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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/334,885, filed on June 14, 2023. In response to Examiner's Non-Final Office Action dated November 19, 2025, Applicant on February 13, 2026, amended claim 1 and canceled claim 4. 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.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn in light of Applicants canceling claim 4.
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The 35 U.S.C. 101 Software Per Se rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments.
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 February 13, 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 February 13, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the claims are directed to a specific improvement in vehicle control technology. Unlike mere scheduling or calendar management, the claimed invention (i) utilizes a standardized recurrence rule (RFC 5545 RRULE) to generate machine-interpretable instructions, (ii) transmits these instructions to one or more vehicle systems, and (iii) specifies technical thresholds for hardware operation (battery temperature, cabin climate, charge level, etc.), which are achieved automatically at scheduled times. This arrangement provides technical improvements in energy efficiency, user comfort, and operational reliability, while addressing the technical challenge of interoperable, automated vehicle preparation across platforms. The claims recite more than an abstract idea and are integrated into a practical application.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds utilizing a standardized recurrence rule (RFC 5545 RRULE) to generate machine-interpretable instructions, transmits these instructions to one or more vehicle systems, and specifies technical thresholds for hardware operation (battery temperature, cabin climate, charge level, etc.), which are achieved automatically at scheduled times is merely using 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 technical improvements in energy efficiency and operational reliability, while addressing the technical challenge of interoperable, automated vehicle preparation across platforms as Applicant describes nor does the specification support such a claim. Furthermore user comfort is not an improvement to a technology, technological field or computer-related technology. Applicant has not identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves. 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 the claims do not merely recite collecting and displaying calendar data. Rather, they require generating and transmitting machine-interpretable instructions based on an industry- standard recurrence rule, directly controlling one or more vehicle systems to achieve specified thresholds (temperature, charge, etc.) at scheduled times. This is a technical solution to the technical problem of consistent, reliable vehicle preconditioning-especially across heterogeneous platforms and in fleet settings-unlike prior approaches.
In more detail, under Step 2A, Prong One, the Office Action asserts that claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity, grouping the displaying of editable calendar items, obtaining user input of a recurring time or schedule, and triggering the vehicle accordingly as abstract activity. However, this characterization abstracts the claim away from its technological context and disregards the claim as a whole. Claim 1 is directed to a method performed by a device comprising a processor, memory, display, and communication interface for enabling recurrent preparation of a vehicle. The method does not merely organize human activity; rather, it configures a computing device to coordinate and control multiple physical vehicle subsystems-specifically at least two of a battery heater, battery cooler, cabin climate system, and charging system-such that the vehicle is prepared in a coordinated manner to reach specified thresholds at a defined departure time. The claim requires that instructions are sent, in a coordinated manner, via a wired and/or wireless connection to at least two vehicle systems, and that the instructions specify which features are to be started in advance and to which level or threshold those features should reach when the vehicle is ready for departure.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds Applicants abovementioned arguments are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. The instructions of the pending claim are user defined input into editable calendar items. Page 7 of the specification states, in part, “The device 110 obtains user input via the editable calendar items indicating the recurring time or schedule when the vehicle 100 shall be ready for departure. The user input may be a selection amongst a plurality of predefined input alternatives, it may be free text, it may be ticking of a box, it may be a spoken input etc. The user who inputs the user input may be the driver of the vehicle 100, the owner of the vehicle 100, an operator of the vehicle 100 or any other person associated with the vehicle 100 that is in charge of making the vehicle 100 ready for departure at a certain time. The device 110 triggers the vehicle 100 to be ready for departure at the recurring time or schedule, as indicated by the user input. The triggering may be done after the user input has been obtained. The triggering of the vehicle 100 to be ready for departure may comprise to send instructions, via a wired and/or wireless connection, to the vehicle 100 to be ready for departure at the recurring time or schedule”. For at least these reasons, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and maintains achieving the functions of the claimed invention are explicitly based on user-input as instructions of the abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the preparation of vehicle subsystems such as heating or cooling a traction battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle are not mental processes or fundamental economic practices. They are technical operations affecting physical components of a vehicle and directly impact battery performance, charging efficiency, energy consumption, and passenger comfort. The specification explains that vehicles-particularly electric and hybrid vehicles-require preconditioning of high-voltage batteries and cabin systems prior to departure, and that recurring preparation improves readiness and efficiency. The claimed method therefore addresses a technical problem in vehicle control: how to reliably and repeatedly coordinate multiple energy- consuming subsystems so that specified operational thresholds are achieved at departure time. The use of editable calendar items and a recurrence rule is not claimed in isolation as a scheduling abstraction, but as part of a concrete control architecture that triggers coordinated physical preparation of vehicle systems.
In response, Examiner respectfully finds Applicants arguments are moot because Examiner did not state the claim limitations recited mental processes or fundamental economic practices.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states even if the displaying and obtaining steps could be viewed as involving aspects of scheduling, the claim as a whole integrates any such concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The Office Action asserts that sending instructions via wired and/or wireless connections is insignificant extra-solution activity and that the method is implemented at a high level of generality. However, the claim requires that the device triggers the vehicle by sending coordinated instructions to at least two vehicle systems, where the instructions define both advance start timing and required target levels or thresholds. This is not mere data transmission; it is a control operation that causes multiple vehicle subsystems to operate in advance of departure in a coordinated manner to achieve defined physical states at a specified time. The coordinated triggering ensures that, for example, a battery reaches a defined temperature or state of charge and that the cabin reaches a defined temperature at departure. These are concrete physical effects in a particular machine, namely a vehicle comprising specific subsystems.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains sending user-input instructions to vehicle systems is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity of delivering information. Similar to, an example of pre-solution activity, a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent; see MPEP 2106.05(g), Examiner finds the present invention delivers the user-inputted data vehicle to perform the functions of the device triggers. As stated in the previous Office Action, Examiner finds the claimed invention is directed to triggering a vehicle to execute instructions inputted by a user for preparation of the vehicles departure. An example of applying a judicial exception with a specific device (i.e., particular machine) is Mackay Radio & Telegraph v. Radio Corp. of America. In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details of the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. There is no similar technology, technological problem or solution here.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the recurrence of the time or schedule is implemented using a Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of the RFC 5545 standard. The specification explains that RFC 5545 provides a standardized data format for calendar and scheduling information and enables interoperability and integration across platforms and vehicle IT systems . By implementing recurrence using RRULE, the device generates standardized recurrence definitions that can be processed consistently by different user interfaces and integrated with vehicle control systems. This is not merely "organizing human activity," but a technical solution that leverages a standardized data structure to reliably automate recurrent triggering of coordinated vehicle preparation. The standardized recurrence rule enables precise, machine-readable recurring schedules that are directly tied to the control of vehicle subsystems. The claim therefore applies any alleged abstract scheduling concept in a specific technological environment to control a particular machine and its components.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provides a detailed explanation of how the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Examiner finds, Applicant’s specification discloses the Request for Comments (RFC) 5545 standard as a well-known existing standard, it is easy to implement the recurring time or schedule (see p. 2, Applicant Specification) and the device 110 uses the existing standard RFC 5545 data format for calendar and scheduling information such as events, to-dos, journal entries, free and busy information, time zone information etc. The RFC 5545 standard is independent of any particular calendar service or protocol. The data format of RFC 5545 may be referred to as an iCalendar format. The device 110 uses the existing standard RFC 5545 to specify the recurrence of a time or schedule, and the RRULE function of the RFC 5545 (see p. 8, Applicant Specification). Thus, Examiner finds the Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of the RFC 5545 standard to be a standard, well-known data format. The pending claims merely limits to use of Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of the RFC 5545 standard to a particular technological environment without the claim citing any improvement to a technology, a technological field or computer related technology. Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states under Step 2B, the Office Action concludes that the additional elements, including the device, wired and/or wireless connection, vehicle, and computer program medium, amount to generic computer components performing generic functions. Applicant respectfully submits that this analysis overlooks the ordered combination of elements and the specific functionality recited. The claim does not merely recite generic transmission of information; it recites coordinated control of at least two specified vehicle systems, including battery heating/cooling and charging, based on recurrence rules and user-defined thresholds. The instructions comprise detailed control information about which features should be started in advance and to what level or threshold they should reach. This coordinated, threshold-based preconditioning of multiple vehicle subsystems based on a standardized recurring schedule is not shown to be well- understood, routine, and conventional, and the Office Action does not provide factual support demonstrating that such an ordered combination was conventional.
The claim is rooted in vehicle technology and improves the functioning of the vehicle by ensuring that subsystems are prepared in a coordinated and timely manner before departure. The preparation affects battery efficiency, energy utilization, and system readiness, thereby improving overall vehicle operation. The method thus effects a transformation of the vehicle subsystems to specific physical states (e.g., temperature levels, charge levels) at a defined departure time. This constitutes a meaningful limitation that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception. Even if it were considered to recite aspects of scheduling, it integrates any such concept into a practical application involving coordinated control of multiple vehicle subsystems and achieves specific physical states at departure time. Moreover, the ordered combination of elements amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes the analysis in Step 2B addresses the question on whether an additional element (or combination of additional elements) represents well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities. Examiner notes limitations the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include, in part:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); and
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
However Examiner finds the present invention recite similar limitations the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Examiner finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements (i.e., coordinated control of at least two specified vehicle systems, including battery heating/cooling and charging, based on recurrence rules and user-defined thresholds. The instructions comprise detailed control information about which features should be started in advance and to what level or threshold they should reach), the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Applicant has not identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than instructions used to facilitate triggering vehicle preparation based on a recurring time or schedule calendar items. Examiner maintains the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The vehicle and vehicle systems merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment and are not technical in nature; MPEP 2106.05(h).
Furthermore, Examiner emphasizes the pending claims do not fully reflect how the preparation affects battery efficiency, energy utilization, and system readiness, thereby improving overall vehicle operation as Applicant describes nor does the specification support such a claim. Examiner maintains the vehicle systems are controlled by predefined user instructions based on user input into the editable calendar items of the device and does not recite any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Applicant has not presented an argument that would alter this analysis. For at least these reasons, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant states Monty discloses the use of RFC 5545 (iCalendar) and RRULEs for creating, storing, and displaying recurring calendar events ([0129]), but Monty is limited to the storage, display, and management of calendar data. Monty does not disclose or suggest using RRULE as a technical trigger for automated vehicle system preparation or for controlling any physical system.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., using RRULE as a technical trigger for automated vehicle system preparation or for controlling any physical system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner finds 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 and event-specific vehicle settings. Monty improves upon Abbas by disclosing 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, where 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). For at least these reasons, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, see pg. 10-14, filed February 13, 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 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; obtaining user input via the editable calendar items indicating the recurring time or schedule when the vehicle shall be ready for departure; triggering the vehicle to be ready for departure at the recurring time or schedule by sending, in a coordinated manner, instructions to the vehicle to be ready for departure at the recurring time or schedule, such that the vehicle systems are prepared in a coordinated manner according to the recurring time or schedule, wherein the instructions comprise information about which features should be started in advance of the vehicle departure, wherein the instructions comprise information about to which level or threshold the features should reach when the vehicle should be ready for departure, and wherein the recurrence of the time or schedule is implemented using a Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of a Request for Comments (RFC) 5545 standard constitutes methods based on commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior. The recitation of a device comprising a processor, a memory, a display and a 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 sending, in a coordinated manner, instructions via wired and/or wireless connection to the vehicle to be ready for departure at the recurring time or schedule, which is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g) and wherein the at least two vehicle systems comprising at least two of: a battery heater, a battery cooler, a cabin climate system, and a charging system, which are limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, claim 1 recites a method performed by a device comprising a processor, a memory, a display and a communication interface and triggering the vehicle to be ready for departure at the recurring time or schedule by the communication interface by sending, in a coordinated manner, instructions via a wired and/or wireless connection 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). Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does 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). 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 are 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.
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], Kusumi et al., U.S. Publication No. 2013/0274972 [hereinafter Kusumi], and further in view of Monty et al. 2023/0342499 [hereinafter Monty].
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]);
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
triggering the vehicle to be ready for departure at the recurring time or schedule the communication interface by sending, in a coordinating manner, instructions via a wired and/or wireless connection to at least two vehicle systems of the vehicle to be ready for departure at the recurring time or schedule, such that the vehicle systems are prepared in a coordinated manner according to the recurring time or schedule wherein the instructions comprise information about which features should be started in advance of the vehicle departure (Abbas, [0026]), “a rule created via the rules creator 128 is related to one or more settings of the vehicle 102. For example, the first user can create a rule that if the vehicle 102 detects that the outside temperature is below a predetermined temperature threshold, the vehicle 102 should automatically turn on the heat in the vehicle 102 when the vehicle 102 picks up the first user. In other examples, the first user creates one or more rules when creating a new calendar event via the calendar 124, as will be disclosed below”; (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, [0064]), “… To calculate the arrival time, the trip planner 608 accounts for… any extra preparation time, or time required to implement one or more vehicle settings (e.g., a time for the vehicle 102 to heat up based on the vehicle settings input by the user). For example, the first user requests can request to be picked up by the vehicle 102 at a calendar event 102 ending at 11:00 AM with an arrival buffer of five minutes and the heat on the vehicle 102 to warm an interior of the vehicle 102 to 72° degrees… Based on the scheduled event time, the estimated travel time, the arrival buffer time, and the extra preparation time (e.g., to warm the vehicle), the trip planner 108 determines that vehicle 102 will arrive at 10:55 am to account for the arrival buffer time and should travel to the location at 10:20 to account for the travel time and the preparation time to warm the vehicle”; (Abbas, [0077]), “The vehicle controller 614 also instructs the vehicle 102 to implement the vehicle settings input by the user with respect to, for example, heating the vehicle 102. Thus, the vehicle controller 614 instructs the vehicle 102 with respect to execution of the vehicle request”; (Abbas, [0021]; [0023]; [0041]; [0044]; [0054]; [0090]).
Abbas teaches event-specific vehicle settings (see par. 0038), but Abbas does not explicitly teach:
wherein the preparations of the vehicle comprise one or more of: heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle,
wherein the at least two vehicle systems comprising at least two of: a battery heater, a battery cooler, a cabin climate system, and a charging system,
wherein the instructions comprise information about to which level or threshold the features should reach when the vehicle should be ready for departure, and
wherein the recurrence of the time or schedule is implemented using a Recurrence Rule, RRULE, of a Request for Comments, RFC, 5545 standard
However Kusumi teaches:
wherein the preparations of the vehicle comprise one or more of: heating a battery, cooling the battery, climatizing a cabin, and charging the vehicle (Kusumi, [0026]), “a pre-climate operation begins, without any user interaction, during a pre-determined time period before the next departure date and time if the user has selected this option during departure schedule setting. For example, the ECU 105 may activate the HVAC unit 140 to perform a pre-climate operation approximately 20 minutes in advance of the next departure date and time in order for the climate inside the vehicle 100 to be adjusted according to the requested pre-climate settings at the next departure time”; (Kusumi, [0029]),
wherein the at least two vehicle systems comprising at least two of: a battery heater, a battery cooler, a cabin climate system, and a charging system (Kusumi, [0029]), “designate whether the vehicle 100 activates the charging operation only, pre-climate operation only or both charge and pre-climate operations in advance of the scheduled departure times according to an embodiment of the present invention…each of the three types of operations for a particular departure time (the charge only, pre-climate only or charge and pre-climate) is displayed in a distinct color on the graphical user interface…”; (Kusumi, [0030]), “If the "Charge and Pre-Climate" option is selected, both pre-charging and pre-climate operations are conducted before the scheduled date and time of departure”,
wherein the instructions comprise information about to which level or threshold the features should reach when the vehicle should be ready for departure (Kusumi, [0025]), “The BMCU 115 determines that a charging operation is unnecessary when the battery 120 is already adequately charged according to an embodiment of the present invention. The BMS 130 may transmit a signal to the charger 135 corresponding to the SOC of the battery 120. If the SOC is above a certain predetermined threshold, the charger 135 or the BMS 130 determines that the battery 120 is adequately charged. In such embodiment, the charger 135 does not conduct any charging operation even if directed by the ECU 105 to conduct a charging operation and will transmit a signal to the ECU 105 corresponding to the measured SOC. In another embodiment, the battery 120 is adequately charged when the SOC exceeds a predetermined threshold which is a percentage relative to the current charging capacity of the cells of the battery 120. For example, the threshold may be as high as the battery 120 can be charged. In yet another embodiment, the threshold may be a SOC percentage between 80% and 100%. Alternatively, the SOC may be measured as a percentage relative to a fixed reference charging capacity for the battery 12”; (Kusumi, [0036]).
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 Kusumi. 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 immediately activating operations without affecting the primary departure schedule (see Kusumi Abstract).
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:
wherein the recurrence of the time or schedule is implemented using a Recurrence Rule, RRULE, of a Request for Comments, RFC, 5545 standard.
However Monty teaches:
wherein the recurrence of the time or schedule is implemented using a Recurrence Rule (RRULE) of a Request for Comments (RFC) 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)”.
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).
Referring to Claim 2, Abbas in view of Kusumi in view of Monty 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 Kusumi in view of Monty 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.
Hettrich et al. (US 20160059733 A1) – Set forth herein are systems and methods for determining battery heating conditions and pre-heating lead times of at least a minute or more, based on input parameters and sets of input parameters, to predictively and dynamically heat a secondary battery so that the battery has a specific power output and performance level when used in an electric or hybrid vehicle application.
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 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