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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item, calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item, the second price based upon a proportion of a new cost of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user and an expected total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers buying or renting an item which is a method that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for concepts that fall under fundamental economic practice, business practice and managing interactions between people and personal behavior and concepts that can be done in the human mind (with pen and paper).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites “a structure; one or more containers operably connected to said structure, the one or more containers configured to store one or more items wherein each item is held in the one or more containers; a processor controls access to at least one of the one or more containers; an interface wherein a user may select an item from the one or more items; a power supply, wherein the processor operably communicates with a database that contains information regarding users, the one or more items, the storage station apparatus, or a combination thereof”. Additionally, “wherein the processor provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item” is also recited in functional language at a high level of generality which amounts to extra solution activity. These additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in the field of smart lockers. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer. In addition, the specification of the application as filed (paragraph 45) does not provide any indication that the additional element (processor providing access) described above is anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt and transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Dependent claim 2/3 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (wherein the sensors include a magnetometer, a gesture sensor, a gyroscope, a humidity sensor, a thermometer, a weight scale, a pressure gauge, an open/closed sensor, a light sensor, an accelerometer, a motion sensor, a water detector are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 4/5 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (one or more peripherals operatively connected to the processor wherein the peripheral includes a video camera, an audio recorder, a RF receiver, a RF transmitter, an optical receiver, an optical transmitter, or a combination thereof are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 6/7 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item, calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item, the second price based upon a proportion of a new cost of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user and an actual total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers buying or renting an item which is a method that falls under certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for concepts that fall under fundamental economic practice, business practice and managing interactions between people and personal behavior and concepts that can be done in the human mind (with pen and paper).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites “a structure; one or more containers operably connected to said structure, the one or more containers configured to store one or more items wherein each item is held in the one or more containers; a processor controls access to at least one of the one or more containers; an interface wherein a user may select an item from the one or more items; a power supply, wherein the processor operably communicates with a database that contains information regarding users, the one or more items, the storage station apparatus, or a combination thereof”. Additionally, “wherein the processor provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item” is also recited in functional language at a high level of generality which amounts to extra solution activity. These additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in the field of smart lockers. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer. In addition, the specification of the application as filed (paragraph 45) does not provide any indication that the additional element (processor providing access) described above is anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt and transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Dependent claim 9/10 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (wherein the sensors include a magnetometer, a gesture sensor, a gyroscope, a humidity sensor, a thermometer, a weight scale, a pressure gauge, an open/closed sensor, a light sensor, an accelerometer, a motion sensor, a water detector are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 11/12 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (one or more peripherals operatively connected to the processor wherein the peripheral includes a video camera, an audio recorder, a RF receiver, a RF transmitter, an optical receiver, an optical transmitter, or a combination thereof are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aloe (US 2014/0368156) in view of Christie (US 2004/0260626).
As per claim 1, Aloe discloses a storage station apparatus, comprising:
a structure (fig. 1, paragraph 22-23);
one or more containers operably connected to said structure, the one or more containers configured to store one or more items wherein each item is held in the one or more containers (paragraph 24-25, 28, “[0024] Within the kiosk, the batteries to be vended and/or adapters may be organized in a vending rack, allowing a mechanized dispenser to identify the appropriate item to be vended and to dispense it.”, “[0028] In operation, the battery pack and/or adapter may be vended through the dispensing structure in any manner capable of removing the battery pack from the vending rack and delivering it to a client. In one embodiment, a mechanical arm may grab a pack, remove it from the vending rack, and place it in an outlet for a client to take.”);
a processor controls access to at least one of the one or more containers (paragraph 22, 52, “0022] The kiosk may have a computerized user interface module to allow a user to select the type of device they have that requires charging, via a touch screen or other computerized interface. In this manner the kiosk may be configured to receive this input and select the proper charging equipment to vend. The identified battery packs may then be vended through a vending structure such as a drawer, slot, aperture, or the like.”);
an interface wherein a user may select an item from the one or more items (paragraph 22, 52-54, “[0053] FIG. 4 provides a flow chart of an embodiment of the user interface. The process begins when a customer initiates a new session.”);
a power supply (fig. 1, paragraph 25-26, the kiosk has it own power supply not shown and the vending racks are also used as charging units),
wherein the processor operably communicates with a database that contains information regarding users, the one or more items, the storage station apparatus, or a combination thereof (paragraph 52-54, 56, “An analytics repository module 33 may store analytics information to analyze and adjust kiosk operation and location to optimize efficiency. An administrator and analytics reporting module 35 provides user interface and access to the server system. The user access may be an analytics user 36B, 36D, a customer administrator 36C, or a kiosk administrator 36D. The analytics users may be users that access the server 30, particularly the analytics repository module 33 and analytics reporting module 35. The customer administrator 36C may be an administrator accessing the server 30 to view, access, and control customer information. Customer information may include purchase and renting history, current renting information, customer location usage, and the like.”),
wherein the processor provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item (paragraph 42, “[0042] In one embodiment, the kiosk may have a return structure that is an openable door that allows the battery pack and/or adapter to be returned, processed and stored. Once the kiosk detects the returned product, it may communicate to the server that the product is returned.”), wherein the processor calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user (paragraph 27, 34, 40, “[0027] In one embodiment, the kiosk may be configured to allow purchase of the battery packs. In another embodiment, the kiosk may be configured to allow a rental of the battery packs on a time based rate.”).
However, Aloe does not disclose but Christie discloses calculating a second price (rental price), wherein the second price based upon a proportion of a new cost of the selected item and an expected total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users (paragraph 47-52, “[0046] According to the invention, a price index is created to establish a benchmark for performance. In order to understand how much is paid for a product over the rentable life of the product, many factors characteristic of the item must be taken into account, including purchase price, capital depreciation, market value, cost of capital (i.e. the ratio of profit to capital), preparation costs, expected maintenance costs, expected operation costs, and anticipated usage…[0047] The Base Price comprises two categories of costs--initial costs, typically incurred before the item is first rented out; and recurring costs, which may be looked at by time interval, for example annually. Initial Costs include such things as purchase price, conversion or modification costs (where a purchased item has to be adapted to use in the particular rental environment, for example to work with other rental products), regulatory approval, etc. Recurring Costs include for example annual licensing fees, maintenance and repair, cleaning etc. Some Recurring Costs may be incurred whenever an item is returned after a rental, in which case a projection is made through the selected time interval (for example, if an item is expected to be rented out four times each year, the per-use cleaning cost is multiplied by four to get the annual cleaning cost). [0048] The Base Price is preferably calculated based on a fixed time interval of Recurring Costs, rather than over the life of the item. In the preferred embodiment the Base Price is the sum of the Initial Costs plus Recurring Costs over the first year of the rental life of the item. [0049] The next factor to consider is the estimated rentable life of the product, i.e. the length of time that the item will generate a return on the investment represented by the Base Price. Each particular item is associated with a specific Price Curve based on the rentable life of the item. For example, in the case of lighting equipment the Price Curves may be based on expected rentable life terms of 5 months, 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years, 3.5 years, 4 years, 5 Years. The Price Factor is preferably non-linear, taking into account the lower cost of longer rentals (due to a reduced number of per-use costs over the rentable life of the item) and ongoing annual costs. The particular formula used to generate the Price Factor, if any, is a matter of selection.” Examiner interprets expected rentable life as expected total length of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Christie in the teaching of Aloe, in order to create a standard for determining rental prices (please see Christie, abstract).
As per claim 6, Aloe an apparatus comprising a processor configured to offer both a purchase price and rental price for a selected item based on a duration (paragraph 27). However, Aloe does not disclose but Christie discloses wherein the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item of $10 when the new cost of the selected item is $100, the length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user is 100 hours, and the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users is 1000 hours (Christie discloses calculating a rental price as a proportion of the purchase cost of an item base don an estimated rentable life of the item, wherein the rentable life represents an expected total duration for use of the item across multiple rents, and wherein rental revenue is accumulated over time such that the purchase cost of the item is recovered over the rentable life (paragraph 47-50). The numbers introduced by claim 6 merely recites a numerical example resulting from application of the proportional pricing relationship taught by christie to particular values for item cost, user rental duration and expected rentable life)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aloe (US 2014/0368156) in view of Christie (US 2004/0260626), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Hay (US 2014/0222603).
As per claim 2, Aloe does not disclose but Hay discloses one or more sensors operatively connected to the processor wherein the sensors include a magnetometer, a gesture sensor, a gyroscope, a humidity sensor, a thermometer, a weight scale, a pressure gauge, an open/closed sensor, a light sensor, an accelerometer, a motion sensor, a water detector, or a combination thereof (paragraph 116, “a sensor rack 108 having one or more sensors disposed therein is positioned within the base unit 94 of the tray 92. The photosensors 110 may be disposed within one of an array of holes 112 sized and configured to receive the photosensors 110. The photosensors 110 are positioned such that there is a photosensor associated with each compartment formed by the dividers 98, 100 and 104. Thus, as the item overlies the light sensor 110, the light sensor is occluded from the light source positioned above the tray 92 and the photosensor is not activated.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hay in the teaching of Aloe, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, Aloe in view of Christie and Hay disclose all the limitation of claim 2. Aloe does not disclose but Hay further discloses wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is attached to one of the one or more containers (paragraph 116)(please see claim 2 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 4, Aloe does not disclose but Hay discloses one or more peripherals operatively connected to the processor wherein the peripheral includes a video camera, an audio recorder, a RF receiver, a RF transmitter, an optical receiver, an optical transmitter, or a combination thereof (paragraph 15, 23, “.0015] The sensor system may alternatively comprise a tag attached to each item and a wireless reader or receiver configured to determine the location or proximity of the tag relative to the reader or receiver. For example, the tag may comprise an RFID (radio frequency identification device) tag which is tracked by a wireless RFID reader or receiver…. [0023] Alternatively, the detection of the removal of an item from the bay comprises the steps of associating an RFID tag with each item on the tray. A corresponding RFID detector is utilized to detect the movement of the item away from the tray and from the bay. The RFID detector, in a particularly preferred embodiment, comprises an RFID antenna sandwiched between an upper and a base layer and forming a sensor tray which is positioned relative to the items in the bay so as to detect movement and removal of the item from the tray and bay.”).
As per claim 5, Aloe in view of Christie and Hay disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Aloe does not disclose but Hay further discloses wherein at least one of the one or more peripherals is attached to one of the one or more containers (paragraph 15, 23)(please see claim 2 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aloe (US 2014/0368156) in view of Christie (US 2004/0260626), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, in further view of Nakajima (WO 2019181628) (US 2020/0409310 as translation).
As per claim 7, Aloe does not disclose but the combination of Christie and Nakajima discloses wherein the processor calculates the second price at a lower price than the proportion of a new cost of the selected item, the proportion based on the length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user and the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by the community of users, after an extent of previous use of the selected item passes a threshold amount of use.
Christie discloses wherein the processor calculates the second price based on proportion of a new cost of the selected item, the proportion based on the length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user and the expected total length of time of use of the selected item by the community of users (paragraph 45-50, estimated rentable life is defined as the length of time that the item will generate a return on the investment”. Christie associates each item with a price curve based on that rentable life “each particular item is associated with a specific price curve based on rentable life of the item”(paragraph 46). Christie further explains that rental price varies with time consumed “a curve is applied so that short term rental prices are higher per unit of time than longer term rental prices”. Christie also discloses that the base price is based on the purchase price.)
However, Christie does not disclose But Nakajima discloses that the second price is at a lower price than the proportion of a new cost of the selected item after an extent of previous use of the selected item passes a threshold amount of use (“[0010] The battery may further include a storage section which stores usage history information indicating how the battery has been used in the vehicle and further stores a price condition to judge a price of the battery based on a deterioration degree of the battery. The battery may further include a calculating section which calculates a deterioration degree of the battery based on the usage history information stored in the storage section, judges a price of the battery based on the calculated deterioration degree of the battery in reference to the price condition, and outputs it to the deterioration displaying section. The deterioration displaying section may display, visibly to an outside, a price of the battery calculated by the calculating section.” Items with higher deterioration grades are priced lower. The reference explicitly teaches that price decreases as deterioration increases. “)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Nakajima in the teaching of Aloe in view of Christie, in order to display in an externally visible manner the deterioration degree, which indicates the present degree of battery deterioration (please see Nakajima abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aloe (US 2014/0368156) in view of Christie (US 2004/0260626) in further view of Nakajima (WO 2019181628)(US 2021/0004879 as translation).
As per claim 8, Aloe discloses a storage station apparatus, comprising:
a structure (fig. 1, paragraph 22-23);
one or more containers operably connected to said structure, the one or more containers configured to store one or more items wherein each item is held in the one or more containers (paragraph 24-25, 28, “[0024] Within the kiosk, the batteries to be vended and/or adapters may be organized in a vending rack, allowing a mechanized dispenser to identify the appropriate item to be vended and to dispense it.”, “[0028] In operation, the battery pack and/or adapter may be vended through the dispensing structure in any manner capable of removing the battery pack from the vending rack and delivering it to a client. In one embodiment, a mechanical arm may grab a pack, remove it from the vending rack, and place it in an outlet for a client to take.”);
a processor controls access to at least one of the one or more containers (paragraph 22, 52, “0022] The kiosk may have a computerized user interface module to allow a user to select the type of device they have that requires charging, via a touch screen or other computerized interface. In this manner the kiosk may be configured to receive this input and select the proper charging equipment to vend. The identified battery packs may then be vended through a vending structure such as a drawer, slot, aperture, or the like.”);
an interface wherein a user may select an item from the one or more items (paragraph 22, 52-54, “[0053] FIG. 4 provides a flow chart of an embodiment of the user interface. The process begins when a customer initiates a new session.”);
a power supply (fig. 1, paragraph 25-26, the kiosk has it own power supply not shown and the vending racks are also used as charging units),
wherein the processor operably communicates with a database that contains information regarding users, the one or more items, the storage station apparatus, or a combination thereof (paragraph 52-54, 56, “An analytics repository module 33 may store analytics information to analyze and adjust kiosk operation and location to optimize efficiency. An administrator and analytics reporting module 35 provides user interface and access to the server system. The user access may be an analytics user 36B, 36D, a customer administrator 36C, or a kiosk administrator 36D. The analytics users may be users that access the server 30, particularly the analytics repository module 33 and analytics reporting module 35. The customer administrator 36C may be an administrator accessing the server 30 to view, access, and control customer information. Customer information may include purchase and renting history, current renting information, customer location usage, and the like.”),
wherein the processor provides access to one of the one or more containers to allow the user to return the selected item (paragraph 42, “[0042] In one embodiment, the kiosk may have a return structure that is an openable door that allows the battery pack and/or adapter to be returned, processed and stored. Once the kiosk detects the returned product, it may communicate to the server that the product is returned.”), wherein the processor calculates a first price for purchase of the selected item and the processor calculates a second price for temporary use of the selected item, the proportion based on a length of time of temporary use of the selected item by the user (paragraph 27, 34, 40, “[0027] In one embodiment, the kiosk may be configured to allow purchase of the battery packs. In another embodiment, the kiosk may be configured to allow a rental of the battery packs on a time based rate.”).
However, Aloe does not disclose but Christie discloses calculating a second price (rental price), wherein the second price based upon a proportion of a new cost of the selected item (paragraph 47-52, “[0046] According to the invention, a price index is created to establish a benchmark for performance. In order to understand how much is paid for a product over the rentable life of the product, many factors characteristic of the item must be taken into account, including purchase price, capital depreciation, market value, cost of capital (i.e. the ratio of profit to capital), preparation costs, expected maintenance costs, expected operation costs, and anticipated usage…[0047] The Base Price comprises two categories of costs--initial costs, typically incurred before the item is first rented out; and recurring costs, which may be looked at by time interval, for example annually. Initial Costs include such things as purchase price, conversion or modification costs (where a purchased item has to be adapted to use in the particular rental environment, for example to work with other rental products), regulatory approval, etc. Recurring Costs include for example annual licensing fees, maintenance and repair, cleaning etc. Some Recurring Costs may be incurred whenever an item is returned after a rental, in which case a projection is made through the selected time interval (for example, if an item is expected to be rented out four times each year, the per-use cleaning cost is multiplied by four to get the annual cleaning cost). [0048] The Base Price is preferably calculated based on a fixed time interval of Recurring Costs, rather than over the life of the item. In the preferred embodiment the Base Price is the sum of the Initial Costs plus Recurring Costs over the first year of the rental life of the item. [0049] The next factor to consider is the estimated rentable life of the product, i.e. the length of time that the item will generate a return on the investment represented by the Base Price. Each particular item is associated with a specific Price Curve based on the rentable life of the item. For example, in the case of lighting equipment the Price Curves may be based on expected rentable life terms of 5 months, 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years, 3.5 years, 4 years, 5 Years. The Price Factor is preferably non-linear, taking into account the lower cost of longer rentals (due to a reduced number of per-use costs over the rentable life of the item) and ongoing annual costs. The particular formula used to generate the Price Factor, if any, is a matter of selection.” Examiner interprets expected rentable life as expected total length of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Christie in the teaching of Aloe, in order to create a standard for determining rental prices (please see Christie, abstract).
However, Aloe in view of Christie does not disclose but Nakajima discloses calculating a second , price based on an actual total length of time of use of the selected item by a community of users , (paragraph 10, 75, 85, 112, “[0010] The battery may further include a storage section which stores usage history information indicating how the battery has been used in the vehicle and further stores a price condition to judge a price of the battery based on a deterioration degree of the battery. The battery may further include a calculating section which calculates a deterioration degree of the battery based on the usage history information stored in the storage section, judges a price of the battery based on the calculated deterioration degree of the battery in reference to the price condition, and outputs it to the deterioration displaying section. The deterioration displaying section may display, visibly to an outside, a price of the battery calculated by the calculating section.”, “[0085] FIG. 4 is one example of the table of the driving information history information stored in the driving history storage section 213. In this table, “reference number”, “continuous travel distance [km]”, “continuous travel time [h]”, “number of sudden accelerations and decelerations [number of times]”, “accumulated travel distance [km]”, “accumulated travel time [h]”, “time slot [o'clock]”, “day of the week”, and “travel area” are recorded in association with each other. The table is recorded per user ID (or vehicle ID) and the “driving disposition” is recorded per table.”, “[0112] The storage section 420 further includes a history storage section 427 to store the accumulated usage history information which is the information obtained by accumulating the usage history information read by the reading section 401 from the battery 200 returned to the station 300 in association with the battery ID of the battery 200. The history storage section 427 may store the vehicle ID of the vehicle 100 with the battery 200 mounted and the usage history information during the period when the battery was used in the vehicle 100 in association with the battery ID. It is noted that the accumulated usage history information herein is preferably the usage history information of all drive cycles during the period from the moment the battery 200 started to be used as a new product to the current moment, but the usage history information of some drive cycles during the period may be lacked.” The reference discloses actual usage history of all vehicles/drivers who have used the battery and then determining the price based the degradation resulting from that usage”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Nakajima in the teaching of Aloe in view of Christie, in order to display in an externally visible manner the deterioration degree, which indicates the present degree of battery deterioration (please see Nakajima abstract).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aloe (US 2014/0368156) in view of Christie (US 2004/0260626) and Nakajima (WO 2019181628)(US 2021/0004879 as translation), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 8, in further view of Hay (US 2014/0222603).
As per claim 9, Aloe does not disclose but Hay discloses one or more sensors operatively connected to the processor wherein the sensors include a magnetometer, a gesture sensor, a gyroscope, a humidity sensor, a thermometer, a weight scale, a pressure gauge, an open/closed sensor, a light sensor, an accelerometer, a motion sensor, a water detector, or a combination thereof (paragraph 116, “a sensor rack 108 having one or more sensors disposed therein is positioned within the base unit 94 of the tray 92. The photosensors 110 may be disposed within one of an array of holes 112 sized and configured to receive the photosensors 110. The photosensors 110 are positioned such that there is a photosensor associated with each compartment formed by the dividers 98, 100 and 104. Thus, as the item overlies the light sensor 110, the light sensor is occluded from the light source positioned above the tray 92 and the photosensor is not activated.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hay in the teaching of Aloe, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Aloe in view of Christie and Hay disclose all the limitation of claim 2. Aloe does not disclose but Hay further discloses wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is attached to one of the one or more containers (paragraph 116)(please see claim 2 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 11, Aloe does not disclose but Hay discloses one or more peripherals operatively connected to the processor wherein the peripheral includes a video camera, an audio recorder, a RF receiver, a RF transmitter, an optical receiver, an optical transmitter, or a combination thereof (paragraph 15, 23, “.0015] The sensor system may alternatively comprise a tag attached to each item and a wireless reader or receiver configured to determine the location or proximity of the tag relative to the reader or receiver. For example, the tag may comprise an RFID (radio frequency identification device) tag which is tracked by a wireless RFID reader or receiver…. [0023] Alternatively, the detection of the removal of an item from the bay comprises the steps of associating an RFID tag with each item on the tray. A corresponding RFID detector is utilized to detect the movement of the item away from the tray and from the bay. The RFID detector, in a particularly preferred embodiment, comprises an RFID antenna sandwiched between an upper and a base layer and forming a sensor tray which is positioned relative to the items in the bay so as to detect movement and removal of the item from the tray and bay.”).
As per claim 12, Aloe in view of Christie and Hay disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Aloe does not disclose but Hay further discloses wherein at least one of the one or more peripherals is attached to one of the one or more containers (paragraph 15, 23)(please see claim 2 rejection for combination rationale).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628