CTNF 19/226,963 CTNF 88480 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia Y The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This is a first office action for application Serial No. 19/226,963 filed on 06/03/2025. Claims 8-10 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 11-20 have been examined. Election/Restrictions 08-08 AIA Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-7 and 11-20 , drawn to the exchange of energy storage elements , classified in CPC class B60L 53/80 . II. Claim s 8-10 , drawn to verification of electronic components , classified in CPC class G06F 21/602 . 08-16 Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, the subcombination each have separate utility such as in the case of (i) the exchange of energy storage elements, and in (ii) verification of electronic components. See MPEP § 806.05(d). The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. 08-21 Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: Examination would require search and consideration of multiple inventions classified in separate fields of art ranging from the (i) the exchange of energy storage elements, and in (ii) verification of electronic components. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Attorney Shaun Hawkinson 2/5/2020, Applicant elected without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I (i.e. claims 1-7 and 11-12). Group II (i.e. claims 8-10) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 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 1-7 and 11-20 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. Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are directed to the abstract idea of a “mental process” and/or “mathematical concepts” as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a battery swap method (and server) comprising receiving first and second battery pack information, identification information of a battery swap station, determining whether a target battery pack associated with the second battery pack information is configured to interface with the vehicle based on the first battery pack information and the second battery pack information, and transmitting a request to open a slot to the battery swap station based on a determination that the target battery pack is configured to interface with the vehicle. These steps relate to “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or methods for performing mathematical calculation. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of decision making based on information received from sources outside the scope of the current invention (e.g. information from a vehicle and/or battery swap station). Moreover, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of memory and a processor. These claim elements, however, are recited at such a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, including an email server, telephone network, telephone unit and general purpose computers performing generic computer functions do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement, but is merely routine and conventional and that implementation of the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of the computer itself). See also e.g. at least Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional). The use of generic computer components to store, process and transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (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 the recited elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Claims 2-7 and 12-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 11 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-7 and 12-20 recite the same abstract idea of receiving information, determining whether a battery pack is configured to interface with a vehicle based on the information, and transmitting a request based on the determination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2023/0100809 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Wu discloses a server (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1, 6, and related text) comprising: a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (e.g. at least storage device 51, see e.g. at least Fig. 6, and related text); and a processor configured to access the memory to execute the computer-executable instructions (e.g. at least processor 50, id.), wherein the processor is further configured to receive first battery pack information from a vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 34, 37, 72, Fig. 1, and related text, receiving battery swapping information from a vehicle, including, e.g., identification information about the number, type, or capacity of the batteries which should be replaced on the vehicle), receive identification information of a battery swap station and second battery pack information from the battery swap station (id.), determine whether a target battery pack associated with the second battery pack information is configured to interface with the vehicle based on the first battery pack information and the second battery pack information (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 38-40), and transmit a request to open a slot to the battery swap station based on a determination that the target battery pack is configured to interface with the vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 106, 123, 134, 183). Regarding claim 2 , Wu discloses that the processor is further configured to receive vehicle information from the vehicle (see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text), wherein the vehicle information includes a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle and a software package version of the vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 34, 37, 53, 72, 77), wherein the first battery pack information includes first identification information of an existing battery pack included in the vehicle, first BMS information of the existing battery pack, and first diagnostic information of the existing battery pack (id.), and wherein the second battery pack information includes second identification information of the target battery pack included in the battery swap station, second BMS information of the target battery pack, and second diagnostic information of the target battery pack (id.). Regarding claim 11 , Wu discloses a battery swap method (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 2-4, and related text) comprising: receiving, from a vehicle, first battery pack information (see e.g. at least ¶ 34, 37, 72, Fig. 1, and related text, receiving battery swapping information from a vehicle, including, e.g., identification information about the number, type, or capacity of the batteries which should be replaced on the vehicle); receiving, from a battery swap station, identification information of the battery swap station and second battery pack information (id.); determining whether a target battery pack associated with the second battery pack information is configured to interface with the vehicle based on the first battery pack information and the second battery pack information (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 38-40); and transmitting a request to open a slot to the battery swap station based on a determination that the target battery pack is configured to interface with the vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 106, 123, 134, 183). Regarding claim 12 , Wu discloses that transmitting the request to open the slot to the battery swap station includes receiving vehicle information from the vehicle (see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text), wherein the vehicle information includes a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle and a software package version of the vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 34, 37, 53, 72, 77), wherein the first battery pack information includes first identification information of an existing battery pack included in the vehicle, first BMS information of the existing battery pack, and first diagnostic information of the existing battery pack (id.), and wherein the second battery pack information includes second identification information of the target battery pack included in the battery swap station, second BMS information of the target battery pack, and second diagnostic information of the target battery pack (id.) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-7 and 13-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/226,963 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 19/226,963 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights