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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10, 18 in the reply filed on 7/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are distance calculation unit, output unit in claim 1..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claim 1, 18 are directed to a system and a system. Therefore, claims 1, 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A cruising distance calculation device for an electric moving object, which is configured to move in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, the cruising distance calculation device comprising:
a distance calculation unit configured to
acquire a corrected remaining power amount, which is obtained by correcting a remaining power amount of a battery provided to the electric moving object, with a departure and arrival power amount, which is required during departure and/or arrival of the electric moving object, and
calculate a cruising distance based on the corrected remaining power amount; and
an output unit configured to output information related to a calculation result of the distance calculation unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A cruising distance calculation device for an electric moving object, which is configured to move in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, the cruising distance calculation device comprising:
a distance calculation unit configured to
acquire a corrected remaining power amount, which is obtained by correcting a remaining power amount of a battery provided to the electric moving object, with a departure and arrival power amount, which is required during departure and/or arrival of the electric moving object, and
calculate a cruising distance based on the corrected remaining power amount; and
an output unit configured to output information related to a calculation result of the distance calculation unit.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire…., output…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the calculation result from the calculating), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “calculation device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose control environment. The calculation device is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of acquiring a corrected remaining amount… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquiring.., outputting…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquiring…., outputting…,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
Therefore, claims 1-10, 18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0172627) in view of Foland (US 11, 577,848)
As to claim 1 Kim discloses a cruising distance calculation device for an electric moving object, which is configured to move in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, the cruising distance calculation device comprising:
a distance calculation unit configured to
acquire a corrected remaining power amount, which is obtained by correcting a remaining power amount of a battery provided to the electric moving object, with a departure and arrival power amount, which is required during departure and/or arrival of the electric moving object(Paragraph 6 “An aspect of the present disclosure provides a device and a method for controlling flight of an unmanned aerial vehicle that may efficiently acquire environment information required to create a navigation route of a vehicle by generating a flight route of the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to a travel route from a departure point to a destination of the vehicle based on a performance of a sensor mounted on the unmanned aerial vehicle, a flight available distance based on a fuel amount (a battery remaining capacity), and a performance of a communication device, and operating the unmanned aerial vehicle to follow the generated flight route.”), and
calculate a cruising distance based on the corrected remaining power amount(Paragraph 6 “An aspect of the present disclosure provides a device and a method for controlling flight of an unmanned aerial vehicle that may efficiently acquire environment information required to create a navigation route of a vehicle by generating a flight route of the unmanned aerial vehicle corresponding to a travel route from a departure point to a destination of the vehicle based on a performance of a sensor mounted on the unmanned aerial vehicle, a flight available distance based on a fuel amount (a battery remaining capacity), and a performance of a communication device, and operating the unmanned aerial vehicle to follow the generated flight route.”); and
Kim does not explicitly disclose an output unit configured to output information related to a calculation result of the distance calculation unit.
Foland teaches an output unit configured to output information related to a calculation result of the distance calculation unit (Column 35 lines 7-13 “With continued reference to FIG. 5, at step 530, projected flight range datum is displayed by flight controller. Display of projected flight range datum may include, without limitation, a visual display, an audio display, a video display, and the like among others. Projected flight range may be displayed to multiple parties, for example, on aircraft or remote from it.”).
As to claim 10 Foland teaches a cruising distance calculation device wherein further comprising: a power consumption rate calculation unit configured to calculate a power consumption rate during cruising, wherein the power consumption rate calculation unit is configured to correct the power consumption rate based on an altitude or an altitude variation during the cruising (Column 19 lines 12-28).
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0172627) in view of Foland (US 11, 577,848) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of John (US 2022/0097850)
As to claim 2 John teaches a cruising distance calculation device further comprising:
a remaining power amount correction unit configured to
acquire the remaining power amount of the battery and the departure and arrival power amount(Paragraph 142-143), and
subtract the departure and arrival power amount from the remaining power amount of the battery to obtain the corrected remaining power amount (Paragraph 142-143).
As to claim 3 John teaches a cruising distance calculation device further comprising:
a departure and arrival power amount calculation unit configured to calculate the departure and arrival power amount (Paragraph 142-143).
As to claim 8 John teaches a cruising distance calculation device wherein the departure and arrival power amount calculation unit is configured to calculate the departure and arrival power amount based on SOC dependence of a maximum output of the battery(Paragraph 142-143)..
Claims 4-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0172627) in view of Foland (US 11, 577,848), and John (US 2022/0097850) as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Gu (US 2020/0218270)
As to claim 4 Gu teaches a cruising distance calculation device wherein the departure and arrival power amount calculation unit is configured to calculate the departure and arrival power amount based on history information (Paragraph 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kim to include the teachings of using historical operating characteristics for the purpose of determining and estimating a range of the vehicle.
As to claim 5 Gu teaches a cruising distance calculation device wherein the history information includes information related to a past departure and arrival power amount at a target departure point and/or a target arrival point (Paragraph 16).
As to claim 6 Gu teaches a cruising distance calculation device wherein the history information includes information related to a past departure and arrival power amount in a same model as the electric moving object(Paragraph 16).
As to claim 7 Gu teaches a cruising distance calculation device wherein the departure and arrival power amount calculation unit is configured to correct the departure and arrival power amount based on cruising information and/or weather information of a target departure point and/or a target arrival point (Paragraph 38).
As to claim 9 Gu teaches a cruising distance calculation device wherein the departure and arrival power amount calculation unit is configured to correct the departure and arrival power amount based on a battery temperature or battery degradation (Paragraph 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. 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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights