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 action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 27 January 2025.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites an information processing device for managing a transaction of a battery member of an in-vehicle battery. This is a machine which is within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1:
Claim 1:
“receive, from a first business, registration of information on a first battery member that is a recycled battery member,”
“calculate a value of the first battery member based at least on an appraised value of a right the recycled battery member has, and”
“match the first business that provides the first battery member with a second business to which the first battery member is to be transferred, based on the value of the first battery member.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “information processing device” and “control unit” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activity or Behavior. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when performing a recycling battery member transaction. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim 1:
“An information processing device configured to manage a transaction of a battery member of an in-vehicle battery, the information processing device comprising a control unit configured to”
The computer components (information processing device and control unit) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic device and generic control unit) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 1:
“An information processing device configured to manage a transaction of a battery member of an in-vehicle battery, the information processing device comprising a control unit configured to”
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The independent claims do not recite any elements that would be considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-5 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj et al. (US 2023/0067755 A1 hereinafter Raj) in view of Steinbauer et al. (US 2024/0095690 A1 hereinafter Steinbauer).
Claim 1
An information processing device configured to manage a transaction of a battery member of an in-vehicle battery, the information processing device comprising a control unit configured to (Raj discloses a system managing a transaction of a reusable or recyclable material to promote compliance with sustainability goals and implementation of a circular economy. See at least paragraphs [0022] and [0031]. Raj discloses common materials to be reprocessed includes lead-acid batteries. See at least paragraph [0063]. Raj does not explicitly disclose recycling of an in-vehicle battery (emphasis added).)
receive, from a first business, registration of information on a first battery member that is a recycled battery member, (Raj discloses logging in to a seller dashboard and the seller listing products in their offerings. See at least paragraph [0036]. Raj discloses products may include recycled battery members. See at least paragraphs [0059] and [0063].)
calculate a value of the first battery member based at least on an appraised value of a right the recycled battery member has, and (Raj discloses calculating prices. See at least paragraphs [0042]-[0043])
match the first business that provides the first battery member with a second business to which the first battery member is to be transferred, based on the value of the first battery member. (Raj discloses matching a first business that is selling a product with a second business that is buying said product, in part based on cost (i.e. value). See at least paragraphs [0023], [0028] and [0050].)
Although Raj does not explicitly disclose recycling of an in-vehicle battery, Steinbauer teaches that large electric vehicle battery components may recycled. See at least paragraphs [0004] and [0066].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to recycle vehicle batteries as taught by Steinbauer in the system of Raj because Steinbauer additionally teaches the motivation that this reduces waste sent to landfills and supports sustainable practices. See at least paragraph [0022].
Claim 2
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the right is a right that allows fulfillment of a recycling obligation imposed on a business that manufactures the in-vehicle battery; and (Raj discloses recycling allowing fulfilment of standards set by regulatory frameworks ensuring compliance. See at least paragraphs [0005] and [0022].)
the control unit is configured to acquire data representing the appraised value of the right from an external device, the external device being configured to manage recycling of the battery member. (Raj discloses collecting recommended trade data for a seller (i.e. value appraised in trade by an external device which would manage the recycling). See at least paragraph [0031].)
Claim 3
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the value of the first battery member based further on an appraised value of a material contained in the first battery member. (Raj does not explicitly disclose calculating a value based on an appraised value of a material contained in the member.)
Although Raj does not explicitly disclose calculating a value based on an appraised value of a material contained in the member, Steinbauer teaches that lithium-ion batteries may be appraised into a high-value category based on their contained metals. See at least paragraph [0136].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to sort batteries into a high value classification appraisal based on their contained metals because Steinbauer additionally teaches the motivation that these lithium-ion batteries contain valuable metals. See at least paragraph [0136].
Also, sorting batteries that contain valuable metals into a high-value classification as taught by Steinbauer in the system of Raj is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the transaction is a transaction of exchanging the battery members; and (Raj discloses facilitating trade of material. See at least paragraph [0031].)
the control unit is configured to
receive registration of information on a second battery member from the second business, and (Raj discloses facilitating trade of material with a second business. See at least paragraph [0031].)
match the first business that provides the first battery member with the second business that provides the second battery member. (Raj discloses facilitating trade of material. See at least paragraph [0031].)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raj et al. (US 2023/0067755 A1 hereinafter Raj) in view of Steinbauer et al. (US 2024/0095690 A1 hereinafter Steinbauer) further in view of 堀田 さえ子 et al. (JP 4,976,563 B1 hereinafter “the ‘563 patent”; page numbers are those of the provided machine translation)
Claim 4
The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the value of the first battery member based further on a cost required to refine the material. (The combined system of Raj/Steinbauer does not explicitly disclose the value further based on a cost required to refine the material.)
Although the combined system of Raj/Steinbauer does not explicitly disclose the value further based on a cost required to refine the material, the ‘563 patent teaches that an appraisal price of purchasing metal product may reflect refining and recovery cost. See at least page 2.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to appraise metals in batteries sold by the combined system of Raj/Steinbauer using an appraisal system incorporating refining cost as taught by the ‘563 patent because the ‘563 patent additionally teaches the motivation that such pricing realizes purchase of precious metal products at an appropriate price through objective appraisal, maintaining the security and trust of customers and enabling stable securing of precious metal resources. See at least the abstract.
Also, appraising metals to include refining cost as taught by the ‘563 patent in the combined system of Raj/Steinbauer is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagatani Jr. et al. (US 2025/0292206 A1) discloses a market for recycled materials.
Sakaino et al. (US 2023/0084454 A1) discloses battery module appraisal based on CO2 emissions.
Yu et al. (“Big-Data-Based Power Battery Recycling for New Energy Vehicles: Information Sharing Platform and Intelligent Transportation Optimization”) discloses data tracking for battery recycling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights