DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims dated 11/25/2025 are being examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for claim 9. The step of receiving one or more GPS signals and generating route information based on the one or more GPS signals is directed towards an abstract idea, namely analyzing position data to generate a route. Route planning is a practice that humans have performed mentally or with pen and paper (with reference to position data i.e., maps and coordinates). The step of receiving GPS signals amounts to mere data gathering to obtain position data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Example 4: Global Positioning System from the USPTO 101 examples provides a practical application by improving an existing technology (global positioning) and show that the claim is not directed to performing mathematical operations on a computer alone. In contrast to Example 4, the recitation of receiving and using GPS signals to generate a route in the present claims do not provide any improvement to GPS technology or computer functionality as the GPS is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Further, in the present claims, the use of generic computer components to receive signals and generate a route represents well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of navigation systems. The rejections under 101 are therefore maintained as outlined below for claim 9.
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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Independent claim 9 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 9 recites:
(Claim 9) A system for estimating a remaining range of a vehicle battery charge, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive one or more global positioning signals from at least one of a global positioning system antenna disposed within a vehicle and a global positioning system disposed on a remotely located computing device;
generate route information based on the one or more global positioning signals;
identify at least one route characteristic of a portion of a selected route based on the route information;
determine a vehicle energy consumption profile for the vehicle based on at least one of (i) historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and (ii) a plurality of vehicle parameters, wherein the plurality of vehicle parameters includes at least a vehicle identification number and at least one of a vehicle weight, a vehicle make, a vehicle model, and a vehicle age, and (iii) at least one characteristic of another vehicle, wherein the other vehicle includes features similar to those of the vehicle, and wherein the at least one characteristic of the other vehicle is received via a vehicle to other systems (V2X) communication module disposed on the vehicle;
determine a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle;
determine, for the selected route, using a physics-based model and road load equation, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and the vehicle energy consumption profile;
calculate, using a regression model, an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the selected route based on the current state of charge of the vehicle battery, the route energy consumption profile, at least one driver controlled vehicle setting, and a learned pattern of use of the at least one driver controlled vehicle setting;
determine whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range;
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range, generate a first indication; and
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is not within the vehicle battery charge range:
determine a target vehicle speed profile; and
generate a second indication based on at least the target vehicle speed profile; and
provide the first indication.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) as well as “mathematical calculation(s)” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and a calculation using a road load equation (as recited in Applicant’s specification Equation 2).
Specifically, the limitation: generate route information based on the one or more global positioning signals” in the context of this claim encompasses mental observation. A person can mentally analyze position data to generate a route.
The limitation: “identify at least one route characteristic of a portion of a selected route based on the route information” in the context of this claim encompasses mental observation. A person can mentally identify route characteristics i.e., a traffic condition, a traffic signal, and/or a road grade on a route.
The limitation: “determine a vehicle energy consumption profile for the vehicle based on at least one of (i) historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and (ii) a plurality of vehicle parameters, wherein the plurality of vehicle parameters includes at least a vehicle identification number and at least one of a vehicle weight, a vehicle make, a vehicle model, and a vehicle age, and (iii) at least one characteristic of another vehicle, wherein the other vehicle includes features similar to those of the vehicle, and wherein the at least one characteristic of the other vehicle is received via a vehicle to other systems (V2X) communication module disposed on the vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. A person can mentally (and/or with the aid of pen and paper) recall how much battery or fuel was consumed of a specific type of vehicle in a previously traveled route.
The limitation: “determine a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. A person can mentally evaluate battery charge i.e., from a vehicle display or estimation based on distance traveled, time elapsed, etc.
The limitation: “determine, for the selected route, using a physics-based model and road load equation, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and the vehicle energy consumption profile” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. A person can mentally, and/or with the aid of pen and paper for calculating a simplified road-load equation, determine that a selected route takes a similar and/or same amount of battery consumption based on recalling how much battery or fuel was consumed in a previously traveled same route. Additionally, in light of Applicant’s specification, said determining is a mathematical calculation using at least Equation 2.
The limitation: calculate, […], an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the selected route based on the current state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile, at least one driver controlled vehicle setting, and a learned pattern of use of the at least one driver controlled vehicle setting in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and/or a simple mental calculation. A person can mentally observe a current state of charge of the vehicle battery (i.e., on a vehicle display) and subtract the above determined predicted energy usage for a route. This simple mental evaluation/calculation provides an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at the end of the route.
The limitation: “determine whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and/or a simple mental calculation. A person can mentally determine if an estimated remaining charge is greater than or less than an acceptable range for proceeding with a route.
The limitation: “in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range, generate a first indication” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. A person can mentally generate an idea to proceed or not proceed with a route if an estimated remaining charge is within or less than an acceptable range respectively. In this case, in response to an estimated remaining charge within than an acceptable range, a driver can mentally generate the idea to proceed with a selected route.
Similarly, the limitation: “in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is not within the vehicle battery charge range: determine a target vehicle speed profile; and generate a second indication based on at least the target vehicle speed profile” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation and judgement. A person can mentally generate an idea to proceed or not proceed with a route if an estimated remaining charge is greater than or less than an acceptable range respectively. In this case, in response to an estimated remaining charge less than an acceptable range, a driver can determine that the vehicle should travel at a different target speed (i.e., such as at lower speed) in order to proceed with a selected route. The driver can then mentally generate the idea to proceed with a selected route at that lower speed.
Accordingly, each of the bolded claim limitations recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional” limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
(Claim 9) A system for estimating a remaining range of a vehicle battery charge, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive one or more global positioning signals from at least one of a global positioning system antenna disposed within a vehicle and a global positioning system disposed on a remotely located computing device;
generate route information based on the one or more global positioning signals;
identify at least one route characteristic of a portion of a selected route based on the route information;
determine a vehicle energy consumption profile for the vehicle based on at least one of (i) historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and (ii) a plurality of vehicle parameters, wherein the plurality of vehicle parameters includes at least a vehicle identification number and at least one of a vehicle weight, a vehicle make, a vehicle model, and a vehicle age, and (iii) at least one characteristic of another vehicle, wherein the other vehicle includes features similar to those of the vehicle, and wherein the at least one characteristic of the other vehicle is received via a vehicle to other systems (V2X) communication module disposed on the vehicle;
determine a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle;
determine, for the selected route, using a physics-based model and road load equation, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and the vehicle energy consumption profile;
calculate, using a regression model, an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the selected route based on the current state of charge of the vehicle battery, the route energy consumption profile, at least one driver controlled vehicle setting, and a learned pattern of use of the at least one driver controlled vehicle setting;
determine whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range;
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range, generate a first indication; and
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is not within the vehicle battery charge range:
determine a target vehicle speed profile; and
generate a second indication based on at least the target vehicle speed profile; and
provide the first indication.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of “a processor; and a memory” act merely as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The additional elements of “receive one or more global positioning signals from at least one of a global positioning system antenna disposed within a vehicle and a global positioning system disposed on a remotely located computing device” amount to mere data gathering of position data for use in the “generate” step. It has been held that limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements of “using a regression model” is recited at a high level of generality. In light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed regression model is a machine learning model, but there are no claimed details as to how this model is trained or how such training is accomplished, and this limitation amounts to mere “apply it” level as applying conventional algorithm(s). The recitation of “using a regression model” also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements of “using a regression model” limits the identified judicial exception of “calculating an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of “provide the first indication”, under broadest reasonable interpretation amounts to post-solution activity such a mere displaying of data. Applicant discloses said providing may be displaying the indications on a vehicle display or a mobile computing device (Applicant’s specification [0055]). Such post-solution activity is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Regarding the computer elements:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of a processor and memory in the claim amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding the data gathering steps:
It has been determined that such limitations are conventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Regarding the insignificant post solution activity steps:
Examples of insignificant post-solution activities can include merely displaying a result (e.g., output) on a display device, merely communicating a message based on the result, merely recording the result in a memory storage device, and the like. Adding a final step of transmitting collected information to a process that recites an abstract idea does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function, and as recited above the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the use of Machine Learning (ML)
In light of the Specification, said ML is recited at a high level of generality and therefore suggests that generic ML techniques are used. The specification does not appear to suggest any specific improvements to the machine learning models to be applied. In addition, the patent eligibility of claims involving the use of machine learning (ML) was recently considered by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), supporting a conclusion that merely applying generic machine learning techniques to new data environments – without meaningful technological improvements to the machine learning models themselves – are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 10-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, specifically only reciting and/or elaborating on the mental activities (claim 16), and reciting and/or elaborating on insignificant extra-solution activities (post-solution activity – mere displaying in claims 10-15) that are well-understood, routine and conventional.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are allowed for overcoming the 101 rejections.
Claims 9-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the independent claims, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically all the parameters used to calculate the estimated remaining charge of the vehicle battery. The dependent claims are allowable based on their dependence to the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Espig (US-20220176832-A1) teaches a determined route energy consumption profile is using a physics-based model and road load equation (Fig. 4 calculate vehicle road load 414 and predict energy consumption 416; [0008] The energy need for an upcoming journey may also be estimated by computer by means of simulation models. In this case, vehicle-specific data, for example, the mass mveh, the rolling resistance coefficient froll, the air resistance coefficient cw, and/or the area A of the motor vehicle are predefined; supported by road load Equations 1-4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662