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 . Claims 1-9 were originally pending in this application, of which claims 5-7 and 9 have been amended and claims 10-18 were added in the preliminary amendments filed concurrently with the original filing of the application. Thus, claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) 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 “step”) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “calculation unit” in claims 1-18, “output unit” in claims 1-18, “estimation unit” in claims 2-4, 7-8 and 10-18, “period input unit” in claims 6 and 13-15, “warning unit” in claims 7-8 and 16, “threshold value input unit” in claims 8 and 17, “display device” in claims 9 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “calculation unit” in claims 1-18, “output unit” in claims 1-18, “estimation unit” in claims 2-4, 7-8 and 10-18, “period input unit” in claims 6 and 13-15, “warning unit” in claims 7-8 and 16, “threshold value input unit” in claims 8 and 17, “display device” in claims 9 and 18 all use a generic placeholder “unit” or “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Calculation unit: [0031] – “The processor 31 includes a data acquisition unit 311, an input unit 312, an authentication unit 313, an estimation unit 314, an electric power calculation unit 315, a time calculation unit 316, an output unit 317, and a warning unit 318 by executing the work analysis program.”
Output unit: [0031] – “The processor 31 includes a data acquisition unit 311, an input unit 312, an authentication unit 313, an estimation unit 314, an electric power calculation unit 315, a time calculation unit 316, an output unit 317, and a warning unit 318 by executing the work analysis program.”
Estimation Unit: [0031] – “The processor 31 includes a data acquisition unit 311, an input unit 312, an authentication unit 313, an estimation unit 314, an electric power calculation unit 315, a time calculation unit 316, an output unit 317, and a warning unit 318 by executing the work analysis program.”
Period input unit: [0031, 0052] – “The processor 31 includes a data acquisition unit 311, an input unit 312, an authentication unit 313, an estimation unit 314, an electric power calculation unit 315, a time calculation unit 316, an output unit 317, and a warning unit 318 by executing the work analysis program… The input unit 312 receives an input of the value of the target period by the request message. That is, the input unit 312 is an example of a period input unit.”
Warning unit: [0031] – “The processor 31 includes a data acquisition unit 311, an input unit 312, an authentication unit 313, an estimation unit 314, an electric power calculation unit 315, a time calculation unit 316, an output unit 317, and a warning unit 318 by executing the work analysis program.”
Threshold value input unit: [0031, 0053] – “The processor 31 includes a data acquisition unit 311, an input unit 312, an authentication unit 313, an estimation unit 314, an electric power calculation unit 315, a time calculation unit 316, an output unit 317, and a warning unit 318 by executing the work analysis program… Upon receiving the request message in which the threshold value is designated by the request parameter, the input unit 312 of the work analysis device 300 rewrites the threshold value associated with the user ID of the transmission source of the request message in the account table 353. That is, the input unit 312 is an example of a threshold value input unit.”
Display device: [0016, 0042] - The operation terminal 142 is a display device including a touch panel, for example. Further, the operation terminal 142 may include a display device such as an LCD… A user such as an operator of the work machine 100, an owner of the work machine, or a person in charge of a construction site accesses the work analysis device 300 using a display device such as a PC or a smartphone in order to grasp the state of the work machine 100. For example, the user accesses the work analysis device 300 by a web browser of the display device. The display device may be the operation terminal 142 of the work machine 100.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“A display control system for a work machine driven by a battery, the display control system comprising: a calculation unit configured to calculate information regarding a remaining operating time of the work machine, based on a remaining level of the battery and a behavior of the work machine in a predetermined period; and an output unit configured to output a signal for displaying the information regarding the remaining operating time.”
The limitations of calculate information regarding a remaining operating time of the work machine, based on a remaining level of the battery and a behavior of the work machine in a predetermined period, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. This limitation can also fall under the mathematical concept grouping because the limitation is merely calculating, which would be done using a mathematical formula. That is, other than reciting “a calculation unit configured to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a calculation unit configured to” language, calculate information regarding a remaining operating time of the work machine, based on a remaining level of the battery and a behavior of the work machine in a predetermined period in the context of the claim encompasses a person performing calculations with the aid of pen and paper or a calculator using variables that have been provided. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding 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 (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using a calculation unit to perform the recited step. The calculation unit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as part of a software program executed by a processor) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations of an output unit configured to output a signal for displaying the information regarding the remaining operating time are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of outputting or displaying results from the calculating step) and amounts to mere post solution output in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of a work machine driven by a battery is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic battery driven work machine) such that it is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-18 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 2 recites “an estimation unit configured to estimate a transition of work content of the work machine in the predetermined period, based on a measurement signal of the work machine, wherein the calculation unit calculates the information regarding the remaining operating time, based on the estimated transition of the work content” and the estimation unit is evaluated similarly to the calculation unit above as an additional element. A measurement signal is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., merely data gathering or transmitting/receiving data) and is considered insignificant extra solution activity. The limitation of estimating in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at data provided (for example, an image) and making a determination of the work content (i.e., looks like 2 yards), which can be done in the mind.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the information regarding the remaining operating time includes a remaining operating time, and the calculation unit determines power consumption related to predetermined work content, based on the estimated transition of the work content and a transition of power consumption in the predetermined period, and calculates the remaining operating time in a case where the work machine continues the predetermined work content”. The remaining operating time is merely specifying what variable is calculated from the calculating step in claim 1. The determining and calculating steps encompass analyzing data to identify/calculate a power consumption, and using that power consumption and estimated work content to calculate a remaining operating time, which can be done in the mind with the use of pen/paper or calculator.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the calculation unit determines power consumption related to traveling of the work machine, based on the estimated transition of the work content and the transition of power consumption in the predetermined period, and calculates the remaining operating time in a case where the work machine continues the traveling”. The determining step encompasses analyzing data to identify/calculate power consumption and remaining operating time, which can be done in the mind with the use of pen/paper or calculator.
Claims 5 and 10-12 recite “wherein the information regarding the remaining operating time includes an end timing of an operable period” which is further specifying the variable that is calculated in claim 1.
Claims 6 and 13-15 recite “a period input unit configured to receive an input of the predetermined period” and the period input unit is evaluated similarly to the calculation unit above as an additional element. The limitation of receiving an input of the predetermined period is merely transmitting/receiving data, which is considered an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 7 and 16 recite “a warning unit configured to issue a warning when the remaining operating time falls below a threshold value” and the warning unit is evaluated similarly to the calculation unit above as an additional element. The limitation of the remaining operating time falls below a threshold value requires a determination in the form of a simple comparison, which can be performed in the human mind. The limitation of issuing a warning is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of outputting or displaying results from the calculating step) and amounts to mere post solution output in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 8 and 17 recite “a threshold value input unit configured to receive an input of the threshold value” and the threshold value input unit is evaluated similarly to the calculation unit above as an additional element. The limitation of receiving an input of the threshold value is merely transmitting/receiving data, which is considered an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “a display device configured to display the information regarding the remaining operating time, based on the signal”. The display is an additional element recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic display). The limitation of displaying information regarding the remaining operating time based on the signal is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of displaying results from the calculating step) and amounts to mere post solution output in the form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsolek (US 2023/0117372 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marsolek discloses a display control system (see at least [0028] – controller 104 including operator interface 116 can include various output devices such as screens, video displays, monitors and the like that can be used to display) for a work machine driven by a battery (see at least [0014] – one or more batteries 16 to generate power to propel the working machine 10), the display control system comprising: a calculation unit configured to calculate information regarding a remaining operating time of the work machine (see at least Fig. 3, [0028, 0038] – remaining operational time given operation mode of the machine), based on a remaining level of the battery and a behavior of the work machine in a predetermined period (see at least Fig. 3, [0028, 0030, 0035-0038] – additional criteria including planned operational period… based on one or more criteria 202 and a remaining battery charge 204, the controller can determine if a full performance mode 208 should be implemented, or if reduced power consumption mode 212 should be implemented to extend duration of operation… the determination can be made automatically and the operator can be alerted of the determination of the mode of operation and other information related to that mode of operation (e.g., run time available in that mode of operation)); and an output unit configured to output a signal for displaying the information regarding the remaining operating time (see at least [0028] – display remaining operational time given operation mode of the machine).
Regarding claim 6, Marsolek discloses further comprising a period input unit configured to receive an input of the predetermined period (see at least [0030] – operator interface 116, database 105, or other input can be used to add additional criterial input such as planned operational period).
Regarding claim 9, Marsolek discloses comprising a display device configured to display the information regarding the remaining operating time, based on the signal (see at least [0028] – display remaining operational time given operation mode of the machine).
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.
Claims 2-4, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Chembrammel (US 2024/0112099 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Marsolek discloses comprising an estimation unit configured to estimate a transition of work content of the work machine in the predetermined period, wherein the calculation unit calculates the information regarding the remaining operating time, based on the estimated transition of the work content (see at least Fig. 3, [0028, 0030, 0035-0038] – additional criteria input includes planned operational period and amount of material to be moved by the working machine… based on one or more criteria 202 and a remaining battery charge 204, the controller can determine if a full performance mode 208 should be implemented, or if reduced power consumption mode 212 should be implemented to extend duration of operation… the determination can be made automatically and the operator can be alerted of the determination of the mode of operation and other information related to that mode of operation (e.g., run time available in that mode of operation).
Marsolek does not appear to explicitly disclose an estimation unit configured to estimate a transition of work content of the work machine in the predetermined period, based on a measurement signal of the work machine.
Chembrammel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: an estimation unit configured to estimate a transition of work content of the work machine in the predetermined period, based on a measurement signal of the work machine (see at least [0011, 0013, 0021] – sensors are employed both before and during the material moving operation to define a remaining volume of material to be moved to the specified destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Chembrammel into the invention of Marsolek with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to enable real-time completion updates using sensors to define the remaining source material volume and optimize the trip sequencing (Chembrammel – [0011, 0013]). Doing so would provide a more accurate representation of the future operating capability of the working machine (Marsolek – [0041]), thereby improving the accuracy of the remaining operating time displayed to the operator.
Regarding claim 3, Marsolek discloses wherein the information regarding the remaining operating time includes a remaining operating time, and the calculation unit determines power consumption related to predetermined work content, based on the estimated transition of the work content and a transition of power consumption in the predetermined period, and calculates the remaining operating time in a case where the work machine continues the predetermined work content (see at least Fig. 3, [0028, 0030, 0035-0038] – criterial relating to power consumption… additional criteria input includes planned operational period and amount of material to be moved by the working machine… based on one or more criteria 202 and a remaining battery charge 204, the controller can determine if a full performance mode 208 should be implemented, or if reduced power consumption mode 212 should be implemented to extend duration of operation… the determination can be made automatically and the operator can be alerted of the determination of the mode of operation and other information related to that mode of operation (e.g., run time available in that mode of operation)).
Regarding claim 4, Marsolek discloses wherein the calculation unit determines power consumption related to traveling of the work machine, based on the estimated transition of the work content and the transition of power consumption in the predetermined period, and calculates the remaining operating time in a case where the work machine continues the traveling (see at least Fig. 3, [0028, 0030, 0035-0038] – criterial relating to power consumption… criteria sensors 108 can measure operational characteristics that relate to power consumption such as machine speed, machine acceleration… additional criteria input includes planned operational period, size of the work area, and amount of material to be moved by the working machine… based on one or more criteria 202 and a remaining battery charge 204, the controller can determine if a full performance mode 208 should be implemented, or if reduced power consumption mode 212 should be implemented to extend duration of operation… the determination can be made automatically and the operator can be alerted of the determination of the mode of operation and other information related to that mode of operation (e.g., run time available in that mode of operation)).
Regarding claims 13-15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claims 13-15 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 6; therefore, claims 13-15 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 9, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 9; therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 9.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Marks (US 2015/0200554 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Marsolek does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the information regarding the remaining operating time includes an end timing of an operable period.
However, Marsolek does disclose wherein the information regarding the remaining operating time includes a timing duration of an operable period.
Marks teaches the following limitations: wherein the information regarding the remaining operating time includes an end timing of an operable period (see at least [0039] – how much time remains or estimated time of day that the main battery 120 and auxiliary battery 131 will run out of power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Marks into the invention of Marsolek with a reasonable expectation of success. Marks demonstrates that either a remaining duration or a time of day when the battery will run out of power can be indicated. These are communicating the same information in different ways, and either way is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. A user would be able to grasp that power will run out in 45 minutes, or equivalently that it is currently 1:00 PM and power will run out at 1:45 PM. This would allow the user to track the clock time instead, which may be preferable and more comfortable to certain users. Making this modification would yield predictable results.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Li (US 2010/0144393 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Marsolek does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising a warning unit configured to issue a warning when the remaining operating time falls below a threshold value.
Li teaches the following limitations: a warning unit configured to issue a warning when the remaining operating time falls below a threshold value (see at least [0045] – an audible alert is given once the true-life battery indicator hits a specified time remaining, this specified time remaining is selected by the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Li into the invention of Marsolek with a reasonable expectation of success. Li demonstrates that a user can set a remaining time for a battery so that they are alerted when the remaining time of the battery falls below that level. Li says this is useful so that a user can know before a complete loss of battery happens (Li – [0045]). Providing alerts when batteries fall below certain levels (i.e., SOC, run time, etc.,) is known in various applications to alert users that the battery needs to be recharged or replaced, thereby warning and giving the user time to do so before the battery completely dies. Similarly, allowing users to select various settings is known because it provides the user more control. In this specific scenario, certain users may find comfort in knowing further ahead of time (i.e., 30 minutes) before a battery is going to die so they can recharge as needed, while others may want to be notified with less time (i.e., 10 minutes). Making this modification would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Marsolek does not appear to explicitly disclose comprising a threshold value input unit configured to receive an input of the threshold value.
Li teaches the following limitations: a threshold value input unit configured to receive an input of the threshold value (see at least [0045] – an audible alert is given once the true-life battery indicator hits a specified time remaining, this specified time remaining is selected by the user).
The motivation to combine Marsolek and Li is the same as in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Chembrammel and Marks.
Regarding claims 10-12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claims 10-12 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claims 10-12 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsolek in view of Chembrammel and Li.
Regarding claims 16-17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 7-8, and it has been determined that claims 16-17 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 7-8; therefore, claims 16-17 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 7-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is a list of the relevant prior art that was cited but not applied: Inoue (US 2016/0083932 A1), Wulf (US 2023/0273624 A1), and Kinugawa (US 2025/0113760 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights