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 .
Priority
Application 19/076,824 was filed on March 11, 2025 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2024-104202 filed on June 27, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 11, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “acquiring second information regarding the battery that is in use by a plurality of second users, and that includes information relating to at least the shape of the battery, and transmitting, to a terminal of a second user corresponding to a battery from the battery that is in use by the second users and is of a shape that matches the shape of the battery that the first user needs” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. It is unclear how a single battery can be used by a plurality of users. Also, “the battery” refers to a single battery needed by a first user. However, in light of paragraph [0012-0013] of Applicant’s specification, it appears that the battery needed by the first user is matched from multiple batteries in use by the plurality of second users, which are not necessarily the same as “the battery” needed by the first user. Furthermore, the limitation “transmitting, to a terminal of a second user corresponding to a battery from the battery that is in use by the second users and is of a shape that matches the shape of the battery that the first user needs” makes it appear that a single matching battery is selected from a plurality of batteries that are in use by the second user. For the purposes of examination, “the battery that is in use by the second users” is interpreted to mean that information is collected regarding multiple batteries in use by multiple second users and a single matching battery is selected from among the multiple batteries. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites a limitation with the same issue, “corresponding to a battery of which a shape is smaller than the shape of the battery that the first user needs, from among the battery in use by the second users, in accordance with the first information and the second information” (emphasis added), which is unclear for the same reasons above. Claim 2 is interpreted similarly and appropriate correction is also required.
Claim 1 further recites, “a notification regarding provision of the battery, in accordance with the first information and the second information” (emphasis added). Because claim 1 contains two instances of “a battery”, it is unclear which battery is referenced in this limitation. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted to mean that “the battery” is the matching battery (i.e., second instance of “a battery”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 also contain references to “the battery” without any additional identification or modifier and are unclear for the same reasons as above. They are interpreted similarly and appropriate correction is also required with respect to these claims.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein, when a battery that the first user needs is not obtainable within a predetermined period” (emphasis added). Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, also recites, “a battery that is needed by a first user who performs secondary usage of the battery” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether these limitations are meant to refer to the same battery or not. The limitation both refer to “a battery”, which indicates separate batteries. However, they are both defined in terms of being a battery that the first user needs, which indicates that they are the same. For the purposes of examination, the batteries are interpreted to be the same (i.e., there is only on battery that the first user needs). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites, “transmitting the notification to the terminal of the second user corresponding to the vehicle of which the life expectancy is within a predetermined period” (emphasis added). Claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, previously recites “transmitting, to a terminal of a second user corresponding to a battery from the battery that is in use by the second users and is of a shape that matches the shape of the battery that the first user needs, a notification regarding provision of the battery” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the notification and terminal in claim 4 are the same as the notification and terminal in claim 1. The user of “the notification” and “the terminal” in claim 4 implies that they are the same. However, the second users correspond to different subject matter (i.e. a second user corresponding to a battery with a matching shape vs, a second user corresponding to a vehicle), which indicates that the second users are different. For the purposes of examination, the notification and terminal are interpreted to refer to a separate notification and terminal as that in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 are further rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, acquiring first information that relates to a battery that is needed by a first user who performs secondary usage of the battery, and that includes information relating to at least a shape of the battery,
acquiring second information regarding the battery that is in use by a plurality of second users, and that includes information relating to at least the shape of the battery, and
transmitting, to a second user corresponding to a battery from the battery that is in use by the second users and is of a shape that matches the shape of the battery that the first user needs, a notification regarding provision of the battery, in accordance with the first information and the second information.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, matching batteries between users so that batteries can be reused is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities as well as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to acquire battery shape information and match a battery to a user based on shape can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: an information processing device, comprising a control unit, and a terminal of a second user. These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner notes that a “control unit” is interpreted per paragraph [0027] of Applicant’s specification, which describes the control unit 31 as “a hardware processor such as a CPU”.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-4, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 2-4 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0405719 to Shoji (Shoji) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0404428 to Kato et al. (Kato).
As to claim 1, Shoji teaches an information processing device, comprising a control unit that is configured to execute (“… The purchase applicant device control unit 110 is composed of a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU), memory, an input/output (I/O) device, and the like …” [0057-0061])
acquiring first information that relates to a battery that is needed by a first user who performs secondary usage of the battery, and that includes information relating to (“… The purchase request information reception unit 111 receives, from the purchase applicant B who wants to purchase a used secondary battery, purchase request information for the used secondary battery including an intended use of the used secondary battery and position information of a delivery site, and stores the purchase request information in a server storage unit 530 …” and “Upon the start of the processes, first, the purchase request information reception unit 111 in the purchase applicant device 10 receives, from the purchase applicant B who wants to purchase a used secondary battery, purchase request information for the used secondary battery including an intended use of the used secondary battery and position information of a delivery site, and transmits the purchase request information to the server 50 (S10 in FIG. 3A) …” [0061-0063 and 0095-0097]),
acquiring second information regarding the battery that is in use by a plurality of second users, and that includes information relating to (“… The trade-in request information reception unit 311 receives, from the trade-in applicant S who wants to trade in a vehicle M, trade-in request information including information indicating the degradation state of a secondary battery RB mounted on the vehicle M …” and “After this, in response to operation by the trade-in applicant S who wants to trade in the vehicle M using the trade-in applicant device 30, the trade-in request information reception unit 311 receives, from the trade-in applicant S, trade-in request information including information indicating the degradation state (SOH) of the secondary battery RB mounted on the vehicle M, and transmits the trade-in request information to the server 50 (S30 in FIG. 3A)” [0069-0070 and 0098]),
and transmitting, to a terminal of a second user corresponding to a battery from the battery that is in use by the second users and (“… The extraction unit 511 then extracts purchase request information including an intended use corresponding to a degradation state that matches the degradation state included in the trade-in request information …” and “The trade-in price determination unit 517 then transmits information indicating a trade-in facility with the highest trade-in price and the trade-in price in the trade-in facility, to the trade-in applicant device 30” and “… The reservation information reception unit 113 displays the extracted purchase request information and the corresponding trade-in request information by the purchase applicant device output unit 170.” [0100-0104 and 0115 and 0121-0124]).
While Shoji teaches information relating to the battery, Shoji does not teach that the information is of a shape of the battery. However, Kato teaches, information of a shape of the battery (“In S102, the processing unit 11 (acquisition unit 11a) acquires battery information from the charge control device 20 (user). The battery information may include information regarding a model/shape of the battery B, information regarding a location of the battery B (charge control device 20), information regarding an initial full charge capacity of the battery B, and the like in addition to the timing information received in S101 …” [0031-0032]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the information of a shape of the battery of Kato for the information relating to a battery of Shoji. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kato that doing so would help a user purchase and use a battery with security [0160].
As to claim 3, Shoji in view of Kato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shoji further teaches, wherein the control unit includes, in the notification, information regarding a price regarding provision of the battery (“The trade-in price determination unit 517 then transmits information indicating a trade-in facility with the highest trade-in price and the trade-in price in the trade-in facility, to the trade-in applicant device 30” and “FIG. 6 is a conceptual diagram illustrating information output by the trade-in applicant device 30. A displayed map MA includes a display IBP including information indicating the trade-in facility with the highest trade-in price and the trade-in price in the trade-in facility …” [0115 and 0119-0120]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0405719 to Shoji (Shoji) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0404428 to Kato et al. (Kato), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of NPL “Can you use a different battery” to Bob’s the Oil Guy (“Oil Guy”).
As to claim 2, Shoji in view of Kato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shoji further teaches, wherein, when a battery that the first user needs is not obtainable within a predetermined period, the control unit transmits a notification regarding provision of the battery to a terminal of a second user corresponding to a battery (“… The purchase request information reception unit 111 may further receive information designating a transportation method of the used secondary battery to the delivery site and/or a desired delivery time of the used secondary battery, and store the received information in the server storage unit 530” and “The required degradation state determination unit 523 determines a degradation state required at the time of trade-in of the secondary battery RB to be traded in, based on the intended use of the used secondary battery and the information designating the desired delivery time included in the trade-in request information” and “The extraction unit 511 in the server 50 then receives the trade-in request information (S40 in FIG. 3A), and extracts purchase request information including an intended use of a used secondary battery that matches the degradation state included in the received trade-in request information (S50 in FIG. 3A)” [0062-0063 and 0084 and 0100-0104] Examiner notes that the “desired delivery time” taught by Shoji is a “predetermined period”).
Shoji in view of Kato does not teach, provision of the battery to a terminal of a second user corresponding to a battery of which a shape is smaller than the shape of the battery that the first user needs. However, Oil Guy teaches, provision of the battery to a terminal of a second user corresponding to a battery of which a shape is smaller than the shape of the battery that the first user needs (Examiner particularly notes comments #17 and 18 “Depends on the purpose. I've heard of some going smaller to save on weight, since a smaller battery will still start a car. It gets kind of crazy what some will do to save weight, including removing sound insulation and even installing half-sized performance radiators” on pages 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, provision of the battery to a terminal of a second user corresponding to a battery of which a shape is smaller than the shape of the battery that the first user needs, as taught by Oil Guy with the battery information processing device of Shoji in view of Kato. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Oil Guy that doing so would save on weight [pages 6 and 7].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0405719 to Shoji (Shoji) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0404428 to Kato et al. (Kato), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0162849 to Matsuyama et al. (Matsuyama).
As to claim 4, Shoji in view of Kato teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shoji in view of Kato does not teach, wherein the control unit is configured to further execute acquiring information regarding a life expectancy of a vehicle that is used by the second user and in which the battery is installed, and transmitting the notification to the terminal of the second user corresponding to the vehicle of which the life expectancy is within a predetermined period. However, Matsuyama teaches, wherein the control unit is configured to further execute acquiring information regarding a life expectancy of a vehicle that is used by the second user and in which the battery is installed, and transmitting the notification to the terminal of the second user corresponding to the vehicle of which the life expectancy is within a predetermined period (“… Then, in step S106, the on-board battery management server 200 notifies a user of the target vehicle 20 of the expired use time information of the target vehicle 20 predicted through the above-described process …” [0025-0029] Examiner notes that, per paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s specification, “information on the life expectancy of the vehicle” includes “information on the service life expectancy of the battery”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the control unit is configured to further execute acquiring information regarding a life expectancy of a vehicle that is used by the second user and in which the battery is installed, and transmitting the notification to the terminal of the second user corresponding to the vehicle of which the life expectancy is within a predetermined period, as taught by Matsuyama with the battery information processing device of Shoji in view of Kato. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Matsuyama that doing so would provide a battery secondary use management system capable of shortening a stock storage period when secondarily using the used battery [0005].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0382771 to Jinno et al. (Jinno) teaches, a technique capable of storing battery information including a use history of batteries in databases categorized for each property and presenting a combination of a plurality of batteries with high coincidence with a required specification from a database including high priority battery information on the basis of user's required specification.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0358551 to Munakata et al. (Munakata) teaches, a battery recycling support system capable of determining an application of a battery and efficiently supporting reuse of the battery.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0037066 to Ha et al. (Ha) teaches, a system that obtains SOH of a first component, where the SOH indicates a difference between a current state of the first component and a state of a rated new component. The system obtains historical use of the first component. Based on the SOH and the historical use, the system determines a future SOH of the first component
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0388120 to Liang et al. (Liang) teaches, a method including receiving, by a processor set and from a user device, a request to exchange a battery currently in use in an electric vehicle (EV) associated with the user device, the request including user-selected values of battery parameters.
NPL “A Marketplace for Pre-Loved Car Batteries” to CELLZ (CELLZ) teaches, a marketplace for battery sellers and buyers that provides real-time information on pricing, battery status, logistics and enable instant transactions between all parties involved.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628