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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 3 and 4 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 2 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks the Applicant for the Interview summary.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues:
The Examiner takes the position that the claims are directed to mathematical concepts and mental processes. However, Applicant respectfully submits that the features of amended independent claim 1 are integrated into a practical application. In particular, by calculating a driving electricity cost by subtracting the sum of the air conditioning energy consumption integrated value, the auxiliary equipment energy consumption integrated value, and the position energy variation from the battery energy consumption integrated value, and dividing the result by the integrated distance traveled, driving electricity cost can be computed more appropriately. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. After consultation with Dave Okonsky (RQAS), the 101 will stand. The added limitations do not overcome the 101, there is still not an active step. The claims are just calculating, learning and determining. Note that the Examiner, as indicated before, cannot find anything in the Specification that would be an active step [such as activating something after the determining step]. Note that in the Specification the controller seems to only be doing calculations or determinations. In [0002], the Specification has the controller displaying something, maybe this would solve your issues with 101.
See 35 U.S.C. 101 below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the features of amended independent claim 1. In particular, the cited references fail to teach or suggest the features regarding "calculate a driving electricity cost by subtracting the sum of the air conditioning energy consumption integrated value, the auxiliary equipment energy consumption integrated value, and the position energy variation from the battery energy consumption integrated value, and dividing the result by the integrated distance traveled".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is primarily arguing the amendments with respect to claims 1 – 2, these have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by applicant's amendments.
Applicant further argues:
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62- 63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). Further, "a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. "W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(see MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
Also, 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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims recite a method and system for calculating a driving electricity cost based on battery energy consumption.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019).).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Cateqory?
Yes, with respect to claims 1-2, which recite a method, system or medium that include at least one step. The system is therefore directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture. The Abstract states “The controller is programmed to calculate the driving electricity cost based on the battery energy consumption integrated value, the integrated distance traveled, the air conditioning energy consumption integrated value, the auxiliary equipment energy consumption integrated value, and the positional energy variation of the vehicle during the trip, at the end of the trip
Step 2A, Prong One: Isa Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. But for the recited additional elements (controller), the remaining limitations of the claims recite an abstract idea. The limitations/claims in the instant application do not amount to more than a recitation “of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The claims are directed to a method or system for determining electricity cost and is primarily gathering data and doing a mathematical calculation, thus an abstract idea. Also these steps can be done as a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Inteqrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the mathematical concept (mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; or mathematical calculations is an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claim, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. In 2106.05(F) it indicates that the applicant must show that “the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.” These limitations/claims do not show that in a clear manner. Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yomamoto et al. [JP2012222876, now Yomamoto]; with Taku Kudo et al. [WO2021144923, now Kudo].
Yomamoto discloses a controller installed in a motor vehicle together with a motor for driving, an air conditioning unit for air conditioning a passenger compartment, an auxiliary equipment, and a battery supplying power to the motor, the air conditioning unit, and the auxiliary equipment [see at least Kamamoto, ¶ 0016 (“FIG. 1 is an overall block diagram of an electrically powered vehicle according to an embodiment of the present invention. Referring to FIG. 1, an electrically powered vehicle 100 includes a power storage device 10, an inverter 20, a motor generator 30, and a driving wheel 35. The electric vehicle 100 further includes voltage sensors 42, current sensors 44, temperature sensors 46, wheel speed sensors 37, an electronic control unit (hereinafter referred to as a " ECU: Electric Control Unit ") 50, and a display unit 60.”); 0025-0026 (“In the vehicle 100, an air conditioner 64, a DC / DC converter 62, an auxiliary device 68, and an EHW ( Electrically Heated Window ) 66 are included as devices that receive supply of electric power from the power storage device 10. The EHW66 is an ice-melting or defogging glass for the windshield of an automobile. A transparent heating element is provided on a surface of the glass, and an ice melting function and a defogging function in cold weather are exhibited by energizing the transparent heating element. [0026]The ECU50 receives the information on the power consumption Pac from the air conditioner 64. The ECU50 receives a signal EHWON indicating an on / off state from the EHW66. ECU50 calculates power consumption Pbatt in power storage device 10 from current IB and voltage VB. Based on power consumption Pbatt, power consumption Pac, and the signal EHWON, the ECU50 learns the air conditioner power consumption and the running power consumption at regular time intervals (for example, for one minute).”); 0029-0030 (“Referring to FIG. 2, the ECU50 includes a multiplier 102 multiplying current IB flowing through power storage device 10 and voltage VB of power storage device 10 to calculate electric power Pbatt, a conversion unit 104 receiving a signal EHWON indicating on / off of the EHW and converting it into electric power consumed by the EHW66, and a calculation unit 106 subtracting electric power consumed by the EHW and electric power consumed by air conditioner 64 from power consumption Pbatt of power storage device 10 to obtain running power consumption. [0030]The ECU50 further includes an integrating unit 107 that integrates each power consumption at regular time intervals. Integrating unit 107 includes an integrating unit 110 integrating the running power consumption calculated by calculating unit 106, and an integrating unit 112 integrating air conditioner power consumption PAC.”)];
wherein the controller is programmed to calculate an integrated distance traveled until a trip is completed; calculate an integrated amount of energy discharged from the battery until the trip is completed; calculate an integrated power consumption of the air conditioning unit until the trip is completed; calculate an integrated power consumption of the auxiliary equipment until the trip is completed; calculate a change in position energy of the motor vehicle until the trip is completed [see at least Kamamoto, ¶ 0025-0026; 0029-0030]; and
Kamamoto does not specifically disclose but Kudo does teach calculate a driving electricity cost by subtracting the sum of the air conditioning energy consumption integrated value, the auxiliary equipment energy consumption integrated value, and the position energy variation from the battery energy consumption integrated value, and dividing the result by the integrated distance traveled determine whether the driving electricity cost is less than predetermined threshold value; and upon determination that the driving electricity cost is less than the predetermined threshold value, learn a driving electricity cost based on the driving electricity cost [see at least Kudo, ¶ 0023 (“extraction unit 12 extracts learning data of the power consumption rate estimation model m 1 from the trip data, the map data storage unit 122, and the weather log data storage unit 123 for each estimation path (i.e. for each trip data estimated by the movement path). In the present embodiment, the power consumption rate estimation model m 1 is a regression model using the power consumption rate as the objective variable, the feature information of the link (road), the tendency of driving, and the weather condition as explanatory variables. Therefore, the actual value of each of the objective variable and the explanatory variable is extracted as learning data. The feature information (such as a gradient) of the link can be acquired from the map data storage unit 122. The weather condition can be acquired from the weather log data storage unit 123. That is, the weather log data storage unit 123 refers to log data (hereinafter referred to as "meteorological data") of weather conditions of each ground. is stored.”); 0088 (“the processing procedure in the case of estimating the optimal path from the viewpoint of the electric cost of the electric vehicle 20 will be described using the learned power consumption rate estimation model m 1. FIG. 14 is a flowchart for explaining an example of a processing procedure in the case of estimating an optimal path in terms of power cost. FIG. 15 is a diagram illustrating map data for explaining an example of a processing procedure in the case of estimating an optimal path from a viewpoint of an electric cost.”); 0093 (“cost”); 0101 (“it is possible to learn the regression model based on the trip data without requiring various time series data acquired from various sensors and the like in real time (for example, periodically) in one trip. As a result, it is not necessary to acquire data in real time from the electric vehicle 20, and the cost required for network construction for data acquisition can be reduced.”)].
Kudo also teaches calculating and determining a the data to obtain the cost based on calculations[see at least Kudo, Claim 2; ¶ 0020 (“The moving distance is the total movement distance [km] in the trip. The average speed is the average speed [km] in the trip／ h ]. The movement start date and time are the start date and time of the movement (trip). The movement end date is the end date of the movement (trip). The power consumption is power consumption [kW] in the trip. The acceleration/deceleration frequency is the ratio of the total sum of the duration of the state in which the absolute value of the ± acceleration is equal to or greater than the threshold with respect to the period from the movement start date and time to the movement end date and time. Note that the acceleration/deceleration frequency is an example of a parameter indicating the tendency of driving by the driver (habit). Different parameters may be used instead of the acceleration/deceleration frequency. Among the parameters not shown in FIG. 4, such as the usage rate of air conditioning, the loading amount of the baggage, or the like, the electric vehicle 20 side can be measured, and power consumption (power consumption per unit travel distance) With a parameter that affects (having a correlation) on the trip data may be included in the trip data.”); 0090-0093 (“Subsequently, the power consumption estimation unit 14 acquires the value of the explanatory variable of the power consumption rate estimation model m 1 (S 320). The method for acquiring the value may be the same as step S 230 in FIG. 11. However, in step S 320, the value of the explanatory variable is acquired for all the links in the search range. Note that when the value of the variable that does not depend on the link, such as weather data, is unknown, for example, a value of a variable that does not depend on the link may be calculated on the basis of the past actual value, such as the average temperature in the region of the search range. [0091] Subsequently, the power consumption estimation unit 14 calculates the power consumption rate for each link by inputting the value of the explanatory variable to the trained power consumption rate estimation model m 1 for each link (S 330). [0092] Subsequently, the power consumption estimation unit 14 calculates the power consumption by multiplying the power consumption rate calculated in step S 330 by the distance of the link for each link (S 340). As a result, information as shown in (2) in FIG. 15 is obtained. That is, in (2) of FIG. 15, the thickness of the line indicating each link indicates the magnitude of the power consumption. [0093] Subsequently, the power consumption estimation unit 14 estimates the optimal route by solving the route optimization problem using the power consumption calculated for each link as the cost (weight) of each link (S 350). In (3) of FIG. 15, an example of the optimal path is shown by a broken line. It should be noted that a known algorithm may be used as a method for solving the route optimization problem, such as a dike method or A * method.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the ability to do calculations to determine energy used in an electric vehicle of Kamamoto, with the use of cost as one of the calculations within the determination of energy used of Kudo. Providing a more robust, efficient, effective process to determine the cost of energy use in an electric car.
Note that both references are calculating and determining the same factors (together all of the factors) as stated in the amended claims. Yamamoto also discloses displaying the results based on these calculations [see at least Yomamoto, ¶ 0003(“remaining amount at the time is displayed”); 0006 (“display the information with high accuracy”); 0016 (“display unit”); 0024; 0037 (“display device”); 0056 (“when the air conditioner is turned off, the travelable distance can be immediately calculated and displayed by subtracting the energy learning value for the air conditioner from the learning value, so that there is also an effect that the user can immediately know how long the traveling distance is extended when the air conditioner is turned off.”)].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yomamoto et al. [JP2012222876, now Yomamoto]; with Taku Kudo et al. [WO2021144923, now Kudo], further with Wenger, et al. [US20210300152, now Wenger].
Claim 2
Kamamoto and Kudo disclose/teach/suggest the controller of Claim 1.
Neither Kamamoto or Kudo disclose/teach but Wenger does teach wherein the controller is programmed to learn a towing learning electricity cost using the driving electricity cost when the driving electricity cost is equal to or greater than the threshold value [see at least Wenger, Abstract, Claim 31 (“A method for monitoring and displaying energy use and energy cost of a transport vehicle climate control system of a vehicle and/or towed by the vehicle, wherein the transport vehicle climate control system includes a compressor and the transport vehicle climate control system is powered by a power system powering a transport vehicle , the method comprising: the power system providing power to one or more vehicle components and accessories in addition to the transport vehicle climate control system; a controller monitoring and measuring energy parameters of the transport vehicle climate control system, wherein the energy parameters include one or more of a rotational velocity of the compressor, an operational frequency of the compressor, and a voltage and/or current supplied to the compressor; calculating energy utilization of the transport vehicle climate control system based on the energy parameters that include one or more of the rotational velocity of the compressor, the operational frequency of the compressor, and the voltage and/or current supplied to the compressor; isolating an energy cost of the transport vehicle climate control system from a total energy cost of operating the transport vehicle climate control system and the one or more vehicle components and accessories based on the calculated energy utilization; and displaying the calculated energy utilization and the isolated energy cost of the transport climate control system on a user interface.”); ¶ 0007 (“the embodiments described herein can measure, monitor and report on energy costs associated with one or more transport vehicle climate control systems with sufficient resolution to be able to identify variations due to intentional (e.g., experimental) or unintentional (e.g., system entropy or breakdown) changes in the operation of the one or more transport vehicle climate control systems.”); 0011 (“The controller is configured to control operation of the climate control system. Also, the controller is configured to monitor and measure energy parameters of a transport vehicle climate control system, calculate energy utilization of the transport vehicle climate control system based on the energy parameters, and calculate energy costs of the transport vehicle climate control system based on the energy parameters. Also, a user interface is configured to receive the calculated energy utilization and the calculated energy costs and is configured to display the calculated energy utilization and the calculated energy costs of the transport climate control system.”); 0023 (“The tractor 120 is attached to and is configured to tow the transport unit 125. The transport unit 125 shown in FIG. 1B is a trailer. It will be appreciated that the embodiments described herein are not limited to tractor and trailer units, but can apply to any type of transport unit (e.g., a container on a flat car, an intermodal container, etc.), a truck, a box car, or other similar transport unit.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the ability to do calculations to determine energy used in an electric vehicle of Kamamoto, with the use of cost as one of the calculations within the determination of energy used of Kudo, further with the calculation and of energy use and cost, even with a towed vehicle, of Wenger. Providing a more robust, efficient, effective process to determine the cost of energy use in an electric car.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK KOPPIKAR, can be reached at (571) 272-5109. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3667
(571) 270-7952