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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 27, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/334,885, filed on June 14, 2023. In response to Examiner's Final Office Action dated May 28, 2026, Applicant on July, 27, 2026, amended claim 1. Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are amended in light of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed July 27, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed July 27, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the claimed invention is not merely directed to organizing calendar information or managing human scheduling activities. Even if the claims involve some scheduling aspects, the claims are not directed to the abstract concept of scheduling itself. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific technological solution for automated vehicle-preparation control. As described in the specification, vehicle departure preparation may involve technical vehicle operations such as heating or cooling a traction battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle. Such preparation tasks may be recurrent, such as when a user wants the vehicle to be prepared every workday, and the specification identifies a need for improved and flexible vehicle departure preparation. Spec., p. 1, 11. 18-30. The claims address this technical problem with a technical solution by automatically coordinating multiple vehicle subsystems to reach specified preparation states.
The present application addresses this problem by using a recurring time or schedule as part of a vehicle-preparation control workflow, rather than merely as calendar information. For example, the specification explains that editable calendar items indicate a recurring time or schedule for when preparations of the vehicle must be completed such that the vehicle is ready for departure. Spec., p. 6, 11. 12-17. The specification further explains that the recurrence of the time or schedule may be implemented using a Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of the RFC 5545 standard. Spec., p. 6, 11. 14-17; p. 8, 11. 14-30. Importantly, the use of RFC 5545 RRULEs provides a standardized, machine-readable recurrence specification that enables precise, automated calculation of future departure occurrences without manual intervention. This interoperable standard allows the vehicle-preparation system to reliably parse and process complex recurrence patterns (e.g., "every weekday," "first Monday of each month") and coordinate multiple vehicle subsystems accordingly, thereby improving the technical functioning of the vehicle-preparation control system.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the preceding Final Office Action, the instructions of the pending claim are user defined input into editable calendar. The vehicle preparation is merely using the device as a tool to apply the preparation instructions inputted by the user for the vehicle. Furthermore, Examiner maintains, the use of a standardized recurrence rule (RFC 5545 RRULE) merely uses a standard data format to apply the instructions of an abstract idea using generic computer components.
Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant claims are evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement; MPEP 21060.04(d)(1). Examiner finds the pending claims do not reflect how this arrangement provides improving the technical functioning of the vehicle-preparation control system as Applicant describes nor does the specification support such a claim. Examiner notes the advancements disclosed in Diamond v. Diehr, and SiRF Technology v. ITC recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Specifically, in Diamond v. Diehr utilized the Arrhenius equation to improve the process of controlling the operations of a mold in curing rubber parts, and SiRF Technology v. ITC disclosed a GPS receiver utilizing software that applies a mathematical formula to improve the ability to determine its position in weak environments. In contrast, Examiner finds there are no similar improvements here. Examiner finds Applicants abovementioned arguments are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not establish a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Examiner finds the vehicle-preparation control is only automated based on user input into a calendaring system and the vehicle preparation is solely based on the instructions provided by the user. Examiner maintains the claims are directed to abstract ideas constituting methods based on commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states Amended claim 1 includes the components and steps that provide this practical vehicle- preparation application (see p. 7, Applicant Remarks).
Even if some aspects of claim 1 involve calendar or scheduling information, claim 1 does not merely display, store, or communicate that information. Rather, claim 1 uses the RRULE- implemented recurrence in a vehicle-control workflow to prepare vehicle systems in advance of a recurring departure occurrence. The claimed recurrence information is therefore applied to control particular vehicle systems so that the vehicle reaches specified preparation levels or thresholds by the relevant recurring time or schedule. Unlike claims that merely collect and analyze information from physical sources without improving the underlying technology-such as those found ineligible in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)-amended claim 1 uses the scheduling data to actively control and coordinate physical vehicle hardware to achieve measurable preparation states. The claimed invention thus improves the technical field of automated vehicle preparation, similar to how the claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), improved database functionality, and how the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), improved computer animation through specific technological processes.
Thus, any alleged abstract idea is at least integrated into a practical application.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds the present claims are not comparable to the technical improvements disclosed in Enfish and/or McRO. In regard to Enfish, the claims assert improvements in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database, which achieves benefits over conventional databases). Enfish disclosed sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. In regard to McRO, the claims demonstrated improvements to a specific technological process (i.e., lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions), thus improving computer animation without requiring an artist's constant intermediation with significant support in the specification. Examiner finds Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem rather than a technological one. Applicant is describing the use of the additional elements as tools to improve a business process without reflecting and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved or there was a technical problem with the technology that the claimed invention solves. Examiner maintains the additional elements, as currently claimed, are used as generic tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea, which does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states claims also do not attempt to monopolize recurring schedules, calendar entries, RRULEs, RFC 5545, or vehicle scheduling generally. Instead, amended claim 1 is limited to a specific vehicle-preparation control workflow in which the recurrence of a recurring time or schedule is implemented using RRULE, vehicle-preparation information is determined, instructions are sent to vehicle systems, and the vehicle systems are controlled in advance of an occurrence of the recurring time or schedule so that the vehicle reaches corresponding levels or thresholds by that occurrence.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, although preemption is considered, the two-part analysis is used to determine patent eligibility. Preemption concerns are, thus fully addressed and rendered moot where a claim is determined to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the two-part framework. While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pyre-emptied, the claim should be eligible for patent protection").
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant states even when considered together, Abbas, Kusumi, and Monty fail to teach or suggest the amended limitation in which an RRULE-implemented recurring time or schedule is used as the operative control basis for preparing vehicle systems to reach specified levels or thresholds by an occurrence of the recurring time or schedule.
Further, the rejection appears to rely on impermissible hindsight. The Office Action combines Abbas's calendar-based autonomous vehicle ride scheduling, Kusumi's vehicle charging/pre-climate scheduling, and Monty's RFC 5545 calendar-data disclosure to reconstruct Applicant's claimed workflow. However, Abbas already provides its own calendar-based mechanism for requesting an autonomous vehicle and applying event-specific vehicle settings, and Kusumi already provides its own vehicle-specific departure scheduling mechanism for charging and/or pre-climate operations. The Office Action does not identify a deficiency in those systems that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to import Monty's RFC 5545/RRULE calendar-object framework into the vehicle-control context, much less to use that RRULE-implemented recurrence as the operative control basis for controlling vehicle systems to reach specified levels or thresholds by a recurring departure-ready time.
The only reason to perform such a modification is the improper hindsight basis employed when using the claimed invention as a roadmap for the rejection. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co. 357 F.3d 1270,1275 (2004) ("The "as a whole" instruction in title 35 prevents evaluation of the invention part by part. Without this important requirement, an obviousness assessment might break an invention into its component parts (A+ B + C), then find a prior art reference containing A, another containing B, and another containing C, and on that basis alone declare the invention obvious. This form of hindsight reasoning, using the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components, would discount the value of combining various existing features or principles in a new way to achieve a new result - often the very definition of invention.") Accordingly, the combination is based on improper hindsight and thus lacks motivation for combination.
For at least these reasons, the cited combination fails to render amended claim 1 obvious. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, Examiner finds the combination of Abbas in view of Monty is proper because Abbas discloses calendar-based mechanism for requesting an autonomous vehicle and applying event-specific vehicle settings. Monty improves upon Abbas by further disclosing the calendar input (i.e., calendar items indicating a recurring time or schedule for vehicle preparation), can be defined by the standard RFC 5545. Thus, Examiner maintains the combination of Abbas in view of Monty is sufficient in teaching the respective limitations of the claim invention as cited below in the U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, see pg. 9-10, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. Claim limitation “Request for Comments (FRC) 5545 standard” should recite “Request for Comments (RFC) 5545 standard”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 15 recites the limitation “in advance of an occurrence of the recurring time or schedule, controlling the at least two vehicle systems according to the vehicle-preparation information to perform at least two of heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle”. The Specification of the original discloser provides support for the assertion by stating the preparations of the vehicle may comprise one or more of: heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin and charging the vehicle etc. For example, climatizing the cabin may increase the comfort of the user of the vehicle, heating the battery may increase the charging range of an electric vehicle etc. (see pg. 3, ln. 8-13) and triggering of the vehicle may comprise to provide information about to which level or threshold the features should reach when the vehicle should be ready for departure. For example, the traction battery of the vehicle should be charged to 80% at departure (see pg. 7, ln. 32-pg. 8, ln. 5 ). However there is no actual description given and the specification fails to provide support for the concept of a device comprising a processor, a memory, a display and a communication interface for enabling recurrent preparation of a vehicle, charging a battery such that the vehicle reaches the one or more corresponding levels or thresholds by the occurrence of the recurring time or schedule, because the specification does not provide disclosure in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention achieves such a function. For the purpose of examination Examiner interprets the limitation to be “the vehicle-preparation information to perform at least two of heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 1 recites in advance of an occurrence of the recurring time or schedule, controlling the at least two vehicle systems according to the vehicle-preparation information to perform at least two of heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle, such that the vehicle reaches the one or more corresponding levels or thresholds by the occurrence of the recurring time or schedule. However, the claim limitation is unclear regarding what element is performing the controlling function. The specification discloses, in part:
“A device 110 may be comprised in the vehicle 100 or arranged to be associated with the vehicle 110, e.g. the device 110 may be connected to the vehicle 100 via a wired connection and/or a wireless connection. The device 110 may be located onboard the vehicle 100, i.e. mounted inside the vehicle 100, integrated in and located onboard the vehicle 100, as illustrated with the dotted box inside the vehicle 100 in fig. 1. In other words the device 110 may be arranged to not being removed from the vehicle 100 on a daily basis, except for example for maintenance and repairing purposes…. The device 110 may be partly located onboard the vehicle 100 and partly located at some other location, e.g. a remote location. The device 110 may be a standalone and handheld unit, e.g. a mobile phone, a tablet computer etc., as illustrated with the dotted box outside the vehicle 100 in fig. 1. The device 110 may be referred to as a vehicle device, a vehicle unit, a control unit, a user equipment, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a handheld device, a computer etc. The device 110 may be an electronic device. The device 110 may comprise processing circuitry which is adapted to run a computer program as disclosed herein. The device 110 may comprise hardware and/or software for performing the method described herein. The device 110 may be a computer or it may be comprised in a computer. The device 110 may communicate by use of wired and/or wireless communication means” (see Specification pg. 5, ln. 10-27).
It is unclear what type of device is being used to control the vehicle systems. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the device as an onboard device of a vehicle.
Claims 5 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 5 recites a device for enabling recurrent preparation of a vehicle, the device being arranged to perform the method according to claim 1. Claim 6 recites a vehicle comprising a device according to claim 5. However, even though claims 5 and 6 appear to switch statutory classes, claim 5 does not recite structural components of the device and claim 6 does not recite structural components of the vehicle. It is unclear if claims 5 and 6 are dependent method claims or independent machine claims. For the purpose of examination Examiner interprets claims 5 and 6 to be independent claims.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-3 are directed towards a method, claim 5 is directed towards a device, claim 6 is directed towards a vehicle, and 8 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium, which are all among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite triggering vehicle preparation based on a recurring time or schedule calendar items.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, displaying one or more editable calendar items indicating a recurring time or schedule for when preparations of the vehicle must be completed such that the vehicle is ready for departure, wherein the preparations of the vehicle comprise one or more of: heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle; and implementing, based on the user input, the recurrence of the recurring time or schedule using a Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of a Request for Comments (FRC) 5545 standard; determining, based at least in part on the device, vehicle-preparation information comprising: one or more vehicle-preparation features to be started in advance of the vehicle departure; and one or more corresponding levels or thresholds to be reached when the vehicle is ready for departure, constitutes methods based on commercial and legal interactions and managing personal behavior. The recitation of a device comprising a processor, memory, display, vehicle and communication interface and a wired and/or wireless connection does not take the claim out of the certain methods of the organizing human activity grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 5, 6 and 8 recite certain method of organizing human activity for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites obtaining user input via the editable calendar items indicating the recurring time or schedule when the vehicle shall be ready for departure and sending instructions via a wired and/or wireless connection to at least two vehicle systems of the vehicle, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites a method performed by a device comprising a processor, a memory, a display and a communication interface and in advance of an occurrence of the recurring time or schedule at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than a generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and controlling the at least two vehicle systems according to the vehicle-preparation information to perform at least two of heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle, such that the vehicle reaches the one or more corresponding levels or thresholds by the occurrence of the recurring time or schedule, which is not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to the abstract idea. The device recited in claim 5, the vehicle comprising a device recited in claim 6, and the non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program run on a computer in claim 8 also recite additional elements at a high-level of generality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f), as well as, merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular environment; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 5, 6 and 8 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including device comprising a processor, a memory, a display and a communication interface, wired and/or wireless connection, vehicle comprising a device, computer program comprising program code recited and the non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program run on a computer amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claim 2 recites editable calendar items displayed on one or more display units which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 3 recites wherein the device is integrated in and located onboard the vehicle or wherein the device is a standalone and handheld unit, which merely recites additional elements at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than a generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore claims 2 and 3 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
§ 101 Analysis of the device claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a device which is a statutory class of invention, however the body of the claims do not disclose any structural limitations necessary to properly claim a device. Accordingly the claims are interpreted to be directed to data or software per se which is not statutory subject matter. The claims are rejected because they are all not in one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a vehicle which is a statutory class of invention (e.g. apparatus), however the body of the claims do not disclose any structural limitations necessary to properly claim a vehicle. Accordingly the claims are interpreted to be directed to data or software per se which is not statutory subject matter. The claims are rejected because they are all not in one of the four statutory categories.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas et al., U.S Publication No. 2018/0060827 [hereinafter Abbas], Monty et al. 2023/0342499 [hereinafter Monty], and further in view of Cliff et al. 2022/0259825 [hereinafter Cliff].
Referring to Claim 1, Abbas teaches:
A method performed by a device comprising a processor, a memory, a display and a communication interface for enabling recurrent preparation of a vehicle (Abbas, [0064]; [0112]-[0117]), the method comprising:
displaying one or more editable calendar items indicating a recurring time or schedule for when preparations of the vehicle must be completed such that the vehicle is ready for departure (Abbas, Fig 2, [0029]), “FIG. 2 illustrates a first example screen 200 of the example GUI 122 of the first mobile device 106 of FIG. 1 for entering a calendar event and requesting an autonomous vehicle for the event, such as the vehicle 102 of FIG. 1. Although the first example screen 200 is shown in FIG. 2 in connection with the first mobile device 106, the first example screen 200 can be displayed via the GUIs 122 associated with the second mobile device 108 and/or the third mobile device 110 of FIG. 1”; (Abbas, [0038]), “… The vehicle settings menu 218 allows the first user to specify one or more settings for the vehicle 102 when the vehicle 102 picks up the first user to take the first user to the calendar event 202 or retrieves the first user from the calendar event 202 and, thus, provides for event-specific vehicle settings. For example, the first user can create a vehicle setting that the heat should be on in the vehicle 102 when the vehicle 102 arrives to retrieve the first user from the location of the calendar event 202. Other examples of vehicle settings include radio presets, which door should be unlocked for the first user to enter the vehicle 102, etc.”; (Abbas, [0026]; [0039]; [0044]; [0054]),
wherein the preparations of the vehicle comprise one or more of: heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle;
obtaining user input via the editable calendar items indicating the recurring time or schedule when the vehicle shall be ready for departure (Abbas, [0081]-[0082]), “… The predictor 618 can direct the request confirmer 606 to send a prompt to the user application 120 to auto-generate calendar entries for the third Tuesday of every month to the location and including a request for the vehicle 102… If the first user confirms that the vehicle 102 should be requested for the calendar event and/or if the first user confirms the auto-generated calendar events, the user application 120 prompts the user to select the pickup position at the location (e.g., via the position selector 404 of the fourth example screen 500). Also, the scheduler 134 schedules the request in the vehicle calendar 603 substantially as disclosed above…”; (Abbas, [0064]); and
sending instructions via a wired and/or wireless connection to at least two vehicle systems of the vehicle (Abbas, [0021]), “An example system 100 for scheduling of an autonomous vehicle 102 is illustrated in FIG. 1. The example vehicle 102 includes a first processor 104. The first processor 104 controls and/or provides for example, infotainment services such as music and navigation to a destination via Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) information. In the example system 100 of FIG. 1, the first processor 104 of the vehicle 102 is in wireless communication with a first mobile device”; (Abbas, [0023]).
Abbas teaches a rules creator allowing for the creation of default rules with respect to users creating calendar events via the user application on mobile devices (see par. 0026) and event-specific vehicle settings (see par. 0038), but Abbas does not explicitly teach:
implementing, based on the user input, the recurrence of the recurring time or schedule using a Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of a Request for Comments (FRC) 5545 standard.
However Monty teaches:
implementing, based on the user input, the recurrence of the recurring time or schedule using a Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of a Request for Comments (FRC) 5545 standard (Monty, [0129]), “the server 10 generates and stores calendar objects in accordance with the IETF's Standard on Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar), as defined for example in the Standard document RFC 5545, and related documents”; (Monty, [0068]), “… it will be apparent to the skilled reader that a calendar object may correspond to more than one entry in the calendar to be displayed (e.g. recurring events, or events having multiple parts)”; (Monty, [0223]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rule creator and user calendar application in Abbas to include the recurrence and standard limitations as taught by Monty. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of automatically scheduling an autonomous vehicle via a calendar user application and a schedule manager of the vehicle in Abbas (see par. 0084) to efficiently include the results of standardizing the format and content of the calendar data and/or the communications between a user device and a server to synchronize calendar data (see Monty par. 0063).
Abbas teaches event-specific vehicle settings (see par. 0038), but Abbas does not explicitly teach:
determining, based at least in part on the device, vehicle-preparation information comprising:
one or more vehicle-preparation features to be started in advance of the vehicle departure; and one or more corresponding levels or thresholds to be reached when the vehicle is ready for departure; and
in advance of an occurrence of the recurring time or schedule, controlling the at least two vehicle systems according to the vehicle-preparation information to perform at least two of heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle, such that the vehicle reaches the one or more corresponding levels or thresholds by the occurrence of the recurring time or schedule.
However Cliff teaches:
determining, based at least in part on the device, vehicle-preparation information comprising (Cliff, [0027]), “intelligent work vehicle preheating system… data indicating dates and times at which on-duty operation of the wheel loader 20 is anticipated, data specifying operator preferences pertinent to the preheating functionalities, and other such data items useful in carrying-out the processes and functions described herein”; (Cliff, [0043]):
one or more vehicle-preparation features to be started in advance of the vehicle departure; and one or more corresponding levels or thresholds to be reached when the vehicle is ready for departure (Cliff, [0020]), “the processor architecture may determine an earliest anticipated start (EAS) time (the beginning of an operational window) and commence hydraulic fluid preheating at a time sufficiently prior to the EAS time to ensure that hydraulic fluid target temperatures are reached by the preestablished EAS time, possibly subject to other constraints, such as a minimum state of charge constraint discussed below. Further, the controller architecture may determine the EAS time based upon operator input or infer the EAS time from historical patterns of E/H work vehicle usage. The controller architecture of the intelligent preheating system may then establish an appropriate lead time at which to commence hydraulic fluid preheating, as back calculated from the EAS time, by recalling a fixed value from memory or utilizing a variable value factoring current hydraulic fluid temperatures, ambient temperature, and/or other sensor inputs”; (Cliff, [0049]), “the preheating functions of the intelligent work vehicle preheating system 22 may be dependent upon the SoC of the battery pack 82 in embodiments. In the instant example, specifically, preheating of the hydraulic fluid bodies within the hydraulic subsystem 52 is constrained by both time (schedule-based restrictions) and battery pack SoC. With respect to schedule-based constraints, the above-discussed approach in commencing preheating prior to an EAS time is again employed. However, in this particular example, the time at which preheating commences (timepoint T2 in FIG. 5) is paused or held in abeyance until the battery pack SoC reaches a predetermined minimum threshold. In embodiments, the predetermined minimum threshold may range from 90% to 100% SoC, inclusive”;
in advance of an occurrence of the recurring time or schedule, controlling the at least two vehicle systems according to the vehicle-preparation information to perform at least two of heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle, such that the vehicle reaches the one or more corresponding levels or thresholds by the occurrence of the recurring time or schedule (Cliff, [0046]-[0047]), “the intelligent work vehicle preheating system 22 commences preheating of the hydraulic fluid and the cabin interior at timepoint T2… the intelligent work vehicle preheating system 22 concurrently applies heat input to both the hydraulic fluid within the hydraulic subsystem 52 (trace 112) and the cabin interior (trace 114) in conjunction with charging of the battery pack 82 (trace 116)… the preheating system 22 commands the cabin HVAC subsystem 62 to heat the interior of the cabin 30 until reaching the operator comfort level of about 22° C. (72° F.), which may be a default value recalled from the memory 68 or set to operator preference. The battery pack 82 is concurrently charged in typical fashion until reaching an optimized 100% SoC value. Subsequently, at timepoint T3, the E/H wheel loader 20 is disconnected from the battery-external power supply and again enters an on-duty usage cycle drawing energy from the battery pack 82. Notably, at timepoint T3, the battery pack 82 is fully charged, the hydraulic fluid body or bodies within the hydraulic subsystem 52 have been heated to an optimal temperature, and the cabin interior is warmed to operator comfort levels. Consequently, little to no energy stores from the recently-charged battery pack 82 need to be expended on heating hydraulic fluid or the cabin interior, including under the cold start conditions in the example scenario… The controller architecture 48 thus determines the appropriate juncture at which to commence preheating of the hydraulic fluids and the cabin interior (timepoint T2) by subtracting a duration of time required to perform adequate preheating of the hydraulic fluids and the cabin interior from the EAS time (timepoint T3); and, ideally, an adequate duration of time to fully heat the hydraulic fluid body or bodies to their optimal target temperatures (here, 180° F. or 82° C.) and, of lesser importance, an adequate duration of time to fully heat the cabin interior to the desired operator comfort level (here, 72° F. or 22° C.)”; (Cliff, [0037]; [0020]; [0042]; [0048]; [0033]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the event-specific vehicle settings in Abbas to include the preparation and instructions limitations as taught by Cliff. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of automatically scheduling an autonomous vehicle via a calendar user application and a schedule manager of the vehicle in Abbas (see par. 0084) to efficiently include the results of effectively extend the operational lifespan of the battery during ensuring on-duty usage of work vehicle (see Cliff, [0017]).
Referring to Claim 2, Abbas in view of Monty in view of Cliff teaches the method according to claim 1. Abbas further teaches:
wherein the one or more editable calendar items are displayed on one or more display units (Abbas, [0017]), “To request the vehicle, a user can access a user application associated with the autonomous vehicle that allows for scheduling of the vehicle via a user devices…”; (Abbas, [0024]), “The user application 120 includes a calendar 124. In some examples, the calendar 124 is associated with another user application installed on the first mobile device 106, such as a third party calendar application (e.g., Google® Calendar, Yahoo!® Calendar, Outlook®). The calendar 124 allows the first user of the first mobile device 106 to input, via the GUI 122 of the first mobile device 106, a calendar event, such as an upcoming appointment”; (Abbas, Fig. 2, [0029]; [0050]; [0121]).
Referring to Claim 3, Abbas in view of Monty in view of Cliff teaches the method according to claim 1. Abbas further teaches:
wherein the device is integrated in and located onboard the vehicle or wherein the device is a standalone and handheld unit (Abbas, [0121]), “… scheduling of calendar events and requests for use of an autonomous vehicle in connection with the calendar events through a single user application installed on a user device such as a smartphone”; (Abbas, [0028]), “The data transmitted by the communicator 132 of the user application of the first mobile device 106 to the first processor 104 of the vehicle 102 is processed by a scheduler 134…The scheduler 134 schedules the vehicle requests based on an analysis of, for example, calendar event data, previously scheduled events, and vehicle usage patterns detected in the calendar event data”; (Abbas, [0023]).
Referring to Claim 5, Abbas teaches:
A device for enabling recurrent preparation of a vehicle (Abbas, [0061]; [0064]), the device being arranged to perform a method according to claim 1 (Abbas, [0023]), “system 100, the wireless communication between the respective first, second, and third mobile devices 106, 108, 110 and the first processor 104 of the vehicle 102 provides for scheduling of requests for the vehicle 102…The user application 120 installed on each of the first, second, and third mobile devices 106, 108, 110 enables the first, second, and third users to receive information from and send information to the first processor 104 of the vehicle 102 with respect to requests for the vehicle 102”; (Abbas, [0021]; [0024]).
Claim 5 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Referring to Claim 6, Abbas teaches:
A vehicle comprising a device according to claim 5 (Abbas, [0028]), “The data transmitted by the communicator 132 of the user application of the first mobile device 106 to the first processor 104 of the vehicle 102 is processed by a scheduler 134…The scheduler 134 schedules the vehicle requests based on an analysis of, for example, calendar event data, previously scheduled events, and vehicle usage patterns detected in the calendar event data”; (Abbas, [0023]), “In the example system 100, the wireless communication between the respective first, second, and third mobile devices 106, 108, 110 and the first processor 104 of the vehicle 102 provides for scheduling of requests for the vehicle 102…The user application 120 installed on each of the first, second, and third mobile devices 106, 108, 110 enables the first, second, and third users to receive information from and send information to the first processor 104 of the vehicle 102 with respect to requests for the vehicle 102”; (Abbas, [0021]; [0027]; [0028]; [0052]).
Claim 6 incorporates the subject matter of claim 5, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Referring to Claim 8, Abbas teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when the computer program is run on a computer (Abbas, [0110]), “the methods may be implemented using machine-readable instructions that comprise a program for execution by a processor such as the processor 912 shown in the example processor platform 900, discussed below in connection with FIG. 9. The program may be embodied in software stored on a tangible computer readable storage medium such as a CD-ROM, a floppy disk, a hard drive, a digital versatile disk (DVD), a Blu-ray disk, or a memory associated with the processor 912, but the entire program and/or parts thereof could alternatively be executed by a device other than the processor 912 and/or embodied in firmware or dedicated hardware”; (Abbas, [0111]; [0120]).
Claim 8 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yao et al. (US 20260264554 A1) – The present disclosure relates generally to charging management systems. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to a systematic solution for computing an optimized charging schedule to charge an electric vehicle to a target battery level by the departure time.
Mancini et al. (US 20190070924 A1) – A trip timing module accepts information that specifies when the next trip might occur and/or provides key objectives such as “a supercharge event is expected soon” or “there was a recent drive and the cabin is hot, it is worthwhile to attempt to recover this energy” and produces an output. Energy cost preferences specified by the user serve to limit the extent of precondition; this provides an upper bound against uncertainty. Preconditioning routines can be initiated via the Tesla Mobile App, through a recurring calendar app in-vehicle, or via an adaptive inference scheme. The latter might recognize when you are at work and figure out your typical departure times (if enabled).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights