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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 10/22/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-16 and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome Claim Objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues, “ Based on the above, Applicant respectfully submits that even if claim 1 recites an abstract idea, claim 1 has been amended to recite additional limitations that implements a practical application of the alleged abstract idea.” (pg. 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a plurality of mobile electric assets including self-propelled and non-self-propelled assets and a device comprising a control unit. Examiner notes that within the independent and dependent claims the electric mobile assets functionality includes sending/receiving data, but there is no description in the claims of how this is being performed. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0114, generically recited control unit includes a processor).
For instance, the steps of receiving mobile electric asset information including geographic position and battery status and receiving a plurality of freight transport assignments is data gathering activity. The steps of determining and electric energy requirement and determining a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments involve analyzing data which is data gathering activity. The step of sending route assignments and charging assignments is data transmission.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving mobile electric asset information including a geographic position and a battery status of the plurality of mobile electric assets each having at least one mobile electric asset battery pack, wherein the plurality of mobile electric assets includes both self-propelled vehicle assets and non-self-propelled vehicle assets, and wherein electricity can be transferred directly between the self-propelled vehicle assets and non-self-propelled vehicle assets;
receiving a plurality of freight transport assignments including at least the following criteria for each: a pick-up point, a pick-up time, a drop-off point, a drop-off time and a weight and/or volume;
determining an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment; determining a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments that meet both the determined electric energy requirement and the criteria of the received freight transport assignment;
sending the route assignments and the charging assignments for the determined set of mobile electric assets for fulfilling the freight transport assignments, wherein at least one of the non-self propelled vehicle assets is a trailer, and/or wherein the mobile electric assets further include non-vehicle assets including a container, a pallet-sized unit, a sub-pallet-sized unit or an array of mobile electric asset battery packs.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Human Activity related to managing interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a control unit with a processor). For example, receiving freight transport assignments and determining a set of mobile electric assets route and charging assignments and sending route and charging assignments to mobile electric assets involve managing interactions or following instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data.
Independent Claim 13 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to information on capacity or state of health of mobile asset; Claim 3 is directed to sending freight transport assignments (sending/receiving data); Claim 5 is directed to a self-propelled vehicle asset; Claim 6 is directed to real-time information ; Claim 7 is directed to non-self-propelled vehicle asset as a trailer; Claim 8 is directed to electric energy requirements (analyzing data); Claim 9 is directed to charging assignments include stationary charging points or between self-propelled vehicles; Claim 10 is directed to optimizing battery cycling of mobile electric battery packs (analyzing data); Claim 11 is directed to transmitting instructions to a vehicle or driver for a transport (sending/receiving data); Claim 12 is directed to electricity price information or energy source (sending/receiving; analyzing data) and Claim 15 is directed to a database of road route information. Claims 14, 16, 18-20 substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 2, 6,9, 10 and 12 and are rejected based on the same rationale. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a plurality of mobile electric assets including self-propelled and non-self-propelled assets. Claim 13 recites the additional elements of a plurality of mobile electric assets, a system comprising a control unit. Examiner notes that within the independent and dependent claims the electric mobile assets functionality includes sending/receiving data, but there is no description in the claims of how this is being performed. The system comprising the control unit is generic computer component recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see ¶0114, generically recited control unit includes a processor).
For instance, the steps of receiving mobile electric asset information including geographic position and battery status and receiving a plurality of freight transport assignments is data gathering activity. The steps of determining and electric energy requirement and determining a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments involve analyzing data which is data gathering activity. The step of sending route assignments and charging assignments is data transmission.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of mobile electric assets and a processor are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Falck (US 2020/0393260) in view of Burns et al. (US 2020/0233410).
Claim 1:
Falck discloses:
A method of managing energy flow and freight transportation within a system including a plurality of mobile electric assets, said method comprising: (see at least Abstract, transport and assignment planning; see also ¶0017)
receiving mobile electric asset information including a geographic position and a battery status of the plurality of mobile electric assets each having at least one mobile electric asset battery pack (see at least ¶0033-¶0034, receive vehicle information including a status of vehicle fleet, state of charge of each battery pack; see ¶0019, geographic location of vehicles)
wherein the plurality of mobile electric assets includes both self-propelled vehicle assets and [non-self-propelled vehicle assets], wherein electricity can be transferred directly between the self-propelled vehicle assets and [non-self-propelled vehicle assets]; (see at least ¶0038, autonomous and semi-autonomous)
receiving a plurality of freight transport assignments including at least the following criteria for each: a pick-up point, a pick-up time, a drop-off point, a drop-off time and a weight and/or volume; (see at least ¶0018-¶0019, transportation assignment comprises a time range for pickup and delivery; see also ¶0044, transportation assignment includes geographical start point and end point; see also ¶0036, weight of package picked up)
determining an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment; (see at least ¶0036-¶0037, battery capacity and estimation of the number of required charge cycles for each EV; see also ¶0041-¶0042)
determining a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments that meet both the determined electric energy requirement and the criteria of the received freight transport assignment; and (see at least ¶0041-¶0043, transportation assignments)
sending the route assignments and the charging assignments for the determined set of mobile electric assets for fulfilling the freight transport assignments, (see at least ¶0050, sending information about the transportation assignment and information about routes to be assigned to EV; see also ¶0014)
While Falck discloses the above limitations, Falck does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Burns does not disclose:
wherein the mobile electric assets include both self-propelled vehicle assets and non-self-propelled vehicle assets, and wherein electricity can be transferred directly between the self-propelled vehicle assets and non-self-propelled vehicle assets, (see at least Figures 1-2 and associated text; see also ¶0027-¶0028, electric freight trailer configured to couple with an autonomous tow vehicle)
wherein at least one of the non-self propelled vehicle assets is a trailer, and/or wherein the mobile electric assets further include non-vehicle assets including a container, a pallet-sized unit, a sub-pallet-sized unit or an array of mobile electric asset battery packs. (see at least Figures 1-2 and associated text; see also ¶0027-¶0028, electric freight trailer configured to couple with an autonomous tow vehicle)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the transportation assignments of Falck with the coupling of electric freight trailer with a tow vehicle of Burns in order to assist with recycling the energy of the towing vehicle to help propel the trailer (Abstract).
Claim 2:
Falck and Burns disclose claim 1. Falck further discloses:
wherein the batter status includes information about a capacity and/or state of health of each mobile electric asset battery pack. (see at least ¶0011, state of health for each battery pack; see also ¶0033)
Claim 3:
While Falck and Burns disclose claim 1, and Burns further discloses an electric freight trailer (Abstract). Falck further discloses:
wherein the method further comprises sending for each of the freight transport assignment information about the freight transport assignment, information about the geographic position of at least one [non-self-propelled] vehicle asset, information about the route assignment and information about the charging assignment. (see at least ¶0018-¶0019, transportation assignment comprises a time range for pickup and delivery; see also ¶0044, transportation assignment includes geographical start point and end point; see also ¶0050, sending information about the transportation assignment and information about routes to be assigned to EV)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the transportation assignments of Falck with the coupling of electric freight trailer with a tow vehicle of Burns in order to assist with recycling the energy of the towing vehicle to help propel the trailer (Abstract).
Claim 5:
Falck and Burns disclose claim 1. Falck further discloses:
wherein at least one of the self-propelled vehicle assets is an autonomous electric vehicle, a remotely operated electric vehicle, an electric vehicle operated by a driver, an electric truck, an electric tractor or an electric pod. (see at least ¶0038, autonomous and semi-autonomous)
Claim 7:
While Falck and Lei disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Bucknor does disclose:
wherein the non-self-propelled vehicle assets are trailers carrying the freight or stationery non-self-propelled vehicle assets. (see at least ¶¶0027-¶0028, electric freight trailer)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the transportation assignments of Falck with the coupling of electric freight trailer with a tow vehicle of Burns in order to assist with recycling the energy of the towing vehicle to help propel the trailer (Abstract).
Claim 8:
Falck and Burns disclose claim 1. Falck further discloses:
wherein the electric energy requirement is a minimum electric energy requirement. (see at least ¶0041, the controller is configured to take the lowest number of total charge cycles for completing both transport assignments; see also ¶0042, lowest number of total charge cycles)
Claim 9:
While Falck and Burns disclose claim 1, and Burns further discloses non-self propelled vehicle assets (see Abstract). Falck further discloses:
wherein the charging assignments include charging of the mobile electric assets at stationary charging points and/or between the self-propelled vehicle assets and [the non-self- propelled vehicle assets] during driving on a route assignment. (see at least ¶0012, route information including charging stations)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the transportation assignments of Falck with the coupling of electric freight trailer with a tow vehicle of Burns in order to assist with recycling the energy of the towing vehicle to help propel the trailer (Abstract).
Claim 10:
Falck and Burns disclose claim 1. Falck further discloses:
wherein the determination of the set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments takes into account optimizing battery cycling of the mobile electric battery packs in the system. (see at least ¶0011, the amount of charge cycles allowable may be predefined by an upper threshold or range in order to allow state of health for each battery pack; see also 0041)
Claim 12:
Falck and Burns disclose claim 1. Falck further discloses:
wherein electricity information including price and/or originating energy source is received for charging stations and batteries containing energy, and (see at least ¶0021, receiving information about electricity prices and assigning geographical road route is based on electricity prices)
wherein the charging assignments are based on overall system parameters of total emissions and/or energy price for the system, route assignment, freight assignment or a combination thereof. (see at least ¶0021, receiving information about electricity prices and assigning geographical road route is based on electricity prices)
Claim 15:
Falck and Burns disclose claim 13. Falck further discloses:
further comprising a database comprising geographic road route information. (see ¶0025, database that includes route and road information)
Claims 13, 16 and 18-20 for a system (Falck Figure 1 and associated text) substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 1, 2, 9, 10 and 12 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Falck (US 2020/0393260) in view of Burns et al. (US 2020/0233410) further in view of Mangal et al. (US 2022/0410750).
Claim 6:
While Falck and Burns disclose claim 1, neither Falck nor Burns disclose the following limitation; however, Mangal does disclose:
wherein the mobile electric asset information is received in real time. (see at least ¶0101, predicting energy EV will use based on real-time and historical data)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the transportation assignments of Falck and the coupling of electric freight trailer with a tow vehicle of Burns with the real-time energy data of Mangal since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14 for a device substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 6 for a method and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Falck (US 2020/0393260) in view of Burns et al. (US 2020/0233410) further in view of Hardee et al. (US 2020/0173795).
Claim 11:
While Falck and Lei disclose claim 1, and Falck further discloses sending transportation assignments (see ¶0050), neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Hardee does disclose:
wherein the method further comprises transmitting instructions to a vehicle or to the driver thereof to transport at least one of the non-self-propelled vehicle assets to another geographic position. (see at least ¶0045, dispatching rescue vehicle to tow (transport) disabled vehicle)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the transportation assignments of Falck and the coupling of electric freight trailer with a tow vehicle of Burns with the dispatching of a two vehicle of Hardee to facilitate transporting a disabled vehicle to another location)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Salter et al. (US 2023/0373315) discloses coordinating and providing assistive traction drive forces during towing events between a motor vehicle and one or more charging trailers.
Hagan (US 2015/0204741) discloses A trailer for a vehicle with a high voltage traction-battery. The trailer may be a self-propelled trailer to substantially match vehicle dynamics and minimize impact on the vehicle. Alternatively, the trailer may push the vehicle to simulate hill descent, or drag on the vehicle to simulate hill ascent.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625