Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment and remarks filed 4/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claims 1-9 and 16-20 being withdrawn. Claims 10-14 were amended. Claims 10-15 are being considered herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 10-15 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 10-15 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 10 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a system (machine) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10. A system, comprising:
a vehicle comprising an electric motor and an energy storage device; and
a controller comprising computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that cause the controller to:
adjust a travel plan in response to a comparison of electrical energy needed for the travel plan to electrical energy available in the energy storage device, wherein the electrical energy needed is determined based on a vehicle road load is based on a drive power of an electric motor, a mass of the vehicle, weather data, a roof box effect, and an acceleration of the vehicle, wherein the weather data comprises an effect of wind, rain, and snow, wherein the wind corresponds to an air resistance force, wherein the air resistance force is based on an air resistance coefficient and an area of the vehicle perpendicular to a velocity of the vehicle, wherein the rain and snow correspond to rolling resistance, and wherein
the electrical energy needed is further based on a driving resistance and the velocity, wherein the driving resistance and the velocity are determined via an equation system having n unknowns and m available knowns used for the driving resistance, wherein during operation of the vehicle the equation system comprises i equations, where i ;> n, are set up at different times t, for which the m available knowns are provided, so that a not underdetermined equation system having i equations is provided.
The highlighted limitations above are a mathematical concept and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of a comparison of electrical energy needed to electrical energy available the electrical energy needed is based on drive power of a motor, mass of a vehicle, weather data and acceleration of a vehicle, and further based on driving resistance and velocity which is determined via an equation system. As is evident from the specification, the claimed calculations/computations is a mathematical calculation as evidenced by equations 1-4 of applicant’s specification. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus the claim recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10. A system, comprising:
a vehicle comprising an electric motor and an energy storage device; and
a controller comprising computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that cause the controller to:
adjust a travel plan in response to a comparison of electrical energy needed for the travel plan to electrical energy available in the energy storage device, wherein the electrical energy needed is determined based on a vehicle road load is based on a drive power of an electric motor, a mass of the vehicle, weather data, a roof box effect, and an acceleration of the vehicle, wherein the weather data comprises an effect of wind, rain, and snow, wherein the wind corresponds to an air resistance force, wherein the air resistance force is based on an air resistance coefficient and an area of the vehicle perpendicular to a velocity of the vehicle, wherein the rain and snow correspond to rolling resistance, and wherein
the electrical energy needed is further based on a driving resistance and the velocity, wherein the driving resistance and the velocity are determined via an equation system having n unknowns and m available knowns used for the driving resistance, wherein during operation of the vehicle the equation system comprises i equations, where i ;> n, are set up at different times t, for which the m available knowns are provided, so that a not underdetermined equation system having i equations is provided.
Claim 10 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitations of a vehicle comprising an electric motor and an energy storage device; and a controller comprising computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that cause the controller to adjust a travel plan in response to the above identified mathematical calculations/concepts. The limitation of adjusting a travel plan is claimed generically (the adjustment is stated as a mere result of the calculations but provides no specific implementation as to how the adjustment is carried out or implemented or how it is improving the system) and is mere post solutions actions which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The vehicle comprising an electric motor and energy storage device is an additional element that is merely being used in its ordinary capacity and is merely a field of use for performing the mathematical calculations. The controller is also an additional element which is configured to carry out mathematical calculations/concepts, i.e., it is the tool that is used to perform the recited mathematical calculations/concept. However, the controller is claimed generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is a “controller”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a controller. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the controller does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(l) for more information on this point. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, there are two additional elements. The first is the controller, which is configured to perform the mathematical calculations. As explained previously, the controller is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The second additional element is the vehicle comprising an electric motor and an energy storage device. These elements are generic and conventional components in the art. The use of generic/general purpose computer/controller to perform calculations and planning is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for vehicle controllers and electric vehicles (including motors and electric storage devices) are conventional platforms for such controllers. MPEP 2106.05(d)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 10 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 10 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 11-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 11-15 include limitations that are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exceptions (claims 11, 12 and 15) and/or are well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application (claims 13 and 14) as adjusting a travel plan closer or further away based on the mathematical comparison of the electrical energy needed to the electrical energy available is mere post solution actions based on the results of the comparison. Therefore, dependent claims 11-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for the rejection of independent claim 10.
As such, claims 10-15 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daum et al. (US 2012/0316717) in view of Son (US 2020/0391741) and further in view of Sautermeister et al. (“Influence of Measurement and Prediction Uncertainties on Range Estimation for Electric Vehicles”).
Regarding claim 10, Daum discloses a system, comprising:
a vehicle comprising a motor and an energy storage device (See at least Fig. 2; ¶[0040]); and
a controller comprising computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory memory thereof that cause the controller to (See at least Fig. 3; ¶[0047]):
adjust a travel plan in response to a comparison of energy needed for the travel plan to energy available in the energy storage device (See at least Fig. 9; element 912 of comparison; ¶[0109] and [0126]),
wherein the energy needed is determined based on a vehicle road load is based on a drive power of an electric motor, a mass of the vehicle (See at least ¶[0051]-[0052]).
Daum does not explicitly disclose, however Son discloses:
… that that energy needed is determined based further on weather data, a roof box effect, and an acceleration of the vehicle, wherein the weather data comprises an effect of wind, rain, and snow, wherein the wind corresponds to an air resistance force, wherein the air resistance force is based on an air resistance coefficient and an area of the vehicle perpendicular to a velocity of the vehicle, and wherein the rain and snow correspond to rolling resistance (see at least Fig. 7A and 7B and ¶[0046]-[0052] and [0074]-[0079]. The examiner notes roof box effect is known to a skilled in the art as a type of air resistance. Additionally, according to MPEP 2143, “may properly rely on common sense or ordinary ingenuity. In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361, 121 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Absent some articulated rationale, a finding that a combination of prior art would have been ‘common sense’ or ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious.’"). Any attachment on a vehicle that increases aerodynamic resistance would negatively affecting fuel consumption is known to a skill in the art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective data of the present invention to use the specifics of the system of Son going to the determination of driving load on a vehicle based on weather and acceleration data with the control and energy management system of Daum that determines the estimated electrical energy loads in a vehicle during a trip as one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a driving load based on weather, and the impacts it has on rolling resistance, air resistance and gradient resistance used to predict driving load would allow to more accurately predict/calculate a driving load for a vehicle (see Son ¶[0014]-[0015]).
Daum as modified by Son does not explicity teach wherein the electrical energy needed is further based on a driving resistance and the velocity, wherein the driving resistance and the velocity are determined via an equation system having n unknowns and m available knowns used for the driving resistance, wherein during operation of the vehicle the equation system comprises i equations, where i ;> n, are set up at different times t, for which the m available knowns are provided, so that a not underdetermined equation system having i equations is provided. However, such matter is taught by Sautermeister et al. (see at least Section IIIA-E, particularly sections D-E as it is explained that driving resistance, velocity and acceleration take into account various uncertainties and that the more uncertainties that a model takes into account the more accurate a model, but that various uncertainties are focused on due to the highest influence that the uncertainty can have on the overall model; and Section V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective data of the present invention to use the specifics of the system of Sautermeister et al. taking into account various uncertainties into a range estimation algorithm with the control and energy management system of Daum as modified by Son that determines the estimated electrical energy loads in a vehicle during a trip as one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that using machine learning approaches including additional predication uncertainties going to vehicle parameters and disturbances forces along with driver and traffic uncertainties will allow for higher accuracy in predicting energy range for vehicles (see Sautermeister et al. Section VI).
Regarding claim 11 (currently amended), Daum as modified by Son and Sautermeister teaches wherein i is greater than n (see at least Sautermeister et al. Section III D-E). However, modified Daum does not explicitly teach that n is equal to 3 to 8 and i is equal to 1000 to 4000. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have that n is equal to 3 to 8 and i is equal to 1000 to 4000, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Daum as modified by Son and Sautermeister teaches wherein m known values for determining the vehicle road load comprise a drive power of the motor and a velocity of the vehicle, and wherein m available knowns are provided for i equations, each at a time ti Sautermeister et al. (see at least Section IIIA-E, and Section V)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective data of the present invention to use the specifics of the system of Sautermeister et al. taking into account various uncertainties into a range estimation algorithm with the control and energy management system of Daum as modified by Son that determines the estimated electrical energy loads in a vehicle during a trip as one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that using machine learning approaches including additional predication uncertainties going to vehicle parameters and disturbances forces along with driver and traffic uncertainties will allow for higher accuracy in predicting energy range for vehicles (see Sautermeister et al. Section VI).
Regarding claim 13, Daum as modified by Son and Sautermeister teaches:
wherein the instructions further enable the controller to adjust the travel plan to route to a charging station closer to the vehicle than previously routed in response to the electrical energy needed for the travel plan being greater than the electrical energy available in the energy storage device (See at least Daum: Para. 0109).
Regarding claim 14, Daum as modified by Son and Sautermeister teaches:
wherein the instructions further enable the controller to adjust the travel plan to route to a charging station farther from the vehicle than previously routed in response to the energy needed for the travel plan being less than the energy available in the energy storage device (See at least Daum: Para. 0109, it at least implies that the vehicle can wait longer or go to a charging station farther when the vehicle is sufficient on energy).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daum in view of Son and Sautermeister as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Follen et al. (US 20180222309, hereinafter Follen, already of record).
Regarding claim 15, Daum in combination with Son and Sautermeister teaches the system of claim 10. Daum further disclose:
wherein the vehicle road load is further based on a roadway slope (See at least Daum: Para. 0052) …
Yet, Daum in combination with Son and Sautermeister does not explicitly teach:
…and wherein the roadway slope is assumed to be constant for at least two successive points in time ti, t+i1, if i equations are set up at different point in time ti and the roadway slope changes continuously at successive point in ti, t+i1.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Follen teaches:
…and wherein the roadway slope is assumed to be constant for at least two successive points in time ti, t+i1, if i equations are set up at different point in time ti and the roadway slope changes continuously at successive point in ti, t+i1 (See at least Follen: Para. 0056, the examiner interprets it’s a mathematical expression of constant slope).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Daum in combination with Son and Sautermeister with constant slope as taught by Follen 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 will increase accuracy and reliability of road load.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI whose telephone number is (313)446-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, JAMES TRAMMELL can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3666A
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666