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 .
Priority Date
The earliest priority date of this application is 07/31/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-22 have been presented and examined in this action.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended since the last action dated 12/15/2025.
Claims 21-22 are new since the last action dated 12/15/2025.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino (US 2017/0030728) in view of Rosekrans (US 2012/0116670).
Claims 5-7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Hanson (US 2021/0083527) in view of Gerrese (US 2022/0120569)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Yamazaki (US 2013/0113843).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Yamazaki in view of Duda (US 2017/0277185).
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that the amendments made to the independent claims overcome the previously rendered rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. The arguments are moot, however, as a new grounds of rejection has been identified in a renewed search necessitated by said amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 12-15 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino (US 2017/0030728) in view of Rosekrans (US 2012/0116670).
As per Claim 1:
Baglino discloses the following limitations:
“A computer-implemented method, the computer-implemented method comprising: monitoring a current energy expenditure of a vehicle as the vehicle executes a first trip plan”
Baglino Paragraph [0032] discloses monitoring current energy expenditure and comparing it to a predicted expenditure based on a trip plan.
“determining that the current energy expenditure of the vehicle does not match a predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle”
Baglino Paragraph [0032] discloses determining whether a current energy expenditure matches a predicted energy expenditure and representing a mismatch with an indicator 216.
“ in response to determining that the current energy expenditure of the vehicle does not match the predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle: generating, based on output from a vehicle performance prediction model, a predicted energy overlay representing the predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle, wherein the predicted energy overlay corresponds to one or more defined travel legs between two or more waypoints associated with the first trip plan, wherein the predicted energy overlay associated with the first trip plan is configured to display over a respective electronic display associated with one or more computing devices depicting an environment of the vehicle, and wherein the predicted energy overlay associated with the first trip plan is color-coded based on one or more predicted values associated with one or more battery parameters associated with a battery system of the vehicle related to the predicted energy expenditure”
Baglino Paragraphs [0058]-[0060] disclose a system in which a drive simulator is initiated, when the system is initiated a set of changed driving conditions are simulated to produce a new prediction of energy expenditure along a route. This new prediction represents the "predicted energy" of the claim and the older predicted energy consumption, which itself is updating in real-time based on actual consumption data (See Paragraph [0088]). The mismatch between the new prediction data based on the simulated driving parameter changes are represented by color-based overlays on a screen. Additionally, the updating disclosed in Paragraph [0088] can itself be seen to disclose this limitation as the system discloses representing various route segments by color based on the predicted battery life at the completion of each segment and as the prediction is updated based on actual energy statistics from the actual trip, it is clear that any discrepancies from an initial prediction would be represented.
“ determining a safety boundary characterized by a maximum safe travel time, wherein the safety boundary is determined based on at least one of one or more current values of the one or more battery parameters, a current operational health of one or more vehicle systems associated with the vehicle, or a current location of the vehicle”
Baglino Paragraph [0040] discloses coloring sections of a route red if the vehicle would run out of energy. Such segments would represent the border of a "safety boundary" insofar as it would be unsafe to traverse them as the vehicle would run out of energy.
“wherein the safety boundary is displayed over a representation of the vehicle based on the current location of the vehicle.”
Baglino Figure 3B discloses a safety boundary based on the current location of the vehicle.
Baglino does not disclose the following limitations that Rosekrans teaches
“and causing display of at least the predicted energy overlay corresponding to the one or more defined travel legs between the two or more waypoints associated with the first trip plan and the safety boundary on concurrently on the electronic display depicting the environment of the vehicle, wherein the safety boundary is independent of the one or more defined travel legs and defines a region of safe operation reachable by the vehicle within the maximum safe travel time;
Rosekrans Figure 3 and Paragraph [0031] which discusses Figure 3 discloses a system with a dynamic range ring which represents a safety barrier that estimates and represents visually a boundary that itself represents the estimated distance a vehicle could travel based on the remaining energy reserves within the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino with the dynamic range ring disclosed by Rosekrans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing a visual representation of travel range.
With regards to Claim 2, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“executing a vehicle performance validation process by calculating an impact of one or more trip parameters on the one or more vehicle systems associated with the vehicle, wherein the one or more trip parameters comprise at least one of a vehicle type, a vehicle battery system, a number of passengers, a vehicle payload weight, or one or more environmental factors; receiving the first trip plan; generating, based on output from the vehicle performance prediction model, the predicted energy overlay representing the predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle based on the first trip plan, wherein the predicted energy overlay corresponds to the one or more defined travel legs between waypoints associated with the first trip plan, wherein the predicted energy overlay associated with the first trip plan is configured to display over the respective electronic display associated with the one or more computing devices depicting the environment of the vehicle, and wherein the predicted energy overlay associated with the first trip plan is color-coded based on the one or more predicted values associated with the one or more battery parameters related to the predicted energy expenditure; causing display of the predicted energy overlay; determining, based on inputting results from the vehicle performance validation process and the first trip plan into the vehicle performance prediction model, whether the first trip plan is feasible, wherein determining whether the first trip plan is feasible comprises at least correlating the first trip plan with the one or more current values of the one or more battery parameters associated with the battery system of the vehicle; in response to determining that the first trip plan is not feasible: causing transmission of a notification prompting entry of a second trip plan, wherein the notification is configured to be displayed on the one or more computing devices; and in response to determining that the first trip plan is feasible: causing display of one or more interactive interface elements associated with a first trip plan selection confirmation on at least one of the one or more computing devices; and determining, based on an interaction with the one or more interactive interface elements associated with the first trip plan selection confirmation, whether to cause execution of the first trip plan.”
Baglino Paragraph [0020] discloses using various parameters including the vehicle type and environmental factors as well as others in the calculation of predicted energy consumption. Figures 3A-7C disclose display energy prediction and consumption overlays. Paragraphs [0021]-[0024] disclose determining the feasibility of a route given the vehicle parameters and conditions (i.e. the system determines whether it is possible to arrive at the destination based on the predictions) and if the system determines that the route is not feasible (either a "no" or a "yes but with low energy level" in the system's determination) alternative trip plans are implemented and displayed (either detours to charging stations or energy efficient driving parameters being implemented).
With regards to Claim 3, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: detecting, based at least in part on a comparison of one or more current values associated with the one or more battery parameters, the current operational health of the one or more vehicle systems, and the predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle, an adverse situation impacting operation of the vehicle; in response to detecting an adverse situation impacting the operation of the vehicle: determining a severity level associated with the adverse situation; generating, based at least in part on the severity level of the adverse situation, one or more recommendations to mitigate the adverse situation; and causing display of one or more interactive interface elements associated with the one or more recommendations on the one or more computing devices, wherein the one or more interactive interface elements associated with the one or more respective recommendations are configured to, in response to an interaction with a respective interactive interface element of the one or more interactive interface elements, cause execution of a respective recommendation of the one or more recommendations.”
Baglino Paragraphs [0022]-[0024] disclose identifying a severity level associated with an adverse situation impacting operation of the vehicle (the adverse situation being the predicted amount of charge upon reaching a destination with a "no" in the determination being the most severe as it represents the vehicle being unable to reach the destination). The system then generates mitigating actions in response to the severity level including potentially adding charging stations to a route.
With regards to Claim 4, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the one or more recommendations comprise at least one or more of a recommendation to cause the vehicle to navigate to a candidate travel hub, a recommendation to cause the vehicle to navigate to an optimal travel hub, a recommendation to cause the vehicle to engage an economy operation mode, or a recommendation to cause the vehicle to execute an emergency navigation procedure.”
Baglino Paragraph [0023] discloses routing a vehicle to a charging waypoint in the event of an adverse situation (i.e. not having sufficient charge to arrive at a destination). Such a waypoint represents a "candidate travel hub".
With regards to Claim 8, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the one or more battery parameters comprise at least one of a state of charge (SoC), a state of health (SoH), a state of function (SoF), or a temperature associated with the battery system of the vehicle.”
Baglino Paragraph [0022] discloses making an energy prediction based on the remaining state of charge of a battery.
With regards to Claim 9, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein a waypoint of the two or more waypoints associated with the first trip plan is associated with at least one predicted value of the one or more respective predicted values associated with the one or more battery parameters.”
Baglino Paragraph [0033] discloses road elements being dependent on the predicted charge level associated with the ending location.
With regards to Claim 12, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations.
“the computer-implemented method further comprising: receiving, during execution of the first trip plan, an alternate trip plan; in response to receiving the alternate trip plan: generating, based on inputting the alternate trip plan and results from a vehicle performance validation process associated with the first trip plan into the vehicle performance prediction model, a predicted energy overlay representing the predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle associated with the alternate trip plan, wherein the predicted energy overlay corresponds to one or more defined travel legs between two or more waypoints associated with the alternate trip plan, wherein the predicted energy overlay associated with the alternate trip plan is configured to display over the respective electronic display associated with the one or more computing devices depicting the environment of the vehicle, and wherein the predicted energy overlay associated with the alternate trip plan is color-coded based on the one or more predicted values associated with the one or more battery parameters associated with the battery system of the vehicle related to the predicted energy expenditure; causing display of the predicted energy overlay associated with the alternate trip plan on at least one of the one or more computing devices; causing display of the predicted energy overlay associated with the alternate trip plan on at least one of the one or more computing devices; causing display of one or more interactive interface elements associated with an alternate trip plan selection confirmation on at least one of the one or more computing devices; and determining, based on an interaction with the one or more interactive interface elements associated with the alternate trip plan selection confirmation, whether to cause execution of the alternate trip plan”
Baglino Paragraph [0020] discloses using various parameters including the vehicle type and environmental factors as well as others in the calculation of predicted energy consumption. Figures 3A-7C disclose display energy prediction and consumption overlays. Paragraphs [0021]-[0024] disclose determining the feasibility of a route given the vehicle parameters and conditions (i.e. the system determines whether it is possible to arrive at the destination based on the predictions) and if the system determines that the route is not feasible (either a "no" or a "yes but with low energy level" in the system's determination) alternative trip plans are implemented and displayed (either detours to charging stations or energy efficient driving parameters being implemented). The alternative trip plans are implemented based on prediction results
As per Claim 13: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 12 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 20: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 21, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teach the following limitations:
“wherein the safety boundary is centered over the representation of the vehicle”
Rosekrans Figure 3 teaches a safety boundary centered on the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino with the centered representation disclosed by Rosekrans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more user-friendly by representing the boundary with regards to the vehicle.
With regards to Claim 22, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teach the following limitations:
“wherein the at least a portion of region of safe operation corresponds to a different location than a location associated with the one or more travel legs.
Rosekrans Figure 3 teaches a circular range ring of a vehicle which includes locations that are not included in the travel leg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino with the centered representation disclosed by Rosekrans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more user-friendly by representing the boundary with regards to the vehicle.
Claims 5-7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Hanson (US 2021/0083527) in view of Gerrese (US 2022/0120569).
With regards to the Claim 5, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 but does not disclose the following limitations that Hanson does disclose:
“in response to detecting an adverse situation impacting the operation of the vehicle: determining an optimal travel hub for the vehicle to navigate to, wherein determining the optimal travel hub comprises ranking one or more candidate travel hubs based on at least one of a distance between a respective candidate travel hub of the one or more candidate travel hubs and the vehicle, the safety boundary, or the predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle; causing display of the one or more candidate travel hubs and the optimal travel hub for selection via the one or more computing devices”
Hanson Paragraph [0067] discloses presenting ranked charging stations based on distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino in view of Rosekrans with the ranked charging station disclosed by Hanson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more efficient by providing ranked choices.
Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Hanson does not disclose the following limitation that Gerrese does disclose:
“and causing the vehicle to navigate to a candidate travel hub of the one or more candidate travel hubs or the optimal travel hub based on the selection.”
Gerrese Paragraph [0060] discloses autonomously travelling to a selected charging station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino in view of Rosekrans with the autonomous driving disclosed by Gerrese. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more efficient by providing autonomous travel.
With regards to the Claim 6, Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Hanson in view of Gerrese discloses all of the limitations of Claim 5 and further discloses the following limitation:
“wherein the selection of the candidate travel hub or the optimal travel hub is executed automatically by an onboard vehicle battery situational awareness (VBSA) system, and wherein the vehicle is caused to navigate to the candidate travel hub or the optimal travel hub based on the selection of the candidate travel hub or the optimal travel hub by the onboard VBSA system.”
Gerrese Paragraph [0060] discloses autonomously travelling to a selected charging station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Hanson in view of Gerrese with the autonomous travel to hubs disclosed by Gerrese. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more convenient by providing autonomous travel.
With regards to the Claim 7, Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Hanson in view of Gerrese discloses all of the limitations of Claim 5 and further discloses the following limitation:
“wherein the one or more candidate travel hubs and the optimal travel hub are color-coded based on at least one of a relative location to the safety boundary, the distance between the one or more candidate travel hubs and the vehicle, a distance between the optimal travel hub and the vehicle, or the predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle.”
Hanson Paragraph [0067] discloses presenting ranked charging stations based on distance. Color coding represents a design choice in order to display different rankings of charging stations and would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any such method of differentiating ranked choices would be equivalent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Hanson in view of Gerrese with the ranking disclosed by Hanson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing visual distinction between choices.
With regards to Claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Yamazaki (US 2013/0113843).
With regards to Claim 10, Baglino in view of Rosekrans discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Yamazaki does disclose:
“wherein the predicted energy overlay is configured in a first-person perspective, and wherein the predicted energy overlay is characterized by the first trip plan such that one or more travel legs between the current location of the vehicle and one or more upcoming waypoints associated with the first trip plan can be visualized relative to a current heading, a current altitude, and a current velocity of the vehicle.”
Yamazaki Paragraph [0256] discloses presenting navigation data including a direction to a target which represents a "travel leg" as well as a current heading, altitude and velocity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino in view of Rosekrans with the display disclosed by Yamazaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more user-friendly by providing a convenient display method.
With regards to Claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Yamazaki in view of Duda (US 2017/0277185).
With regards to Claim 11, Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Yamazaki discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10 but does not disclose the following limitations that Duda does disclose:
“wherein the predicted energy overlay is displayed over a primary flight display associated with the vehicle.”
Duda Paragraph [0113] discloses a primary flight display with a predicted remaining range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Baglino in view of Rosekrans in view of Yamazaki with the energy overlay disclosed by Duda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more convenient by providing information in a user-friendly manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights