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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/17/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended, no claims have been withdrawn, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently under consideration in this application.
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 1-20 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.
Step 1: With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 14, claims a method of operating an electrified vehicle, and an electrified vehicle, as such these claims fall within the statutory categories of a machine, a process and product.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is set forth below.
(Highlighted portions in bold of the claim constitute an abstract idea; the remaining limitations are "additional elements"): The claim 1 recites:
1. A method of operating an electrified vehicle, comprising the steps of:
monitoring the electrified vehicle to determine a baseline weight which is propelled by the electrified vehicle;
determining an ambient temperature to which the electrified vehicle is exposed;
if the ambient temperature is less than a predetermined temperature threshold then performing an environmental assessment to determine whether the electrified vehicle is subjected to accumulation of frozen water;
if the electrified vehicle is subjected to accumulation of frozen water then:
estimating a frozen water w
eight carried by the electrified vehicle in excess of the baseline weight;
(B) estimating a range impairment according to the estimated frozen water weight;
(C) if the estimated range impairment is in a first zone of impairment then providing a mild warning to a user of the electrified vehicle indicating a first loss of driving range due to the frozen water weight; and
(D) if the estimated range impairment is in a second zone of impairment
greater than the first zone of impairment then (i) identifying a facility which is configured to supply energy which melts the frozen water and (ii) providing an urgent warning to the user indicating a second loss of driving range due to the frozen water weight and recommending that the electrified vehicle visit the identified facility.
As to the first step of the patent eligibility analysis (Step 2A, Prong 1), the high lighted
portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea. These steps describe the concept of parameter setting in operating an electrified vehicle. All of these concepts relate to parameter setting practices in which operating an electrified vehicle between operator and machine are performed. The description in claim 1 of a method to operate a machine for monitoring an electrified vehicle based on estimating a machine is an abstract idea falling within mental processes category.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application because as currently recited, the judicial exception of the abstract
idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception for
the following reasons: For claim 1, the claim does include additional elements such as a mild warning, an urgent warning, and recommending that are not 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. Each of these additional elements seems to be a display of some kind. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. For claim 14, additional elements like a load management device, an ambient temperature sensor and a controller are some kind of tool(s) to gather data for executing the abstract idea. They are also insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a controller/computer; or the claim amounts to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Step 2B: the additional elements identified above in claims 1 and 14 are well understood and routine conventional activity. For examples, the load management device, Applicant’s specification discloses ride height sensors can determine vehicle weight according to known methods (page 2, line 30 to page 3, line 3). Applicant’s specification also discloses generic computer hardware without specific structure or algorithms, e.g., sensors (page 10, lines 2-5) and a controller (page 10, lines 9-12). Since the warnings and recommendation appear to be displays or sound, for instant, a touchscreen display panel and/or a voice recognition system is also known as a human-machine interface (HMI) to obtain user/operator input (page 10, lines 5-9 of Applicant’s specification).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly
more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under35 U.S.C.101. The same conclusion is reached for independent claim 14, which recites substantially similar limitations directed to an apparatus, and the dependent claims, see below for detail. Claims 2-13 are dependent on claim 1 and claims 15-20 are dependent on claim 14, and including all the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Therefore, claims 2-13 and 15-20 recite the same abstract idea of “a method of operating an electrified vehicle” and “an electrified vehicle”.
The claim 2 recites “wherein the step of estimating the range impairment includes a prediction of spontaneous loss of the frozen water.” The claim 3 recites “wherein the prediction of spontaneous loss is responsive to a weather forecast including a time-dependent ambient temperature factor”. The prediction is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This is a mental comparison abstract idea and fits into a limitation being able to be performed in the mind.
The claim 4 recites “wherein identifying the facility is comprised of examining a predetermined list of facilities providing apparatus which is configured for spraying heated water onto the electrified vehicle.” The claim 5 recites “wherein identifying the facility is comprised of examining a predetermined list of facilities providing apparatus which is configured for radiating heat onto the electrified vehicle.” This is insignificant extra-solution
activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.0S(g)).
The claim 10 recites “wherein the identifying of the facility includes a comparison of an increased distance range to be obtained from melting the frozen water with a detour distance added to a current drive of the electrified vehicle by detouring to the facility.” This is a mental Process - mentally choosing best result by evaluation/comparison).
The claim 12 recites “wherein the environmental assessment is comprised of capturing image data using a camera to detect frozen water on or nearby the electrified vehicle.” The claim 13 recites “wherein the environmental assessment is comprised of accessing a weather forecast.” The environmental assessment is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This is a mental comparison abstract idea and fits into a limitation being able to be performed in the mind.
The claim 17 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to estimate the range impairment using a prediction of spontaneous loss of the frozen water.” The claim 18 recites “wherein the prediction of spontaneous loss is responsive to a weather forecast including a time-dependent ambient temperature factor”. The prediction is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process, an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). This is a mental comparison abstract idea and fits into a limitation being able to be performed in the mind.
The claim 19 recites “wherein identifying the facility is comprised of examining a predetermined list of facilities providing apparatus which is configured for spraying heated water onto the electrified vehicle.” This is insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.0S(g)).
Therefore, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the
claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract
idea. Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible as they do not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 20210123756) in view of Pease (US 20100138142).
Regarding claim 1, Cha discloses a method of operating an electrified vehicle (abstract; ¶ 0006, 0018), comprising the step of:
monitoring the electrified vehicle to determine a baseline weight (i.e. called empty based or no load of the electric vehicle) which is propelled the electrified vehicle (¶ 0008, 0038);
determining (i.e. by an external temperature sensor) an ambient temperature (i.e. an external temperature) to which the electrified vehicle is exposed (¶ 0012, 0042);
if the ambient temperature (i.e. an external temperature) is less than (i.e. below or decreased) a predetermined temperature threshold (i.e. preset temperature) then performing an environmental assessment (i.e. state information and road information) to determine whether the electrified vehicle is subjected to accumulation of frozen water (i.e. weight) (¶ 0004, 0009, 0017-0019, 0022, 0045, 0047, 0049-0050, 0053-0054);
if the electrified vehicle is subject to accumulation of frozen water (i.e. weight) then:
(A) estimates a frozen water weight (e.g. loading cargo or attaching a towing trailer. The weight of the loading cargo or the weight of the towing trailer is considered similar the weight of a frozen water weight. The detector 110 can detect the state information of the vehicle with weight and/or without weight. The controller 160 compares the actual estimated weight to a reference value of preset weight and estimates the distance of travel.) carried by the electrified vehicle in excess of the baseline weight (i.e. called empty based or no load of the electric vehicle) (¶ 0004, 0006-0009, 0013, 0018, 0086);
(B) estimates a range (i.e. distance) impairment according to the estimated frozen water weight (¶ 0020);
(C) if the estimated range impairment is in a first zone (i.e. weight changed or the actual weight of the vehicle; see figure 6 for notification of the initial weight changed) of impairment then providing a mild warning (i.e. a control signal indicated vehicle weight) to a user of the electrified vehicle indicating a first loss (¶ 0006) of driving range due to the frozen water weight (¶ 0013, 0041, 0052, 0059-0061, 0067); and
(D) if the estimated range (i.e. distance) impairment is in a second zone (i.e. weight change exceeds the estimated weight) of impairment greater than the first zone (i.e. weight changed or the actual weight of the vehicle) of impairment (¶ 0061, 0065, 0067, 0078) then
(ii) provides an urgent warning (i.e. a message guiding is output on the display 120 when the weight estimator 161 determines that the weight change amount exceeds the reference value.) to the user indicating a second loss (i.e. a shorter distance of travel based on the estimated weight, see an example in the ¶ 0078) of driving range due to the frozen water weight (¶ 0061, 0078).
Cha discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for (i) identifies a facility which is configured to supply energy which melts the frozen water, and recommending that the electrified vehicle visit the identified facility.
However, Pease teaches identifies a facility (i.e. a closest recharging station) which is configured to supply energy which melts the frozen water, and recommending (i.e. alerting user/operator) that the electrified vehicle visit the identified facility (¶ 0011, 0017, 0064-0066, 0083).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of electric vehicle power and a problem-solving area of vehicle travel range. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such identifying and recommending of the closest facility of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 2, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Cha further discloses wherein the step of estimating the range (i.e. distance) impairment includes a prediction of spontaneous loss of the frozen water (¶ 0009, 0014, 0045).
With respect to claim 3, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Cha further discloses wherein the prediction of spontaneous loss is responsive to a weather forecast (¶ 0022, i.e. forecasted changes in weather conditions) including a time-dependent ambient temperature factor (i.e. temperatures warmer or colder than target) (¶ 0074).
With respect to claim 4, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses wherein identifying the facility (i.e. a closest recharging station) is comprised of examining a predetermined list of facilities (i.e. stations) providing apparatus which is configured for spraying heated water onto the electrified vehicle (¶ 0017, 0075).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such predetermined heating facilities of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 5, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses wherein identifying the facility (i.e. a closest recharging station) is comprised of examining a predetermined list of facilities providing apparatus which is configured for radiating heat onto the electrified vehicle (¶ 0017, 0075).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such predetermined heating facilities of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 6, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses relocating the electrified vehicle (i.e. an electric or hybrid vehicle) to the facility (¶ 0011, 0082); and exposing the electrified vehicle to the supplied energy (¶ 0066).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such location on long the route of travel of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 7, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses monitoring a progress of melting of the frozen water (¶ 0010, 0018); and terminating the supplied energy when the progress reaches a predetermined threshold (¶ 0028, 0030).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such monitoring of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 8, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Cha further discloses wherein the monitoring of progress is comprised of re-estimating (i.e. update) the frozen water weight (¶ 0049-0050, 0061).
With respect to claim 9, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses recharging a battery of the electrified vehicle (i.e. an electric or hybrid vehicle) while the electrified vehicle is being exposed to the supplied energy (¶ 0002, 0008, 0017).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such rechargeable battery of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 10, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses wherein the identifying of the facility includes a comparison of an increased distance range (i.e. comparing between the expected range of a vehicle before travel to the expected range calculation) to be obtained from melting the frozen water with a detour distance added to a current drive of the electrified vehicle (i.e. an electric or hybrid vehicle) by detouring to the facility (¶ 0017-0018, 0021-0025, 0062).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such distance range comparison of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 11, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Cha further discloses wherein the baseline weight includes a cargo loaded on the electrified vehicle and a weight of a trailer being towed by the electrified vehicle (¶ 0004, 0086).
With respect to claim 13, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses wherein the environmental assessment is comprised of accessing a weather forecast (¶ 0022, i.e. forecasted changes in weather conditions).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such a weather forecast of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 14, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1 (i.e. similar features) of which Cha further discloses a load monitoring device 110 (fig. 1, i.e. a detector) configured to determine the baseline weight (i.e. called empty based or no load of the electric vehicle) (¶ 0008, 0038); and a controller 160, 161 (figs. 1 and 2, i.e. a controller and weight estimator) configured to perform an environmental assessment (¶ 0039, 0045, 0047-0050, 0053-0054).
With respect to claim 17, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Cha further discloses wherein the controller 160, 161 (figs. 1 and 2, i.e. a controller and weight estimator) is further configured to estimate the range impairment using a prediction of spontaneous loss of the frozen water (i.e. weight) (¶ 0009, 0014, 0045).
With respect to claim 18, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses wherein the prediction of spontaneous loss is responsive to a weather forecast (¶ 0022, i.e. forecasted changes in weather conditions) including a time-dependent ambient temperature factor (i.e. temperatures warmer or colder than target) (¶ 0074).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such a weather forecast of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 19, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses wherein identifying the facility (i.e. a closest recharging station) is comprised of examining a predetermined list of facilities (i.e. stations) providing apparatus which is configured for spraying heated water onto the electrified vehicle (¶ 0017, 0075).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha and Pease before him or her, to include such predetermined heating facilities of Pease because the expected range of a vehicle with the intended destination and determining whether the vehicle is able to continue to the destination on the remaining charge. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance a vehicle can travel (¶ 0001).
With respect to claim 20, Cha in view of Pease discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pease further discloses wherein the load monitoring device 110 (fig. 1, see figure 1, i.e. called a detector) is comprised of a ride height sensor (¶ 0064, i.e. a weight detector/estimator).
Claim(s) 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 20210123756) in view of Pease (US 20100138142) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Cox et al. (US 20190107406).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Cha in view of Pease discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above except for wherein the environmental assessment is comprised of capturing image data using a camera to detect frozen water on or nearby the electrified vehicle.
However, Cox teaches wherein the environmental assessment is comprised of capturing image data using a camera to detect frozen water on or nearby the electrified vehicle (¶ 0122, 0159).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an electric vehicle. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha in view of Pease and Cox before him or her, to modify include such a camera arrangement of Cox because a vehicle running low on power may automatically determine that pulling over to a rest area, emergency lane, and removing, or “dropping off,” at least one power source may reduce enough weight of the vehicle to allow the vehicle to navigate to the closest power source replacement and/or charging area. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the vehicle to significantly reduce weight and improve power consumption (¶ 0083).
With respect to claim 16, Cha in view of Pease and Cox discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Cox further discloses a wireless transceiver configured to access a weather forecast used in the environmental assessment (¶ 0110).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an electric vehicle. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Cha in view of Pease and Cox before him or her, to modify include such a wireless transceiver of Cox because it allows communications not only between the various systems disclosed herein but also with other devices, such as devices on a network, and/or on a distributed network such as the Internet and/or in the cloud. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it facilitates communications between the vehicle and any one or more autonomous vehicle systems. These communications can include one or more of navigation information, vehicle information, occupant information, or in general any information related to the remote operation of the vehicle (¶ 0128).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to Drawing, Claim Interpretation, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, they have been withdrawn.
However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more is sustained because of additional features under Step 2A, Prong 2: For claim 1, the claim does include additional elements such as a mild warning, an urgent warning, and recommending that are not 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. Each of these additional elements seems to be a display of some kind. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. For claim 14, additional elements like a load management device, an ambient temperature sensor and a controller are some kind of tool(s) to gather data for executing the abstract idea. They are also insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a controller/computer.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the REMARKS that “The office action, in reference to claim 1, cites Cha as teaching "if the ambient temperature is less than a predetermined temperature threshold then performing an environmental assessment to determine whether the electrified vehicle is subjected to accumulation of frozen water." This is in error. In fact, Cha does not even appear to mention snow, ice or frozen water anywhere in the specification at all. Moreover, none of the paragraphs in Cha that are cited to supposedly teach this relate to frozen water. The language in this portion of claim 1 is specifically "accumulation of frozen water." Not "accumulation of weight" as the examiner implies is the same-it is not…”
In response to applicant's argument that Cha’s reference is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, Examiner disagrees because in term of weight/load because they are similar problem-solving area of vehicle travel range regardless of different payload/mass like cargo, snow, ice, packages, frozen water, things, goods, items, objects, matters, materials, articles etc. For example, consider a delivery vehicle, it can pick up (or accumulate) and drop off packages along the roads, more or less depending on the seasons and circumstances. It will affect the vehicle performance if more or less packages/loads to pick up or accumulate along the way (¶ 0004, 0018-0020, 0023, 0086). It considers a reasonably pertinent to the particular problem like “accumulation of frozen water” situation on a vehicle in term of weight/load. Similarly to the instant invention, that is it can accumulate more or less of snow/ice/frozen water depending on the weather environment. If it is more snow, the vehicle can accumulate more snow. If it is less snow, the vehicle can accumulate more snow. The range of a vehicle taking into account internal and external conditions that affect the distance and performance of a vehicle can travel.
Therefore, the combination of Cha in view of Pease fully meet the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights