DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 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
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
The examiner has identified apparatus claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. claim 1 recites:
An electric mileage estimation apparatus comprising:
a storage device configured to store information in which traveling history information is associated with an electric mileage of traveling, the traveling history including a characteristic of a driver; and
a hardware processor connected to the storage device, the hardware processor being configured to
acquire information about a traveling schedule including a characteristic of a driver,
calculate an electric mileage estimation value on the basis of the information about the traveling schedule and parameters calculated from the information stored in the storage device, and
output information based on the electric mileage estimation value.
The examiner submits that foregoing the bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. “calculate an electric mileage estimation value on the basis of the information about the traveling schedule and parameters calculated from the information stored in the storage device, and” is equivalent to a person mentally calculating how many miles an electric vehicle will go based on the collected information, i.e. a mental process of judgement based on observation.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An electric mileage estimation apparatus comprising:
a storage device configured to store information in which traveling history information is associated with an electric mileage of traveling, the traveling history including a characteristic of a driver; and
a hardware processor connected to the storage device, the hardware processor being configured to
acquire information about a traveling schedule including a characteristic of a driver,
calculate an electric mileage estimation value on the basis of the information about the traveling schedule and parameters calculated from the information stored in the storage device, and
output information based on the electric mileage estimation value.
Regarding the limitations, “a storage device configured to…” and “a hardware processor connected to the storage device, the hardware processor being configured to” the examiner submits that this is an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technologic environment. The storage device and hardware processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the acquire and calculate steps, therefore acting as a generic computer component.
Regarding the limitations “…store information in which traveling history information is associated with an electric mileage of traveling, the traveling history including a characteristic of a driver;” and “acquire information about a traveling schedule including a characteristic of a driver,” the examiner submits that this is an example of mere data gathering. In particular, the traveling history information and information about a traveling schedule is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the limitation “output information based on the electric mileage estimation value”, the examiner submits that this is an example of mere data outputting. In particular, the outputting the information is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data outputting, which 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, 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 limitations do 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 (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations of claim 1 are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution, post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and outputting conducted by a generic computer component.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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, similar to the claims shown above.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation “wherein the hardware processor is configured to acquire additional information in which the traveling history information is associated with the electric mileage”. The examiner submits that this is an example of mere data gathering. In particular, the additional information is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional limitations “wherein the hardware processor is configured to cause the storage device to store the additional information on the basis of a result of comparison between a first electric mileage estimation value and a second electric mileage estimation value, the first electric mileage estimation value being calculated on the basis of the traveling history information stored in the storage device and parameters calculated from the information stored in the storage device, the second electric mileage estimation value being calculated on the basis of the traveling history information stored in the storage device and parameters calculated from the additional information.” The examiner submits that this recites a mental process and is equivalent to a person mentally calculating a difference between a first and second estimation value.
Claim 7 recites the additional limitation “wherein the hardware processor is configured to output, as the information based on the electric mileage estimation value, a power consumption value using the electric mileage estimation value.” The examiner submits that this is an example of mere data outputting. In particular, the outputting the information is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Independent claims 9 and 10 recite similar limitations claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Therefore, claims 1-10 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (US 20180361870 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Zhao teaches:
An electric mileage estimation apparatus comprising:
a storage device configured to store information in which traveling history information is associated with an electric mileage of traveling, the traveling history including a characteristic of a driver; and
(Zhao – [0046] “The remote system 120 includes, for instance, a processing unit, a storage medium comprising units or modules, a communication bus, and an input/output communication structure. These features are considered shown for the remote system 120 by FIG. 1 and the cross-reference provided by this paragraph.” [0100] “The programming may cause the remote system 120 to use typical-driver data indicating, for instance, that drivers under one or more similar circumstance factors (e.g., location or time of pickup) tend to drive an average of 40 minutes out of every hour that they have the vehicle checked out… The determination may be disregarded or adjusted in some circumstances, such as a known user itinerary, traffic, weather, user historic driving data, the like, or other factors.”)
a hardware processor connected to the storage device, the hardware processor being configured to
(Zhao – [0075] “In various embodiments, some or all operations of the processes and/or substantially equivalent operations are performed by one or more computer processors, such as the processor of the corresponding apparatus—e.g., the hardware-based processing unit 210 regarding operations of the charging-station controller 142—executing computer-executable instructions, which may be arranged in modules as described and stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage device of the corresponding apparatus—e.g., the data storage device 201 regarding the operations of the charging-station controller 142.”)
acquire information about a traveling schedule including a characteristic of a driver,
(Zhao – [0078] “At block 312, the user device 150—e.g., a tangible processor thereof, executing computer-executable code thereof—receives input indicating a desired pick-up time and a desired drop-off time. In various embodiments, desired pick-up and drop off time(s) indicated by the user are represented by a range of potential times.”)
calculate an electric mileage estimation value on the basis of the information about the traveling schedule and parameters calculated from the information stored in the storage device, and
(Zhao – [0089] “The programming in various embodiments provides a function of calculating likely drive distances with respect to time. The distance expectation is determined in some embodiments based on one or more additional factors such as time of day, time of year, pickup location, drop off location, driver profile characteristics, environmental characteristics such as weather, or traffic, the like or other.”)
output information based on the electric mileage estimation value.
(Zhao – [0098] “In any event, the remote system 120 can determine an estimated power usage based on time and/or distance data.” [0112] “The remote system 120 at block 324 also receives estimated power level consumption data 323, determined at block 322 based on reservation data indicating, for instance pickup and drop off times.”
Examiners note: The estimated power level consumption data calculated from time and distance data corresponds to the information based on the electric mileage estimation value.)
Regarding claim 7,
Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zhao further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is configured to output, as the information based on the electric mileage estimation value, a power consumption value using the electric mileage estimation value.
(Zhao – [0087] “The remote system 120 is also in various embodiments programmed to determine an estimated power usage, or estimated power consumption, for the EV use being arranged. The programming may consider any suitable factor(s).” [0088] “The programming in various embodiments includes algorithms for calculating the power expected to be used based on the time use determined, and in some embodiments includes a function of adding a buffer, or safety factor.” [0089] “The programming in various embodiments provides a function of calculating likely drive distances with respect to time. The distance expectation is determined in some embodiments based on one or more additional factors such as time of day, time of year, pickup location, drop off location, driver profile characteristics, environmental characteristics such as weather, or traffic, the like or other.”)
Regarding claim 8,
Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zhao further teaches:
wherein the traveling history information and the information about the traveling schedule further include vehicle information or information based on route search.
(Zhao – [0090] “The required vehicle charge may be associated with at least a base or expected vehicle configuration, as power depletion of an EV battery may be affected by, for example, age or type of battery, or age or type of vehicle, or known vehicle efficiency. A first EV needing to be used for two hours, for instance, does not need to be charged as much as a second EV needing to be used in the same way for the same time period if the first vehicle is more efficient—e.g., has a higher miles/kWh economy rating. As another example, a newer or more modern battery and/or EV may be more efficient than a battery and/or EV that is older or has an older design, and the same can be considered in determining a charge level needed for the use.”)
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Additionally, Zhao further teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which programmed instructions are recorded, the instructions causing a computer to execute processing, the processing comprising:
(Zhao – [0075] “In various embodiments, some or all operations of the processes and/or substantially equivalent operations are performed by one or more computer processors, such as the processor of the corresponding apparatus—e.g., the hardware-based processing unit 210 regarding operations of the charging-station controller 142—executing computer-executable instructions, which may be arranged in modules as described and stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage device of the corresponding apparatus—e.g., the data storage device 201 regarding the operations of the charging-station controller 142.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 20180361870 A1) in view of Hettrich et al. (US 20160059733 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zhao does not explicitly teach the following, however, Hettrich teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is configured to acquire additional information in which the traveling history information is associated with the electric mileage, and
(Hettrich – [0085] “A destination can be used to determine likely driving routes, which can determine the power level needed for driving (and thus the temperature to which the battery should be pre-heated). For instance, if a user receives a text indicating that they will meet a friend for coffee 30 blocks across town in an hour, a system may predict that it is likely surface streets will be used, and pre-warming may be done to an extent that is sufficient for city driving but not highway driving… In a similar example, a user may receive a text or email indicating they have an interview scheduled an hour away from the user's home on Monday morning. The system may use this information to determine that highway driving will likely be used based on the distance to the destination and the available routes.”)
cause the storage device to store the additional information in a case where the additional information meets a predetermined condition.
(Hettrich – [0100] “In some embodiments, the information relevant to a user may be stored as a part of an application. Such application may run on the user's smartphone or other electronic device, or on the vehicle directly. Within the application, information relevant to the user may be stored within a profile that is specific to that user (or to that vehicle, for example).”)
Zhao and Hettrich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of predicting distance and consumption of a battery for an electric vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with Hettrich to include storing and editing data when a predetermined condition is met in order to sufficiently predict large lead times before an expected drive while minimizing energy losses (Hettrich, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Zhao and Hettrich teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Hettrich further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is configured to edit the information stored in the storage device in a case where the information meets a predetermined condition.
(Hettrich – [0071] “In some cases the various inputs may be assigned weighing factors that determine how relatively important the various input parameters are. Examples are presented below in the context of determining the confidence that a drive will occur, with reference to Tables 2 and 3. This same method may be used for determining a probability threshold. While weighing factors for inputs can change with implementation and may even be updated dynamically based on current data, many inputs tend to affect the probability threshold in predictable ways. Table 1 below lists one example of the expected relative weight that such inputs may individually have on a probability threshold for a variety of available inputs.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with Hettrich to include storing and editing data when a predetermined condition is met in order to sufficiently predict large lead times before an expected drive while minimizing energy losses (Hettrich, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Zhao and Hettrich teaches the limitations of claim .
Hettrich further teaches:
wherein the predetermined condition is any of a condition related to positional information, a condition related to a season, and a condition related to a temperature.
(Hettrich – [0077] “While historical personal inputs are generally based on information that relates to past conditions, current inputs generally relate to current or future conditions, and in some cases may be accessed on-the-fly. As noted above, current personal inputs may be categorized between current sensed personal inputs and current referenced personal inputs. Sensed inputs may be generated by one or more sensors including, but not limited to, GPS or other positioning sensors, thermometers, etc. In some cases the sensed data is referenced from another source that senses the relevant data itself. One example is temperature data generated by a thermometer, such data being published by an online weather company and referenced by a battery system of a vehicle as an input in determining whether to pre-heat.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with Hettrich to include storing and editing data when a predetermined condition is met in order to sufficiently predict large lead times before an expected drive while minimizing energy losses (Hettrich, para. [0006]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 20180361870 A1) in view of Hettrich et al. (US 20160059733 A1) and in further view of Yamashita (US 20060276937 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Zhao and Hettrich teaches the limitations of claim 2.
The combination of Zhao and Hettrich does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Yamashita teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is configured to cause the storage device to store the additional information on the basis of a result of comparison between a first electric mileage estimation value and a second electric mileage estimation value, the first electric mileage estimation value being calculated on the basis of the traveling history information stored in the storage device and parameters calculated from the information stored in the storage device, the second electric mileage estimation value being calculated on the basis of the traveling history information stored in the storage device and parameters calculated from the additional information.
(Yamashita – [0237] “A tenth embodiment performs in parallel a process of calculating a target electric consumption (first target electric consumption) used for power generation control based upon data of a normal sample period (first sample period) and a process of calculating a target electric consumption (second target electric consumption) used for estimating a change of an operating condition based upon a sample period (second sample period) shorter than the normal sample period. Further, the tenth embodiment estimates a change of a future operating condition based upon a deviation between the two target electric consumptions and also initializes data in the normal sample period (the first sample period) when the change of the future electric consumption is estimated, thereby correcting the target electric consumption (the first target electric consumption) used for power generation control.”)
Yamashita is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of calculating an electric consumption. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao and Hettrich with Yamashita to include comparing electric consumption estimation values in order to accurately and automatically set a consumption in response to use environments of a vehicle or variations in vehicle characteristic (Yamashita, para. [0092]).
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Zhao, Hettrich, and Yamashita teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Yamashita further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is configured to cause the storage device to store the additional information on the basis of a result of comparison of correlation coefficients or accuracy difference values between the first electric mileage estimation value and the second electric mileage estimation value.
(Yamashita – [0254] “As a result, when it is determined that the absolute value |TCFC-TCFCL| of the deviation between the two target electric consumptions is larger than the predetermined value, the process goes to Step 6702, wherein a change estimating counter is incremented and the process goes to Step 6703. Then it is determined whether or not a counter value of the change estimating counter exceeds a predetermined value. When it is determined that the counter value of the change estimating counter is less than the predetermined value, this routine ends. In addition, at Step 6701, the absolute value |TCFC-TCFCL| of the deviation between the two target electric consumptions is less than the predetermined value, the process goes to Step 6706, wherein the change estimating counter is reset to end this routine.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao and Hettrich with Yamashita to include comparing electric consumption estimation values in order to accurately and automatically set a consumption in response to use environments of a vehicle or variations in vehicle characteristic (Yamashita, para. [0092]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Jikihara (US 20130285608 A1) discloses a power consumption prediction unit predicts an amount of power to be consumed by the electric vehicle during the following journey, or in other words up to a following charging operation. The power consumption prediction unit obtains information relating to a use plan and a use history of the electric vehicle from the server, and predicts the amount of power to be consumed by the user during the next use of the electric vehicle on the basis of this information. A prediction result is transmitted to the charging plan updating unit. For example, the power consumption prediction unit may obtain a history of GPS information generated by the user during a past use of the electric vehicle, and predict the amount of power to be consumed from a total traveled distance at that time.
Ishikawa et al. (US 20130079962 A1) discloses a charge control system for charging a battery in an electric motor vehicle includes a travel history database, a route information acquisition unit, a power consumption estimation unit, and a charge control unit. The travel history database stores data of actual travel history from a plurality of electric motor vehicles. The route information acquisition unit determines a planned travel route toward a destination specified by a user, and the power consumption estimation unit calculates an estimated power amount of the battery for the travel of the electric motor vehicle along the planned travel route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668