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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/7/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-29 are currently pending.
3. Claims 20-29 are new.
4. Claims 1 and 9 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 4/30/2025 has been 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.
6. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Claim 20 (see MPEP §2106.03):
As a method, the claim is directed to a statutory category (Step 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 20 is directed to estimating energy of a vehicle and determining if there is enough energy to reach the final destination with the current estimated energy remaining. This limitation akin to a mental process as a human mind can estimate the energy remaining for a vehicle and determine how to manage the energy for the route. For example, the human can observe that the estimation of the miles remaining until the energy runs out is 50 miles. The human can remember the destination is 70 miles from the starting point. Based on the observations, the human can decide to turn off some auxiliary system to improve the range and have a greater level of certainty to reach the destination on the remaining charge (Step 2A, Prong 1).
The applicant does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant has recited a claim in which estimates and obtains data to make a determination. There is no control step based on the determination (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claim does not provide an inventive concept and the claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, the lack of additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits imposed on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(I)(a)) (Step 2B).
In conclusion, Claim 20 is directed toward non-subject matter eligible material and is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann (US 20200117204 A1) in view of Schumacher (US 20220090924 A1).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Lindemann teaches a method performed by a processing unit for managing energy consumption in a vehicle performing a mission and traveling along a first route from a source location to a first target destination, wherein the method comprises (Lindemann: [0001] and [0028]):
Estimating a propulsion energy consumption, EPC, of the vehicle travelling from the source location to the first target destination along the first route (Lindemann: [0011] and [0034] Note that determining whether or not the vehicle has sufficient amount of stored energy is equivalent to estimating the propulsion energy consumption from the source location to the destination.);
Obtaining, in case the amount of energy, ETOTAL, available in the vehicle is not on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination according to a first determined level of certainty (Lindemann: [0011] and [0043] Note that determining the destination cannot be reached under existing circumstances is equivalent to a determined level of certainty.),
An estimated energy consumption, EAUX, of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle... for the first route, and an energy utilization information, EUINFO, indicating a priority level of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle… (Lindemann: [0013] and [0040]);
Determining an energy consumption adaptation sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route based on the obtained EAUX and EUINFO of each auxiliary system such that ETOTAL is maintained on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination according to a second determined level of certainty (Lindemann: [0044]);
And controlling the vehicle auxiliary systems based on energy consumption adaptation sequence (Lindemann: [0009] and [0044]).
Lindemann fails to explicitly teach that the estimated energy consumption is route-specific and based on specific mission priorities... the vehicle that is route-specific and based on specific mission priorities for the first route and based on specific mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route from the source location to the first target destination to ensure the success of the vehicle's mission.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schumacher teaches an estimated energy consumption, EAUX, of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle that is route-specific and based on specific mission priorities for the first route, and an energy utilization information, EUINFO, indicating a priority level of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle that is route-specific and based on specific mission priorities for the first route and based on specific mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route from the source location to the first target destination to ensure the success of the vehicle's mission (Schumacher: [0004], [0080], and [0092]).
Lindemann and Schumacher are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann to incorporate the teachings of Schumacher to estimate energy consumption for the auxiliary systems that are route specific and based on specific mission priorities because it provides the benefit of adjusting the energy consumption plan for increasing energy efficiency along the vehicle route. This ensures the vehicle has enough energy to complete the route while keeping the mandatory auxiliary systems on as the vehicle traverses the route.
12. Regarding Claim 3, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lindemann teaches determining a first required reduction in energy consumption, ER, of the auxiliary systems for the first route in order to maintain ETOTAL on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination according to the second determined level of certainty, and determining the energy consumption adaption sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route based on the obtained EAUX and EUINFO of each auxiliary system such that ER is reached (Lindemann: [0040] and [0044]).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Lindemann teaches obtaining, in case the first required reduction in energy consumption, ER, of the auxiliary systems for the first route is not enough to maintain ETOTAL on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination according to the second determined level of certainty, a second route and second target destination for which a second reduction in energy consumption, ER2, of the auxiliary systems for the second route is enough to maintain ETOTAL on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the second target destination according to the second determined level of certainty (Lindemann: [0044] Note that incorporating further restrictions when the user exceeds the power-use targets is equivalent to the case where the first required reduction is not enough to maintain ETOTAL above EPC. Also, note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second routes and destinations may be interpreted as the same route and destination. There is no distinction in the claim language between the first and second routes and destination. Therefore, the second reduction in energy consumption is equivalent to the further restriction if the user exceeds its power-use targets as the vehicle continues on the route to the final destination.).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lindemann teaches displaying, via a user interface, one or more of: information indicating the determined energy consumption adaption sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route to the driver of the vehicle; information to the driver of the vehicle indicating the second route and the second target destination; and information indicating driving assisting actions for reducing EPC to the driver of the vehicle (Lindemann: [0017], [0043], and [0044] Note that displaying a warning is equivalent to information indicating the determined energy consumption adaption sequence.).
15. Regarding Claim 6, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lindemann teaches adjusting the actual energy consumption on-board the vehicle in accordance with the determined energy consumption adaptation sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route (Lindemann: [0040] and [0044]).
16. Regarding Claim 7, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Lindemann teaches the adjustment of the actual energy consumption is performed by controlling actuators of the auxiliary systems (Lindemann: [0040] and [0044] Note that the vehicle restrictions to the acceleration is equivalent to controlling actuators of the auxiliary system.).
17. Regarding Claim 8, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lindemann teaches the auxiliary system on-board the vehicle comprises one or more of: electronic control units, ECUs; a climate control system; a thermal Energy Storage System, ESS; an air pressure system; a Power Take-off, PTO, system; and a cabin comfort system (Lindemann: [0040] and [0044]).
18. Regarding Claim 9, Lindemann teaches a processing unit for managing energy consumption in a vehicle performing a mission and traveling along a first route from a source location to a first target destination, wherein the processing unit is configured to (Lindemann: [0001] and [0028]):
Estimate an energy consumption, EPC, of the vehicle travelling from the source location to the first target destination along the first route (Lindemann: [0011] and [0034] Note that determining whether or not the vehicle has sufficient amount of stored energy is equivalent to estimating the propulsion energy consumption from the source location to the destination.),
Obtain, in case the amount of energy, ETOTAL, available in the vehicle is not on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination according to a first determined level of certainty (Lindemann: [0011] and [0043] Note that determining the destination cannot be reached under existing circumstances is equivalent to a determined level of certainty.),
An estimated energy consumption, EAUX, of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle… for the first route, and an energy utilization information, EUINFO, indicating a priority level of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle… (Lindemann: [0013] and [0040]),
Determine an energy consumption adaption sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route based on the obtained EAUX and EUINFO of each auxiliary system such that ETOTAL is maintained on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination according to a second determined level of certainty (Lindemann: [0044]).
And control the vehicle auxiliary systems based on energy consumption adaptation sequence (Lindemann: [0009] and [0044]).
Lindemann fails to explicitly teach that estimated energy consumption is route-specific and based on specific mission priorities… the vehicle that is route-specific and based on specific mission priorities for the first route and based on specific mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route from the source location to the first target destination to ensure the success of the vehicle's mission.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kritt teaches an estimated energy consumption, EAUX, of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle that is route-specific and based on specific mission priorities for the first route, and an energy utilization information, EUINFO, indicating a priority level of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle that is route-specific and based on specific mission priorities for the first route and based on specific mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route from the source location to the first target destination to ensure the success of the vehicle's mission
(Schumacher: [0004], [0080], and [0092]).
Lindemann and Schumacher are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann to incorporate the teachings of Schumacher to estimate energy consumption for the auxiliary systems that are route specific and based on specific mission priorities because it provides the benefit of adjusting the energy consumption plan for increasing energy efficiency along the vehicle route. This ensures the vehicle has enough energy to complete the route while keeping the mandatory auxiliary systems on as the vehicle traverses the route.
19. Regarding Claim 11, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Lindemann teaches to determine a first required reduction in energy consumption of the auxiliary systems for the first route in order to maintain ETOTAL on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination according to the second determined level of certainty, and determine the energy consumption adaption sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route based on the obtained EAUX and EUINFO of each auxiliary system such that the first required reduction in energy consumption of the auxiliary systems for the first route is reached (Lindemann: [0040] and [0044]).
20. Regarding Claim 12, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Lindemann teaches to obtain, in case the first required reduction in energy consumption of the auxiliary systems for the first route is not enough to maintain ETOTAL on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination according to the second determined level of certainty, a second route and second target destination for which a second reduction in energy consumption of the auxiliary systems for the second route is enough to maintain ETOTAL on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the second target destination according to the determined level of certainty (Lindemann: [0044] Note that incorporating further restrictions when the user exceeds the power-use targets is equivalent to the case where the first required reduction is not enough to maintain ETOTAL above EPC. Also, note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second routes and destinations may be interpreted as the same route and destination. There is no distinction in the claim language between the first and second routes and destination. Therefore, the second reduction in energy consumption is equivalent to the further restriction if the user exceeds its power-use targets as the vehicle continues on the route to the final destination.).
21. Regarding Claim 13, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Lindemann teaches to display, via a user interface, one or more of: information indicating the determined energy consumption adaption sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route to the driver of the vehicle, information to the driver of the vehicle indicating the second route and the second target destination, and information indicating driving assisting actions for reducing EPC to the driver of the vehicle (Lindemann: [0017], [0043], and [0044] Note that displaying a warning is equivalent to information indicating the determined energy consumption adaption sequence.).
22. Regarding Claim 14, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Lindemann teaches to adjust the actual energy consumption on-board the vehicle in accordance with the determined energy consumption adaptation sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route (Lindemann: [0040] and [0044]).
23. Regarding Claim 15, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Lindemann teaches the adjustment of the actual energy consumption is performed by controlling actuators of the auxiliary systems (Lindemann: [0040] and [0044] Note that the vehicle restrictions to the acceleration is equivalent to controlling actuators of the auxiliary system.).
24. Regarding Claim 16, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Lindemann teaches the auxiliary system on-board the vehicle comprises one or more of: electronic control units, ECUs; a climate control system; a thermal Energy Storage System, ESS; an air pressure system; a Power Take-off, PTO, system; and a cabin comfort system (Lindemann: [0040] and [0044]).
25. Regarding Claim 17, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lindemann teaches a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer or in a processing circuitry (Lindemann: [0054] and [0055]).
26. Regarding Claim 18, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Lindemann teaches a computer program carrier carrying a computer program according to claim 17, wherein the computer program carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal or computer-readable storage medium (Lindemann: [0054] and [0055]).
27. Regarding Claim 19, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Lindemann teaches a vehicle comprising processing unit according to claim 9 (Lindemann: [0001] and [0019]).
28. Regarding Claim 20, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Schumacher teaches wherein the vehicle is for cargo transportation, the success of the mission relating to the delivery of cargo (Schumacher: [0092]).
29. Regarding Claim 21, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Schumacher teaches the vehicle comprises a compartment for the refrigerated transportation of cargo, the success of the mission relating to the delivery of cargo (Schumacher: [0002] and [0092]).
30. Regarding Claim 22, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Schumacher teaches the mission priority relates to a temperature of the compartment to be maintained (Schumacher: [0004]).
31. Regarding Claim 23, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Schumacher teaches receiving, via a user interface, user input indicating the mission priorities (Schumacher: [0031]).
32. Regarding Claim 24, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Schumacher teaches the vehicle is for cargo transportation, the success of the mission relating to the delivery of cargo (Schumacher: [0092]).
33. Regarding Claim 25, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Schumacher teaches the vehicle comprises a compartment for the refrigerated transportation of cargo, the success of the mission relating to the delivery of cargo (Schumacher: [0002] and [0092]).
34. Regarding Claim 26, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Schumacher teaches the mission priority relates to a temperature of the compartment to be maintained (Schumacher: [0004]).
35. Regarding Claim 27, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Schumacher teaches to receive, via a user interface, user input indicating the mission priorities (Schumacher: [0031]).
36. Regarding Claim 28, Lindemann teaches a method to be performed by a processing unit of a vehicle, the method comprising (Lindemann: [0001] and [0028]):
Obtaining a first route for the vehicle, the first route being from a source location to a first target destination (Lindemann: [0033]);
Estimating a propulsion energy consumption, EPC, of the vehicle travelling from the source location to the first target destination along the first route such that the vehicle's mission is a success (Lindemann: [0011] and [0034] Note that determining whether or not the vehicle has sufficient amount of stored energy is equivalent to estimating the propulsion energy consumption from the source location to the destination.);
Obtaining, in case the amount of energy, ETOTAL, available in the vehicle is not on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination, an estimated energy consumption EAUX, of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle for the first route by (Lindemann: [0011] and [0043] Note that determining the destination cannot be reached under existing circumstances is equivalent to a determined level of certainty.):
Obtaining an energy utilization information, EUINFO, indicating a priority level of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle that is route-specific for the first route (Lindemann: [0013] and [0040]);
And determining an energy consumption adaptation sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route based on the obtained EAUX and EUINFO of each auxiliary system such that ETOTAL is maintained on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination and the success of the vehicle's mission (Lindemann: [0044]).
Lindemann fails to explicitly teach obtaining specific mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route from the source location to the first target destination to ensure the success of a mission the vehicle is to perform along the first route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schumacher teaches obtaining specific mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route from the source location to the first target destination to ensure the success of a mission the vehicle is to perform along the first route (Schumacher: [0004], [0080], and [0092]).
Lindemann and Schumacher are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann to incorporate the teachings of Schumacher to obtain specific mission priorities that should be adhered along the first route to ensure success of a mission because it provides the benefit of adjusting the energy consumption plan for increasing energy efficiency along the vehicle route. This ensures the vehicle has enough energy to complete the route while keeping the mandatory auxiliary systems on as the vehicle traverses the route.
37. Regarding Claim 29, a processing unit for a vehicle, the processing unit being configured to (Lindemann: [0001] and [0028]):
Obtain a first route, the first route being from a source location to a first target destination (Lindemann: [0033]);
Estimate a propulsion energy consumption, EPC, of the vehicle travelling from the source location to the first target destination along the first route such that the vehicle's mission is a success (Lindemann: [0011] and [0034] Note that determining whether or not the vehicle has sufficient amount of stored energy is equivalent to estimating the propulsion energy consumption from the source location to the destination.);
Estimate, in case the amount of energy, ETOTAL, available in the vehicle is not on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination, an estimated energy consumption, EAUX, of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle for the first route by (Lindemann: [0011] and [0043] Note that determining the destination cannot be reached under existing circumstances is equivalent to a determined level of certainty.):
Obtaining an energy utilization information, EUINFO, indicating a priority level of each auxiliary system on-board the vehicle that is route-specific for the first route (Lindemann: [0013] and [0040]),
And determining an energy consumption adaptation sequence of the auxiliary systems for the first route based on the obtained EAUX and EUINFO of each auxiliary system such that ETOTAL is maintained on a level above EPC that ensures arrival of the vehicle at the first target destination and the success of the vehicle's mission Lindemann: [0044]).
Lindemann fails to explicitly teach to obtain specific mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route from the source location to the first target destination to ensure the success of a mission the vehicle is to perform along the first route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schumacher teaches to obtain specific mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route from the source location to the first target destination to ensure the success of a mission the vehicle is to perform along the first route (Schumacher: [0004], [0080], and [0092]).
Lindemann and Schumacher are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann to incorporate the teachings of Schumacher to obtain specific mission priorities that should be adhered along the first route to ensure success of a mission because it provides the benefit of adjusting the energy consumption plan for increasing energy efficiency along the vehicle route. This ensures the vehicle has enough energy to complete the route while keeping the mandatory auxiliary systems on as the vehicle traverses the route.
38. Claims 12 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann (US 20200117204 A1), in view of Schumacher (US 20220090924 A1), and in further view of Kritt (US 20140195060 A1).
39. Regarding Claim 2, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Lindemann and Schumacher fail to explicitly teach receiving, via a user interface, user input from a driver of the vehicle indicating the priority level of one or more of the auxiliary systems for the first route, and the determining further comprises determining EUINFO at least partly based on the received user input.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kritt teaches receiving, via a user interface, user input from a driver of the vehicle indicating the priority level of one or more of the auxiliary systems for the first route, and the determining further comprises determining EUINFO at least partly based on the received user input (Kritt: [0033], [0037], [0047], and [0055]).
Lindemann, Schumacher, and Kritt are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann and Schumacher to incorporate the teachings of Kritt to receive a user input indicating priority level of the auxiliary systems because it provides the benefit of adjusting the energy consumption plan for increasing energy efficiency along the vehicle route. This ensures the vehicle has enough energy to complete the route while keeping the mandatory auxiliary systems on as the vehicle traverses the route.
40. Regarding Claim 10, Lindemann and Schumacher remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Lindemann and Schumacher fail to explicitly teach to receive, via a user interface, user input from a driver of the vehicle indicating the priority level of one or more of the auxiliary systems for the first route, and determine EUINFO at least partly based on the received user input.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kritt teaches to receive, via a user interface, user input from a driver of the vehicle indicating the priority level of one or more of the auxiliary systems for the first route, and determine EUINFO at least partly based on the received user input (Kritt: [0033], [0037], [0047], and [0055]).
Lindemann, Schumacher, and Kritt are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle energy management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann and Schumacher to incorporate the teachings of Kritt to receive a user input indicating priority level of the auxiliary systems because it provides the benefit of adjusting the energy consumption plan for increasing energy efficiency along the vehicle route. This ensures the vehicle has enough energy to complete the route while keeping the mandatory auxiliary systems on as the vehicle traverses the route.
Response to Arguments
41. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Schumacher (US 20220090924 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of the vehicle that is route-specific and based on mission priorities that should be adhered to along the first route to ensure success of the vehicle’s mission in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0004], [0080], and [0092]. Schumacher teaches to manage available energy to maintain a certain temperature in a climate control transport trailer to ensure the cargo is maintained at a required climate to avoid spoiling.
42. Lindemann (US 20200117204 A1), in view of Schumacher (US 20220090924 A1), and in further view of Kritt (US 20140195060 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
43. Claims 1-19 remain rejected and Claims 20-29 are newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663