DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 3/16/2026. Claims 1-8 and 11 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted on 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amended claims 1 and 11 avoid nesting colons by employing a top-level colon with internal semi-colons (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 8), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 includes three lists of limitations preceded by colons at lines 2, 9 and 25. Claim 11 includes two lists of limitations preceded by colons at lines 2 and 16. Multiple colons in a sentence make it unclear which semicolons correspond to which colons, and the indents do not label which semicolon applies to which colon. Further, it is grammatically incorrect. See objection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is support for a communication unit configured to receive information on a load amount from a user terminal because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that load information may be entered by a user at a general-purpose terminal (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 8-9), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The user terminal is recited only in paragraph 35, which discloses it receives a destination and information on the electric vehicle battery input. Receiving load information is not an inherent function of a user terminal (see MPEP § 2163.07(a)). There is no explicit disclosure of the user inputting load information into the user terminal, however, paragraph 73 discloses the information on the load amount is collected from pressure sensors or a camera. The mere recitation of a load amount and a user terminal would not lead a person or ordinary skill in the art to conclude the load input is an input of the user terminal, particularly when the system includes sensor that directly measure load changes. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis acknowledges that the specification supports user-terminal input of load input (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 9), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Consideration of the subject matter added to the claims neither implicitly nor explicitly acknowledges its support, rather, the claims are examined as presented since the new matter rejection may be overcome by the applicant. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amending the specification to recite the communication unit receiving information on a load amount does not introduce new matter (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 9), it is noted that Applicant does not appear to have submitted changes to paragraph 35.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is support for the user terminal being a client of the server (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 9-10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 29 discloses the server is a computer program or device that provides information to clients through a network. Paragraph 35 discloses the communication unit of the server receives information on the input destination and the electric vehicle battery from the user terminal. There is no explicit disclosure that the user terminal is a client of the server, and the Applicant’s definition contradicts this assumption because, while the user terminal sends information to the server, there is no disclosure of the server sending information to the user terminal. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the purpose of the invention is to provide an EV driver with predictions about remaining battery capacity (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., providing remaining battery capacity predictions to a driver) are not explicitly disclosed. Paragraphs 10, 20, 37, 41-43, 51, 89 and 96 disclose generically providing the predicted remaining battery capacity without specifying the receiver. Paragraph 70 disclose transmitting a warning signal if the remaining battery capacity falls below a limit or is predicted to fall below a limit at a destination, however, there is no disclosure of how or where the warning is transmitted.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the user terminal inherently receives the predicted remaining battery capacity (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The user terminal is recited only in paragraph 35, which discloses receiving user inputs and sending information to the communication unit. A user terminal neither inherently receive battery capacity information, nor inherently presents information to a user. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the specification has been amended to support providing the predicted remaining battery capacity to the user terminal (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10), it is noted that Applicant does not appear to have submitted changes to paragraph 35.
In response to Applicant’s argument that a communication unit comprising a wired or wireless network interface adds explicit structural language that identifies specific hardware for receiving information (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although a network interface card, which Applicant does not disclose, is a specific computer component, a generically recited wired or wireless network interface neither limits the communication unit to a hardware implementation, nor provides a specific structure sufficient to receive information from a user or a vehicle sensor. A communication unit comprising a wired or wireless network interface could be interpreted as either software or hardware. See claim interpretation and rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s structural assumption about the communication unit is equivalent to a wired or wireless network interface (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A wired network transceiver or a wireless radio and antenna are specific hardware components that are commonly used to implement the functions of receiving information from a user or sensor. As discussed above, generically reciting a wired or wireless network interface does not limit the claim to a specific hardware implementation. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are not limited to an abstract idea because they include limitations that are constrained to EV battery management (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 12-13), it is noted that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.04(III)(C)). The steps of calculating and correcting a driving route and a transportation time, dividing the route, predicting a remaining battery capacity, calculating the battery consumption for each section, and calculating a change in load amount are recited at a high level of generality and may be practically performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (see MPEP § 2106.04(III)(B)). The server, storage unit, communication unit, and processor are generically recited computer components that are used to apply the abstract ideas identified above. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that predicting remaining battery capacity for route sections before and after a load-change event is an improvement to the field of EV battery charge management (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 13-14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite dividing a driving route into sections before and after a load change then predicting the remaining battery capacity based on the previously driven route, the upcoming route, and information on the electric vehicle battery. In a conventional range estimation system, at a current location of a vehicle, a route is divided into a previously travelled section and an upcoming section. The range estimation system predicts the battery capacity in the upcoming section based on the current rate of energy consumption and amount of stored energy. It is well known that the rate of energy consumption of an electric vehicle battery is directly affected by vehicle weight and load, therefore load changes are reflected in the energy consumption rate. It is further noted that range estimation systems that are responsive to vehicle weight were well known in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention, e.g.: Pearson et al. (US 2020/0055521), Grundmann et al. (DE 10 2013 208 404), and Tomono (JP 2015-30378). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the network interface and processor are not generic computer components (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the wired or wireless network interface is generically recited and there is insufficient support to determine whether it is a hardware or software interface. The processor is also generically claimed, and paragraph 29 discloses the processor is a processor of a server without any adaptations specific to the claimed invention. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the stored transportation data impose a specific structure on the claim (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The stored transportation data include driving records and road condition information. There is no disclosure of where or how the driving records and road condition information are obtained or how they are specifically implemented. Storing information in memory is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that using a server with a network interface to predict remaining battery capacity for a vehicle before and after a load change integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 14-15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although it does not appear to be supported by the disclosure, as discussed above, the only claimed application of the remaining battery capacity prediction is providing it to the user terminal, i.e., sending data. The claims do not include the user terminal doing anything after receiving the predicted remaining battery capacity, therefore, sending the predicted remaining battery capacity to the user terminal amounts to merely sending data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The warning that is generated in dependent claim 8 is also generically recited and it is not disclosed where or how the warning signal is transmitted. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims reflect a specific event-driven technical approach for maintaining prediction validity when the load changes (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rather than being responsive to a load change event, the claims merely recite correcting the driving route when the load amount changes, and the load is generically recited. A person of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that in a real-world environment, the load on an electric vehicle constantly changes responsive to surface friction, wind, road inclination, etc. Further, as discussed above, the claims include conventional real-time range estimation systems. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Soto does not disclose dividing a planned route into sections before and after a load change and independently calculating separate driving routes, transportation times, and battery consumption parameters for each section (Applicant’s Remark; p. 16), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Soto, in paragraphs 42-45, discloses initially calculating the expected the expected energy consumption in each segment of a route; and when a weight change is determined, recalculating the consumption for the segment in which the weight change occurs and upcoming segments. Therefore, Soto discloses dividing the route into segments that occurred before the weight change, segments that occurred after the weight change, and calculating the battery consumption for each segment. It is noted that the driving route is corrected in the claims by dividing the route, therefore, calculating the driving route in each section includes merely determining the portions of the route before and after the load change. It is further noted that Soto is not relied upon to disclose calculating the transportation time in each section. It is the combination of Kiyama with Hanchett that is relied upon to disclose calculating route transportation times based on vehicle weight, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to update the transportation times for route sections in response to vehicle parameters that affect the transportation duration, such as load. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hanchett does not disclose calculating a change in the load amount (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hanchett, in paragraph 81, explicitly discloses the gross weight of the vehicle is calculated by adding the sensed load weight to the stored curb weight. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Kiyama’s checkpoint-based battery capacity estimation to calculate remaining battery capacity when a vehicle’s weight changes in order to ensure the vehicle will not run out of power while a trip is in progress (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 17-18), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kiyama’s navigation system is intended to avoid battery exhaustion during travel by periodically determining the battery status at designated checkpoints along the route to check whether the vehicle is driving at a satisfactory battery consumption rate (Kiyama; paras. 107-109). Kiyama’s stated goal is to provide an electric vehicle service that gives the user a sense of security (Kiyama; para. 26). It is well known that vehicle weight is a significant contributor to battery consumption rate, and Soto, in paragraph 38, explicitly discloses performing energy consumption calculation over the route in order ensure the vehicle will likely not run out of power while a trip is in progress. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified Kiyama’s system to account for load weight changes to improve the accuracy of the battery capacity prediction in order to prevent battery exhaustion during travel. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that calculating EV battery consumption before and after a load change is a design choice that requires impermissible hindsight (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 18), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, it is well known that vehicle weight is a significant contributor to battery consumption rate, and it would have been obvious to have modified checkpoint-based battery capacity estimation to account for vehicle weight changes. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that route division based on SoC thresholds is fundamentally different from route segmentation based on load amount changes (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 18), it is noted that claim 7 is directed to dividing the calculated driving route based on the remaining battery capacity relative to a remaining battery capacity limit, which is directly analogous to dividing a route based on SoC thresholds. It appears that Applicant argues dependent claim 7 causes the system to operate in a fundamentally different manner than parent claim 1, which would indicate that claim 7 is in improper dependent form for not including every limitation of the claim from which it depends. However, as claimed, the divided sections of claim 7 do not appear to be the same divided sections of claim 1, therefore, the claims and corresponding rejection in view of Yasushi appear to be proper despite operating fundamentally differently. See rejection below.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 3/2/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claims 1 and 11 should each be limited to a single colon because using multiple colons in a single sentence is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the hierarchical relationships between each limitation.
In claim 1, lines 19-22, “the processor is further configured to … corrects the driving route … and predicts a remaining battery capacity” should read “the processor is further configured to … correct the driving route … and predict a remaining battery capacity”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a communication unit … configured to receive information” in claim 1, lines 5-6. The specification recites functions of the communication unit (see paras. 34-35, 39 and 72), but does not appear to disclose a specific structure for receiving information from a user.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, lines 6-7 and 5-7, respectively, the limitation “[receive/receiving] … information on a load amount from a user terminal” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of the user terminal device storing, receiving as input, or sending information on a load amount. The only disclosure of information sent from the user terminal to the communication unit is in paragraph 35 wherein the communication unit receives information on a destination input by a user and/or information on an electric vehicle battery.
Regarding claim 1, line 18, the limitation “provide the predicted remaining battery capacity to the user terminal” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of the user terminal receiving information. Paragraph 35 discloses the user terminal sends information on a destination input by a user and/or information on an electric vehicle battery to the communication unit, however, it is not disclosed that user terminal receives a predicted remaining battery capacity or any other information.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 5, claim limitation “a communication unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification recites functions of the communication unit (see paras. 34-35, 39 and 72), but the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim of receiving information from a user. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, the communication unit will be assumed to comprise a wired network transceiver or a wireless radio and antenna.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 1, lines 26-27, the limitation “a section before a change in the load amount and section after the change in the load amount” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the sections and load amount change are the same sections and load amount change recited in line 16. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to the sections of road before and after a single load amount change.
Regarding claim 2, line 4, the limitation “the road information” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim which makes it unclear how the road information is related to the transportation data recited in claim 1, line 4, because they both contain road condition information. It is further unclear if the road condition information is the same information in both claims. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to transportation data that includes road information comprising road condition information.
Regarding claim 2, lines 4-5, the limitation “traffic information within a region” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the traffic information is provided for the same region as the “driving time data within a region” recited in lines 2-3. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the road information, which includes the traffic information and road condition information, is provided for the same region as the regional and hourly data.
Regarding claim 6, line 3, the limitation “a charging time” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same charging time included in the information on the electric vehicle battery recited in claim 3, lines 2-3. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the information on the electric vehicle battery and charge information of the electric vehicle include the same charging time.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a battery charge management server (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c). Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A battery charge management server for an electric vehicle, the battery charge management server comprising:
a storage unit configured to store and update transportation data including regional and hourly driving records and road condition information;
a communication unit comprising a wired or wireless network interface configured to receive information on a destination and information on an electric vehicle battery from a user, and information on a load amount from a user terminal or vehicle sensor; and
a processor operatively coupled to the storage unit and communication unit, the processor configured to:
calculate a driving route and a transportation time to the destination based on the transportation data and the information on the destination [mental process/step];
predict a remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination based on the driving route, the transportation time, the information on the electric vehicle battery and the information on the load amount [mental process/step];
correct the driving route and transportation time when the load amount changes, by dividing the route into a section before the load change and a section after the load change [mental process/step], calculating the battery consumption for each section [mental process/step]; and
provide the predicted remaining battery capacity to the user terminal,
wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a change in the load amount based on the information on the load amount [mathematical calculation], corrects the driving route, the transportation time, and the information on the electric vehicle battery based on the calculated change in the load amount [mental process/step], and predicts a remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery based on the corrected driving route, the transportation time, and the information on the electric vehicle battery [mental process/step],
wherein the processor is further configured to:
divide the calculated driving route into a section before a change in the load amount and a section after the change in the load amount [mental process/step];
calculate a driving route and a transportation time in the section before the change in the load amount and a driving route and a transportation time in the section after the change in the load amount [mental process/step]; and
predict the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery based on the calculated driving route and transportation time in the section before the change in the load amount, the calculated driving route and transportation time in the section after the change in the load amount, and the information on the electric vehicle battery in each of the sections before and after the change in the load amount [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, calculating and correcting a driving route and a transportation time in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying a path between a vehicle’s current location and a destination, or a portion thereof, and estimating the amount of time required for a vehicle to traverse it. Dividing the route in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying different segments of the path. Predicting a remaining battery capacity and “calculating the battery consumption for each section” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at collected data and estimating the amount of energy that will be depleted while traveling a route or a portion thereof. The limitation “calculate a change in the load amount…” in the context of this claim encompasses subtracting two vehicle weights. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A battery charge management server for an electric vehicle, the battery charge management server comprising:
a storage unit [generic computing component] configured to store and update transportation data including regional and hourly driving records and road condition information [pre-solution activity (storing data)];
a communication unit comprising a wired or wireless network interface [generic computing component] configured to receive information on a destination and information on an electric vehicle battery from a user, and information on a load amount from a user terminal or vehicle sensor [pre-solution activity (receiving data)]; and
a processor operatively coupled to the storage unit and communication unit, the processor configured to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing component]:
calculate a driving route and a transportation time to the destination based on the transportation data and the information on the destination;
predict a remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination based on the driving route, the transportation time, the information on the electric vehicle battery, and the information on the load amount;
correct the driving route and transportation time when the load amount changes, by dividing the route into a section before the load change and a section after the load change, calculating the battery consumption for each section; and
provide the predicted remaining battery capacity to the user terminal [insignificant post-solution activity (transmitting data)],
wherein the processor is further configured to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing component] calculate a change in the load amount based on the information on the load amount, corrects the driving route, the transportation time, and the information on the electric vehicle battery based on the calculated change in the load amount, and predicts a remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery based on the corrected driving route, the transportation time, and the information on the electric vehicle battery,
wherein the processor is further configured to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computing component]:
divide the calculated driving route into a section before a change in the load amount and a section after the change in the load amount;
calculate a driving route and a transportation time in the section before the change in the load amount and a driving route and a transportation time in the section after the change in the load amount; and
predict the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery based on the calculated driving route and transportation time in the section before the change in the load amount, the calculated driving route and transportation time in the section after the change in the load amount, and the information on the electric vehicle battery in each of the sections before and after the change in the load amount.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “store and update transportation data”, “receive information … from a user”, and “provide the predicted remaining battery capacity…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the store and update step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of storing transportation data), and amounts to mere data storing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The receive information step is recited a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining user input data), and amounts to merely receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of providing the prediction is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of sending the prediction over a network (specification para. 29)), and amounts to merely transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “storage unit”, “communication unit”, and “processor” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing the generic computer function(s) of storing, sending/receiving, and calculating data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a storage unit, communication unit, and processor to perform the steps of calculating and correcting a driving route and a transportation time, dividing the route, predicting a remaining battery capacity, “calculating the battery consumption for each section”, and “calculate a change in the load amount…” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “store and update transportation data”, “receive information … from a user”, and “provide the predicted remaining battery capacity…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 11 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to a controlling method of a battery charge management server (i.e., a process) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 and 11 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama et al. (US 2014/0163877), hereinafter Kiyama, in view of Hanchett (US 2022/0260378) and Soto et al. (US 2015/0158397), hereinafter Soto.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, as best understood, Kiyama discloses a battery charge management server for an electric vehicle, the battery charge management server comprising: a storage unit configured to store and update transportation data (Kiyama; fig. 2: storage device 202; para. 54: a vehicle management DB 221, a charging station management DB 222, a probe DB 223, a road link DB 224, and a map DB 225 are stored in the storage device 202) including regional and hourly data (Kiyama; fig. 7: In the probe DB 223 in FIG. 7, the numeral 700 indicates a probe ID 700 that is an identifier uniquely identifying collected probe information, the numeral 701 indicates a road link ID indicating a road for which the probe information is collected, the numeral 702 indicates a passage time that is a time at which the probe information was generated, the numeral 703 indicates a passage-time remaining battery capacity indicating the remaining battery capacity when the probe information was generated, the numeral 704 indicates a passage-time electric mileage that is electric mileage information on the electric vehicle 102 when the probe information was generated); a communication unit (Kiyama; fig. 2: communication device 203; para. 52: communication unit 203 that communicates with the display terminal 101 or other devices over the network 104) comprising a wired or wireless network interface (Kiyama; para. 50: network 104 is a mobile phone network, the Internet, or a short-range wireless communication such as a LAN) configured to receive information on a destination and information on an electric vehicle battery from a user (Kiyama; para. 64: When a user's route search request, which includes information on the starting point and the destination, is received via the input device 303, the route information acquisition unit 310 sends the information on the starting point, the destination, the remaining battery capacity, and the battery capacity to the telematics center 100 as a route search request.; paras. 147-148: FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of the route search setting and route search result screen … the following are output on the output device 304: … an area 1201 in which a destination is entered, … an area 1204 in which the battery capacity of the electric vehicle 102 is entered; para. 60: The input device 303, such as a touch panel, may be integrated into the output device 304.); and a processor operatively connected to the storage unit and communication unit (Kiyama; fig. 2: CPU 201) configured to: calculate a driving route and a transportation time to the destination based on the transportation data and the information on the destination (Kiyama; para. 56: Using the charging station information stored in the charging station management DB 222, the probe information stored in the probe DB 223, the road information stored in the road link DB 224, and the map and slope information stored in the map DB 225, the shortest route search unit 212 searches the routes, via which the electric vehicle 102 can reach from the starting point to the destination using the current remaining battery capacity (SoC: State of Charge) without battery exhaustion, for a route that requires the shortest travel time including the charging time.); predict a remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination based on the driving route, the transportation time, and the information on the electric vehicle battery, and provide the predicted remaining battery capacity to the user terminal (Kiyama; para. 159: In the image 1305, for a point (one of a transit point, the destination, and a transit charging station) to which the vehicle is traveling, the remaining traveling distance to that point and the expected arrival time are displayed. When the point is a transit charging station, the type of the charging station, the charging time (CT) at the transit charging station, and the estimated remaining battery capacity (SoC) at an arrival time are displayed.; para. 157: the following are displayed on the output device 304: … an image 1307 included in the image 1306 for illustrating the remaining battery capacity and the estimated remaining battery capacity band at the checkpoint).
Kiyama does not explicitly disclose the stored transportation data includes road condition information.
Hanchett, in the same field of endeavor (electric vehicle battery charge management), discloses stored road condition information (Hanchett; para. 50: the database 180 stores … the environmental information 320; para. 52: The environmental information 320 may include … the road conditions 326).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the telematics center of Kiyama to consider stored road conditions while determining routes and calculating battery capacity, as disclosed by Hanchett, with the motivation of accounting for poor weather which may affect the speed a vehicle may travel thereby increasing the accuracy of determining the energy and/or time that will be expended, the best route to traverse, and where to recharge (Hanchett; para. 73).
Kiyama, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the communication unit receives information on a load amount from a user terminal or vehicle sensor; the processor predicts a remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination based on the information on the load amount; and the processor calculates a change in the load amount based on the information on the load amount, corrects the driving route, the transportation time, and the information on the electric vehicle battery based on the calculated change in the load amount, and predicts a remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery based on the corrected driving route, the transportation time, and the information on the electric vehicle battery.
Hanchett further discloses a communication unit receives information on a load amount from a user terminal or vehicle sensor (Hanchett; para. 86: Some or all of the functions performed by the vehicle computer 112 in the above example methods may be performed by the server 170. Server 170 may receive data from sensors 114 of the electric vehicle 110 and sensors 134 of the trailer 130 via the wireless communication link 150 and the network 160 to perform the same or similar calculations as performed by the vehicle computer 112. The server 170 may calculate load weights, gross weights, identify potential routes, and use data to assess each potential route. The server 170 may select a route in accordance with assessing the potential routes.); a processor predicts a remaining battery capacity of an electric vehicle battery after reaching a destination based on information on a load amount (Hanchett; para. 78: Determining the amount of energy and/or the duration of time to travel each of the one or more routes includes determining in accordance with the first gross weight of the electric vehicle and/or the second gross weight of the trailer from the starting location to the destination. Determining may include developing estimates for energy usage and/or time in route for various weights, temperature and precipitation as shown in FIGS. 7-10 for each route.); and the processor calculates a change in the load amount based on the information on the load amount (Hanchett; para. 83: the vehicle computer 112 determines a range of the electric vehicle in accordance with the first gross weight [i.e., the increased weight of the vehicle due to the load weight, see para. 30] of the electric vehicle 110 and the second gross weight of the trailer), corrects a driving route, a transportation time, and information on the electric vehicle battery based on the calculated change in the load amount (Hanchett; para. 83: the vehicle computer 112 selects the route in which a distance between the one or more charging stations (e.g., R420, R422, R424, R426, R428, R430, R460, R462) along the route are within the range of the electric vehicle), and predicts a remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery based on the corrected driving route, the transportation time, and the information on the electric vehicle battery (Hanchett; para. 84: Determining a range of the electric vehicle may further include determining an amount of energy remaining in a battery of the electric vehicle and a rate of use of energy from the battery along the one or more routes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the telematics center of Kiyama, as modified, to update the range, route, and battery capacity prediction based on the received gross weight of the vehicle relative to the unloaded weight, as disclosed by Hanchett, with the motivation of identifying routes that are impractical or impossible to traverse and not selecting those routes or presenting those routes to the driver for selection (Hanchett; para. 87) thereby increasing convenience for the driver.
Kiyama, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the processor dividing the route into a section before the load change and a section after the load change, calculating the battery consumption for each section; and the processor divides the calculated driving route into a section before a change in the load amount and a section after the change in the load amount, calculates a driving route and a transportation time in the section before the change in the load amount and a driving route and a transportation time in the section after the change in the load amount, and predicts the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery based on the calculated driving route and transportation time in the section before the change in the load amount, the calculated driving route and transportation time in the section after the change in the load amount, and the information on the electric vehicle battery in each of the sections before and after the change in the load amount.
Soto, in the same field of endeavor (electric vehicle energy consumption prediction), discloses a processor divides a route into a section before a load change and a section after the load change, calculating a battery consumption for each section (Soto; para. 43: the system processes the route initially 401 and then accesses variables for each segment as the segment is reached (or sometime prior to reaching the segment) 403. For example, if an unexpected change occurs in any of the variables from the predicted value, the process can recalculate the total usage for the remaining route, based on the new variable value. A common example of this would be a passenger leaving the vehicle); and predicts a remaining battery capacity of an electric vehicle battery based on the calculated driving route in the section before the change in the load amount, the calculated driving route in the section after the change in the load amount, and information on the electric vehicle battery in each of the sections before and after the change in the load amount (Soto; para. 42: the process will dynamically adjust the consumption number as the route progresses. This can help factor in traffic, weight changes (passengers entering or leaving the vehicle, for example)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the calculation of the driving route, transportation time, and battery consumption, that account for vehicle weight, by the telematics center of Kiyama, as modified, to be performed in response to a weight change for each segment of a route, as disclosed by Soto, with the motivation of ensuring that the vehicle will likely not run out of power while a trip is in progress thereby providing confidence that a current power supply will be sufficient for the journey (Soto; para. 38).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Kiyama, as modified, discloses the regional and hourly data include hourly driving record data (Kiyama; fig. 7: In the probe DB 223 in FIG. 7, the numeral 700 indicates a probe ID 700 that is an identifier uniquely identifying collected probe information, the numeral 701 indicates a road link ID indicating a road for which the probe information is collected, the numeral 702 indicates a passage time that is a time at which the probe information was generated, the numeral 703 indicates a passage-time remaining battery capacity indicating the remaining battery capacity when the probe information was generated, the numeral 704 indicates a passage-time electric mileage that is electric mileage information on the electric vehicle 102 when the probe information was generated) and driving time data within a region (Kiyama; para. 87: In the road link DB 224 in FIG. 7 … the numeral 713 indicates the traveling time required to travel on the road from position information 1 to position information 2), and the road information includes traffic information within a region (Kiyama; para. 89: The traveling time 713 and the required battery capacity 715 may be changed in real time by the telematics center 100 that calculates them using the traffic congestion information.).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Kiyama, as modified, discloses the information on the electric vehicle battery includes at least one of the real-time remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery (Kiyama; paras. 147-148: FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an example of the route search setting and route search result screen … the following are output on the output device 304: … an area 1203 in which the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle 102 at the starting point is entered), consumption rate, a charging time, and a distance to empty.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Kiyama, as modified, discloses when the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery predicted in real time is less than a preset remaining battery capacity limit (Kiyama; para. 140: If the remaining battery capacity at the current confirmation point is outside the estimated remaining battery capacity band (S1109: NO), the navigation processing unit 311 determines whether the remaining battery capacity is below the estimated remaining battery capacity band (S1112). If the remaining battery capacity at the current confirmation point is below the estimated remaining battery capacity band (S1112: YES), the navigation processing unit 311 displays the information, which indicates that the consumption amount is larger than the amount that is consumed according to the scheduled battery consumption pace estimated in the route search result, on the output device 304 of the display terminal 101 (S1113). After that, the navigation processing unit 311 performs the route search request processing, shown in FIG. 8, again (S1114) because there is a possibility that the battery exhaustion will occur before the vehicle arrives at a charging station or a transit location if the vehicle continues driving at the current traveling pace.; para. 122: When the user specifies a remaining battery capacity that will remain when the vehicle arrives at the destination, the upper limit value and the lower limit value of the estimated remaining battery capacity band may be generated by adding the specified remaining battery capacity respectively to the lower limit value and the upper limit value.), the processor selects an electric vehicle battery charging station based on whether the vehicle is within a preset distance range based on the calculated driving route and an increase in the transportation time (Kiyama; para. 107: search the routes, on which zero or more charging stations are available, for a route that requires the shortest traveling time (including the charging time) while avoiding battery exhaustion during the travel from the starting point to the destination) and includes a location of the selected electric vehicle battery charging station in the driving route (Kiyama; para. 183: image 1800 indicates the identifier of a transit charging station that the vehicle is to visit due to a change in the route when the remaining battery capacity is smaller than the remaining battery capacity band).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Kiyama, as modified, discloses when the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery predicted in real time is less than a preset remaining battery capacity limit (Kiyama; para. 140: If the remaining battery capacity at the current confirmation point is outside the estimated remaining battery capacity band (S1109: NO), the navigation processing unit 311 determines whether the remaining battery capacity is below the estimated remaining battery capacity band (S1112). If the remaining battery capacity at the current confirmation point is below the estimated remaining battery capacity band (S1112: YES), the navigation processing unit 311 displays the information, which indicates that the consumption amount is larger than the amount that is consumed according to the scheduled battery consumption pace estimated in the route search result, on the output device 304 of the display terminal 101 (S1113). After that, the navigation processing unit 311 performs the route search request processing, shown in FIG. 8, again (S1114) because there is a possibility that the battery exhaustion will occur before the vehicle arrives at a charging station or a transit location if the vehicle continues driving at the current traveling pace.; para. 122: When the user specifies a remaining battery capacity that will remain when the vehicle arrives at the destination, the upper limit value and the lower limit value of the estimated remaining battery capacity band may be generated by adding the specified remaining battery capacity respectively to the lower limit value and the upper limit value.), the processor selects an electric vehicle battery charging station based on whether the vehicle is within a preset distance range based on the destination and charging information of the electric vehicle (Kiyama; para. 107: search the routes, on which zero or more charging stations are available, for a route that requires the shortest traveling time (including the charging time) while avoiding battery exhaustion during the travel from the starting point to the destination) and includes a location of the selected electric vehicle battery charging station in the driving route (Kiyama; para. 183: image 1800 indicates the identifier of a transit charging station that the vehicle is to visit due to a change in the route when the remaining battery capacity is smaller than the remaining battery capacity band).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Kiyama, as modified, discloses the charging information of the electric vehicle includes information on at least one of a type of the electric vehicle, a type of a charging terminal, a charging rate, and a charging time (Kiyama; para. 107: search the routes, on which zero or more charging stations are available, for a route that requires the shortest traveling time (including the charging time) while avoiding battery exhaustion during the travel from the starting point to the destination).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama in view of Hanchett and Soto as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yasushi et al. (JP 2012-211888), hereinafter Yasushi.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Kiyama, as modified, discloses the processor identifies a point on the calculated driving route where the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery falls below the preset remaining battery capacity limit (Kiyama; para. 125: the border value (border) of the estimated remaining battery capacity, calculated based on the lower limit value, may also be derived. In this case, the border at the checkpoint is means a value that will cause battery exhaustion with a high probability when the value falls below the remaining battery capacity).
It is unclear if Kiyama, as modified, explicitly discloses dividing the calculated driving route into a first section in which the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery is greater than the preset remaining battery capacity limit and a second section in which the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery is less than the preset remaining battery capacity limit and selecting the electric vehicle battery charging station within the first section.
Yasushi, in the same field of endeavor (electric vehicle battery charge management), discloses dividing the calculated driving route into a first section in which the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery is greater than a preset remaining battery capacity limit (Yasushi; fig. 5: L2; para. 50: the current charge capacity L2 is displayed at a predetermined length from one end) and a second section in which the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery is less than the preset remaining battery capacity limit (Yasushi; fig. 5: L5; para. 51: the section from the current charge capacity L2 (travelable distance d) to the destination b ahead (to the right) is displayed as a predetermined length, which is regarded as a battery shortage L5) and selecting the electric vehicle battery charging station within the first section (Yasushi; fig. 5: e; para. 55: the position e of the charging station is displayed only in the area of the current charging capacity L2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the route, at the location of the border value of the estimated remaining capacity, of Kiyama, as modified, to divide the route into a section before and after the border location and select a charging station before the border location, as disclosed by Yasushi, with the motivation of providing the user with information about the charging station location so they know the vehicle can travel to the destination thereby allowing the user to depart with peace of mind (Yasushi; para. 54).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Kiyama, as modified, discloses when the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery is less than the preset remaining battery capacity limit, the processor generates and transmits a warning signal (Kiyama; para. 173: the message, which indicates that the remaining battery capacity at a checkpoint-passage time is smaller than the remaining battery capacity band, is displayed in an area 1600 where a message about the checkpoint passage is displayed).
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pearson et al. (US 2020/0055521) disclose a method for real-time vehicle weight estimation that is used to adjust system calculations such as electric vehicle range estimation.
Tomono (JP 2015-30378) discloses a vehicle range estimation system that responds to weight changes by calculating the fuel consumption up to the point of the weight change and then estimating the fuel consumption for the rest of the trip.
Grundmann et al. (DE 10 2013 208 404) disclose a method for determining the range of a hybrid or electric vehicle by detecting weight changes and predicting energy consumption for a trip based on a loading profile that takes into account future and past weight changes such as weight changes between delivery stops (i.e., route segments).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights