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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This Final Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 27 August 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Argument
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11-15 and 18-20 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 27 May 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11-15 and 18-20 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 27 May 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 27 May 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - The claims are drawn to a statutory category
For step 1 as set forth in MPEP §2106, claim 1 is drawn to a method and claims 12 and 13 are drawn to an apparatus and as such fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A. - The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
For step 2A as set forth in MPEP §2106, the non-final Office action states that claims 1-20 are directed to the judicial exception of "Mental Process" or "Mathematical Concepts." See the non-final Office Action dated May 27, 2025, page 7. The applicants respectfully disagree. The claims are not abstract but instead are directed to a novel improvement to a specific technology.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 have been amended to recite "collectively calculating a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information; and obtaining charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path." These claims further recite that "the charging plan information includes charging time and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections." Further, claim 1 has been amended to clarify the method is performed by a processor.
The claims, as such, are directed to an improvement to a specific useful application in a specific technological field. The claims do not recite a mental process but rather are directed to an improvement to a technological process that is neither a task that can be performed in the human mind or on a piece of paper.
The applicants further submit that the claims, as presently amended, are not directed to certain methods of organizing human interactions and/or mental processes and, even if so, are directed to a practical application as the claimed combination integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are not abstract.
Step 2A - Prong One
Step 2A as set forth in MPEP §2106 is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, the question is whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
The claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Supreme Court has cautioned that "[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas," and has cautioned "to tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law." See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216. The phrase "an idea 'of itself," is used to describe an idea standing alone such as an un- instantiated concept, plan, or scheme, as well as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
The applicants submit that the amended claims are directed to providing a battery charging planning method and a driving control apparatus, which can provide a battery charging plan while minimizing the time of arrival to a destination. Regarding claim 1, the method discloses establishing driving control within a specific driving route and utilizes a minimized solution of an objective function. Further, a processor is configured to perform the method. The objective function is a function of travel time and a battery state of charge. The objective function is defined based on a first model according to a longitudinal motion equation of the vehicle, a second model for the travel time, and a third model for the battery state of charge. The minimized solution is calculated by applying constraints (e.g., vehicle speed, motor driving force, motor break force, or number of times charging) to the objective function. As shown in FIF. 8 the optimal driving force, the optimal braking forces, and optimal charging times are calculated by quadratic programming with the constraint. These steps cannot be reasonably performed, and in real time while traveling, by the human mind. Therefore, the claims do not recite a system that can be infringed, for example, by thoughts or pen and paper, but rather a system that is technology based and operated. The claims are not abstract and thus are not directed to a judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not directed to an abstract idea and thus are patent eligible.
Step 2A - Prong Two
However, assuming, arguendo, that the examiner concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims are not abstract as the claims are integrated into a practical application of the exception. In prong two as set forth in MPEP §2106, the question is whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Further guidance is given for how a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application and what imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. [after] determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See, MPEP § 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception into A Practical Application[R-10.2019].
The Office action has stated "obtaining driving environment information of the driving path" is additional limitation beyond the above-noted abstract idea. The Office action states that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution that merely use a computer to perform the process, and that the obtaining steps amount to mere data gathering. Further, the Office action states claims 12 and 13 recite "a non-transitory computer readable computer processor" and "a driving control apparatus" that describes how to generally apply the mental judgments in a generic or general purpose.
As noted above, the claims have been amended to recite "collectively calculating a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information; and obtaining a charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path, wherein the charging plan information includes charging time and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections." The applicants submit the changes made to the claims now integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims, as amended, relate to a specific and practical application which allow for minimized travel time while optimizing the use of a battery and the travel route. The obtained driving environment information for the driving path is further incorporated into the calculation of the minimized solution of an objective function, and thus the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B - Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More (Search for an Inventive Concept)
However, assuming, arguendo, that the examiner concludes that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the applicants submit that for step 2B as set forth in MPEP §2106, the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP §2106 provides that: "Step 2A Prong Two determines whether:... [the] claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application, in which case the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES) and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an inventive concept). See, MPEP § 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception into A Practical Application [R-10.2019]. Further: [t]he second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an
inventive concept... an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110USPQ2d at 1981
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73,101 USPQ2d at 1966).
Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See, MPEP § 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R- 10.2019].
The applicants submit that the claims recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the exception itself and that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. The method in claim 1 recites a method for planning to charge an electric vehicle, with the use of a processor, by calculating a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving environment information, and obtaining charging plan information (such as charging time) and driving control information (such as a vehicle speed) from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path. Specifically, the subject matter of claims 1, 12, and 13 pertain to establishing driving control and a charging plan within a specific driving route to a destination such that the arrival time is minimized, including charging time.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite limitations significantly more than an abstract idea and thus are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw this rejection of claims 1-20.
The Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed invention, the claims as of right now merely have a processor that finds a charging plan for a vehicle by obtaining data on the environment and calculating a minimized time solution. The amended claims go on to use previously determined information and data gathered to perform steps such as “calculating”, this step at it core would still be a mental process, as the step involves taking data and making a judgment/calculation which a person could perform. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.…In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Furthermore, while applicant argues that a person may not be able to perform the steps in real-time while traveling, the claims in their current form do not state this or imply that this would be necessary. As a result, the steps could be performed by a person as the objective functions at their core are mathematical formulas that a person could perform and use to obtain the desired charging plan. In addition, improving the abstract idea is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a *new* abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original)….even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers or technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”).
Finally, using a computer processor to perform the desired steps at a faster speed would not amount to an inventive concepts, See MPEP 2106.05(f), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the an objective function” should be changed to –wherein the objective function--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the an objective function” should be changed to –wherein the objective function--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the an objective function” should be changed to –wherein the objective function--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 12 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and claim 13 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 13 are 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 12 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A method of planning to charge an electric vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a driving path based on a destination;
dividing, by the processor, a prediction range on the driving path into a plurality of sections;
obtaining, by the processor, driving environment information of the driving path;
collectively calculating, by the processor, a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information;
and obtaining, by the processor, charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path,
wherein the charging plan information includes charging time, and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections,
and
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or have mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. For example, “determining …”, “dividing…”, and “calculating…” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). In addition, “dividing…”, “calculating..” and “the objective function…” are limitations that involve mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
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 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”):
A method of planning to charge an electric vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a driving path based on a destination;
dividing, by the processor, a prediction range on the driving path into a plurality of sections;
obtaining, by the processor, driving environment information of the driving path;
collectively calculating, by the processor, a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information;
and obtaining, by the processor, charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path,
wherein the charging plan information includes charging time, and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections,
and
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining steps using databases and previously calculated information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of obtaining information for use in other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 12 and 13 further recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program code for performing a method of planning to charge an electric vehicle by being executed by a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:” and “A driving control apparatus comprising:….and a charging planner including at least one computer processor configured to perform a charging planning operation” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
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 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, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of obtaining information are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites the information comes from navigation device with map information stored in a memory or from previously calculated information, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 14-20 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 additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely define terms, have additional steps such as “calculation…” and “determined…”, or have mathematical concepts. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 14-20 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
Examiners Note: In regards to the effect of the preamble towards examining purposes, please see MPEP 2111.02 II.
Claim 1, 3, 5-6, 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae (US 20210180967 A1) in view of Sujan (US 20210018324 A1) in view of Fu (“Targeted optimal-path problem for electric vehicles with connected charging stations”, 2019) in further view of Nunzio (“A Time- and Energy-Optimal Routing Strategy for Electric Vehicles with Charging Constraints”, 2020).
Regarding Claim 1, Chae teaches A method of planning to charge an electric vehicle, the method comprising (see at least [¶011 & 0116]):
determining, by a processor, a driving path based on a destination (Determining a driving path to a destination. see at least [¶0103]);
dividing, by the processor, a prediction range on the driving path into a plurality of sections (Dividing a driving path into a plurality of sections and predicting energy/range use for the sections. see at least [¶0108]):
Chae does not explicitly teach obtaining, by the processor, driving environment information of the driving path.
However, Sujan does teach obtaining, by the processor, driving environment information of the driving path (Obtaining driving information of the driving path/route. see at least [¶027, 031 & 040]);
Sujan would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning for electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae to use the technique of obtaining, by the processor, driving environment information of the driving path as taught by Sajan. Doing so would lead to improved completion of a route within a desired time frame (see at least [¶034]).
Chae and Sujan do not explicitly teach collectively calculating, by the processor, a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information; and obtaining, by the processor, charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path, wherein the charging plan information includes charging time, and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections.
However, Fu does teach collectively calculating, by the processor, a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information (Calculating a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections/links/sub paths by applying available driving information such as charging stops and a desired speed in the sections/links/sub paths. see at least [Abstract, Page 4, Paragraph 3-4, Page 5, Paragraph 1-4, Page 6, Paragraph 1-2 & Page 11, Paragraph 1]);
and obtaining, by the processor, charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path (Obtaining the charging plan and driving control information of the minimized solution to achieve the optimal path with the minimized travel cost (which is the travel time). see at least [Page 4, Paragraph 3-4, Page 5, Paragraph 1-4, Page 7, Paragraph 3-4, Page 8, Paragraph 1, Page 11, Paragraph 1 & Page 13, Paragraph 1-2]),
wherein the charging plan information includes charging time, and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections (The charging plan information includes the charging time and the desired speed at each of the plurality of sections/links/sub paths. see at least [Page 4, Paragraph 3-4, Page 5, Paragraph 1-4, Page 7, Paragraph 3-4, Page 8, Paragraph 1, Page 11, Paragraph 1 & Page 13, Paragraph 1-2]).
Fu would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of optimal path for charging EVs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae and Sujan to use the technique of collectively calculating, by the processor, a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information; and obtaining, by the processor, charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path, wherein the charging plan information includes charging time, and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections as taught by Fu. Doing so would lead to identifying the optimal path for EVs that minimizes the travel time (see at least [Page 20, Conclusion]).
Chae, Sujan and Fu do not explicitly teach and wherein the an objective function is related to travel time and battery state of charge (SOC), and the objective function is based on a first model according to a longitudinal motion equation of the electric vehicle, a second model for the travel time, and a third model for the battery SOC.
However, Nunzio does teach and wherein the an objective function is related to travel time and battery state of charge (SOC), and the objective function is based on a first model according to a longitudinal motion equation of the electric vehicle, a second model for the travel time, and a third model for the battery SOC (The charging model can include an objective function that takes into account travel time and battery state of charge, the function is based on vehicle longitudinal motion, travel time, and energy consumption with a battery state of charge in mind. see at least [Section 4A-B, Page 4-5 & Section 4C, Page 5-6, Paragraph 1]).
Nunzio would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of optimal routing strategy for electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae, Sujan and Fu to use the technique of having the an objective function is related to travel time and battery state of charge (SOC), and the objective function is based on a first model according to a longitudinal motion equation of the electric vehicle, a second model for the travel time, and a third model for the battery SOC as taught by Nunzio. Doing so would lead to improving user acceptance of electric vehicles with optimal routing (see at least [Section 7 Conclusion, Page 8, Paragraph 1]). In addition, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means to use an objective function to find an optimal route with charging and time in consideration, as shown by Nunzio. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Chae, Sujan, Fu and Nuzio teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Nunzio teaches wherein the objective function includes a weighted sum of a term related to the travel time and a term related to the battery SoC (The objective function includes the sum of weighted terms of travel time and battery SOC (energy use). see at least [Section 4C, Page 5-6, Paragraph 1]).
Nunzio would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of optimal routing strategy for electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae and Sujan to use the technique of having the objective function includes a weighted sum of a term related to the travel time and a term related to the battery SoC as taught by Nunzio. Doing so would lead to improving user acceptance of electric vehicles with optimal routing (see at least [Section 7 Conclusion, Page 8, Paragraph 1]). In addition, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means to use an objective function to find an optimal route with charging and time in consideration, as shown by Nunzio. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Chae, Sujan, Fu and Nuzio teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Sujan teaches wherein the driving environment information includes at least one of charging station information, a road gradient, a road curvature, a speed limit, or a speed limit camera location, or any combination thereof (Obtaining driving information of the driving path/route which can include charging station information, road gradient and curvature, and speed limit information. see at least [¶027, 031 & 040]).
Sujan would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning for electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae and Nuzio to use the technique of having the driving environment information includes at least one of charging station information, a road gradient, a road curvature, a speed limit, or a speed limit camera location, or any combination thereof as taught by Sajan. Doing so would lead to improved completion of a route within a desired time frame (see at least [¶]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Chae, Sujan, Fu and Nuzio teach all of the limitations of claim 1 and 13 as shown above, furthermore, Fu teaches wherein obtaining the charging plan information and the driving control information is performed by applying constraints, wherein the constraints include at least one of a vehicle speed constraint, a motor driving force constraint depending on a vehicle speed, a motor braking force constraint, a constraint of a number of times of charging, an SoC operation constraint, a destination SoC constraint, or a vehicle speed constraint depending on road curvature, or any combination thereof (To obtain the optimal path for the vehicle, the constraints of the number of times of charging, SOC operation constraint and an SOC destination constraint. see at least [Page 6, Paragraph 2]).
Fu would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of optimal path for charging EVs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae and Sujan to use the technique of obtaining the charging plan information and the driving control information is performed by applying constraints, wherein the constraints include at least one of a vehicle speed constraint, a motor driving force constraint depending on a vehicle speed, a motor braking force constraint, a constraint of a number of times of charging, an SoC operation constraint, a destination SoC constraint, or a vehicle speed constraint depending on road curvature, or any combination thereof as taught by Fu. Doing so would lead to identifying the optimal path for EVs that minimizes the travel time (see at least [Page 20, Conclusion]).
Regarding Claim 12, Chae teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program code for performing a method of planning to charge an electric vehicle by being executed by a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (see at least [¶010-011, 027 & 0116]):
determine a driving path based on a destination (Determining a driving path to a destination. see at least [¶0103]);
divide a prediction range on the driving path into a plurality of sections (Dividing a driving path into a plurality of sections and predicting energy/range use for the sections. see at least [¶0108]):
Chae does not explicitly teach obtain driving environment information of the driving path; and apply the driving environment information to a charging plan model for each of the plurality of sections using and establishing a charging plan on the driving path by collectively calculating to find a minimized solution of the charging plan model for the plurality of sections.
However, Sujan does teach obtain driving environment information of the driving path (Obtaining driving information of the driving path/route. see at least [¶027, 031 & 040]);
Sujan would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning for electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae to use the technique of obtaining driving environment information of the driving path as taught by Sajan. Doing so would lead to improved completion of a route within a desired time frame (see at least [¶034]).
Chae and Sujan do not explicitly teach collectively calculate a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information; and obtaining charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path, wherein the charging plan information includes charging time, and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections.
However, Fu does teach collectively calculate a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information (Calculating a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections/links/sub paths by applying available driving information such as charging stops and a desired speed in the sections/links/sub paths. see at least [Abstract, Page 4, Paragraph 3-4, Page 5, Paragraph 1-4, Page 6, Paragraph 1-2 & Page 11, Paragraph 1]);
and obtaining charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path (Obtaining the charging plan and driving control information of the minimized solution to achieve the optimal path with the minimized travel cost (which is the travel time). see at least [Page 4, Paragraph 3-4, Page 5, Paragraph 1-4, Page 7, Paragraph 3-4, Page 8, Paragraph 1, Page 11, Paragraph 1 & Page 13, Paragraph 1-2]),
wherein the charging plan information includes charging time, and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections (The charging plan information includes the charging time and the desired speed at each of the plurality of sections/links/sub paths. see at least [Page 4, Paragraph 3-4, Page 5, Paragraph 1-4, Page 7, Paragraph 3-4, Page 8, Paragraph 1, Page 11, Paragraph 1 & Page 13, Paragraph 1-2]).
Fu would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of optimal path for charging EVs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae and Sujan to use the technique of collectively calculate a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information; and obtaining charging plan information and driving control information from the minimized solution to achieve a shortest travel time for the driving path, wherein the charging plan information includes charging time, and the driving control information includes a vehicle speed for each of the plurality of sections as taught by Fu. Doing so would lead to identifying the optimal path for EVs that minimizes the travel time (see at least [Page 20, Conclusion]).
Chae, Sujan and Fu do not explicitly teach and wherein the an objective function is related to travel time and battery state of charge (SOC), and the objective function is based on a first model according to a longitudinal motion equation of the electric vehicle, a second model for the travel time, and a third model for the battery SOC.
However, Nunzio does teach and wherein the an objective function is related to travel time and battery state of charge (SOC), and the objective function is based on a first model according to a longitudinal motion equation of the electric vehicle, a second model for the travel time, and a third model for the battery SOC (The charging model can include an objective function that takes into account travel time and battery state of charge, the function is based on vehicle longitudinal motion, travel time, and energy consumption with a battery state of charge in mind. see at least [Section 4A-B, Page 4-5 & Section 4C, Page 5-6, Paragraph 1]).
Nunzio would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of optimal routing strategy for electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae, Sujan and Fu to use the technique of having the an objective function is related to travel time and battery state of charge (SOC), and the objective function is based on a first model according to a longitudinal motion equation of the electric vehicle, a second model for the travel time, and a third model for the battery SOC as taught by Nunzio. Doing so would lead to improving user acceptance of electric vehicles with optimal routing (see at least [Section 7 Conclusion, Page 8, Paragraph 1]). In addition, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means to use an objective function to find an optimal route with charging and time in consideration, as shown by Nunzio. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding Claim 13, teaches A driving control apparatus comprising (see at least [¶010-011, 059-060 & 0116]):
a navigation device configured to determine a driving path based on a destination (Determining a driving path to a destination. see at least [¶0103]);
and a charging planner including at least one computer processor configured to perform a charging planning operation (A charging/route planner with a processor. see at least [¶010, 059-060 & 0104-0108])
wherein the charging planning operation includes dividing a prediction range on the driving path into a plurality of sections (Dividing a driving path into a plurality of sections and predicting energy/range use for the sections. see at least [¶0108]):
Chae does not explicitly teach obtaining driving environment information of the driving path; and applying the driving environment information to a charging plan model for each of the plurality of sections using and establishing a charging plan on the driving path by collectively calculating to find a minimized solution of the charging plan model for the plurality of sections.
However, Sujan does teach obtaining driving environment information of the driving path (Obtaining driving information of the driving path/route. see at least [¶027, 031 & 040]);
Sujan would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of route planning for electric vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Chae to use the technique of obtaining driving environment information of the driving path as taught by Sajan. Doing so would lead to improved completion of a route within a desired time frame (see at least [¶034]).
Chae and Sujan do not explicitly teach collectively calculate a minimized solution of an objective function for each of the plurality of sections by applying the driving information; and obtaining charging plan in