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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The claims 1-7, 11-17, 19 and 21-25 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 19, and 21, and added claims 23-25.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed June 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 11-17, 19 and 21-25 are currently pending in the Application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitations “receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to add a stop at a second location” and “determine, responsive to the command to add the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle” under U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitations “update...the graphical user interface...to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein a second drive route to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the vehicle than the first drive route to the first location” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Baum only discloses providing a suggested stop to recharge the vehicle when the estimated driving range is insufficient to reach the destination, and therefore does not teach or suggest updating the graphical user interface to add the second charger at the second location and remove the first charger at the first location (See Applicant’s remarks, page 3.). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments do not fully consider the findings set forth in the rejection. Specifically, the rejection relies on Baum’s overall route-planning and navigation process, including the generation and presentation of updated suggested routes based on the vehicle’s estimated driving range and charging requirements (See Figs. 6A-6K, paragraph [0276]-[0278], [0281], [0285], [0286].). The Examiner maintains that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, replacing the previously displayed charging location with the updated charging location reasonably corresponds to updating the graphical user interface to present an updated route that includes a different charging location. Applicant’s arguments focus primarily on paragraph [0276] in isolation. However, the rejection relies on Baum’s overall disclosure, including the additionally cited figures and paragraphs, rather than paragraph [0276] alone. Accordingly, Baum teaches the argued limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 11-13, 17, 19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford (US 20150275788 A1) in view of Baum (US 20240094017 A1) and QIU (US 20200333148 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dufford teaches A system, comprising: a computing system comprising one or more processors, coupled with memory, to: identify a drive route for a vehicle comprising a first charger at a first location along the drive route configured to charge a battery of the vehicle (See at least paragraph [0066], “It may be determined that based on the predicted routes, the vehicle will reach a charging point (such as home or a recharging station). With this information and in anticipation of the charging point, the vehicle may deplete the battery (for example, by outputting more power using the motor 130) in advance to a greater extent than if the information regarding the approaching recharging point were not available in order to enhance overall energy efficiency.”); provide, via a display device of the vehicle, a graphical user interface to present the drive route (See at least paragraph [0080], “In an embodiment, the processor may receive inputs from a user of the vehicle 100 to add, delete and/or adjust the notifications and/or event data. For example, the display 104 may be an interactive input/output touch screen display of an infotainment unit of the vehicle and/or a navigation unit 122. The infotainment unit and/or the navigation unit 104 may include a dial, buttons, and/or any other input device for accepting changes to the notifications and/or event data. The vehicle may accept inputs from the user via other devices and/or communication links without limiting the scope of the present invention. The input data may include notification trigger data such as location, time and/or characteristic of a route that define conditions under which the user desires to receive notification outputs.”).
Dufford does not explicitly disclose, however, Baum, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the drive route, to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein navigation to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the vehicle than navigation to the first location (See at least Figs. 6A-6K, paragraph [0276], “In some embodiments, the first suggested route is based on the first current estimated driving range, such as in FIG. 6E (e.g., the first suggested route is selected based on the estimate of the distance that the first vehicle is able to drive on the current fuel or charge level). In some embodiments, the first suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle (e.g., at a gas station or electric vehicle charging station) if the first current estimated driving range is not enough for the first vehicle to reach the second location from the first location. In some embodiments, the first suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle if the estimated fuel level or battery charge level when the vehicle reaches the destination is less than a threshold amount (e.g., such as less than 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. of fuel or charge remaining, or with less than 2 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, 20 miles, 50 miles, etc. of driving range remaining). Thus, in some embodiments, even if the current estimated range of the first vehicle is enough to reach the second location from the first location, the device will include a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the first vehicle if the first vehicle would otherwise be left with less than a threshold amount of fuel or electric charge”, paragraph [0277], “the second characteristic of the second vehicle includes a second current estimated driving range”, paragraph [0278], “In some embodiments, the second suggested route is based on the second current estimated driving range, such as in FIG. 6K (e.g., the second suggested route is selected based on the estimate of the distance that the second vehicle is able to drive on the current fuel or charge level). In some embodiments, the second suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle (e.g., at a gas station or electric vehicle charging station) if the second current estimated driving range is not enough for the second vehicle to reach the second location from the first location”, paragraph [0281], “if the second current estimated driving range for the second vehicle is less than the distance to drive from the first location to the second location, then the second suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the second vehicle”, paragraph [0285], “The above-described manner of displaying suggested stops that are within a particular charging network quickly and efficiently provides appropriate recharging stops along the route from a first to a second location (e.g., by automatically taking into consideration the charging network that is preferred by the user or otherwise associated with the vehicle when determining the recharging stops to add to the suggested route), which simplifies the interaction between the user and the electronic device and enhances the operability of the electronic device and makes the user-device interface more efficient (e.g., without requiring the user to separately determine whether the suggested recharging stop is within the user's charging network), which additionally reduces power usage and improves battery life of the electronic device by enabling the user to use the electronic device more quickly and efficiency while reducing errors in the usage of the device”, and paragraph [0286], “In some embodiments, the first characteristic of the first vehicle includes a first current estimated driving range for the first vehicle, such as in FIG. 6E (e.g., the first characteristic is an estimate of the distance that the first vehicle is able to drive on the current fuel or charge level). In some embodiments, the estimate of the distance that the first vehicle is able to drive depends on the current fuel or electric charge level, the driving efficiency of the vehicle, the recent driving patterns of the first vehicle, and/or the habits of the driver, etc.” The system determines an estimated driving range of the vehicle based on the vehicle’s fuel or battery charge level and selects a suggested route based on that estimated driving range, including adding a suggested stop to recharge the vehicle when the estimated driving range is insufficient to reach the destination or would leave the vehicle with less than a threshold amount of charge, thereby selecting a suggested route that conserves more power stored by the vehicle battery compared to other routes.).
Dufford and Baum do not explicitly disclose, however, QIU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location (See at least paragraph [0024], “The vehicle 102 may also include the long-range navigation system 172. This system may, in conjunction with the GPS module 146 and telematic systems, provide various routes to the vehicle. These routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136. The route may include a start location and the destination location. The long-range navigation system 172 may receive the battery SOC from the battery 170, as well as fuel level from the ECUs 148. The long-range navigation system 172 may then determine whether the current vehicle energy is sufficient to complete the route. The current vehicle energy may include the distance the vehicle may travel on the current fuel energy, for vehicles having an internal combustion engine, and battery energy. In one example, the user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy. If the required energy for the route exceeds the current energy, the system 172 may identify various charge points along the route at which the vehicle battery 170 may be recharged. The location of the chart points and duration spent at each of the charge points may be optimized to achieve the shortest drive time. While the navigation system 172 is illustrated as being separate from the processor 106, the processor 106 may include or execute instructions from the navigation system 172” and paragraph [0025], “FIG. 2 illustrates an example route 200. The route 200 may include a start location 202 and an end location 204. The end location 204 may be received from the user via the HMI controls 136. The end location 204 may, additionally or alternatively, be received from a mobile device associated with the user, a voice command, etc. The processor 106 may receive map data from the vehicle telematics, the memory 108, etc. The map data may provide the possible roads, stops, locations of charging stations, etc., to the navigation system 172. The processor 106 may generate the route based on the start location 202, end location 204, and map data.” The long-range navigation system receives a destination from the user via HMI controls or a mobile device and generates the route based on the received destination and map data including stops and charging stations, thereby receiving, from the user’s mobile device, input to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location.); determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle (See at least paragraph [0027], “Each charge point 210 may be associated with a charging station 212. The charging stations 212 may be located within a maximum proximity (either predefined distance and/or time) to the charge point 210. In many instances, the charging stations 212 may be located at fuel stations at highway exits, etc. That is, the charging stations 212 may not be directly on the route 200, but instead, may require a detour from the route 200. The long-range navigation system 172 may determine a detour time associated with driving to the charging station 212. The detour time may depend on distance from the route 200, speed limits, traffic, etc. In the example shown in FIG. 2, a first charging point 210a is associated with a first charging station 212a having a detour time of t.sub.x. A second charging point 210b is associated with a second charging station 212b having a detour time of t.sub.y. A third charging point 210c is associated with a third charging station 212c having a detour time oft, Notably, when calculating the entire charge time, the charging time may include both the time spent charging the battery 170 as well as the detour time. Thus, the charging time for the first charge point 210a may be: charging time=charging segment+2(detour segment)=charging segment+2t.sub.x”, paragraph [0053], “Following this, at block 735, the processor 106 may identify one or more charge points 210 along the route 200 as possible locations of recharge of the battery 170. The processor 106 may also search for possible charging stations 212 within a predefined radius (e.g., 5 miles) of the route 200”, paragraph [0054], “At block 740, the processor 106 may generate a primary route plan. The primary route plan may include at least one charge point 210 where the vehicle 102 may recharge the battery 170 to a full capacity. This route plan may be similar to the second route plan 522, or the fourth route plan 542. While the examples show one and two charge points, more than this may be included, especially in the case of longer trips. The route plan may take into consideration the locations of the charge points 210, and the detours required to make it to the respective charging stations 212”, and paragraph [0055], “Next, at block 745, the processor 106 may determine whether a subsequent route plan is feasible. That is, could another variation of a route that includes one or more charging points 210 be generated and still achieve the required energy to complete the route. This subsequent route differs from the first route. The processor 106 may determine whether there are additional potential charge points 210 along the route that could offer alternative charging locations. If another subsequent route plan is possible due to additional charge points 210 along the route, the process 700 may proceed to block 750. If not, the process 700 may proceed to 755.” The long-range navigation system associates charging stations with charge points within a predefined proximity or radius and identifies charging stations within a predefined radius of the route, thereby determining that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Dufford with the teachings of Baum and QIU such that the vehicle system of Dufford is further configured to update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the first drive route, to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein a second drive route to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the vehicle than the first drive route to the first location, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0276]-[0278], [0281], [0285], [0286].), and to receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location and to determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0024], [0025], [0027], [0053]-[0055].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user’s overall experience and interactions, as well as decrease user interaction time, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be to optimize charging stops, charging time, and overall trip time while meeting the vehicle’s required energy needs, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0018].).
With respect to claim 11, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1, which is commensurate in scope to claim 11, with claim 1 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 11 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 2, Dufford, Baum, and QIU teach The system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford teaches comprising: the computing system to receive the drive route via a network from a server remote from the computing system and the mobile device (See at least paragraph [0079], “Referring to step 322 of FIG. 3, the processor may receive event data regarding an event of interest to a user of the vehicle. For example, referring to FIG. 1, the portable electronic device 128 or a remote server 126 may provide the event data to the processor. The processor may retrieve or receive the data from any computing device or server in communication with the processor, for example, via wireless communications (e.g., Bluetooth connection) and/or cloud-based technology. The portable electronic device 128 may be, for example, a smart phone, a tablet, or a laptop, or any other computing device capable of establishing a wireless or wired communication with the ECU 102 or a processor of a vehicle. The portable electronic device 128 may feed (e.g., wired or wirelessly transfer) event data to the processor or the ECU 102 regarding events of interest to the driver. The event data may include corresponding information regarding the event, including but not limited to location data, time data and/or descriptive data. Alternatively or in addition, the processor may receive similar data from a remote server 126” and paragraph [0081], “Referring to step 324, the processor (e.g., ECU 102) solely or in conjunction with other processors may analyze or process the event data received from the feed (e.g., portable electronic device 128 or the remote server 126) along with data regarding the known route segments, routes and/or route sets. The processor may determine a relationship between the data regarding the known route segments, routes and/or route sets and the event data. The determined relationship may be further based on a current location or time. The determined relationship may indicate information that would be helpful to a user of the vehicle 100.”).
With respect to claim 12, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 2, which is commensurate in scope to claim 12, with claim 2 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 12 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 3, Dufford, Baum, and QIU teach The system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford teaches comprising the computing system to: receive a request from the mobile device to connect with the computing system (See at least paragraph [0009], “In an embodiment, a method and a system are utilized for providing driver notifications in a vehicle based on route prediction. A processor of the vehicle records the driving patterns in a memory so as to determine a known route. The vehicle may utilize other information such as the time of day, the day of the week, and the like to determine if the driver will drive the known route. The driver's mobile phone may be connected to the system via a wireless connection (e.g., using Bluetooth) or a remote server may be configured to push events to the vehicle (e.g., the vehicle's processor). The events are processed in conjunction with the known route so as to provide a notification to the driver of an event. The vehicle would use navigation features such as location, time of day, and route prediction to process events from the feed (i.e., mobile phone or remote server) and identify notifications which may be relevant to the driver.”); validate the mobile device for connection with the computing system (See at least paragraph [0009], “In an embodiment, a method and a system are utilized for providing driver notifications in a vehicle based on route prediction. A processor of the vehicle records the driving patterns in a memory so as to determine a known route. The vehicle may utilize other information such as the time of day, the day of the week, and the like to determine if the driver will drive the known route. The driver's mobile phone may be connected to the system via a wireless connection (e.g., using Bluetooth) or a remote server may be configured to push events to the vehicle (e.g., the vehicle's processor). The events are processed in conjunction with the known route so as to provide a notification to the driver of an event. The vehicle would use navigation features such as location, time of day, and route prediction to process events from the feed (i.e., mobile phone or remote server) and identify notifications which may be relevant to the driver.”); and establish, responsive to validation of the mobile device, the communication session between the mobile device and the computing system (See at least paragraph [0079], “Referring to step 322 of FIG. 3, the processor may receive event data regarding an event of interest to a user of the vehicle. For example, referring to FIG. 1, the portable electronic device 128 or a remote server 126 may provide the event data to the processor. The processor may retrieve or receive the data from any computing device or server in communication with the processor, for example, via wireless communications (e.g., Bluetooth connection) and/or cloud-based technology. The portable electronic device 128 may be, for example, a smart phone, a tablet, or a laptop, or any other computing device capable of establishing a wireless or wired communication with the ECU 102 or a processor of a vehicle. The portable electronic device 128 may feed (e.g., wired or wirelessly transfer) event data to the processor or the ECU 102 regarding events of interest to the driver. The event data may include corresponding information regarding the event, including but not limited to location data, time data and/or descriptive data. Alternatively or in addition, the processor may receive similar data from a remote server 126.”).
With respect to claim 13, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 3, which is commensurate in scope to claim 13, with claim 3 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 13 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 7, Dufford, Baum, and QIU teach The system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford teaches comprising the computing system to: access, responsive to the command to add the stop at the second location, a charger map (See at least paragraph [0066], “It may be determined that based on the predicted routes, the vehicle will reach a charging point (such as home or a recharging station). With this information and in anticipation of the charging point, the vehicle may deplete the battery (for example, by outputting more power using the motor 130) in advance to a greater extent than if the information regarding the approaching recharging point were not available in order to enhance overall energy efficiency.”); and perform a lookup in the charger map with the second location to determine that the second location is within the threshold distance of the second charger (See at least paragraph [0071], “In yet another example, assume a driver charges the vehicle 100 at a charging station at his/her work place, and assume the vehicle 100 has 10 miles (16.09 km) of EV driving range after the vehicle 100 is charged at the work place. Furthermore, assume that after work, the driver drives to a gym that is 20 miles (32.18 km) away from his/her work place, and the gym is in close proximity of his/her home (for example, the gym is only 3 miles (4.8 km) away from his home). Furthermore, assume that the vehicle 100 remains at the gym for a long enough time (e.g., during the driver's 2-hour work-out at the gym) such that the engine 106 cools down before heading home. When driving from work to the gym, the vehicles known in the art would deplete the battery charge and use the 10 miles (16.09 km) driving range during the route from work to the gym. The vehicles known in the art would inefficiently re-start and re-warm the engine 106 for operation during the short drive from the gym to home. In an embodiment of the present invention, the processor learns the location data regarding the length of the routes and learns the time data regarding the time period between the routes (e.g., the 2-hour time gap). The processor predicts the routes and may save sufficient charge of the battery 118 for the route from the gym to home if possible (based on, for example, the available charge of the battery 118), thereby preventing or reducing the energy inefficiency associated with re-starting and re-warming the engine 106. In other words, the processor manages engine power and battery power during the route from the work place to the gym such that enough EV driving range remains for the route from the gym to home. For example, the vehicle 100 may reserve at least 3 miles (4.8 km) of EV driving range for the route from the gym to home to avoid inefficiencies associated with re-warming the engine 106.”).
With respect to claim 17, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 7, which is commensurate in scope to claim 17, with claim 7 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 17 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 19, Dufford teaches An electric vehicle, comprising: a computing system comprising one or more processors, coupled with memory, to: identify a drive route for the electric vehicle comprising a first charger at a first location along the drive route configured to charge a battery of the electric vehicle (See at least paragraph [0031], “Hereinafter, a “processor” may refer to the ECU 102, the processor of the navigation unit 122, a processor of the portable electronic device 128, another processor, or combinations thereof operating in conjunction with one another and configured to perform the steps described herein. For example, some of the steps described herein may be performed by the ECU 102, some of the steps may be performed by the processor of the navigation unit 122, and some of the steps may be performed by the ECU 102 and the processor of the navigation unit 122 communicating and operating in conjunction with one another. The processor may be any type of hardware or circuit capable of performing the method steps described, for example, a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A general purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, electronic control unit, microcontroller, or state machine. A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration” and paragraph [0066], “It may be determined that based on the predicted routes, the vehicle will reach a charging point (such as home or a recharging station). With this information and in anticipation of the charging point, the vehicle may deplete the battery (for example, by outputting more power using the motor 130) in advance to a greater extent than if the information regarding the approaching recharging point were not available in order to enhance overall energy efficiency.”); provide, via a display device of the electric vehicle, a graphical user interface to present the drive route (See at least paragraph [0080], “In an embodiment, the processor may receive inputs from a user of the vehicle 100 to add, delete and/or adjust the notifications and/or event data. For example, the display 104 may be an interactive input/output touch screen display of an infotainment unit of the vehicle and/or a navigation unit 122. The infotainment unit and/or the navigation unit 104 may include a dial, buttons, and/or any other input device for accepting changes to the notifications and/or event data. The vehicle may accept inputs from the user via other devices and/or communication links without limiting the scope of the present invention. The input data may include notification trigger data such as location, time and/or characteristic of a route that define conditions under which the user desires to receive notification outputs.”).
Dufford does not explicitly disclose, however, Baum, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the drive route to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein navigation to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the electric vehicle than navigation to the first location (See at least Figs. 6A-6K, paragraph [0276], “In some embodiments, the first suggested route is based on the first current estimated driving range, such as in FIG. 6E (e.g., the first suggested route is selected based on the estimate of the distance that the first vehicle is able to drive on the current fuel or charge level). In some embodiments, the first suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle (e.g., at a gas station or electric vehicle charging station) if the first current estimated driving range is not enough for the first vehicle to reach the second location from the first location. In some embodiments, the first suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle if the estimated fuel level or battery charge level when the vehicle reaches the destination is less than a threshold amount (e.g., such as less than 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. of fuel or charge remaining, or with less than 2 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, 20 miles, 50 miles, etc. of driving range remaining). Thus, in some embodiments, even if the current estimated range of the first vehicle is enough to reach the second location from the first location, the device will include a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the first vehicle if the first vehicle would otherwise be left with less than a threshold amount of fuel or electric charge”, paragraph [0277], “the second characteristic of the second vehicle includes a second current estimated driving range”, paragraph [0278], “In some embodiments, the second suggested route is based on the second current estimated driving range, such as in FIG. 6K (e.g., the second suggested route is selected based on the estimate of the distance that the second vehicle is able to drive on the current fuel or charge level). In some embodiments, the second suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle (e.g., at a gas station or electric vehicle charging station) if the second current estimated driving range is not enough for the second vehicle to reach the second location from the first location”, paragraph [0281], “if the second current estimated driving range for the second vehicle is less than the distance to drive from the first location to the second location, then the second suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the second vehicle”, paragraph [0285], “The above-described manner of displaying suggested stops that are within a particular charging network quickly and efficiently provides appropriate recharging stops along the route from a first to a second location (e.g., by automatically taking into consideration the charging network that is preferred by the user or otherwise associated with the vehicle when determining the recharging stops to add to the suggested route), which simplifies the interaction between the user and the electronic device and enhances the operability of the electronic device and makes the user-device interface more efficient (e.g., without requiring the user to separately determine whether the suggested recharging stop is within the user's charging network), which additionally reduces power usage and improves battery life of the electronic device by enabling the user to use the electronic device more quickly and efficiency while reducing errors in the usage of the device”, and paragraph [0286], “In some embodiments, the first characteristic of the first vehicle includes a first current estimated driving range for the first vehicle, such as in FIG. 6E (e.g., the first characteristic is an estimate of the distance that the first vehicle is able to drive on the current fuel or charge level). In some embodiments, the estimate of the distance that the first vehicle is able to drive depends on the current fuel or electric charge level, the driving efficiency of the vehicle, the recent driving patterns of the first vehicle, and/or the habits of the driver, etc.” The system determines an estimated driving range of the vehicle based on the vehicle’s fuel or battery charge level and selects a suggested route based on that estimated driving range, including adding a suggested stop to recharge the vehicle when the estimated driving range is insufficient to reach the destination or would leave the vehicle with less than a threshold amount of charge, thereby selecting a suggested route that conserves more power stored by the vehicle battery compared to other routes.).
Dufford and Baum do not explicitly disclose, however, QIU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location (See at least paragraph [0024], “The vehicle 102 may also include the long-range navigation system 172. This system may, in conjunction with the GPS module 146 and telematic systems, provide various routes to the vehicle. These routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136. The route may include a start location and the destination location. The long-range navigation system 172 may receive the battery SOC from the battery 170, as well as fuel level from the ECUs 148. The long-range navigation system 172 may then determine whether the current vehicle energy is sufficient to complete the route. The current vehicle energy may include the distance the vehicle may travel on the current fuel energy, for vehicles having an internal combustion engine, and battery energy. In one example, the user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy. If the required energy for the route exceeds the current energy, the system 172 may identify various charge points along the route at which the vehicle battery 170 may be recharged. The location of the chart points and duration spent at each of the charge points may be optimized to achieve the shortest drive time. While the navigation system 172 is illustrated as being separate from the processor 106, the processor 106 may include or execute instructions from the navigation system 172” and paragraph [0025], “FIG. 2 illustrates an example route 200. The route 200 may include a start location 202 and an end location 204. The end location 204 may be received from the user via the HMI controls 136. The end location 204 may, additionally or alternatively, be received from a mobile device associated with the user, a voice command, etc. The processor 106 may receive map data from the vehicle telematics, the memory 108, etc. The map data may provide the possible roads, stops, locations of charging stations, etc., to the navigation system 172. The processor 106 may generate the route based on the start location 202, end location 204, and map data.” The long-range navigation system receives a destination from the user via HMI controls or a mobile device and generates the route based on the received destination and map data including stops and charging stations, thereby receiving, from the user’s mobile device, input to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location.); determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the electric vehicle (See at least paragraph [0027], “Each charge point 210 may be associated with a charging station 212. The charging stations 212 may be located within a maximum proximity (either predefined distance and/or time) to the charge point 210. In many instances, the charging stations 212 may be located at fuel stations at highway exits, etc. That is, the charging stations 212 may not be directly on the route 200, but instead, may require a detour from the route 200. The long-range navigation system 172 may determine a detour time associated with driving to the charging station 212. The detour time may depend on distance from the route 200, speed limits, traffic, etc. In the example shown in FIG. 2, a first charging point 210a is associated with a first charging station 212a having a detour time of t.sub.x. A second charging point 210b is associated with a second charging station 212b having a detour time of t.sub.y. A third charging point 210c is associated with a third charging station 212c having a detour time oft, Notably, when calculating the entire charge time, the charging time may include both the time spent charging the battery 170 as well as the detour time. Thus, the charging time for the first charge point 210a may be: charging time=charging segment+2(detour segment)=charging segment+2t.sub.x”, paragraph [0053], “Following this, at block 735, the processor 106 may identify one or more charge points 210 along the route 200 as possible locations of recharge of the battery 170. The processor 106 may also search for possible charging stations 212 within a predefined radius (e.g., 5 miles) of the route 200”, paragraph [0054], “At block 740, the processor 106 may generate a primary route plan. The primary route plan may include at least one charge point 210 where the vehicle 102 may recharge the battery 170 to a full capacity. This route plan may be similar to the second route plan 522, or the fourth route plan 542. While the examples show one and two charge points, more than this may be included, especially in the case of longer trips. The route plan may take into consideration the locations of the charge points 210, and the detours required to make it to the respective charging stations 212”, and paragraph [0055], “Next, at block 745, the processor 106 may determine whether a subsequent route plan is feasible. That is, could another variation of a route that includes one or more charging points 210 be generated and still achieve the required energy to complete the route. This subsequent route differs from the first route. The processor 106 may determine whether there are additional potential charge points 210 along the route that could offer alternative charging locations. If another subsequent route plan is possible due to additional charge points 210 along the route, the process 700 may proceed to block 750. If not, the process 700 may proceed to 755.” The long-range navigation system associates charging stations with charge points within a predefined proximity or radius and identifies charging stations within a predefined radius of the route, thereby determining that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Dufford with the teachings of Baum and QIU such that the vehicle system of Dufford is further configured to update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the first drive route to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein a second drive route to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the electric vehicle than the first drive route to the first location, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0276]-[0278], [0281], [0285], [0286].), and to receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location and to determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the electric vehicle, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0024], [0025], [0027], [0053]-[0055].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user’s overall experience and interactions, as well as decrease user interaction time, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be to optimize charging stops, charging time, and overall trip time while meeting the vehicle’s required energy needs, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0018].).
Regarding Claim 21, Dufford, Baum, and QIU teach The system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford does not explicitly disclose, however, Baum, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the graphical user interface includes: a first portion to provide information associated with the navigation to the second location (See at least Figs. 6A-6K and paragraph [0278], “In some embodiments, the second suggested route is based on the second current estimated driving range, such as in FIG. 6K (e.g., the second suggested route is selected based on the estimate of the distance that the second vehicle is able to drive on the current fuel or charge level). In some embodiments, the second suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle (e.g., at a gas station or electric vehicle charging station) if the second current estimated driving range is not enough for the second vehicle to reach the second location from the first location.”); and a second portion to provide a map (See at least Figs. 6A-6K, paragraph [0276], “In some embodiments, the first suggested route is based on the first current estimated driving range, such as in FIG. 6E (e.g., the first suggested route is selected based on the estimate of the distance that the first vehicle is able to drive on the current fuel or charge level). In some embodiments, the first suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle (e.g., at a gas station or electric vehicle charging station) if the first current estimated driving range is not enough for the first vehicle to reach the second location from the first location. In some embodiments, the first suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle if the estimated fuel level or battery charge level when the vehicle reaches the destination is less than a threshold amount (e.g., such as less than 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, etc. of fuel or charge remaining, or with less than 2 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles, 20 miles, 50 miles, etc. of driving range remaining). Thus, in some embodiments, even if the current estimated range of the first vehicle is enough to reach the second location from the first location, the device will include a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the first vehicle if the first vehicle would otherwise be left with less than a threshold amount of fuel or electric charge.” The system displays the second suggested route via a graphical user interface that includes a map portion displaying the route on a map and a separate portion presenting information associated with the route, such as route details and suggested stops.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Dufford with the teachings of Baum and QIU such that the vehicle system of Dufford is further configured to update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the first drive route to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein a second drive route to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the electric vehicle than the first drive route to the first location; wherein the graphical user interface includes: a first portion to provide information associated with the second drive route; and a second portion to provide a map, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0276]-[0278], [0281], [0285], [0286].), and to receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location and to determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0024], [0025], [0027], [0053]-[0055].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user’s overall experience and interactions, as well as decrease user interaction time, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be to optimize charging stops, charging time, and overall trip time while meeting the vehicle’s required energy needs, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0018].).
Regarding Claim 22, Dufford, Baum, and QIU teach The system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford does not explicitly disclose, however, Baum, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the graphical user interface includes information to indicate a duration of time to charge the battery of the vehicle using the second charger (See at least Figs. 6A-6K and paragraph [0292], “In some embodiments, in accordance with a determination that the first suggested route includes a suggested stop for increasing a remaining driving range of the first vehicle, the estimated total travel time includes an estimated time to increase the remaining driving range of the first vehicle at the suggested stop, such as in FIG. 6E (e.g., if the first suggested route includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the vehicle, then the displayed estimated amount of time to travel includes an estimated amount of time required to refuel or recharge the vehicle). For example, if the amount of time it takes to recharge the vehicle to a respective suggested amount is estimated to take 15 minutes, then the estimated total travel time includes the 15 minutes of charge time. In some embodiments, if the second suggested route (e.g., for the second vehicle) includes a suggested stop to refuel or recharge the second vehicle, then the estimated total travel time includes the estimated time for refueling or recharging.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Dufford with the teachings of Baum and QIU such that the vehicle system of Dufford is further configured to update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the first drive route to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein a second drive route to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the electric vehicle than the first drive route to the first location; wherein the graphical user interface includes information to indicate a duration of time to charge the battery of the vehicle using the second charger, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0276]-[0278], [0281], [0285], [0286], [0292].), and to receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location and to determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0024], [0025], [0027], [0053]-[0055].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user’s overall experience and interactions, as well as decrease user interaction time, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be to optimize charging stops, charging time, and overall trip time while meeting the vehicle’s required energy needs, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0018].).
Claim(s) 4-6, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford (US 20150275788 A1) in view of Baum (US 20240094017 A1), QIU (US 20200333148 A1), and Rolnik (US 20180017399 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Dufford, Baum, and QIU teach The system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford, Baum, and QIU do not explicitly disclose, however, Rolnik, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising the computing system to: identify, based on establishment of the communication session with the mobile device, a profile linked to the mobile device, the profile comprising one or more preferences for charger selection (See at least paragraph [0043], “The power-up 211 can be recessed from the intended route 203. As such, it might not be visible to even attentive passengers as the car makes a closest approach. Additionally, signage can be non-existent for the power-up, at least along the route. An option may present itself in graphic form, as per FIG. 6, or in words, as per FIGS. 5A-5C. Graphically, the diversion is symbolically shown with two legs: 1) the approach leg 213; and 2) the return leg 215. Each of these legs, when added to the route remainder 251, can become part of the new route. The sum of approach leg, return leg and route remainder minus the intended route remaining from diversion point 220 is the amount of the diversion. A diversion point is a place where an alternative route diverges from the intended route. The diversion point can be at a location on a shortest road route from a vehicle's current location to a power-up. In other words, the diversion distance associated between the intended route and power-up 211, is the additional distance to incorporate the power-up into a new route to the destination 290, at least with respect to the initially planned route. The actual diversion distance can be estimated, given, that there is an unknown driving distance among multiple charging options present at a power up, such as an RV park. This diversion distance must not exceed a threshold set for the corresponding segment of the intended route. The thresholds may diminish as the car gets closer to the destination, as described further in FIG. 3B below”, paragraph [0051], “At this time, the navigation computer may identify power-ups, recessed from the route, that are to be presented to the driver. The navigation computer may refer to FIG. 3B to filter power-ups from a database of slow chargers. Two power-ups may be in the database. FIG. 3B shows distant power-up 303 may lie above a function of maximum diversion distance 350 that corresponds to this phase of the trip. This function can be preset by the manufacturer and/or modified by the driver as an expression of how comfortable the driver feels about straying from the intended route to find alternate power sources. The phase of the trip, is on the X-axis in terms of miles remaining to reach the destination. The maximum diversion distance, is the maximum added driving distance the user prefers to drive to add any proposed power-up to the route, with its distance measured along the Y-axis. The maximum diversion distance may taper to a smaller distance, as the scale of the remaining trip shrinks to the right of FIG. 3B. The function can be modified to suit a driver's preferences”, and paragraph [0053], “FIG. 4 is a flowchart in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Initially, the navigation computer can receive an unacceptably low charge (ULC) zone from a driver 401. For a simple setting for new drivers, the driver may set a distance of 35 miles, thereby replacing the function of FIG. 3A with a flat function over all distances to the destination. The driver may also enter to the navigation computer, a preferred reaction time or distance to initial turn to a diversion option. The unacceptably low charge zone may be a simple function for a constant mileage for all states of charge, e.g., 35 miles and below is unacceptably low charge. Alternatively, a driver may set a more complex unacceptably low charge zone, such as unacceptably low charge zone 300 of FIG. 3A. In sum, the unacceptably low charge (ULC) conceptually represents a buffer of charge that provides a measure of security to a driver, that the driver can use to cope with unexpected occurrences on the drive, and still be able to reach a destination or an optional intermediate charging point. One might draw comparisons to the ULC with a ‘low fuel’ light in more conventional internal combustion cars. However, unlike the ‘low fuel’ light, the ULC can be tailored to reflect varying needs for a buffer throughout the different stages of a trip. Some drivers might not care to have any interruptions concerning refueling options during a first 40 miles driven after giving their vehicle a full 100% charge of say, an estimated 200 miles of range. Accordingly, those drivers might set the function to show that 0 rated miles of charge and above for SOCs between 200 and 160 rated miles to the destination. In other words, only when 0% or less charge is projected to be in the battery, upon reaching the destination, should any report be generated. And only projected charges of less than 0%, relative to the maximum battery capacity, are expected to generate reports/options about alternative power-ups. A driver may even set a preference to make some thresholds a negative projected rated range, particularly when the driver can expect herself to drive very efficiently early in a trip.”); and determine, based on the one or more preferences of the profile, to replace the first charger at the first location with the second charger at the second location (See at least paragraph [0043], “The power-up 211 can be recessed from the intended route 203. As such, it might not be visible to even attentive passengers as the car makes a closest approach. Additionally, signage can be non-existent for the power-up, at least along the route. An option may present itself in graphic form, as per FIG. 6, or in words, as per FIGS. 5A-5C. Graphically, the diversion is symbolically shown with two legs: 1) the approach leg 213; and 2) the return leg 215. Each of these legs, when added to the route remainder 251, can become part of the new route. The sum of approach leg, return leg and route remainder minus the intended route remaining from diversion point 220 is the amount of the diversion. A diversion point is a place where an alternative route diverges from the intended route. The diversion point can be at a location on a shortest road route from a vehicle's current location to a power-up. In other words, the diversion distance associated between the intended route and power-up 211, is the additional distance to incorporate the power-up into a new route to the destination 290, at least with respect to the initially planned route. The actual diversion distance can be estimated, given, that there is an unknown driving distance among multiple charging options present at a power up, such as an RV park. This diversion distance must not exceed a threshold set for the corresponding segment of the intended route. The thresholds may diminish as the car gets closer to the destination, as described further in FIG. 3B below” and paragraph [0052], “Accordingly, distant power-up 303 fails to meet the criteria for maximum diversion distance. However, power-up A 305 may be below the maximum diversion distance. However, power-up A 305 may be too near, at approximately 108 miles from the destination, such that it cannot be presented to the driver to allow a pre-set reaction time or distance before committing to a diversion at a diversion point. In other words, power-up A might include an initial turn off the intended route within a mile of the car's current position, while the driver prefers diversion notifications of at least four miles before an initial diversion off the intended route. Power-up B 351 may meet both of these criteria. First, it is within the maximum diversion distance. Second, it can be 25 miles away from the vehicle and have an initial turn off or diversion point greater than a preset reaction time/distance, which can be set to four miles. Diversion options behind the driver may not be considered.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Dufford with the teachings of Baum, QIU, and Rolnik such that the vehicle system of Dufford is further configured to update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the first drive route to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein a second drive route to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the electric vehicle than the first drive route to the first location, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0276]-[0278], [0281], [0285], [0286].), to receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location and to determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0024], [0025], [0027], [0053]-[0055].), and to identify, based on the establishment of the communication session with the mobile device, a profile linked to the mobile device, the profile comprising one or more preferences for charger selection, and determine, based on the one or more preferences of the profile, to replace the first charger at the first location in the drive route with the second charger at the second location, as taught by Rolnik (See paragraph [0043], [0051]-[0053].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user’s overall experience and interactions, as well as decrease user interaction time, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be to optimize charging stops, charging time, and overall trip time while meeting the vehicle’s required energy needs, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0018].). The motivation for doing so would be to maintain a more continuous power supply, as taught by Rolnik (See paragraph [0002].).
With respect to claim 14, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 4, which is commensurate in scope to claim 14, with claim 4 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 14 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 5, Dufford, Baum, QIU, and Rolnik teach The system of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford, Baum, and QIU do not explicitly disclose, however, Rolnik, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more preferences comprise at least one of charger speed, charger operator, charging port configuration, or charger layout (See at least paragraph [0085], “Posting the recharge option can include displaying a name of an operator of the recharge option and a distance added to include the recharge option between a current vehicle position and the destination. Determining projected charge remaining comprises iteratively determining projected charge consumption for legs along the remainder of the route.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Dufford with the teachings of Baum, QIU, and Rolnik such that the vehicle system of Dufford is further configured to update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the first drive route to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein a second drive route to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the electric vehicle than the first drive route to the first location, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0276]-[0278], [0281], [0285], [0286].), to receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location and to determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0024], [0025], [0027], [0053]-[0055].), and the one or more preferences comprise at least one of charger speed, charger operator, charging port configuration, or charger layout, as taught by Rolnik (See paragraph [0043], [0051]-[0053], [0085].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user’s overall experience and interactions, as well as decrease user interaction time, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be to optimize charging stops, charging time, and overall trip time while meeting the vehicle’s required energy needs, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0018].). The motivation for doing so would be to maintain a more continuous power supply, as taught by Rolnik (See paragraph [0002].).
With respect to claim 15, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 5, which is commensurate in scope to claim 15, with claim 5 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 15 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding Claim 6, Dufford, Baum, QIU, and Rolnik teach The system of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford teaches wherein the one or more preferences comprises the threshold distance (See at least paragraph [0071], “In yet another example, assume a driver charges the vehicle 100 at a charging station at his/her work place, and assume the vehicle 100 has 10 miles (16.09 km) of EV driving range after the vehicle 100 is charged at the work place. Furthermore, assume that after work, the driver drives to a gym that is 20 miles (32.18 km) away from his/her work place, and the gym is in close proximity of his/her home (for example, the gym is only 3 miles (4.8 km) away from his home). Furthermore, assume that the vehicle 100 remains at the gym for a long enough time (e.g., during the driver's 2-hour work-out at the gym) such that the engine 106 cools down before heading home. When driving from work to the gym, the vehicles known in the art would deplete the battery charge and use the 10 miles (16.09 km) driving range during the route from work to the gym. The vehicles known in the art would inefficiently re-start and re-warm the engine 106 for operation during the short drive from the gym to home. In an embodiment of the present invention, the processor learns the location data regarding the length of the routes and learns the time data regarding the time period between the routes (e.g., the 2-hour time gap). The processor predicts the routes and may save sufficient charge of the battery 118 for the route from the gym to home if possible (based on, for example, the available charge of the battery 118), thereby preventing or reducing the energy inefficiency associated with re-starting and re-warming the engine 106. In other words, the processor manages engine power and battery power during the route from the work place to the gym such that enough EV driving range remains for the route from the gym to home. For example, the vehicle 100 may reserve at least 3 miles (4.8 km) of EV driving range for the route from the gym to home to avoid inefficiencies associated with re-warming the engine 106.”).
With respect to claim 16, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 6, which is commensurate in scope to claim 16, with claim 6 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 16 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford (US 20150275788 A1) in view of Baum (US 20240094017 A1), QIU (US 20200333148 A1), and Yegorov (US 20230133680 A1)
Regarding Claim 23, Dufford, Baum, and QIU teach The system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Dufford and Baum do not explicitly disclose, however, QIU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches responsive to receipt of the command to modify the drive route (See at least paragraph [0024], “The vehicle 102 may also include the long-range navigation system 172. This system may, in conjunction with the GPS module 146 and telematic systems, provide various routes to the vehicle. These routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136. The route may include a start location and the destination location. The long-range navigation system 172 may receive the battery SOC from the battery 170, as well as fuel level from the ECUs 148. The long-range navigation system 172 may then determine whether the current vehicle energy is sufficient to complete the route. The current vehicle energy may include the distance the vehicle may travel on the current fuel energy, for vehicles having an internal combustion engine, and battery energy. In one example, the user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy. If the required energy for the route exceeds the current energy, the system 172 may identify various charge points along the route at which the vehicle battery 170 may be recharged. The location of the chart points and duration spent at each of the charge points may be optimized to achieve the shortest drive time. While the navigation system 172 is illustrated as being separate from the processor 106, the processor 106 may include or execute instructions from the navigation system 172” and paragraph [0025], “FIG. 2 illustrates an example route 200. The route 200 may include a start location 202 and an end location 204. The end location 204 may be received from the user via the HMI controls 136. The end location 204 may, additionally or alternatively, be received from a mobile device associated with the user, a voice command, etc. The processor 106 may receive map data from the vehicle telematics, the memory 108, etc. The map data may provide the possible roads, stops, locations of charging stations, etc., to the navigation system 172. The processor 106 may generate the route based on the start location 202, end location 204, and map data.”), to modify the drive route (See at least paragraph [0024], “The vehicle 102 may also include the long-range navigation system 172. This system may, in conjunction with the GPS module 146 and telematic systems, provide various routes to the vehicle. These routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136. The route may include a start location and the destination location. The long-range navigation system 172 may receive the battery SOC from the battery 170, as well as fuel level from the ECUs 148. The long-range navigation system 172 may then determine whether the current vehicle energy is sufficient to complete the route. The current vehicle energy may include the distance the vehicle may travel on the current fuel energy, for vehicles having an internal combustion engine, and battery energy. In one example, the user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy. If the required energy for the route exceeds the current energy, the system 172 may identify various charge points along the route at which the vehicle battery 170 may be recharged. The location of the chart points and duration spent at each of the charge points may be optimized to achieve the shortest drive time. While the navigation system 172 is illustrated as being separate from the processor 106, the processor 106 may include or execute instructions from the navigation system 172” and paragraph [0025], “FIG. 2 illustrates an example route 200. The route 200 may include a start location 202 and an end location 204. The end location 204 may be received from the user via the HMI controls 136. The end location 204 may, additionally or alternatively, be received from a mobile device associated with the user, a voice command, etc. The processor 106 may receive map data from the vehicle telematics, the memory 108, etc. The map data may provide the possible roads, stops, locations of charging stations, etc., to the navigation system 172. The processor 106 may generate the route based on the start location 202, end location 204, and map data.”).
Dufford, Baum, and QIU do not explicitly disclose, however, Yegorov, in the same field of endeavor, teaches comprising: the one or more processors to: perform, an authentication process on the mobile device (See at least paragraph [0020], “Referring additionally to FIG. 2, in various embodiments the authentication controller unit 26 includes a controller 50 and memory 52. The memory 52 is configured to store computer-executable instructions configured to cause the controller 50 to receive first event data, receive second event data from the vehicle 22, compare the second event data and the first event data to identify a match relative to a first threshold, and initiate a charging event responsive to the comparison indicating a single match. Different types of event data are described in more detail below” and paragraph [0021], “In various embodiments the authentication controller unit 26 may receive the first event data via the data network 30 from the vehicle 22 in response to the vehicle 22 plugging into one of the charging units 24. The authentication controller unit 26 may receive the second event data via the data network 30 from the charging unit 24 or self-generate the second event data. The authentication controller unit 26 compares the first event data to the second event data and initiates a charging event responsive to the comparison indicating a match between the first event data and the second event data associated with just one of the charging units 24. If no match occurs, then the authentication controller unit 26 instructs the charging units 24 or an application program executed on a personal electronics device associated with the operator of the vehicle 22 to request payment information. If multiple matches occur, then other event data is compared until a singular match is found. If no singular match is found, then the authentication controller unit 26 instructs the charging units 24 or an application program executed on a personal electronics device associated with the operator of vehicle 22 to request payment information. Once a single match has been determined, the authentication controller unit 26 initiates a charging event between the matched vehicle 22 and the charging unit 24. The charging event may include sending instructions to the billing system 27 and instructions to the matched charging unit 24 to begin charging and billing functions, respectively.”); determine, responsive to performance of the authentication process, that the mobile device is authorized to provide the command (See at least paragraph [0019], “Referring to FIG. 1 and given by way of overview, in various embodiments a charging environment 20 includes a data network 30 configured to allow communications between vehicles 22, charging units 24, an authentication controller unit 26, and a billing system 27. The data network 30 may be a public or private data network, such as without limitation a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or the like. The authentication controller unit 26 verifies a connection between one of the charging units 24 and one of the vehicles 22. The authentication controller unit 26 instructs the billing system 27 of this connection and authorizes the connected charging unit 24 to begin charging.”); and responsive to determination that the mobile device is authorized, execute one or more actions (See at least paragraph [0021], “In various embodiments the authentication controller unit 26 may receive the first event data via the data network 30 from the vehicle 22 in response to the vehicle 22 plugging into one of the charging units 24. The authentication controller unit 26 may receive the second event data via the data network 30 from the charging unit 24 or self-generate the second event data. The authentication controller unit 26 compares the first event data to the second event data and initiates a charging event responsive to the comparison indicating a match between the first event data and the second event data associated with just one of the charging units 24. If no match occurs, then the authentication controller unit 26 instructs the charging units 24 or an application program executed on a personal electronics device associated with the operator of the vehicle 22 to request payment information. If multiple matches occur, then other event data is compared until a singular match is found. If no singular match is found, then the authentication controller unit 26 instructs the charging units 24 or an application program executed on a personal electronics device associated with the operator of vehicle 22 to request payment information. Once a single match has been determined, the authentication controller unit 26 initiates a charging event between the matched vehicle 22 and the charging unit 24. The charging event may include sending instructions to the billing system 27 and instructions to the matched charging unit 24 to begin charging and billing functions, respectively.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Dufford with the teachings of Baum, QIU, and Yegorov such that the vehicle system of Dufford is further configured to update, based on a comparison of the first location with the second location, the graphical user interface, that is presenting the first drive route to (i) add the second charger at the second location and (ii) remove the first charger at the first location, wherein a second drive route to the second location conserves more power stored by the battery of the electric vehicle than the first drive route to the first location, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0276]-[0278], [0281], [0285], [0286].), to receive, via a communication session established with a mobile device, a command to modify the drive route to include a stop at a second location; to determine, responsive to the command to modify the drive route to include the stop at the second location, that the second location is within a threshold distance of a second charger configured to charge the battery of the vehicle; and responsive to receipt of the command to modify the drive route, to modify the drive route, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0024], [0025], [0027], [0053]-[0055].), and to perform, an authentication process on the mobile device; to determine, responsive to performance of the authentication process, that the mobile device is authorized to provide the command; and responsive to determination that the mobile device is authorized, execute one or more actions, as taught by Yegorov (See paragraph [0019]-[0021].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user’s overall experience and interactions, as well as decrease user interaction time, as taught by Baum (See paragraph [0006].). The motivation for doing so would be to optimize charging stops, charging time, and overall trip time while meeting the vehicle’s required energy needs, as taught by QIU (See paragraph [0018].). The motivation for doing so would be to ensure that charging is initiated only after successful authorization, as taught by Yegorov (See paragraph [0005].).
With respect to claim 24, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 23, which is commensurate in scope to claim 24, with claim 23 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 24 being drawn to a corresponding method.
With respect to claim 25, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 23, which is commensurate in scope to claim 25, with claim 23 being drawn to a system for computing and claim 25 being drawn to a corresponding electric vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights