a high SOC state to a total use time of battery 15. The length of the total use time of battery 15 can be obtained by measuring an elapsed time from manufacturing of battery 15 (which may be manufacturing of vehicle 1) to the present. The time for which battery 15 is left in a high SOC state can be calculated by calculating a cumulative value of the time for which battery 15 is left in a high SOC state to the present. Fee charging server 2 compares calculated ratio R2 with two determination values (in this example, 20% and 40%).”
Per claim 6, Kurimoto and Sakakibara teach the limitations of claim 5, above. Kurimoto further teaches wherein in a case where a second coefficient set for a first charging rate range is larger than a second coefficient set for a second charging rate range larger than the first charging rate range, the second coefficient set for the second charging rate range is replaced with the second coefficient set for the first charging rate range in par 169-170: "Further, when ratio R2 is more than or equal to 20% and less than 40% (YES in S710), fee charging server 2 advances the processing to S712. Also in S712, fee charging server 2 provides vehicle 1 with information that it is desirable to continue the present charging manner in vehicle 1. This is because progress of deterioration of battery 15 can be suppressed to a certain degree (at an average level) by the charging manner of battery 15 employed up to the present.
On the other hand, when ratio R2 is more than or equal to 40% (NO in S710), the time for which battery 15 is left in a high SOC state is too long, and deterioration of battery 15 is more likely to progress. Therefore, fee charging server 2 advances the processing to S713, and provides vehicle 1 with information that it is desirable to further utilize timer charging. In the case of normal charging, a period from when charging of battery 15 is completed to when vehicle 1 starts traveling can become long. During this period, battery 15 is left in a high SOC state, and thus deterioration of battery 15 is more likely to progress. In contrast, when timer charging is utilized to set a time schedule such that charging of battery 15 is completed immediately before vehicle 1 starts traveling, the time for which battery 15 is left in a high SOC state becomes shorter, as compared with a case where timer charging is not utilized. Thus, progress of deterioration of battery 15 can be suppressed. When any of the processings in S711 to S713 ends, fee charging server 2 returns the processing to the flowchart shown in FIG. 16."
Per claim 7, Kurimoto and Sakakibara teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Kurimoto further teaches wherein in the calculating a rental fee, a moving distance per rental in past of a user who rents the battery is converted into a power consumption amount, in a case where a current scheduled power consumption amount of the battery is smaller than a value obtained by subtracting a threshold from the power consumption amount that is converted, the rental fee is multiplied by a third coefficient, in a case where the scheduled power consumption amount is within a range between a value obtained by subtracting the threshold from the power consumption amount that is converted and a value obtained by adding the threshold to the power consumption amount that is converted, the rental fee is multiplied by a fourth coefficient higher than the third coefficient, and in a case where the scheduled power consumption amount is larger than a value obtained by adding the threshold to the power consumption amount that is converted, the rental fee is multiplied by a fifth coefficient higher than the fourth coefficient in par 155-156: " Referring to FIG. 17, in S701, fee charging server 2 estimates a distance for which vehicle 1 can travel until permission to use vehicle 1 ends (lease of battery 15 ends). Hereinafter, this distance is also referred to as a “remaining travel distance”. The remaining travel distance of vehicle 1 can be estimated as described below, for example.
Fee charging server 2 has predicted curve Lpre representing a typical manner in which capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 decreases (see FIGS. 5A to 5D) in memory 202 beforehand. Fee charging server 2 corrects predicted curve Lpre based on actual capacity retention ratio Q received from vehicle 1. For example, when actual capacity retention ratio Q at a certain time is lower than capacity retention ratio Q on predicted curve Lpre at the same time, fee charging server 2 corrects predicted curve Lpre downward (in a direction in which the future decrease rate of capacity retention ratio Q increases). Conversely, when actual capacity retention ratio Q is higher than capacity retention ratio Q on predicted curve Lpre in comparison at the same time, fee charging server 2 corrects predicted curve Lpre upward (in a direction in which the future decrease rate of capacity retention ratio Q decreases). Then, fee charging server 2 estimates a time when capacity retention ratio Q will decrease by a specified amount, based on corrected predicted curve Lpre. Thus, fee charging server 2 can estimate the remaining travel distance of vehicle 1, based on the time when capacity retention ratio Q will decrease by the specified amount (such as after how many days) and an actual value of a travel distance per day of vehicle 1. Fee charging server 2 transmits the estimated remaining travel distance to vehicle 1."
Per claim 8, Kurimoto and Sakakibara teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Kurimoto further teaches further comprising: acquiring a departure point and a destination point of the electric mobile object on which the battery is mounted in par 96: “On the other hand, in a common car lease, a lease fee is determined according to a period set by a lease contract for a vehicle (in addition thereto or instead thereof, a maximum travel distance of the vehicle), and thus the user has less motivation (incentive) to suppress progress of deterioration of the battery.
Kurimoto then teaches converting a moving distance from the departure point to the destination point into a power consumption amount in par 156: “Then, fee charging server 2 estimates a time when capacity retention ratio Q will decrease by a specified amount, based on corrected predicted curve Lpre. Thus, fee charging server 2 can estimate the remaining travel distance of vehicle 1, based on the time when capacity retention ratio Q will decrease by the specified amount (such as after how many days) and an actual value of a travel distance per day of vehicle 1. Fee charging server 2 transmits the estimated remaining travel distance to vehicle 1.”
Kurimoto then teaches and selecting a rentable battery in which the power amount of the battery at the rental start time is larger than the power consumption amount that is converted, wherein in the calculating a rental fee, the rental fee of the rentable battery that is selected is calculated in par 172: “In the battery lease system in accordance with the third embodiment, when deterioration of battery 15 progresses by an amount corresponding to a lease fee paid beforehand by the user, the user is not allowed to use vehicle 1. However, it is difficult for the user to recognize the degree of progress of deterioration of battery 15. Thus, if the remaining travel distance for which the user can use vehicle 1 is unknown, the user may be dissatisfied. Accordingly, providing the user beforehand with the information about the remaining travel distance of vehicle 1 can prevent a so-called surprise situation for the user in which vehicle 1 suddenly becomes unable to travel. Thereby, user satisfaction can be improved.”
See also par 0147: “According to fee plan D, as deterioration of battery 15 progresses, lease fee F becomes relatively higher with respect to the amount of money that is commensurate with the value of battery 15 (in other words, lease fee F is comparatively expensive). Hence, as deterioration of battery 15 progresses, the user is more motivated to cancel lease of vehicle 1 and return vehicle 1 to the lease company. Thereby, the lease company can further increase the number of batteries collected before deterioration thereof progresses excessively (the amount of collected batteries).”
Per claim 9, Kurimoto and Sakakibara teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Kurimoto further teaches further comprising: acquiring deterioration degree, and initial full charge capacity of the battery at a rental end time of the battery; calculating a remaining capacity at the rental end time based on the deterioration degree, the charging rate, and the initial full charge capacity in par 0149: “Further, in the second embodiment, when the decrease of capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 exceeds a predetermined value (80% in the example of FIGS. 14 and 15), lease fee F is set higher than that when capacity retention ratio Q is equal to the predetermined value. Thus, by intentionally producing a deviation between the value of battery 15 and lease fee F for battery 15, the user is motivated to return vehicle 1 to the lease company. Thereby, the amount of collected batteries 15 can be increased (i.e., the rate of collecting batteries 15 can be improved).”
Then Kurimoto teaches calculating a final rental fee of the battery based on the remaining capacity in par 131: “As described above, in the first embodiment, each time capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 decreases by the specified amount, the user selects whether to pay lease fee F and continue using vehicle 1 also in the next deterioration. Since this imposes a monetary burden on the user with a decrease in capacity retention ratio Q, the user comes to pay attention to the manner of using vehicle 1 such that capacity retention ratio Q may not decrease as much as possible. For example, the user drives vehicle 1 so as to avoid charging/discharging battery 15 with a large current, and stores vehicle 1 so as to suppress progress of deterioration of battery 15 under a high temperature environment. Thereby, excessive deterioration of battery 15 can be suppressed.”
Kurimoto then teaches and outputting the rental fee in par 100-101: “Referring to FIG. 5A, first, a lease contract is made between the user and the lease company. When the user pays an initial lease fee according to the lease contract (or when the user agrees to make payment), the user is permitted to start using vehicle 1. In this example, the user is allowed to use vehicle 1 for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases from 100% to 95%. As vehicle 1 is used, capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 decreases. In the example shown in FIG. 5B, actual capacity retention ratio Q (indicated by a solid line designated as Lact) decreases following predicted curve Lpre, and reaches Q=95% at a time tl. Then, the user of vehicle 1 receives an inquiry as to whether to pay a lease fee for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases from 95% to 90%. When the user pays the lease fee, the user is allowed to use vehicle 1 for the period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases from 95% to 90%.”
Kurimoto does not teach charging rate.
Sakakibara teaches a vehicle charge control device. See abstract.
Sakakibara teaches charging rate in pars 026-027: “The charge rate calculation unit 32 is an exemplary calculation unit that calculates a charge rate of the battery 11. The charge rate calculation unit 32 calculates, for example, an SOC of the battery 11.
The charge rate correction unit 33 is an exemplary correction unit that corrects the charge rate of the battery 11 calculated by the charge rate calculation unit 32, based on the behavior of the acceptance current I of the battery 11. The charge rate correction unit 33 corrects the SOC of the battery 11 based on the behavior (the temporal variation) of the acceptance current I measured by the current measurement unit 22, in accordance with, for example, a known charge acceptance characteristic regarding the battery 11. The charge acceptance characteristic is a characteristic indicating a relationship between the acceptance current I and the SOC. The charge rate correction unit 33 utilizes, for example, data representing the charge acceptance characteristic measured in advance with regard to the battery 11." The SOC of the battery is corrected with the calculated charging rate.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lease rate of a battery powered vehicle teaching of Kurimoto with the charging rate teaching of Sakakibara because Sakakibara teaches in par 005 that a charge rate of a battery has to be corrected based on the current that the battery is being given. This helps to both determine deterioration and limit deterioration see par 025. One would be motivated to combine Sakakibara with Kurimoto because Sakakibara’s teaching helps determine the SOC of the battery (state of charge) which Kurimoto is also determining, directly, in determining full charge and deterioration. This would enable a more accurate determination of these values which Kurimoto uses to determine lease rates to prevent user deterioration of a battery. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Kurimoto with Sakakibara.
Therefore, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Remarks
35 USC 101
Applicant argues:
As noted in paragraphs [0003], [0004], and [0019] of US 2025/0173779, which is the pre-grant publication of the instant application, according to conventional techniques related to
rental of batteries mounted on an electric moving object, there is a problem a battery cannot be rented out until the battery is fully charged thereby resulting in a shortage of rental batteries, Further, a service provided that rents out batteries needs to prepare extra batteries in order to cope with a potential shortage, and as such, the conventional techniques result in high operation costs.
To address and solve the technological problem identified in the specification of the instant application, the presently claimed invention according to claim 1 provides technical solutions with a combination of elements reciting:
"acquiring deterioration degree, a charging rate, and initial full charge capacity of
a battery mounted on an electric mobile object at a rental start time of the battery;
calculating a remaining capacity of the battery at the rental start time based on the
deterioration degree, the charging rate, and the initial full charge capacity;
calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity
based on the remaining capacity."
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s argument rests on characterizing a non-technical problem (not enough batteries) as a technical problem. This is not persuasive. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), a technological solution to a technological problem would be understood by one ordinarily skilled in the art. The evidence is carefully reviewed and there is no technological problem (ie a problem with technology) identified. Or, though a purported technological problem has been put forth, it simply is not technical whatsoever. Further even if a lack of batteries were a technological problem, which it is not, the claims do not recite any limitations to the lack of batteries. Rather the claims collect information, analyze information, and display the results. See Electric Power Group. Therefore the abstract idea was correctly identified and is maintained.
Applicant argues:
By requiring the above-noted features of claim 1, the presently claimed invention requires calculating a remaining capacity of the battery at the rental start time based on the deterioration degree, the charging rate, and the initial full charge capacity, and appropriately calculating a rental fee for the battery having less than a full charge.
Paragraphs [0020]-[0024] of US 2025/0173779 disclose the following:
"[0020] In order to solve the above problem, a technique below is disclosed.
[0021]An information processing method according to one aspect of the present disclosure is an information processing method in a computer, the method including acquiring deterioration degree, a charging rate, and initial full charge capacity of a battery mounted on an electric mobile object at a rental start time of the battery, calculating a power amount of the battery at the rental start time based on the deterioration degree, the charging rate, and the initial full charge capacity, calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the power amount less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the power amount less than current full charge capacity based
on the power amount, and outputting the rental fee.
[0022] According to this configuration, a power amount of a battery mounted on an electric mobile object at a rental start time is calculated based on deterioration degree, a charging rate, and initial full charge capacity of the battery at the rental start time of the battery. Then, based on the calculated power amount, a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating a battery having a power amount less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of a battery having a power amount less than current full charge capacity is calculated, and the calculated
rental fee is output.
[0023] Therefore, a rental fee of not only a battery that is fully charged but also a battery that is less than fully charged can be presented, and the number of rentable
batteries increases, so that a shortage of rentable batteries can be prevented.
[0024] Further, it is possible to present a rental fee of not only an electric mobile object incorporating a battery that is fully charged but also an electric mobile object incorporating a battery that is less than fully charged, and since the number of rentable electric mobile objects increases, it is possible to prevent a shortage of
rentable electric mobile objects."
Accordingly, by requiring the above-noted features of claim 1, and in particular, the
features of "calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity based on the remaining capacity," Applicant respectfully submits that the presently claimed invention allows for "a rental fee of not only a battery that is fully charged but also a battery that is less than fully charged" to be presented, thereby increasing the number of rentable batteries, so that a shortage of rentable batteries can be prevented, as described above in the specification.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the limitations of amended claim 1 are
clearly and directly tied to an improvement in the relevant existing technology, and as such, it is
respectfully submitted that the alleged judicial exemption recited by the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application.
In view of the above, it is respectfully submitted that claims 1-11 are directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and as such, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn.
Examiner responds:
These arguments are in the same vein as a purported battery shortage that, now that some information is collected, more batteries can be used. However there was nothing technical preventing the batteries from being used, more a decision making (human) process that says, let’s take this less than full charge battery and use it. It’s common sense that batteries with less than full charge capacity are being used all the time. For example, a used EV likely has a battery with less than full charge capacity but it can be used, leased, etc. This is a markets problem, not a technical problem. The arguments presented are unpersuasive and the 101 is maintained.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues:
Claims 1-11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurimoto (US 2020/0290477) in view of Sakakibara (US 2016/0355098). Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the above-noted rejection in view of the following.
Claim 1 recites the following features:
acquiring deterioration degree, a charging rate, and initial full charge capacity of a battery mounted on an electric mobile object at a rental start time of the battery;
calculating a remaining capacity of the battery at the rental start time based on the deterioration degree, the charging rate, and the initial full charge capacity;
calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity based on the remaining capacity.
Applicant respectfully submits that the above-noted features of claim 1 are not disclosed, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by any combination of Kurimoto and Sakakibara based on the following.
On pages 9 and 10 of the Office Action, the Examiner states the following:
"Then see par 013: "The server includes a communication device that communicates with the vehicle, and a processor that provides the vehicle with a notification for permitting traveling of the vehicle only for a period in which an index indicating a degree of progress of deterioration of the battery changes by a specified amount, when the user pays the lending fee." This teaches acquiring a
deterioration degree.
Then see par 090: "In battery lease system 100 configured as described above, battery 15 deteriorates as time elapses or as a travel distance of vehicle 1 increases. Hence, the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15 is calculated to recognize the degree of progress of deterioration of battery 15."
Further teaching deterioration degree."9
Applicant notes that the Examiner appear to take the position that "the deterioration degree" required by the claimed invention corresponds to "the index indicating the state of deterioration" of Kurimoto.
Additionally, on pages 11 and 12 of the Office Action, the Examiner states the following:
"Then, Kurimoto teaches calculating a power amount of the battery at the rental start time based on the deterioration degree, and the initial full charge capacity in pars 90-91: "In battery lease system 100 configured as described above, battery 15 deteriorates as time elapses or as a travel distance of vehicle 1 increases. Hence, the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15 is calculated to recognize the degree of progress of deterioration of battery 15. In the present embodiment, a capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 is used as the index. Capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 represents the ratio of a full charge capacity C of battery 15 at present to a full charge capacity CO of battery 15 in an initial state (for example, at the time of manufacturing)
(Q=C/CO)."
Full charge capacity CO in the initial state is already known from specifications of battery 15. On the other hand, full charge capacity C at present can be calculated as described below. For example, during external charging of vehicle 1, ECU 10 obtains, from monitoring unit 151, the OCV of battery 15 at the start of charging, the OCV of battery 15 at the end of charging, and a charging current amount AAh for battery 15 from the start of charging to the end of charging.
Further, ECU 10 converts a difference between the OCV at the start of charging and the OCV at the end of charging into an SOC difference ASOC, with reference to an SOC-OCV curve stored beforehand in memory 102. Then, ECU 10
calculates full charge capacity C of battery 15 according to the following equation (1) indicating that the ratio between SOC difference ASOC and charging current amount AAh is equal to the ratio between the SOC difference=100% and full charge capacity C:" Capacity retention teaches a power amount and it is based on the initial full charge capacity and is further The SOC-OCV curve that is used in calculating C is determined using the degrees of deterioration as shown in par 093: "It should be noted that, as the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15, instead of or in addition to capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15, full charge capacity C (unit: Ah or Wh) of battery 15 may be used, or the EV travel
distance (unit: km) of vehicle 1 may be used."
In other words, the Examiner appears to taken the position that "[c]apacity retention
teaches a power amount and it is based on the initial full charge capacity and is further The SOC- OCV curve that is used in calculating C is determined using the degrees of deterioration" based on paragraphs [0090] to [0091] and [0093] of Kurimoto.
Paragraph [0090] of Kurimoto discloses the following:
"In battery lease system 100 configured as described above, battery 15 deteriorates as time elapses or as a travel distance of vehicle 1 increases. Hence, the index indicating the state of deterioration of battery 15 is calculated to recognize the degree of progress of deterioration of battery 15. In the present embodiment, a capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 is used as the index.
Capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 represents the ratio of a full charge capacity C of battery 15 at present to a full charge capacity CO of battery 15 in an
initial state (for example, at the time of manufacturing) (Q=C/CO)."
According to the teachings of Kurimoto, Applicant notes that "the capacity retention ratio Q" is used as "the index indicating the state of deterioration," and the capacity retention ratio Q represents the ratio of a full charge capacity C of battery 15 at present to a full charge capacity CO of battery 15 in an initial state (Q=C/CO).
Although the Examiner regards the capacity retention ratio as teaching a power amount, it can be seen that the capacity retention ratio of Kurimoto is an index completely different from a "remaining capacity" required by amended claim 1.
Applicant respectfully submits that the capacity retention ratio of Kurimoto is, at best, equivalent to the deterioration degree required by the claimed invention, which is calculated based on a full charge capacity in an initial state and a full charge capacity at present.
In contrast, the "remaining capacity" required by amended claim 1 is calculated based on the deterioration degree, the charging rate, and the initial full charge capacity. respectfully submitted that Kurimoto fails to teach "calculating a remaining capacity of the battery at the rental start time based on the deterioration degree, the charging rate, and the initial full charge capacity," as required by the above-noted features of amended claim 1.
Examiner replies. First, Applicant only argues against one reference when a combination is asserted. Though Applicant mentions the secondary reference Applicant does not actually address the argument made. Therefore the argument is unpersuasive. Second, as shown above, remaining capacity is based on deterioration degree. Q is not the deterioration degree but is proportionate to C the remaining capacity. In fact, it is likely that Kurimoto teaches charging rate as well, as Kurimoto teaches SOC (see above) and SOC is “an index representing a charging rate of the battery” see Applicant specification par 058. The remaining capacity is taught above in the rejection and Applicant’s arguments fail to show that this is not the case because, the “in contrast” part is actually taught in the references, even those cited in the arguments.
Applicant argues:
"Then, Kurimoto teaches calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the power amount less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the power amount less than current full charge capacity based on the power amount in par 96-97:11
"On the other hand, in a common car lease, a lease fee is determined according to a period set by a lease contract for a vehicle (in addition thereto or instead thereof, a maximum travel distance of the vehicle), and thus the user has less motivation
(incentive) to suppress progress of deterioration of the battery.
Accordingly, in the present embodiment, a decrease of capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 is allowed by an amount corresponding to a lease fee (corresponding to a "lending fee" in the present disclosure) paid by the user to a lease company.
Then, when capacity retention ratio Q that decreases as vehicle 1 is used reaches a lower limit value of a range allowed corresponding to the lease fee, charging/discharging of battery 15 is prohibited so as to prevent a further decrease of capacity retention ratio Q, unless the user pays an additional lease fee. That is, vehicle 1 becomes unable to travel. Therefore, the user attempts to slow the decrease rate of capacity retention ratio Q as much as possible so as to reduce payment of the lease fee, and thereby deterioration of battery 15 is suppressed. As a result, excessive deterioration of battery 15 can be suppressed, the economic value of battery 15 can be maintained, and the amount of collected recyclable batteries 15 can be increased." Decrease in capacity retention that is calculated into the rental fee teaches battery having the power less than the current full
charge capacity."
Applicant notes that paragraph [0097] of Kurimoto discloses "...in the present
embodiment, a decrease of capacity retention ratio Q of battery 15 is allowed by an amount corresponding to a lease fee (corresponding to a "lending fee" in the present disclosure) paid by the user to a lease company" and paragraph [0100] of Kurimoto discloses "... first, a lease contract is made between the user and the lease company. When the user pays an initial lease fee according to the lease contract (or when the user agrees to make payment), the user is permitted to start using vehicle 1. In this example, the user is allowed to use vehicle 1 for a period in which capacity retention ratio Q decreases from 100% to 95%."
It is noted that, according to the teachings of Kurimoto, when the user pays the initial
lease fee, the user is allowed to use the vehicle (battery) for a period in which capacity retention ration Q decreases from 100% to 95%. In other words, the decrease of capacity retention ratio represents a period in which the user is allowed to use the battery. Therefore, the decrease of the capacity retention ratio does not necessarily mean that the remaining capacity is less than current full charge capacity, and as such, the decrease of the capacity retention ratio is not related to the remaining capacity.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the decrease of the capacity retention ratio of Kurimoto does not teach a battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity, and as such, Kurimoto necessarily fails to teach "calculating a rental fee of the electric mobile object incorporating the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity or a rental fee of the battery having the remaining capacity less than current full charge capacity based on the remaining capacity," as required by the above-noted features of amended claim 1.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that any combination of Kurimoto
and Sakakibara fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 is patentable over any combination of Kurimoto and Sakakibara.
Examiner argues: The teaching of Kurimoto is not limited only to 100-95 and according to Applicant’s logic, so long as Kurimoto teaches leasing at less than 95 then Kurimoto teaches Applicant’s limitation. As is pointed about above, the lease can be renewed at 95% which teaches start of rental because a renewal is a new rental term. Therefore, this addresses Applicant’s concern about teaching a rental at less than 100%.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights