DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final on Merits. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The present application, filed on 04/03/2025, claims priority to Foreign Application JP2024-094311, filed on 06/11/2024. The foreign priority document was received on 05/07/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 1, line 2 recites “execute” and it should be – execute: --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 with claim limitation: “a control unit that is configured to” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 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 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.
Claims 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-5 are directed to a device (i.e. a machine). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: An information processing device, comprising: 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 at least information regarding a time limit for collecting the battery, acquiring second information regarding the battery that is in use by a plurality of second users, and transmitting, to a second user that is at least part of the second users, a notification regarding provision of the battery, in accordance with a condition that is changed depending on the time limit, the first information, and the second information.
The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of: Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including 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). As the claims discuss a system for managing battery usage among users, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1 recites for example, “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 at least information regarding a time limit for collecting the battery”; “acquiring second information regarding the battery that is in use by a plurality of second users”; “transmitting to a second user that is at least part of the second users, a notification regarding provision of the battery, in accordance with a condition that is changed depending on the time.”) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of acquiring, identifying, transmitting and analyzing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Further, dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2) the condition includes a condition relating to a price for provision of the battery, the price being determined in accordance with the time limit; the notification includes information relating to the price; and sets the price to be higher in accordance with a period to the time limit being shorter; (claim 3) the first information includes first position information regarding a position at which the first user uses the battery; the second information includes second position information regarding a position at which the second user is using the battery; the condition is a predetermined region that includes a position at which the battery is used, and that includes a condition relating to a predetermined region to which the notification is to be transmitted; and the control unit sets the predetermined region to be broader in accordance with a period to the time limit being shorter; (claim 4) the first information includes first material information regarding a material of the battery that is needed by the first user; the second information includes second material information relating to a material of the battery being used by the second users; the condition includes a condition relating to the material of the battery; and when a period to the time limit is no shorter than a predetermined period, transmits the notification to the second user corresponding to a battery of a same material as the material of the battery that is needed by the first user, from among the batteries in use by the second users, and when the period to the time limit is shorter than the predetermined period, transmits the notification to the second user regardless of the material of the battery that is needed by the first user; (claim 5) the second information includes information regarding a degree of deterioration of the battery; the condition includes a condition relating to the degree of deterioration of the battery; and sets the degree of deterioration of the battery that is allowable, to be greater, in accordance with a period to the time limit being shorter, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) control unit, terminal(s). These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The “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 at least information regarding a time limit for collecting the battery”; “acquiring second information regarding the battery that is in use by a plurality of second users”; “transmitting to a second user that is at least part of the second users, a notification regarding provision of the battery” limitations describe data gathering. The Office has long considered data gathering to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the computer components, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See at least Applicants specification, para 0054, recites: “The present disclosure can also be realized by supplying a computer program that implements
the functions described in the above embodiments to a computer, and one or more processors included in the computer read and execute the program. Such a computer program may be provided to a computer by a non-transitory computer readable storage medium connectable to a system bus of the computer, or
may be provided to the computer via a network”. With respect to the control unit, Applicant’s specification, para 0018, recites “The control unit may calculate, for example, SOH (State of Health) and transmit SOH to the servers 30. Note that the control unit may acquire SOH by using known methods.” The specification spells out different generic equipment that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computers. The use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts.
With respect to “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 at least information regarding a time limit for collecting the battery”; “acquiring second information regarding the battery that is in use by a plurality of second users”; “transmitting to a second user that is at least part of the second users, a notification regarding provision of the battery” limitations, which amounts to mere data gathering or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicated that receipt and transmission of information over a computer network are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities). Furthermore, claims 1-5 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATO et al. (US 2022/0404428 A1), hereinafter “Kato”, over Kurimoto (US 2022/0297667 A1), hereinafter “Kurimoto”.
Regarding Claim 1, Kato teaches An information processing device, comprising: a control unit that is configured to execute (Kato, Abstract; Kato teaches a control device throughout; Further Kato teaches control unit, see at least Kato para 0081, teaches control units);
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 at least information regarding a time limit for collecting the battery, (Kato, Abstract, teaches A management system for managing a battery mounted on a vehicle includes: an acquisition unit that acquires grade information indicating a product grade set by a user as a purpose of reusing the battery; See at least Kato, para 0045, teaches a predetermined time for selling battery B);
acquiring second information regarding the battery that is in use by a plurality of second users, and (Kato, para 0025, The management unit 11 d manages information transmitted from the plurality of charge control devices, such as information indicating the location and the state of degradation of the battery B);
... a notification regarding provision of the battery, in accordance with a condition that is changed depending on the time limit, the first information, and the second information (Kato, Abstract, teaches managing a battery mounted on a vehicle includes ... a notification unit that notifies the user of restriction item information indicating an item that restricts a function of the vehicle; Kato, para 0041, management unit manages information transmitted from the plurality of charge control devices, such as information indicating the location (Examiner notes first information) and the deterioration state of each of the plurality of batteries (Examiner notes second information); Changes in the battery is taught throughout Kato, see at least Kato, para 0111, teaching presents a change in the estimated remaining life in actual use for the purpose of using the battery). While Kato teaches transmitting information, Kato does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Kurimoto teaches transmitting, to a terminal of a second user that is at least part of the second users (Kurimoto, Abstract, teaches battery information received by a communication device, to a user of a vehicle that transmits the battery information; See at least Kurimoto, para 0114, teaches the server may transmit information on the area where the premium price is given to the provided battery information to each vehicle, or may notify the terminal device of the user of each vehicle. The information of the area may be displayed on the map of the navigation device in each vehicle, or the information of the area may be displayed on the map application or the like in each terminal device. This increases the possibility that the user of the vehicle travels in an area to which the premium price is assigned, for a high price. As a result, battery information having a high need for information collection can be collected effectively.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kato with transmitting, to a terminal of a second user that is at least part of the second users as taught by Kurimoto with the motivation for battery information having a high need for information collection to be collected effectively (Kurimoto, para 0114). The Kato invention now incorporating the Kurimoto invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein: the condition includes a condition relating to a price for provision of the battery, the price being determined in accordance with the time limit; (Kato, para 0033, presents each product rank and the predicted transaction price; para 0045, the predetermined time for reusing the battery B is set as the scheduled sale timing set by the user, but the present invention is not limited thereto, and the predetermined time can be arbitrarily set);
the notification includes information relating to the price; and (Kato, Abstract, teaches a notification unit configured to notify the user; See at least Kato, para 0011, teaches notifying of each product rank and a predicted transaction price);
Yet, Kato does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Kurimoto teaches the control unit sets the price to be higher in accordance with a period to the time limit being shorter (Kurimoto, para 0007, teaches the user of the vehicle that transmits the second information as the information of the power storage device is given a higher price than the user of the vehicle that transmits the first information, and information (in this case, the second information) for which there is a larger need for collection (Examiner notes time limit being shorter) can be collected effectively.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kato with the control unit sets the price to be higher in accordance with a period to the time limit being shorter as taught by Kurimoto with the motivation for battery information having a high need for information collection to be collected effectively (Kurimoto, para 0114).
Regarding Claim 3, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein: the first information includes first position information regarding a position at which the first user uses the battery; (Kato, para 0025, teaches the management unit manages information transmitted from the plurality of charge control devices, such as information indicating the location of the battery);
the second information includes second position information regarding a position at which the second user is using the battery; (Kato, para 0025, teaches the management unit manages information transmitted from the plurality of charge control devices, such as information indicating the location of the battery);
the control unit sets the predetermined region to be broader in accordance with a period to the time limit being shorter (Kato, para 0129, teaches when battery life is shorter than estimated life; Kato, para 0025, teaches the processing unit can manage information indicating the location and the deterioration state (Examiner notes includes time) of each of the plurality of batteries);
Yet, Kato does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Kurimoto teaches the condition is a predetermined region that includes a position at which the battery is used, and that includes a condition relating to a predetermined region to which the notification is to be transmitted; and (Kurimoto, para 0074, information in a region in which collection results are smaller than those in other regions is set as information having high information collection needs; Kurimoto, para 0099, the battery information is information of a region where the natural environment is severe; Kurimoto, para 0114, teaches the server may transmit information on the area where the premium price is given to the provided battery information to each vehicle, or may notify the terminal device of the user of each vehicle. The information of the area may be displayed on the map of the navigation device in each vehicle, or the information of the area may be displayed on the map application or the like in each terminal device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kato with the condition is a predetermined region that includes a position at which the battery is used, and that includes a condition relating to a predetermined region to which the notification is to be transmitted as taught by Kurimoto with the motivation for battery information having a high need for information collection to be collected effectively (Kurimoto, para 0114).
Regarding Claim 4, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein: the first information includes first material information regarding a material of the battery that is needed by the first user; the second information includes second material information relating to a material of the battery being used by the second users; (Kato, para 0032, various product types and the types and shapes of batteries mounted in them is stored in the storage unit... Based on the battery information (particularly, information on the model and shape of battery B) acquired in S102, processing unit 11 selects, from the product information stored, a plurality of product types in which battery B can be mounted as a plurality of product grades);
the condition includes a condition relating to the material of the battery; and (See at least Kato, para 0032, teaches various product types and the types and shapes of batteries);
when a period to the time limit is no shorter than a predetermined period, the control unit transmits the notification to a terminal of the second user corresponding to a battery of a same material as the material of the battery that is needed by the first user, from among the batteries in use by the second users, and (Kato, Abstract, teaches a notification unit that notifies the user; Kato, para 0032, various product types and the types and shapes of batteries mounted in them is stored in the storage unit... Based on the battery information (particularly, information on the model and shape of battery B) acquired in S102, processing unit 11 selects, from the product information stored, a plurality of product types in which battery B can be mounted as a plurality of product grades) when the period to the time limit is shorter than the predetermined period, (Kato, para 0032, presents the predicted transaction price for each product grade at the given time period to the user; Kato, para 0129, teaches when battery life is shorter than estimated life) transmits the notification to the terminal of the second user regardless of the material of the battery that is needed by the first user (Kato, Abstract, teaches a notification unit that notifies the user).
Regarding Claim 5, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
the second information includes information regarding a degree of deterioration of the battery; the condition includes a condition relating to the degree of deterioration of the battery; and (See at least Kato Abstract, teaches managing a battery mounted on a vehicle includes ... a deterioration state of the battery; Further, see Kato, para 0028, teaches the degree of deterioration of the battery indicates, for example, SOH of the battery. Examiner notes this is analogous to Applicants own specification, see Applicant’s spec, para 0018, recites: “The control unit 1I may calculate, for example, SOH (State of Health) and transmit SOH to the servers 30. Note that the control unit 11may acquire SOH by using known methods.”);
the control unit sets the degree of deterioration of the battery that is allowable, to be greater, in accordance with a period to the time limit being shorter (Kato, para 0129, the actual use is shorter than a threshold life shorter than the estimated remaining life; See at least Kato, para 0036 and para 0025, determination unit 11 b determines a restriction item of the function of the vehicle V for reducing the deterioration of the battery B. The notification unit 11 c notifies the user (charge control device 20) of various types of information items such as restriction item information indicating the restriction item of the function of vehicle V determined as the restricted target by determination unit 11 b. The management unit 11 d manages information such as information indicating the location and deterioration state (Examiner notes includes time) of the battery; Examiner notes different rules and combinations of a battery deterioration state is certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art.)
Additional Prior Art Consulted
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure includes the following:
Tsuno et al. US 2022/0413053 - An information providing system in which a plurality of information collection devices, a server, and a plurality of information reception devices are connected by a network, each of the plurality of information collection devices comprises: a rechargeable battery configured to supply power to drive the information collection device; a monitoring circuit configured to monitor a state of the battery; a sensor configured to detect a state of an environment where the plurality of information collection devices are installed; a memory configured to store first data indicating a history of the state of the battery monitored by the monitoring circuit and second data indicating a state of the environment detected by the sensor; and a transmission unit configured to transmit the first data and the second data stored in the memory via the network based on a request from the server.
Yamamoto US 2023/0207912 A1 - A battery management system for managing information of a battery unit includes a combination of a plurality of battery packs including a plurality of cells. An information processing unit obtains battery pack information representing a status of the plurality of battery packs and obtains battery unit information representing a status of the battery unit based on the obtained battery pack information. A server receives the battery unit information transmitted from the information processing unit. The server transmits at least a portion of the received battery unit information to a user terminal.
KR 2023/0010129A - A battery monitoring system according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a data receiving unit that receives battery information data and vehicle information data from a data collection device connected to a vehicle, and a charging habit of a user based on the battery information data and the vehicle information data. A battery management point calculation unit that calculates factors affecting battery deterioration among driving habits and parking habits, calculates battery management points based on the factors, and stores the battery management points in a database; and an information transmission unit for transmitting the score to the terminal.
NPL - Min Luo • Yong Xiao • Wei-Ming Sun • Zhiping Wang, “Online Battery Monitoring System Based on GPRS for Electric Vehicles”, Published in: 2013 5th International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics (Volume: 1, 2013, Page(s): 122-125), 2013 IEEE - Electric vehicles which has the advantages of energy saving and environmental protection, are brought to global attention as an energy crisis and climate change. Electric vehicle battery technology is one of the hotspots and difficulties in electric vehicle research in recent years. From a business perspective, capable of grasping the working status of electric vehicle battery in real time, in order to put forward a control strategy for extending the battery life is very necessary. This paper proposes a novel online battery monitoring system for electric vehicles Based on GPRS wireless communication. It consists of online monitoring terminal for battery parameter measure with GPRS date transmitter unit and an upper computer with a battery online monitoring system software, and can monitor the various operating parameters of the battery in real-time, judge the status of the battery and fault diagnosis, and establish a database to facilitate data storage and find. Meanwhile, it develops hardware and software by building hardware and software test platform. Test data are obtained to verify the reliability and feasibility of the monitoring system.
Applicant is advised to review additional references supplied on the PTO-892 as to the state of the art of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3629/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629