CTNF 19/131,285 CTNF 82649 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1 The claims recite: determining, before a charging process, battery charging wear costs W hat (WBAT) of the traction battery (BAT) and charging electronics charging wear costs W e i e (W ELE) of the charging electronics; and preventing discharging of the traction battery (BAT) during the charging process at least for periods of time in which an associated discharge revenue (PIDIS) is not greater than both the battery charging wear cost and the charging electronics charging wear costs by at least one predetermined margin (MBAT, M_ELE) in each case, wherein the battery charging wear costs W hat (WBAT) is calculated using the equation:What= PNG media_image1.png 87 69 media_image1.png Greyscale and the charging electronics charging wear costs W ei , (WELE) is calculated using the equation:Weie = PNG media_image2.png 87 56 media_image2.png Greyscale where Ch at is an acquisition cost of the traction battery (BAT), E rate d is the estimated nominal total energy throughput of the traction battery (BAT) over its service life, AEd is is an energy throughput during discharge, C ele is an energy throughput during charging and discharging of the traction battery (BAT), Ce le is a cost of the charging electronics (ELE), Attorney Docket No. 080437.PI834US Lra t e d is an estimated rated operating life of the charging electronics (ELE), and Atd is a duration of the discharge. The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (a) mathematical concepts-** mathematical relationships mathematical formulas or equations mathematical calculations ** (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)** The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “electric vehicle, battery system, charging electronics”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being mathematical concepts and business relations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2 The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “electric vehicle, battery system, charging electronics”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than: iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, - (electric vehicle, battery system, charging electronics) The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106 Step 2B Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception Dependent Claims Step 2A: The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A — Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; While claims 13-15 describe vehicles and charging electronics, these merely further limit the general link to a technological environment. The same applies to the energy grid of claim 17. This analysis also applies to the analogous claims Dependent Claims Step 2B: The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off. 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. /TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/131,285 Page 2 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/131,285 Page 3 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/131,285 Page 4 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/131,285 Page 5 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 19/131,285 Page 6 Art Unit: 3628
Prosecution Insights