DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response to application 19/108190 filed on 03/03/2025.
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 . 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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Examiner has noted that the Applicant has claimed priority from the foreign application PCT/JP2022/037242 filed on 10/05/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and was considered by the Examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-16 are directed to an apparatus and Claims 18 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Claims 17 and 19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A - Prong 1:
Independent Claim 1, Claim 17, and Claim 18 recite the limitations of:
acquire result information relating to a utilization result of a storage battery, and accumulate the acquired result information…;
acquire residual value information relating to a residual value of the storage battery computed based on the result information by at least one computation method, and accumulate the acquired residual value information…; and
execute issue processing of a diagnosis outcome indicating at least one specified residual value among the residual values computed by the at least one computation method.
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions specifically business relations). See Para. [0025] of Applicant’s specification stating, “a supplier (service supplier) involved in a service that provides a user (seller) with a diagnosis outcome of a residual value of a storage battery computed by various computation methods” and Para. [0028] stating “the user (seller) utilizes the acquired diagnosis outcome for various purposes… the user (seller) sells his/her electric equipment in the secondhand market by attaching the acquired diagnosis outcome”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of Claim 1, Claim 17, and Claim 18 are at least one memory, at least one processor, one or more computers, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a computer, a result storage device, and a residual value storage device.
The at least one memory, at least one processor, one or more computers, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a computer, a result storage device, and a residual value storage device are recited at a high-level of generality such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the result storage device and residual value storage device are performing insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does 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 recited above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The at least one memory, at least one processor, one or more computers, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a computer, a result storage device, and a residual value storage device are recited at a high-level of generality such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components.
The result storage device and residual value storage device are performing insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data storage which is essentially, the well-understood, conventional, and generic computer function of storing and retrieving information in memory as in Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
None of the steps/functions of claim 1, claim 17, and claim 18 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as the additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to organizing human activity, mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, and merely performing extra solution activity; thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, claim 1, claim 17, and claim 18 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 19, and 20 further specify “transmit…computes” and “acquire” which further narrow the abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims recite an additional element of an external apparatus which computes the residual value information. Such a limitation is limiting the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations to execution by the external apparatus. The “diagnosis supplier” (external apparatus) is the party that computes the residual value information. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent Claim 3 and 4 are similar to Claim 2. Claim 3 recites the limitations “transmit”, “acquire”, and “each compute” and Claim 4 recites “repeatedly acquire”, “transmit”, “acquire”, and “compute” which further narrow the abstract idea.
Claim 3 and 4 also recites a plurality of the external apparatuses. Such a limitation is limiting the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations to execution by the plurality of the external apparatuses. The “diagnosis suppliers” (plurality of the external apparatuses) are the party that computes the residual value information. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent Claim 5 further specifies what the residual value information includes which is further narrowing the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 6 further specifies “accept”, Claim 7 further specifies “the issued diagnosis” and “execute”, and Claim 8 further specifies “the diagnosis outcome” and “determine” which are limitations further narrowing the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 9 further specifies “output” and Claim 10 further specifies “the characteristic information” which are limitations further narrowing the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 11 further specifies “compute”, Claim 12 further specifies “the residual value information” and “compute”, Claim 13 further specifies “the issue diagnosis outcome” and “compute”, Claim 14 further specifies “compute”, Claim 15 further specifies “the issue diagnosis outcome”, “details”, and “compute”, and Claim 16 further specifies “determine” which are limitations further narrowing the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Dependent Claim 15 recited an additional element of a web page introducing the electric equipment. Such a limitation is limiting the abstract idea of commercial interactions/business relations to the computer/internet field as the webpage is utilized for buying and selling of electric equipment. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2-16 and 19-20 (evaluated individually or as an ordered combination) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809).
As per independent Claim 1, Claim 17, and Claim 18,
Ozawa teaches a processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: / A processing method comprising, by one or more computers:/ A non-transitory computer-readable medium recording a program causing a computer to: (para. 79-81)
acquire result information relating to a utilization result of a storage battery, and accumulate the acquired result information in a result storage device (para. 67 measurement result for measuring the battery; para. 68 charging and discharging apparatus that measures voltage, current value, and temperature and transmits the measured data; para. 70 where the measured information may be acquired from a data server as it was measured in advance)
acquire residual value information relating to a residual value of the storage battery computed based on the result information by at least one computation method, and accumulate the acquired residual value information in a residual value storage device (para. 48 battery residual value assessment system that assesses a residual value of a secondary battery; para. 51 the battery residual value assessment system can process data of a secondary battery uploaded by accessing the cloud; para. 63-66 where in para. 64 the residual value ranks are stored in a storage device; para. 69 calculate SOH, IR, and abnormal degradation level and determines the residual value rank and stores the SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, and determined rank; para. 73 algorithm for battery residual value assessment; see also para. 52-55)
execute issue processing of a diagnosis outcome indicating at least one specified residual value among the residual values computed by the at least one computation method (para. 67 display the evaluation result or transmit it to a user; para. 75- 77 matching a battery to a specification range required by a business operator; para. 82 acquires the stored residual values (SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, and residual value rank) to match with customer specification information)
As per dependent Claim 2, Claim 19, and Claim 20,
Ozawa teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, the processing method according to claim 17, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 18.
Ozawa further teaches:
transmit the result information accumulated in the result storage device to an external apparatus that computes the residual value information, based on the result information, and (para. 67 measurement result for measuring the battery acquired by battery residual value assessment system over a network from the charging/discharging apparatus; para. 68 charging and discharging apparatus that measures voltage, current value, and temperature and transmits the measured data; para. 70 where the measured information may be acquired from a data server as it was measured in advance)
acquire the residual value information from the external apparatus (para. 48 battery residual value assessment system that assesses a residual value of a secondary battery; para. 51 the battery residual value assessment system can process data of a secondary battery uploaded by accessing the cloud; para. 63-66 where in para. 64 the residual value ranks are stored in a storage device; para. 69 calculate SOH, IR, and abnormal degradation level and determines the residual value rank and stores the SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, and determined rank; para. 73 algorithm for battery residual value assessment; see also para. 52-55)
As per dependent Claim 6,
Ozawa teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Ozawa teaches:
accept a predetermined deposit in a case where the at least one processor acquires the residual value information and accumulates the acquired residual value information in the residual value storage device (para. 119-122 guarantee service content and cost to cover replacement and various expenses; para. 123-126 where in para. 125 the past diagnosis result is compared with a newly obtained diagnosis result; figure 16B and para. 127-130 where in para. 128 the guarantee service and degradation monitoring service is allocated based on the degradation tendency analysis of the battery – “Accordingly, it is possible to implement maintenance management in which a variation (reliability) of a degree of battery degradation during a battery operation and the residual value of the battery are comprehensively determined”; para. 129 a price of an insurance and monitoring service and para. 130 guarantee cost (“predetermined deposit”)
As per dependent Claim 9,
Ozawa teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Ozawa teaches:
output characteristic information of each of the computation methods to a user in association with the residual value computed by at least the one computation method, then accept a user input specifying the residual value computed by at least the one computation method, and execute issue processing of a diagnosis outcome indicating the residual value specified by the user input (para. 74-77 purchase residual value request of a demanding business operator (user input specifying the residual value); para. 82 matching the SOH value, IR value, abnormal degradation level, and residual value rank of each battery to the customer’s requirement specification; para. 103-105 and figure 11A-B displaying the SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, residual value rank (“residual value”) along with reservation information)
As per dependent Claim 10,
Ozawa teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 9.
Ozawa further teaches:
wherein the characteristic information indicates at least one of a number of times of computation of the residual value information performed so far in relation to the storage battery, a reliability degree, a result of being specified in a past as the computation method of executing issue processing of the diagnosis outcome, word-of-mouth information, and a result of predetermined processing utilizing the issued diagnosis outcome (Examiner noting that the residual values are utilized to match batteries to the customer’s requirements - “a result of predetermined processing utilizing the issued diagnosis outcome”; para. 74-77 purchase residual value request of a demanding business operator (user input specifying the residual value); para. 82 matching the SOH value, IR value, abnormal degradation level, and residual value rank of each battery to the customer’s requirement specification; para. 103-105 and figure 11A-B displaying the SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, residual value rank (“residual value”) along with reservation information)
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Josephsen (US2011/0295732).
As per dependent Claim 3,
Ozawa teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 2.
Ozawa teaches:
transmit the result information to an external apparatus, and acquire the residual value information from the external apparatus, and (para. 67 measurement result for measuring the battery acquired by battery residual value assessment system over a network from the charging/discharging apparatus; para. 68 charging and discharging apparatus that measures voltage, current value, and temperature and transmits the measured data; para. 70 where the measured information may be acquired from a data server as it was measured in advance)
the external apparatus computes the residual value information by the unique computation method (para. 48 battery residual value assessment system that assesses a residual value of a secondary battery; para. 51 the battery residual value assessment system can process data of a secondary battery uploaded by accessing the cloud; para. 63-66 where in para. 64 the residual value ranks are stored in a storage device; para. 69 calculate SOH, IR, and abnormal degradation level and determines the residual value rank and stores the SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, and determined rank; para. 73 algorithm for battery residual value assessment; see also para. 52-55)
Ozawa does not teach the plurality of external apparatuses.
Josephsen teaches:
a plurality of the external apparatuses (para. 6 and 65 background valuation of assets and competition between different valuation methods; para. 71-75 where in para. 73 evaluators evaluate the item by their own subjective methods as the method of valuation may depend on industry or subject matter)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Josephsen with the motivation of increasing accuracy.
See para. 43-59 “Compensating valuation professionals more greatly for being more accurate than their competitors allows for the advantages of: a. Better immediate accuracy as Evaluators will be motivated to be more accurate than their competitors b. Better reliability over multiple valuations, through the use of an “accuracy rating”, as the consistently more accurate evaluators are offered more work, and inaccurate Evaluators are filtered away.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Strauss et al. (US 2019/0347676).
As per dependent Claim 5,
Ozawa teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Ozawa does not teach, but Strauss teaches:
wherein the residual value information includes a current residual value and a predicted value of a residual value at predetermined future timing (para. 6 receive data from data sources, determine an initial value for item, and determine forecasted future values for the item; para. 25 predict the residual value of an item at a future time point for any time period; para. 60 how often a forecast of the residual value of the item is to be generated)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Strauss with the motivation of increasing accuracy and efficiency.
See para. 5 “Since these conventional methods of determining the value of an item are relatively simplistic and take into account only backward-looking data (e.g., past sales of the item), they are not as accurate as may be desired. For instance, an automobile leasing company may need to know the future value of the automobiles that it owns in order to obtain financing for expansion or other business transactions. It would therefore be desirable to provide improved methods for determining the future value of such items” and para. 24 “An ability to determine the amount by which the item will change (e.g., devalue) over time, and thereby forecast the resale or residual value of the item can provide a better understanding of a company's assets and can allow the company to make better business decisions.” See also para. 79-83.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809) as applied to claim 6, further in view of Harding et al. (US2007/0214066).
As per dependent Claim 7,
Ozawa teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 6.
wherein the issued diagnosis outcome is utilized in buying and selling of electric equipment including the storage battery (para. 119-122 guarantee service content and cost to cover replacement and various expenses; para. 75- 77 matching a battery to a specification range required by a business operator; para. 82 acquires the stored residual values (SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, and residual value rank) to match with customer specification information)
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to execute compensation processing using the deposit associated with the computation method that has computed the diagnosis outcome utilized in buying and selling of the electric equipment, (para. 123-126 where in para. 125 the past diagnosis result is compared with a newly obtained diagnosis result; figure 16B and para. 127-130 where in para. 128 the guarantee service and degradation monitoring service is allocated based on the degradation tendency analysis of the battery – “Accordingly, it is possible to implement maintenance management in which a variation (reliability) of a degree of battery degradation during a battery operation and the residual value of the battery are comprehensively determined”; para. 129 a price of an insurance and monitoring service and para. 130 guarantee cost)
Ozawa does not explicitly teach in response to a compensation request from a buyer of the electric equipment. However, Ozawa does teach the context of the buyer of the electric equipment.
Harding teaches:
in response to a compensation request from a buyer (para. 33-34 guarantee claims and chargebacks where the buyer may request a refund/chargeback)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Harding with the motivation of improving the buyer’s shopping experience. See para. 33-34 “This program helps to safeguard the customer's buying experience.”
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hummel et al. (US2013/0166354).
As per dependent Claim 11,
Ozawa teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Ozawa does not teach, but Hummel teaches:
compute a reliability degree of each of at least the one computation method (para. 17 challenging to determine estimate accuracy; para. 18 ranking estimates for accuracy and generate one or more indications/measures of accuracy; para. 20 source of an estimate of market value; para. 21 sources of market value estimates may be ranked for accuracy; para. 38-41 where in para. 41 computed metric to measure accuracy)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Hummel with the motivation of increasing efficiency by motivating external sources to make more accurate estimates as well as allowing users to view which estimates are more accurate.
See para. 17 “it may be challenging to assess which estimates are more accurate” and para. 32 “Thus, there is a greater reward for making more accurate estimates than sources that have been accurate historically than there is for making more accurate estimates than sources that have been inaccurate historically or than sources that have not made a lot of estimates. In addition, a number of points a source obtains from making a more accurate estimate than another source depends at least partially on the number of other sources that are making an estimate. In this example embodiment, if a source makes the most accurate estimate of a large number of sources, the source will earn more points than if the source made the most accurate estimate of a small number of sources. But the number of additional points a source earns by making the most accurate estimate of a large number of sources is mitigated in such a way that one lucky estimate will not suddenly earn the source some undeservedly large number of points.”
As per dependent Claim 13,
Ozawa/Hummel teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 11.
Ozawa teaches:
wherein the issued diagnosis outcome is utilized in buying and selling of electric equipment including the storage battery (para. 119-122 guarantee service content and cost to cover replacement and various expenses; para. 75- 77 matching a battery to a specification range required by a business operator; para. 82 acquires the stored residual values (SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, and residual value rank) to match with customer specification information)
Ozawa does not teach, but Hummel teaches:
compute the reliability degree, based on an outcome of the buying and selling (para. 17 challenging to determine estimate accuracy; para. 18 ranking estimates for accuracy and generate one or more indications/measures of accuracy; para. 20 source of an estimate of market value; para. 21 sources of market value estimates may be ranked for accuracy; para. 38-41 where in para. 41 computed metric to measure accuracy and the ranking based on sizes of difference between transaction value and market value estimates; para. 22 accuracy of one or more previous estimates; para. 26 after sale, estimates ranked and source providing closest estimate may be provided with points; para. 45 market value estimates may indicate predictions/forecasts as to what the sources expect a transaction value to be for the object)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Hummel with the motivation of increasing efficiency by motivating external sources to make more accurate estimates as well as allowing users to view which estimates are more accurate. See para. 17 and para. 32.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809) in view of Hummel et al. (US2013/0166354) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Strauss et al. (US 2019/0347676).
As per dependent Claim 12,
Ozawa/Hummel teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 11.
Ozawa does not teach, but Hummel teaches:
compute the reliability degree, based on a difference between a predicted value of a value at predetermined future timing indicated by the value information computed in a past, and a value at the predetermined timing (para. 17 challenging to determine estimate accuracy; para. 18 ranking estimates for accuracy and generate one or more indications/measures of accuracy; para. 20 source of an estimate of market value; para. 21 sources of market value estimates may be ranked for accuracy; para. 38-41 where in para. 41 computed metric to measure accuracy and the ranking based on sizes of difference between transaction value and market value estimates; para. 22 accuracy of one or more previous estimates; para. 26 after sale, estimates ranked and source providing closest estimate may be provided with points; para. 45 market value estimates may indicate predictions/forecasts as to what the sources expect a transaction value to be for the object)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Hummel with the motivation of increasing efficiency by motivating external sources to make more accurate estimates as well as allowing users to view which estimates are more accurate. See para. 17 and para. 32.
Ozawa/Hummel does not teach, but Strauss teaches:
wherein the residual value information includes a current residual value, and a predicted value of a residual value at predetermined future timing, and (para. 6 receive data from data sources, determine an initial value for item, and determine forecasted future values for the item; para. 25 predict the residual value of an item at a future time point for any time period; para. 60 how often a forecast of the residual value of the item is to be generated)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Strauss with the motivation of increasing accuracy and efficiency.
See para. 5 “Since these conventional methods of determining the value of an item are relatively simplistic and take into account only backward-looking data (e.g., past sales of the item), they are not as accurate as may be desired. For instance, an automobile leasing company may need to know the future value of the automobiles that it owns in order to obtain financing for expansion or other business transactions. It would therefore be desirable to provide improved methods for determining the future value of such items” and para. 24 “An ability to determine the amount by which the item will change (e.g., devalue) over time, and thereby forecast the resale or residual value of the item can provide a better understanding of a company's assets and can allow the company to make better business decisions.” See also para. 79-83.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809) in view of Hummel et al. (US2013/0166354) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Bouron (US2005/0065810).
As per dependent Claim 14,
Ozawa/Hummel teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 11.
Ozawa does not teach, but Hummel teaches:
compute the reliability degree, based on at least one of a result of being specified in a past as the computation method of executing issue processing of the diagnosis outcome, and (para. 41 the ranking based on sizes of difference between transaction value and market value estimates; para. 22 accuracy of one or more previous estimates; para. 26 after sale, estimates ranked and source providing closest estimate may be provided with points; para. 42-43 characteristics that affect ranking include “a number of executed transactions, a number of provided market value estimate”; para. 32-33 sources with better accuracy ranking historically)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Hummel with the motivation of increasing efficiency by motivating external sources to make more accurate estimates as well as allowing users to view which estimates are more accurate. See para. 17 and para. 32.
Ozawa/Hummel does not teach, but Bouron teaches:
word-of-mouth information about the computation method (para. 13-17 evaluating the reputation of a given entity in a personalized manner by adapting a word of mouth recommendation mechanism)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa/Hummel invention with Bouron with the motivation of increasing efficiency by determining the reputation of the external “parties” who provide estimates in order to determine whether to trust/place confidence in the estimate. See para. 3-4 “an essential problem is that of determining the confidence that can be placed in them, for example with regard to their technical competence or their ability to meet delivery times…With regard to the access to content, confidence problems relate, among other things, to the validity and interest of information. Items of information can be provided on line by a product supplier, or by a technical services provider, but the objectivity of that information is not guaranteed.”
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809) in view of Hummel et al. (US2013/0166354) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Baldua et al. (US2009/0024489).
As per dependent Claim 15,
Ozawa/Hummel teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 11.
Ozawa further teaches:
wherein the issued diagnosis outcome is utilized in buying and selling of electric equipment including the storage battery (para. 119-122 guarantee service content and cost to cover replacement and various expenses; para. 75- 77 matching a battery to a specification range required by a business operator; para. 82 acquires the stored residual values (SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, and residual value rank) to match with customer specification information)
details of the diagnosis outcome are indicated on a web page introducing the electric equipment, and (para. 67 and 104 display of the information; para. 74-77 purchase residual value request of a demanding business operator (user input specifying the residual value); para. 82 matching the SOH value, IR value, abnormal degradation level, and residual value rank of each battery to the customer’s requirement specification; para. 103-105 and figure 11A-B displaying the SOH, IR, abnormal degradation level, residual value rank (“residual value”) along with reservation information)
Ozawa does not teach, but Hummel teaches:
compute the reliability degree, based on many factors (para. 17 challenging to determine estimate accuracy; para. 18 ranking estimates for accuracy and generate one or more indications/measures of accuracy; para. 20 source of an estimate of market value; para. 21 sources of market value estimates may be ranked for accuracy; para. 38-41 where in para. 41 computed metric to measure accuracy; para. 42-43 source characteristics; para. 21 rankings of sources may be provided to visitors of website)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa invention with Hummel with the motivation of increasing efficiency by motivating external sources to make more accurate estimates as well as allowing users to view which estimates are more accurate. See para. 17 and para. 32.
Ozawa/Hummel does not teach, but Baldua teaches:
compute the reliability degree, based on at least one of a number of views of the web page, and a number of favorite registrations (para. 34 reputation values may be adjusted or updated to reflect how well items described by those profiles have performed recently; if items become more popular (higher sales or better ratings/reviews) reputation is increased; para. 53 reputation depend on factors such as lifespan of the item, number of consumer actions or responses; para. 48-50 consumer actions include a mouse click on the link (“views”), a positive review or rating, a thumbs-up, or recommendation to another person (any of these may be a favorite registration)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa/Hummel invention with Baldua with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of the reliability degree by accounting for how well the items perform. For example, higher sales of the electric equipment may indicate the profile which “described”/evaluated the electric equipment is reliable.
See para. 34 “When appropriate, the reputation values associated with the profiles may be adjusted or updated to reflect how well items described by those profiles have performed more recently. The frequency of the adjustment may be decided by the system hosting the website. For example, the adjustment may be done on a regular basis. If items associated with a particular profile have gradually increased in popularity among the consumers (e.g., resulted in higher sales or received better consumer ratings or reviews), then the reputation value associated with that profile may be increased accordingly to reflect the changes. Conversely, if items associated with a profile have gradually decreased in popularity among the consumers, the reputation value associated with that profile may be decreased accordingly.”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa et al. (US2025/0067809) in view of Hummel et al. (US2013/0166354) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Josephsen (US2011/0295732).
As per dependent Claim 16,
Ozawa/Hummel teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 11.
Ozawa teaches the context of the residual value information and “each time the at least one processor acquires the residual value information and accumulates the acquired residual value information in the residual value storage device” in the independent claim.
Ozawa does not teach, but Hummel suggests the limitation of “determine… a fee” in para. 36 generated appraisals may be sold via the web – strong incentive to provide accurate estimates; para. 59 appraisal to prospective purchases and monetary payment provided.
Ozawa/Hummel does not teach, but Josephsen teaches:
determine, based on the reliability degree, a fee to be paid to each diagnosis supplier that has computed the value information for each time the at least one processor acquires the value information (para. 6 and 65 background valuation of assets and competition between different valuation methods and they are competing because their compensation for the valuation is dependent on how close they are; para. 71-75 where in para. 71 more accurate valuations will result in higher compensation and the most accurate valuation is compensated with a considerably higher percent; para. 73 evaluators evaluate the item by their own subjective methods as the method of valuation may depend on industry or subject matter; para. 76-78 the ranking outcomes and compensation due to each evaluator and evaluators are compensated)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ozawa/Hummel invention with Josephsen with the motivation of increasing accuracy.
See para. 43-59 “Compensating valuation professionals more greatly for being more accurate than their competitors allows for the advantages of: a. Better immediate accuracy as Evaluators will be motivated to be more accurate than their competitors b. Better reliability over multiple valuations, through the use of an “accuracy rating”, as the consistently more accurate evaluators are offered more work, and inaccurate Evaluators are filtered away.”
Closest Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art:
Examiner noting that Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Current prior art alone or in combination fail to disclose every element of Claims 4 and 8.
Regarding Claim 4, Examiner specifically noting the following limitation “transmit the result information to a plurality of the external apparatuses at a frequency unique to each of the external apparatuses, and acquire the residual value information, and a plurality of the external apparatuses compute the residual value information at a frequency unique to each of the external apparatuses” as not disclosed because available prior art does not teach transmitting the utilization result of a storage battery (“result information”) at the frequency unique to each apparatus and further, the apparatuses computing residual value information at the frequency.
Regarding Claim 8, Examiner specifically noting the following limitation “the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine whether to perform compensation and a content of the compensation, based on a residual value of the storage battery provided in the electric equipment at a time point of the compensation request and the predicted value” as not disclosed because available prior art does not teach determining a residual value at the time in which the user made the compensation request and further does not teach determining such a value for the purposes of performing compensation.
The following are the closest prior art:
Shigemori et al. (US2024/0077539) teaches the limitation of “repeatedly” in Claim 4.
Munakata et al. (US2022/0358551) teaches the user paying the system a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the battery and further, determining a degradation level of the battery.
Soeda et al. (US2019/0329669) teaches obtaining battery information to calculate multiple residual values.
Dong et al. (US2014/0214349) teaches estimating a condition of a battery so as to judge the residual value of the battery in operation.
Kurimoto (US2013/0090872) teaches receiving measurement data and history information and utilizing the data to determine a method of reusing the battery.
Hartman (US2016/0292751) teaches a product valuation system based on historical sales data and forward projection.
Yedlarajaiah et al. (US2021/0304265) teaches determining an accuracy rate associated with a range of estimates.
Glenn (US2006/0293915) teaches a confidence score for a real estate valuation and selecting a report based on the ranking of confidence scores.
Stickleman (US2008/0033747) teaches assigning an order to at least one valuation expert and receiving data from the expert to generate a report to submit to a client.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights