DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/27/2023 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 1/10/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 3, 5, and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 15, 17, and 19-20 has been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 19, and 20 are the independent claims.
This FINAL Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 10/27/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/27/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 3, 5, and 18 have been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the Drawings Objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Claim Objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive since the claims have been cancelled.
However, since the subject matter was cancelled and incorporated into the four independent claims (1,2, 19, and 20), the remarks will be addressed here.
Applicant remarks “A cost function is a mathematical equation or tool used in optimization to calculate the "cost" of an event or the difference between a model's predictions and actual values, which is then minimized to find the best solution. In other words, the cost function measures the performance of the model for given data. The cost function quantifies the error between predicted and expected values and presents that error in the form of a single real number. The returned value is usually called cost, error or loss (where loss refers to error for a single data point). The objective of the cost function is to find the model parameter values for which the cost function returns an as small a number as possible. By minimizing the cost function, models learn to make more accurate predictions, improving overall performance and efficiency “and the Office totally agrees with this statement as how cost functions are used and operate. However, this still does not capture what are the metes and bounds are of “the positive and negative costs”?
Applicant further remarks “It is clear, from claim 5 as well as the specification (see in particular paragraphs [0041], [0056], and [0062-0064]) that an individual deactivation or activation event generates what is referred to as a positive cost. This is exemplified in paragraph [0041 ], which states "each disconnect or connect of the contactor 12 incurs a cost. Contactor 12 connects are shown to be particularly expensive, so it is desired to minimize connects. The present disclosure effectively minimizes the necessary number of disconnects and connects of the contactor 12 by selective control of the vehicle deactivation, for instance via closing/opening of relays." and while the Office understands this concept of minimalizing costs, or minimizing the amount of times a connector is being used, the Office asks again, what makes this positive? Is there a mere adjective describing a cost, like a “banana cost” or is the positive costs implying some sort of only allowable value? What would be a positive cost? 7 or merely a cost function that limits the connections? Or better yet, what is a value of a positive cost? When the Office looked in the cited paragraph, just as applicant stated here, they are functions that minimize the amount of connection, which is understood and will be interpreted as such, but the term “positive costs” and “negative costs” are unclear terms as to what they are? Another example, if the claims removed the terms “with positive costs” and “with negative costs” what would change? Further, when the Office looks into the cited paragraphs, the positive and negative costs can be switched, so is there term a mere design choice? As currently presented, the Claims are still unclear as to what the metes and bounds are, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret these “positive costs” as applicant has defined the cost function, as any cost that limits the switching or activating and deactivating of a system, since that appears to be what a “positive cost” is defined to be. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further remarks “time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs". It is hence clear, from claim 5 as well as the specification, that an individual time period between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event generates what is referred to as a negative cost” and once again the metes and bounds of this unclear. What again is the negative aspect? Is 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 2 hours? Are these negative? Since between all deactivation and activations of a system, they must have a duration, is this merely a count of these, or is it a value of time between, and is the longer the more negative, or less more negative, and again, what is negative? When the Office looks into the specification, as applicant has pointed out, no clarity is gained as to what this actually is, thus it is unclear how to interpret this aspect or even apply prior art. What are these time periods and what values are exemplary? Would any system that takes the time between deactivation and activation read on this? Again, how is this negative. Further, when the Office looks into the cited paragraphs, the positive and negative costs can be switched, so is there term a mere design choice and this could be a positive cost? As currently presented, the Claims are still unclear as to what the metes and bounds are, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret these “negative costs” as any time between deactivation and activation taking into account for optimization, since that appears to be what a “negative cost” is defined to be. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant remarks “It is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art of autonomous models that "positive costs" and "negative costs" represent relevant model parameters” and the Office respectfully disagrees. Model parameters for cost functions are known items. Taking into account deactivating and activating and even times between activations and deactivations are understood, but “positive and negative costs” are unclear what these are, how they are being used, what their metes and bounds are…thus they are indefinite. Again, the Office is going to interpret these “positive and negative costs” as merely relevant model parameters, as stated above. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) for Claims 5-9 have been withdrawn. However, the subject matter is now in all independent claims and will be addressed below under the 112 (b) section.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for Double Patenting, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims in the current application in the same way as the claims in the co-pending application, thus the current 101 rejection for double patenting remains.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicant did not respond to these interpretations, therefore the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) remain.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and added claim amendments with new 112(b) rejections. These amendments and clarification of the positive and negative aspects of the cost function have changed the scope of how the Office was addressing and interpreting the original application, which have necessitated new analysis with new application of prior art to better capture applicants intention of negative and positive costs, and the Office has supplied the new grounds for rejection attached below in the Final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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, (f) 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1, 9, 15-17, and 19 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” or “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to”, “to perform” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1, 9, 15-17, and 19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1, 9, 15-17, and 19 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1, 9, and 15-17 all recite a processor device configured to: receive and control. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The computer system 800 may comprise at least one computing device or electronic device capable of including firmware, hardware, and/or executing software instructions to implement the functionality described herein. The computer system 800 may include a processor device 802 (may also be referred to as a control unit), a memory 804, and a system bus 806. The computer system 800 may include at least one computing device having the processor device 802. The system bus 806 provides an interface for system components including, but not limited to, the memory 804 and the processor device 802. The processor device 802 may include any number of hardware components for conducting data or signal processing or for executing computer code stored in memory 804. The processor device 802 (e.g.,, control unit) may, for example, include a general-purpose processor, an application specific processor, a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), a circuit containing processing components, a group of distributed processing components, a group of distributed computers configured for processing, or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. The processor device may further include computer executable code that controls operation of the programmable device” [Specification, ¶ 0069] (Generic computer).
Claim 19 recites one or more control units configured to perform the method of claim 2. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The computer system 800 may comprise at least one computing device or electronic device capable of including firmware, hardware, and/or executing software instructions to implement the functionality described herein. The computer system 800 may include a processor device 802 (may also be referred to as a control unit), a memory 804, and a system bus 806. The computer system 800 may include at least one computing device having the processor device 802. The system bus 806 provides an interface for system components including, but not limited to, the memory 804 and the processor device 802. The processor device 802 may include any number of hardware components for conducting data or signal processing or for executing computer code stored in memory 804. The processor device 802 (e.g.,, control unit) may, for example, include a general-purpose processor, an application specific processor, a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), a circuit containing processing components, a group of distributed processing components, a group of distributed computers configured for processing, or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. The processor device may further include computer executable code that controls operation of the programmable device” [Specification, ¶ 0069] (Generic computer).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states wherein said deactivation and activation events are associated with positive costs, wherein time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs” and the metes and bounds of these negative and positive costs are unclear, thus indefinite. What exactly are ”positive costs” and “negative costs”. The Office addressed this issue up above but will again here state the unclear nature of these terms. The Office understands how cost functions work, using variables to minimize, or maximize, or optimize desired outcomes. The Office further understands that deactivation and activation events want to be minimized, as applicant address early, thus any value that helps in this, will be considered a “positive cost”. The Office further understands that a variable of time between deactivation and activation is also needed for the cost function, but again what is a negative cost remains unclear, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret these “negative costs” as any time between deactivation and activation taking into account for optimization, since that appears to be what a “negative cost” is defined to be. The Office suggests either removing the terms “positive costs and negative costs” or showing exactly what these costs are and how they are being used, for clarity and the proper analysis and application of prior art. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 2 states wherein said deactivation and activation events are associated with positive costs, wherein time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs” and the metes and bounds of these negative and positive costs are unclear, thus indefinite. What exactly are ”positive costs” and “negative costs”. The Office addressed this issue up above but will again here state the unclear nature of these terms. The Office understands how cost functions work, using variables to minimize, or maximize, or optimize desired outcomes. The Office further understands that deactivation and activation events want to be minimized, as applicant address early, thus any value that helps in this, will be considered a “positive cost”. The Office further understands that a variable of time between deactivation and activation is also needed for the cost function, but again what is a negative cost remains unclear, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret these “negative costs” as any time between deactivation and activation taking into account for optimization, since that appears to be what a “negative cost” is defined to be. The Office suggests either removing the terms “positive costs and negative costs” or showing exactly what these costs are and how they are being used, for clarity and the proper analysis and application of prior art. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 19 states wherein said deactivation and activation events are associated with positive costs, wherein time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs” and the metes and bounds of these negative and positive costs are unclear, thus indefinite. What exactly are ”positive costs” and “negative costs”. The Office addressed this issue up above but will again here state the unclear nature of these terms. The Office understands how cost functions work, using variables to minimize, or maximize, or optimize desired outcomes. The Office further understands that deactivation and activation events want to be minimized, as applicant address early, thus any value that helps in this, will be considered a “positive cost”. The Office further understands that a variable of time between deactivation and activation is also needed for the cost function, but again what is a negative cost remains unclear, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret these “negative costs” as any time between deactivation and activation taking into account for optimization, since that appears to be what a “negative cost” is defined to be. The Office suggests either removing the terms “positive costs and negative costs” or showing exactly what these costs are and how they are being used, for clarity and the proper analysis and application of prior art. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 20 states wherein said deactivation and activation events are associated with positive costs, wherein time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs” and the metes and bounds of these negative and positive costs are unclear, thus indefinite. What exactly are ”positive costs” and “negative costs”. The Office addressed this issue up above but will again here state the unclear nature of these terms. The Office understands how cost functions work, using variables to minimize, or maximize, or optimize desired outcomes. The Office further understands that deactivation and activation events want to be minimized, as applicant address early, thus any value that helps in this, will be considered a “positive cost”. The Office further understands that a variable of time between deactivation and activation is also needed for the cost function, but again what is a negative cost remains unclear, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret these “negative costs” as any time between deactivation and activation taking into account for optimization, since that appears to be what a “negative cost” is defined to be. The Office suggests either removing the terms “positive costs and negative costs” or showing exactly what these costs are and how they are being used, for clarity and the proper analysis and application of prior art. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 4, and 6-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 of co-pending Application No 18/394593. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets claims recite the same limitations except for a difference between historical reference time frames vs historical reference locations, which have overlapping scope when using most historical data, or even the historical data in the cited prior art. Further the locations are based on GPS which has time inside if the historical data, thus any of the locations would read on time and vice versa.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2, 4, 5-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0275787) in view of Doering et al. (United States Patent publication 2014/0067239) and in view of Kessels et al. (United States Patent 10,823,128).
With respect to Claim 1: While Dufford discloses “A computer system comprising a processor device configured to” [Dufford, Abstract];
“receive a deactivation request to deactivate a vehicle” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
“in response to said receiving, determine a controlled partial deactivation instruction of at least one subsystem of the vehicle” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
“wherein the controlled partial deactivation instruction is determined by an autonomous model” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
“and control the vehicle to execute the controlled partial deactivation instruction such that the vehicle is at least partially deactivated either immediately, or after a delay, as determined by the controlled partial deactivation instruction” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
“wherein the autonomous model is configured to: receive input data” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
“said input data comprising: historical usage pattern of the heavy-duty vehicle” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
“the historical usage pattern comprising information of deactivation events and activation events of the heavy-duty vehicle having historically occurred at reference time frames” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0053, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
“usage data of the heavy-duty vehicle with reference to said reference time frames” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
“and the deactivation request” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0053, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086 (deactivating the engine and operating in EV mode is considered more efficient, thus used longer, thus positive costs in efficiency ¶ 0067)];
“process the input data, wherein the process comprises calculating a cost function” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0053, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086 (optimization of efficiently based on current, historical, and models ¶ 0067)];
“wherein said deactivation and activation events are associated with positive costs” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0053, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086 (deactivating the engine and operating in EV mode is considered more efficient, thus EV mode is used longer, thus positive costs in efficiency, ¶ 0067)];
“wherein time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0053, 0061-0072, 0076, and 0086 (energy efficiency history database and how the fuel (such as gas) and the battery 118 are consumed historically over a route segment and/or a route, and where the historical fuel economy over a given route segment indicates that the battery power is not sufficient for operating the vehicle ],
“and output the controlled partial deactivation instruction as a result of said processing of the input data” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0053, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
Dufford does not specifically state that what the negative cost aspects are, however based on the current interpretations Dufford does meet the limitations. However the Office will add new art to further show types of negative costs variables are known in the art.
Doering, which is also vehicle control start and stop control system for vehicles teaches “wherein said deactivation and activation events are associated with positive costs” [Doering, ¶ 0004-005, 0033, and 0068];
“wherein time periods between a deactivation event and a subsequent activation event among said deactivation events and activation events having historically occurred are associated with negative costs” [Doering, ¶ 0046, 0051, 0069, and 0099 (negative costs are here the annoyance of time the engine has been shut off and the driver has negative feelings towards it, so less of this aspect or cost)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Doering into the invention of Dufford to not only using historic vehicle control variables such as time and amount of switching for vehicle system control and system optimization like switching between HV and gas engine as Dufford discloses but to also optimize vehicle control based on positive values such as efficiency and negative values such as driver annoyance as taught by Doering with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Doering into Dufford to create a more robust system that can optimize vehicle control for many types of users and save money and increase satisfaction at the same time [Doering, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle system control based on optimization and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Further, Dufford does not specifically state that the vehicle is a heavy duty vehicle.
Office Note 2: While applicant has not defined what is and what is not a heavy duty vehicle, thus almost any vehicle could/would read on this term, the Office will attempt to map the undefined terms to the best as understood by the specification.
Kessels, which is also vehicle control start and sub system control system for vehicles teaches controlling a heavy duty vehicle’s engine start and stop based on optimization and even uses relays [Kessels, Col 5 lines 50 col 6 line 27 and Col 8 lines 26-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kessels into the invention of Dufford to not only using historic vehicle control for vehicle system control and system optimization as Dufford discloses but to also optimize vehicle control of heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks, as taught by Kessels with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kessels into Dufford to create a more robust system that can optimize vehicle control for many types of vehicles from light to medium to even heavy [Kessels, Col 6 lines 25-30]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle system control based on optimization and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: all limitations have been examined with respect to the computer system in Claim 1. The computer implemented method taught/disclosed in Claim 2 can clearly perform on the computer system of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 2 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 4: While Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 2, wherein the autonomous model is weighted for some of the reference time frames and/or a particular deactivation request to deactivate the vehicle” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
Dufford does not specifically state that the vehicle is a heavy duty vehicle. While applicant has not defined what is and what is not a heavy duty vehicle, thus almost any vehicle could/would read on this term, the Office will attempt to map the undefined terms to the best as understood by the specification.
Kessels, which is also vehicle control start and sub system control system for vehicles teaches controlling a heavy duty vehicle’s engine start and stop based on optimization and even uses relays [Kessels, Col 5 lines 50 col 6 line 27 and Col 8 lines 26-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kessels into the invention of Dufford to not only using historic vehicle control for vehicle system control and system optimization as Dufford discloses but to also optimize vehicle control of heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks, as taught by Kessels with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kessels into Dufford to create a more robust system that can optimize vehicle control for many types of vehicles from light to medium to even heavy [Kessels, Col 6 lines 25-30]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle system control based on optimization and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 6: Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 2, wherein the cost function calculates a usage threshold limit by combining the positive and negative costs for said reference time frames” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086].
With respect to Claim 7: Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 6, wherein said executing of the controlled partial deactivation instruction involves determining whether the usage threshold limit is satisfied for a current time frame” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086].
With respect to Claim 8: Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 2, wherein the cost function is updated over time by continuously calculating positive and negative costs for the reference time frames” [Dufford, ¶ 0027, 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086].
With respect to Claim 10: Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 2, wherein the controlled partial deactivation instruction comprises: an instruction to set said at least one subsystem into a lower energy consumption mode; and/or an instruction to deactivate said at least one subsystem” [Dufford, ¶ 0027, 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086].
With respect to Claim 11: Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 2, wherein the reference time frames are recurring time periods” [Dufford, ¶ 0027, 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086].
With respect to Claim 12: While Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 2, wherein the deactivation request is received from: a vehicle subsystem in response to a vehicle subsystem condition being met, or a driver of the vehicle, the driver being a person or an autonomous unit” [Dufford, ¶ 0027, 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086];
Dufford does not specifically state that the vehicle is a heavy duty vehicle. While applicant has not defined what is and what is not a heavy duty vehicle, thus almost any vehicle could/would read on this term, the Office will attempt to map the undefined terms to the best as understood by the specification.
Kessels, which is also vehicle control start and sub system control system for vehicles teaches controlling a heavy duty vehicle’s engine start and stop based on optimization and even uses relays [Kessels, Col 5 lines 50 col 6 line 27 and Col 8 lines 26-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kessels into the invention of Dufford to not only using historic vehicle control for vehicle system control and system optimization as Dufford discloses but to also optimize vehicle control of heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks, as taught by Kessels with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kessels into Dufford to create a more robust system that can optimize vehicle control for many types of vehicles from light to medium to even heavy [Kessels, Col 6 lines 25-30]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle system control based on optimization and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 13: While Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 2, wherein said controlling comprises controlling the vehicle” [Dufford, ¶ 0027, 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086];
Dufford does not specifically state that the vehicle is a heavy duty vehicle or uses relays for power control. While applicant has not defined what is and what is not a heavy duty vehicle, thus almost any vehicle could/would read on this term, the Office will attempt to map the undefined terms to the best as understood by the specification.
Kessels, which is also vehicle control start and sub system control system for vehicles teaches “wherein said controlling comprises selectively opening and/or closing of relays of one or more contactors of the heavy duty vehicle” [Kessels, Col 5 lines 50 col 6 line 27 and Col 8 lines 26-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kessels into the invention of Dufford to not only using historic vehicle control for vehicle system control and system optimization as Dufford discloses but to also optimize vehicle control of heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks, as taught by Kessels with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kessels into Dufford to create a more robust system that can optimize vehicle control for many types of vehicles from light to medium to even heavy [Kessels, Col 6 lines 25-30]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle system control based on optimization and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 14: While Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 2, wherein the deactivation and activation events of the vehicle comprises temporal data pertaining to the reference time frames.” [Dufford, ¶ 0027, 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086];
Dufford does not specifically state that the vehicle is a heavy duty vehicle. While applicant has not defined what is and what is not a heavy duty vehicle, thus almost any vehicle could/would read on this term, the Office will attempt to map the undefined terms to the best as understood by the specification.
Kessels, which is also vehicle control start and sub system control system for vehicles teaches controlling a heavy duty vehicle’s engine start and stop based on optimization and even uses relays [Kessels, Col 5 lines 50 col 6 line 27 and Col 8 lines 26-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kessels into the invention of Dufford to not only using historic vehicle control for vehicle system control and system optimization as Dufford discloses but to also optimize vehicle control of heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks, as taught by Kessels with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kessels into Dufford to create a more robust system that can optimize vehicle control for many types of vehicles from light to medium to even heavy [Kessels, Col 6 lines 25-30]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle system control based on optimization and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 15: all limitations have been examined with respect to the computer system in Claim 1. The heavy duty vehicle taught/disclosed in Claim 15 can clearly perform use computer system of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 16: While Dufford discloses “The vehicle according to claim 15, further comprising one or more switches to operate the at least one subsystem of the vehicle” [Dufford, ¶ 0027, 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0057-0071, 0076, and 0086];
Dufford does not specifically state that the vehicle is a heavy duty vehicle. While applicant has not defined what is and what is not a heavy duty vehicle, thus almost any vehicle could/would read on this term, the Office will attempt to map the undefined terms to the best as understood by the specification.
Kessels, which is also vehicle control start and sub system control system for vehicles teaches “The heavy-duty vehicle according to claim 15, further comprising one or more contactors, a contactor being an electromechanical switching device configured to mechanically operate an electric contact of one or more of the at least one subsystem of the heavy-duty vehicle” [Kessels, Col 5 lines 50 col 6 line 27 and Col 8 lines 26-44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kessels into the invention of Dufford to not only using historic vehicle control for vehicle system control and system optimization as Dufford discloses but to also optimize vehicle control of heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks, as taught by Kessels with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kessels into Dufford to create a more robust system that can optimize vehicle control for many types of vehicles from light to medium to even heavy [Kessels, Col 6 lines 25-30]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle syste