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 the Claims
Claims 1-5 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated April 24, 2026. In the Response, submitted on July 23, 2026, claims 1 and 3 were amended, and claim 2 was cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, and 3-5 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments, on Pages 6-8 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 6-7 of the Response, Applicant states “claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that solves the physical compatibility barriers inherent in EV battery replenishment… Amended claim 1 recites a specific improvement to the operation of an electric vehicle rescue-dispatch system. The specification explains that prior systems reported only the time until a transport device arrives, but ‘the time until the rescue completion is not known.’ The specification further explains that for electric vehicles with detachable batteries, ‘there are two types of the electric power replenishment system, namely the battery replacement and the external charging,’ and sometimes ‘it is shorter to replace the battery for the time required for rescue work in the event of an electricity shortage.’ Claim 1 as amended addresses this technical shortcoming by reciting a battery-mode-dependent computation of work time derived from concrete vehicle and battery parameters.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims solve “physical compatibility barriers inherent in EV battery replenishment”, as Applicant further states that the solution in claim 1 is “a battery-mode-dependent computation of work time derived from concrete vehicle and battery parameters.” (emphasis added). Examiner is unclear how a “computation of work time” solves “physical compatibility barriers.”
Examiner further notes that Para. 4 of Applicant’s PG Publication discloses that the problem is “the time until the rescue completion is not known, the user requesting rescue fear is hardly solved, there is room for improvement” and Para. 7 further explains “[t]here is a need for ….reducing the anxiety of the user of the electric vehicle when the electric vehicle traveling by the state of the detachable battery becomes an electricity shortage”, and the claims and speciation describe calculating a travel time and a work time, e.g., Para. 75 “the time until the rescue-ready vehicle 12 arrives, and the time until the rescue is completed after the arrival at the timing of selecting the rescue vehicle” as “This reduces the user's concerns.” (emphasis added) Therefore, neither the claims nor specification disclose a problem related to “physical compatibility barriers inherent in EV battery replenishment” as alleged. Here, the claims and specification describe a business problem of calculating the “the time until the rescue completion is…known” to “reduc[e] the anxiety of the user” by using “battery-mode-dependent computation of work time derived from concrete vehicle and battery parameters”, rather than improving any underlying technology related to EV battery replenishment. See Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 7-8, Applicant further argues “Claim 1 does not perform a generic computation. It is a technically specific calculation that varies based on the power-supply mode of the responding candidate vehicle. The work time for battery replacement differs materially from the work time for external charging, and claim 1 as amended computes each differently based on the technical characteristics of the rescue-ready vehicle and the electric vehicle's detachable battery. The claimed specifying step matches responding candidate vehicles to the stranded electric vehicle based on a concrete technical compatibility parameter of battery shape rather than abstract or generic selection criteria.”
Examiner disagrees and notes that being a “technically specific calculation” does not preclude the claim from reciting the abstract idea of “calculating a travel time…and calculating a work time….” The details of how to calculate the “work time” (i.e., based on the technical characteristics of the rescue-ready vehicle and the electric vehicle's detachable battery) merely reflects the abstract idea. Similarly, “match[ing] responding candidate vehicles to the stranded electric vehicle based on a concrete technical compatibility parameter of battery shape rather than abstract or generic selection criteria” merely reflects the details of the abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicanf further argues “Taken together, these limitations yield an accurate estimate of the total time required to restore mobility to the stranded electric vehicle, computed from concrete technical vehicle and battery parameters. This constitutes an improvement to the technology of electric vehicle rescue- dispatch systems under MPEP § 2106.05(a), because it improves the functioning of the system itself by enabling it to generate battery-type-aware time estimates that prior systems could not provide. Accordingly, claim 1 as amended integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.”
Examiner disagrees for the reasons discussed above. As discussed above, similar to Trading Tech, Applicant is arguing a business improvement (i.e., “yield an accurate estimate of the total time…. computed from concrete technical vehicle and battery parameters”, and “generate battery-type-aware time estimates”) rather than an improvement to any underlying “technology of electric vehicle rescue- dispatch systems” as alleged. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Moreover, should the analysis proceed to Step 2B, Applicant submits that the ordered combination of elements in claim 1 as amended provides an inventive concept for the same reasons. The specific combination of the specifying unit that prioritizes candidates based on battery-shape compatibilitya, together with the second calculation unit that computes work time differently depending on whether the responding candidate vehicle carries a replacement battery, amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are respectfully requested.”
Examiner disagrees and notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “specifying unit”, “second calculation unit”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Examiner notes that “prioritize[ing] candidates based on battery-shape compatibility[]” and “comput[ing] work time differently depending on whether the responding candidate vehicle carries a replacement battery” merely reflect the abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments, on Pages 8-9 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
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, and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, and 2-5 recite a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the functions of: receiving a rescue request; storing rescue vehicle information as information about the rescue-ready vehicle, the rescue vehicle information including: location information of the rescue-ready vehicle; and information indicating presence or absence of the replacement battery; verifying physical compatibility for battery replenishment by matching a battery shape of the detachable battery included in electricity shortage information as the rescue request with a battery shape of the replacement battery included in the rescue vehicle information, and specifying a responding candidate vehicle from the rescue-ready vehicles by prioritizing the rescue-ready vehicle which includes the replacement battery having the same battery shape as the detachable battery; calculating a travel time for the responding candidate vehicle to arrive at a location of the electric vehicle based on the location information of the rescue-ready vehicle and the location information of the electric vehicle; dynamically calculating a work time from arrival of the rescue-ready vehicle to completion of power supply to the electric vehicle by: (i) calculating a time for replacing the detachable battery with the replacement battery as the work time when the responding candidate vehicle includes the replacement battery having the same battery shape; and (ii) calculating a time for completing charging from the external power source to the detachable battery as the work time when the responding candidate vehicle does not include the replacement battery having the same battery shape; and notifying responding candidate information including the rescue vehicle information, the travel time and the calculated work time to a transmission source of the electricity shortage information.
The claim as a whole recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic practices or principles; and a mental process, e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) an electric vehicle including a detachable battery, the detachable battery being replaceable with a replacement battery and rechargeable by storing power supplied from an external power source; (ii) a server that includes a storage unit and a processor and a memory; and (iii) rescue-ready vehicles communicatively connected to the server, each of the rescue-ready vehicles being possible to be sent to the electric vehicle in response to the rescue request, wherein each of the rescue-ready vehicles includes the replacement battery, or the external power supply capable of charging the detachable battery of the electric vehicle.
The additional element (i) listed above, is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., electric vehicles with batteries) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements (ii) listed above, are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element (iii) listed above, is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., vehicles connected the server, and capable of charging EV batteries) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination (See Figs. 1 and 2) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., electric vehicles with batteries; and vehicles connected the server, and capable of charging EV batteries) . The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 3 recites displaying the received responding candidate vehicle information, and transmitting the selection information in which one vehicle is selected from the responding candidate vehicles included in the responding candidate vehicle information-which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include that the transmission source of the electricity shortage information is the electric vehicle or a portable terminal (of a user of the electric vehicle). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a portable terminal merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and the additional element of the electric vehicle (being the transmission source) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., electric vehicles) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented; or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h) respectively.
Dependent claims 4-5 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 3, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4-5 are also ineligible.
Allowable Over Prior Art
Claims 1 and 3-5 are allowable over the prior art, because the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest, the combination of limitations of claim 1.
Prior Art
The closest prior art includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0281614 to Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”). Hu discloses a rescued vehicle app, where when the all-electric vehicles break down due to power shortage, the driver runs the rescued vehicle APP on the mobile phone; the rescued vehicle APP automatically starts the user module. The driver enters a main page of the rescued vehicle APP and uses the one-key rescue function. The order module is immediately started to send rescue application information, user data and current GPS position data of the user to the rescue platform.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0178475 to Moon (hereinafter “Moon”). Moon discloses providing a battery replacement service that provides a second swappable battery to replace a first swappable battery for a mobility.
U.S. Patent No. 9,282,430 to Brandmaier et al. (hereinafter “Brandmaier”). Brandmaier discloses providing details of a given service provider by providing real-time information about a given service provider, such as wait time, service time. Accordingly, a user may be able to receive immediate information about a given service provider through the service provider module.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0094165 to Ger (hereinafter “Ger”). Ger discloses in an electric vehicle, the shape of the main battery pack is different from the shape of the swappable battery pack, and the different swappable battery packs can have different capacities. In other words, the electric vehicle can be loaded with the swappable battery pack of different capacities at different times, and the swappable battery pack of different capacities can charge the same main battery pack and can also work with the main battery pack to provide the power required for the electric vehicle to travel.
EP 3700044 to Ye (hereinafter “Ye”). Ye discloses a module for obtaining the time required to complete vehicle battery replacement.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0064263 to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”). Li discloses battery swapping method that includes: receiving a battery swapping request of a vehicle; determining a second battery swapping time and a second swapping electricity amount based on a first battery swapping time and a first swapping electricity amount, in a case where a first charging parameter is adjusted to a second charging parameter to charge an available battery of a battery swapping station; and sending a battery swapping response to a terminal device of the vehicle, wherein the battery swapping response includes the second battery swapping time and the second swapping electricity amount, the second battery swapping time is a recommended battery swapping time provided by the battery swapping station, and the second swapping electricity amount is a recommended swapping electricity amount provided by the battery swapping station.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0043838 to Tsuchiya (hereinafter “Tsuchiya”). Tsuchiya discloses a generator control unit that carries out a prior calculation of the time required to fully charge the electric vehicle.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0197154 to Jones (hereinafter “Jones”). Jones discloses a battery remediation request and a time period to accomplish battery remediation; selecting a type of battery remediation based at least in part upon the time period.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0152340 to Haneda (hereinafter “Haneda”). Haneda discloses a selection screen generating unit to generate a selection screen showing candidate identification information for identifying each supply candidate and the completion time period determined by the completion time period determining unit which are corresponded to each other with respect to each of the supply candidates which can supply the request amount of the consumable.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0299544 to Prosser et al. (hereinafter “Prosser”). Prosser discloses a service vehicle that is a vehicle having electric vehicle (EV) charging equipment, removably mounted battery module(s) or a battery module connection point, and an alternator or generator transported by the vehicle. The alternator or generator is configured to provide power to the battery module or to the charging equipment. Battery modules used may be quick-disconnecting or have their discharge monitored and controlled by an onboard controller device, and in some cases are automotive SLI batteries.
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0126757 to Kagawa et al. (hereinafter “Kagawa”). Kagawa discloses a server that receives from a depleted EV a help signal requesting power supply from another vehicle to the depleted EV, the server selects, from among the other vehicles, a rescue EV to supply electric power to the depleted EV. The rescue EV moves to the depleted EV, determines a stopping position of the rescue EV from a situation around the depleted EV detected by the detection device, and performs power supply to the depleted EV at the stopping position.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0304302 to Cai et al. (hereinafter “Cai”). Cai discloses recorded battery replacement information that may include, for example, replacement success information of some of the battery packs, or information about which of the battery packs are replaced, or identification information of the electric vehicle whose battery is replaced, or time information of the battery replacement, to enable a better knowledge of the battery replacement situation by the operation system.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights