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 .
This is a Final Action on the Merits. Claims 8-11 and 13-16 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on April 13th, 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 8, 11, 13, and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
The previous contingent limitations of claims 11 and 16 has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The applicant states (Amend. 8-10) that amended claims 8-11 and 13-16 overcome the current 35 USC 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A (Prong 1) – The claims are directed to an abstract idea that comprises a mental process because the features of the claims can be practically performed in the mind:
The applicant states that the claimed features are not directed to an abstract idea that comprises a mental process because the features of the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts “a human can’t perform the retrieval steps or update position of an active trace on a display” (Amend. 9). However, it is important to note that for Step 2A prong 1, the analysis merely requires that the claim include, rather consist entirely of, a mental process. Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided any rationale, reasoning or evidence explaining why the particular claim language is too complex or time consuming to be performed in a particular time frame, and Applicant has not explicitly tied previous case law to the instant claim language. For example, the claim does not require that the processes of claim 1 be performed in any particular time frame.
Amended claim 8 recites “retrieve a first predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of a travel plan, wherein the first predicted state of energy reflects non-linear energy consumption along the travel plan: retrieve an instantaneous location of a vehicle along the travel plan: retrieve a second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan, wherein the second predicted state of energy reflects non-linear energy consumption along the travel plan”. These limitations encompass determining data indicative of a predicted state of energy of the vehicle and the vehicle location, with these limitations merely being pre-solution activity consisting of data gathering and do not encompass patent-eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent”. Furthermore, the limitation “update a position of an active trace along an x-axis of a display based on the instantaneous location of the vehicle along the travel plan; and update the position of the active trace along a y-axis of the display based on the second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan” can practically be performed in the human mind and with a pen and paper.
Updating a position of an active trace along an x-axis and a y-axis can be practically performed in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. The use of generic computer components (a center localization unit) to determine the center of the intersection does not make the claim limitation patent-eligible. See, MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(III) states “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same) … The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Step 2A (Prong 2) / Step 2B:
The applicant states (Amend. 9) that “claims recite elements that provide a specific technical improvement over prior systems and result in an improved system”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended claim 1 at most discusses an abstract idea to update an active trace of a vehicles state of energy. Even if, for the sake of the argument, the determination is a new idea, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A narrow claim directed to an abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible.”). Furthermore, when a claim directed to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim, then the claim does not become patent eligible. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-11 and 13-16 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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 limitations are:
“an energy store providing energy” in at least claim 13
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.
The published specification provides corresponding structure for “an energy store” in paragraph 67.
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.
Contingent Limitations
Claims 11 and 16 contain conditional limitations:
Claim 11: “the position of the active trace along the y-axis of the display is configured to trigger at least one color change in an event where the second predicted state of energy requires intervention by an operator”
Claim 16: “the position of the active trace along the y-axis of the display is configured to trigger at least one color change in an event where the second predicted state of energy requires intervention by an operator”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitations (1)-(2) as noted above, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
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 8-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 8-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claims 8 and 13, the claims recite the abstract idea of updating an active trace of a vehicle, and mentally determine “update a position of an active trace along an x-axis of a display based on the instantaneous location of the vehicle along the travel plan; and update the position of the active trace along a y-axis of the display based on the second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan”, where these claims fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”). These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations of the mind. For example, the claim limitation encompasses mentally updating an active trace of a vehicle based off of the information provided by the car’s sensors while traveling, or alternatively, mentally updating an active trace of a vehicle based on observations by a human.
For example, a human could mentally and with the aid of pen and paper update an active trace of a vehicle.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements of an energy store (claim 13), control unit (claim 8), processor (claim 8), and memory (claim 8) are merely generic components used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
In addition, the limitation “retrieve a first predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of a travel plan, wherein the first predicted state of energy reflects non-linear energy consumption along the travel plan: retrieve an instantaneous location of a vehicle along the travel plan: retrieve a second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan, wherein the second predicted state of energy reflects non-linear energy consumption along the travel plan:” constitutes insignificant presolution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff' d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: an energy store (claim 13), control unit (claim 8), processor (claim 8), and memory (claim 8) does not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims 9-11 and 14-16 merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant claimed invention, when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “for a vehicle with a drive system supplied by an energy store. . .” claim 8).
Accordingly, claims 8-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindermann (US 20200011687 A1) (“Lindermann”) in view of Baglino (US 20170030728 A1) (“Baglino”).
With respect to claim 8, Lindermann teaches a system for a vehicle with a drive system supplied by an energy store, the system comprising:
a control unit with a processor and a memory (See at least Lindermann Paragraph 20 “According to yet another aspect of the invention, there is provided a vehicle energy usage tracking system, comprising: a server that includes a processor and computer-readable memory, the computer-readable memory storing a computer program; and a database that is accessible by the server, the database storing off-board vehicle information”);
retrieve a first predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of a travel plan, wherein the first predicted state of energy reflects non-linear energy consumption along the travel plan (See at least Lindermann Paragraphs 39-40 “Additionally, at this time, the vehicle backend services facility determines an energy usage prediction plan of the vehicle along the route, which is organized by a plurality of planned route segments that are each associated with a predicted energy usage information. The planned route segments along with the associated predicted energy usage information can together be referred to as an “energy usage prediction plan.” The energy usage prediction plan (or only the planned route) can be sent to the vehicle, which can then display the planned route on a display within the vehicle … The vehicle backend services facility can calculate or otherwise determine the energy usage prediction plan for the vehicle along the planned route based on a variety of factors, including historical energy usage data for the vehicle or vehicles of a similar nature along one or more route segments, vehicle starting operating conditions, weather, geography (including topography), and/or traffic conditions.”);
retrieve an instantaneous location of a vehicle along the travel plan: retrieve a second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan, wherein the second predicted state of energy reflects non-linear energy consumption along the travel plan (See at least Lindermann FIGS. 9-11 and Paragraph 126 “With reference to FIG. 9, there is shown a trip 900 with a matched point 910. The matched point 910 is a point pertaining to a matched location along the actual route and the planned route, and can correspond to a route segment start location, a route segment end location, or both. Also, FIG. 9 depicts a graph 1000 that illustrates the amount of energy usage 1020 (the y-axis) with respect to route distance 1010 (the x-axis). The solid line illustrates the predicted energy usage over route distance and the dashed line illustrates the actual energy usage over route distance. The graph 1000 depicts the model error 1050 at the matched point 910. The model error 1050 is the difference between the predicted energy usage value 1030 at the matched point 910 and the actual energy usage value 1040 at the matched point 910. The predicted energy usage value 1030 can be predicted using the energy usage prediction modelling procedure 140 (FIG. 2), as well as the methods discussed above. The actual energy usage value 1040 can be obtained from the vehicle 12 via readings or measurements from one or more onboard vehicle sensors.”);
Lindermann, however, fails to explicitly disclose to update a position of an active trace along an x-axis of a display based on the instantaneous location of the vehicle along the travel plan; and update the position of the active trace along a y-axis of the display based on the second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan.
Baglino teaches to update a position of an active trace along an x-axis of a display based on the instantaneous location of the vehicle along the travel plan; and update the position of the active trace along a y-axis of the display based on the second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan (See at least Baglino FIG. 8C and Paragraph 93 “FIG. 8C shows an example of a simulation path 828 that is provided in such a what-if scenario. The simulation path runs from the value 820 (where the what-if scenario was calculated) to a simulated end point 830. A simulation energy indicator 832 shows that the battery is predicted to have 20% energy remaining at the destination. The simulation path and the simulation energy indicator have dashed outlines to indicate that they are simulations. An area 834 informs the driver that the what-if scenario involves keeping the vehicle speed at 55 mph and turning off climate control. The simulation path 828 is an example of an energy-versus-distance measure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lindermann to update a position of an active trace along an x-axis of a display based on the instantaneous location of the vehicle along the travel plan; and update the position of the active trace along a y-axis of the display based on the second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan, as taught by Baglino as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate predicted states of energy of the vehicle (Baglino Paragraph 2 “Common to all types of vehicles is that the driver has an interest in monitoring the status of remaining energy in the vehicle, and in knowing how the level of available energy affects the remainder of the intended driving distance (e.g., the rest of the trip).”).
With respect to claim 9, and similarly claim 14, Lindermann in view of Baglino teaches that the vehicle comprises an aircraft (See at least Lindermann Paragraph 52 “Vehicle 12 is depicted in the illustrated embodiment as a passenger car, but it should be appreciated that any other vehicle including motorcycles, trucks, sports utility vehicles (SUVs), recreational vehicles (RVs), marine vessels, aircraft, etc., can also be used”).
With respect to claim 10, and similarly claim 15, Lindermann in view of Baglino teaches that the vehicle comprises an aircraft (See at least Lindermann Paragraph 52 “Vehicle 12 is depicted in the illustrated embodiment as a passenger car, but it should be appreciated that any other vehicle including motorcycles, trucks, sports utility vehicles (SUVs), recreational vehicles (RVs), marine vessels, aircraft, etc., can also be used”); and
the energy store stores electrical energy for use by the drive system (See at least Lindermann Paragraph 67 “The battery system 60 is included as a part of the vehicle electronics 20 and includes an electric battery pack 62, a battery SoC sensor 64, and a battery temperature sensor 66. The electric battery pack 62 can be a traction battery or an electric-vehicle battery that is used to provide propulsion for the vehicle 12”).
With respect to claim 13, Lindermann teaches a vehicle comprising:
a drive system (See at least Lindermann Paragraph 52 “Vehicle 12 is depicted in the illustrated embodiment as a passenger car … and battery system 60. In the illustrated embodiment, the vehicle 12 is an electric vehicle that primarily uses the battery system 60 for propulsion. However, in other embodiments, the vehicle 12 can be a hybrid (e.g., a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)) or an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle”);
an energy store providing energy to the drive system (See at least Lindermann Paragraph 67 “The battery system 60 is included as a part of the vehicle electronics 20 and includes an electric battery pack 62, a battery SoC sensor 64, and a battery temperature sensor 66. The electric battery pack 62 can be a traction battery or an electric-vehicle battery that is used to provide propulsion for the vehicle 12.”);
a control unit with a processor and a memory (See at least Lindermann Paragraph 20 “According to yet another aspect of the invention, there is provided a vehicle energy usage tracking system, comprising: a server that includes a processor and computer-readable memory, the computer-readable memory storing a computer program; and a database that is accessible by the server, the database storing off-board vehicle information”);
retrieve a first predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of a travel plan, wherein the first predicted state of energy reflects non-linear energy consumption along the travel plan (See at least Lindermann Paragraphs 39-40 “Additionally, at this time, the vehicle backend services facility determines an energy usage prediction plan of the vehicle along the route, which is organized by a plurality of planned route segments that are each associated with a predicted energy usage information. The planned route segments along with the associated predicted energy usage information can together be referred to as an “energy usage prediction plan.” The energy usage prediction plan (or only the planned route) can be sent to the vehicle, which can then display the planned route on a display within the vehicle … The vehicle backend services facility can calculate or otherwise determine the energy usage prediction plan for the vehicle along the planned route based on a variety of factors, including historical energy usage data for the vehicle or vehicles of a similar nature along one or more route segments, vehicle starting operating conditions, weather, geography (including topography), and/or traffic conditions.”);
retrieve an instantaneous location of a vehicle along the travel plan: retrieve a second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan, wherein the second predicted state of energy reflects non-linear energy consumption along the travel plan (See at least Lindermann FIGS. 9-11 and Paragraph 126 “With reference to FIG. 9, there is shown a trip 900 with a matched point 910. The matched point 910 is a point pertaining to a matched location along the actual route and the planned route, and can correspond to a route segment start location, a route segment end location, or both. Also, FIG. 9 depicts a graph 1000 that illustrates the amount of energy usage 1020 (the y-axis) with respect to route distance 1010 (the x-axis). The solid line illustrates the predicted energy usage over route distance and the dashed line illustrates the actual energy usage over route distance. The graph 1000 depicts the model error 1050 at the matched point 910. The model error 1050 is the difference between the predicted energy usage value 1030 at the matched point 910 and the actual energy usage value 1040 at the matched point 910. The predicted energy usage value 1030 can be predicted using the energy usage prediction modelling procedure 140 (FIG. 2), as well as the methods discussed above. The actual energy usage value 1040 can be obtained from the vehicle 12 via readings or measurements from one or more onboard vehicle sensors.”);
Lindermann, however, fails to explicitly disclose to update a position of an active trace along an x-axis of a display based on the instantaneous location of the vehicle along the travel plan; and update the position of the active trace along a y-axis of the display based on the second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan.
Baglino teaches to update a position of an active trace along an x-axis of a display based on the instantaneous location of the vehicle along the travel plan; and update the position of the active trace along a y-axis of the display based on the second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan (See at least Baglino FIG. 8C and Paragraph 93 “FIG. 8C shows an example of a simulation path 828 that is provided in such a what-if scenario. The simulation path runs from the value 820 (where the what-if scenario was calculated) to a simulated end point 830. A simulation energy indicator 832 shows that the battery is predicted to have 20% energy remaining at the destination. The simulation path and the simulation energy indicator have dashed outlines to indicate that they are simulations. An area 834 informs the driver that the what-if scenario involves keeping the vehicle speed at 55 mph and turning off climate control. The simulation path 828 is an example of an energy-versus-distance measure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Lindermann to update a position of an active trace along an x-axis of a display based on the instantaneous location of the vehicle along the travel plan; and update the position of the active trace along a y-axis of the display based on the second predicted state of energy of the vehicle upon completion of the travel plan, as taught by Baglino as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate predicted states of energy of the vehicle (Baglino Paragraph 2 “Common to all types of vehicles is that the driver has an interest in monitoring the status of remaining energy in the vehicle, and in knowing how the level of available energy affects the remainder of the intended driving distance (e.g., the rest of the trip).”).
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindermann (US 20200011687 A1) (“Lindermann”) in view of Ingram (US 20130261914 A1) (“Ingram”).
With respect to claims 11 and 16, it is important to note per the conditional limitation section above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, only requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing limitations (1)-(2) as noted above, such as a processor, is sufficient to disclose this limitation. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
The conditional limitations carried out in claims 11 and 16 are performed by a processor (Spec. FIG. 3, 210 “CPU”). Lindermann discloses the same structure (Lindermann, FIG. 1, 36 “Processor” paragraph 75 “Processor 36 executes various types of digitally-stored instructions, such as software or firmware programs stored in memory 38, which enable the device 30 to provide a wide variety of services”) such that Lindermann discloses a structure capable of performing limitations (1)-(2).
With respect to claim 11, and similarly claim 16, Lindermann in view of Baglino teaches a graphical plot including a first and second deviation (See at least Lindermann FIGS. 9-11 and Paragraph 126).
Lindermann in view of Baglino fails to explicitly disclose that the position of the active trace along the y-axis of the display is configured to trigger at least one color change in an event where the second predicted state of energy requires intervention by an operator.
Ingram, however, teaches that the position of the active trace along the y-axis of the display is configured to trigger at least one color change in an event where the second predicted state of energy requires intervention by an operator (See at least Ingram Paragraph 52 “User application 175A-N can provide a contingency feature that calculates and/or displays/outlines a number of options available to the driver to ensure a destination is reached. For example, the color red may indicate that the user application 175A-N has determined that the destination will not be reached, the color yellow may indicate that if the operator improves their driving behavior the destination may be reached, and the color green can indicate that the operator will reach the destination with certainty. For example, if the contingency feature calculates that the driver is extremely close to not reaching the destination or certainly will not reach it, it may calculate and present the user with nearby options for the user to select. The options presented may include charging stations, hot swap stations, alternate routes, alternate destinations (e.g., closer restaurants of the same type as what was originally inputted as the destination by the user), and/or alternate driving habits (e.g., a crawl speed calculation that could be used to creep to the actual destination).” | Paragraph 153 “In the illustrated embodiment, trip planner 240B (sometimes referred to herein as “finishing algorithm”) may in blocks 810 and 820 adjust the power limit of the vehicle up or down depending on the degree to which vehicle is deviating from the trip plan. As shown, the inputs used by trip planner 240B to adjust the vehicle power may be the expected power limit, the targeted or ideal battery state of charge, and the actual state of charge of the battery. Based on a comparison of a the actual and preferred battery charge states at a particular point in the trip, the trip planner 240B controls or limits the power used by the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Linderman in view of Baglino to include that the position of the active trace along the y-axis of the display is configured to trigger at least one color change in an event where the second predicted state of energy requires intervention by an operator, as taught by Ingram as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate vehicle traversal (Ingram Paragraph 3 “The present disclosure generally relates to control systems and methods. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to systems and controls for adjusting the operation of different types of vehicles.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights