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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/27/2023 and 5/20/2026 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, and 19-20 has been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 19, and 20 are the independent claims.
This Non-FINAL Office Action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 5/20/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/20/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore, the Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.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 yet the claims are broadly interpretation values, 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 claims. These amendments attempt to clarify of the positive and negative aspects of the cost function (which are still broad and just variable names). However, the amendments 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 Non-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.
Non-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 § 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 e-Terminal 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 Lerner et al. (United States Patent publication 2022/0252414) 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 representative of energy savings from maintaining a deactivated state” [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 deactivating the engine and operating in EV mode is considered more efficient, thus EV mode is used longer, thus positive costs in efficiency, ¶ 0067)],
“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 that the positive costs are based on wear or lifecycle, or that the vehicle is a heavy duty truck.
Lerner, which is also a vehicle logistics and management system teaches “events are associated with positive costs representative of component wear or lifecycle reduction” [Lerner, ¶ 0061, 0069, and Claims 6 and18].
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 Lerner 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 wear and tear as taught by Lerner with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Lerner into Dufford to create a more robust system that can optimize vehicle control for many types of users “can incorporate various cost-affecting parameters into algorithms that allow drivers to make educated route choices” [Lerner, ¶ 0010]. 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: 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 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 17: While Dufford discloses “The vehicle according to claim 16, wherein the at least one subsystem is an energy-consuming vehicle component” [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 19: all limitations have been examined with respect to the computer system in Claim 1. The computer system taught/disclosed in Claim 19 can clearly perform as the computer system of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the computer system in Claim 1. The non-transitory computer readable medium taught/disclosed in Claim 20 can clearly perform on the computer system of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Dufford et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0275787) in view of Lerner et al. (United States Patent publication 2022/0252414), in further view of Kessels (United States Patent 10,823,128) and in further view of Breed et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0197248)
With respect to Claim 9: While Dufford discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the cost function is continuous calculations of positive and negative costs for the reference time frames” [Dufford, ¶ 0040, 0044, 0049-0052, 0061-0071, 0076, and 0086];
Dufford does not specifically a forgetting function, rather updating the functions based on new data.
Breed, which is also vehicle control system teaches “wherein the cost function is a forgetting function in response to said continuous calculations of positive and negative costs for the reference time frames” [Breed, ¶ 0111].
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 Breed into the invention of Dufford to not only using historic vehicle control for vehicle system control and system optimization as Dufford discloses but to use forgetting functions for the optimization as taught by Breed with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Breed into Dufford to create a more robust system that “adjust and slowly change over time always providing the most accurate values” [Breed, ¶ 0111]. 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.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights