DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on October 30, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, with Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 being amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed October 30, 2025, the Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, and withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 30, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections under Agguone, in view of Sujan, and Kao, have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Agguone, in view of Sujan-504, Sujan-621, and Kao.
Applicant's arguments filed October 30, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (see page 8 of instant arguments), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The addition of limitation regarding “initiated by a driver of the vehicle” is not on its own, enough to overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, as this limitation merely amounts to data gathering. No practical application is applied in the independent claims which takes the optimization of the profile out of a mathematical concept, as no output to the vehicle or driver, or no action/ input from the vehicle or the driver is required. Elements of Claims 2 and 12 as well as Paragraphs [0040]-[0041] of the instant specification would appear to overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addresses above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
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 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method for determining a vehicle profile when traveling a route, by observing or gathering data for a route and performing optimization based on previously acquired data, which constitutes a mathematical concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require generic elements related to route determination.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method for determining vehicle route data (i.e. a machine, and process). Claim 11 is directed to system for determining vehicle route data. Therefore, Claim 1 and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite abstract ideas that constitutes a mental process (emphasized in bold below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection, and additional limitations are emphasized with underlined characters. Similarly for Claim 11.
Claim 1 recites the following:
A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving vehicle route information representing a planned route for a vehicle driver of the vehicle initiated by a driver of the vehicle;
generating a baseline vehicle route profile, the baseline vehicle route profile including an engine torque and an engine speed;
generating, based on the engine torque and engine speed of the baseline vehicle route profile, a baseline energy consumption and a baseline travel time of the baseline vehicle route profile;
processing the baseline vehicle route profile by detecting one or more changes in a road grade of the baseline vehicle route profile;
for each detected change in the road grade of the baseline vehicle route profile, triggering a breakpoint to divide the baseline vehicle route profile into a plurality of segments, each segment in the plurality of segments having a baseline vehicle velocity;
for each segment in the plurality of segments of the baseline vehicle route profile, performing local optimization to generate a respective modified vehicle velocity for the segment based on its respective road grade, wherein the respective modified vehicle velocity for a first segment differs from the respective modified vehicle velocity for a second segment different from the first segment;
generating, based on the modified vehicle velocity of each segment in the plurality of segments, an updated vehicle route profile; and
performing global optimization on the updated vehicle route profile to generate an optimized vehicle route profile, the optimized vehicle route profile having an optimized energy consumption that is different than the baseline energy consumption of the baseline vehicle route profile.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a mathematical concept as included in an abstract idea. For example, the limitations of “receiving …”, “generating …”, “detecting …”, and “triggering …”, “performing local optimization …” in the context of this claim encompasses gathering information about a route to determine a traveling profile, dividing the route into multiple segments, and optimizing the data, which constitute a mathematical concept.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the limitation of “a computer implemented method …”, and “processing …” the Examiner submits that these limitations merely use a generic computer to perform the functions of the claims.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the limitations of “performing …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of extra solution activity, that merely uses a computer to optimize route parameters for a vehicle.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Similarly for independent Claim 11.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “performing…” is well-understood, routine, and conventional and only requires the use of a generic computer to perform the process. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent Claims 3-10 and 13-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because the claims further consist of providing information to the vehicle or the driver, including road map, grade, local data, vehicle characteristics, weather or traffic, to determine a vehicle profile for traveling a route segment, which can be done mentally. A driver can mentally determine a map relating to a route segment based on previous knowledge of the area or based on observed behavior of other vehicles, and the driver can then adjust their route or driving behavior to take into account the various factors affecting driving along the road segment. Therefore, dependent Claims 3-10 and 13-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1 and 11.
Elements of both Claims 2 and 12 and of Paragraph [0040]-[0041] of the instant specification, if all were incorporated into the independent claims, would appear to overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0061782 A1), to Agguone, et al (hereinafter referred to as Agguone; previously of record), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0197504 A1, to Sujan-504, et al (hereinafter referred to as Sujan-504; previously of record), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0534621 A1, to Sujan-621 et al (hereinafter referred to as Sujan-621; newly of record).
As per Claim 1, and similarly for Claim 11, Agguone discloses the features of a computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware (e.g. Paragraph [0043]; where the system uses a computing device having a memory that stores instructions for execution by the processor) causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving vehicle route information representing a planned route for a vehicle driver of the vehicle initiated by a driver of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0047], [0060]; where the system may be disposed in a vehicle and may receive input information such as route information, vehicle characteristic information, traffic information, or other suitable information; and where the driver may indicate, using the HMI controls to maintain a pace that meets and energy consumption target, and the propulsion adjustment controller (PAC, 124) may receive route characteristics and/or vehicle parameters from the driver, to include a route map, route distance, etc.);
generating a baseline vehicle route profile (e.g. Paragraphs [0052], [0082]; where the system determines a profile of energy consumption efficiency of the vehicle using standardized energy consumption data reference points (i.e. a baseline consumption value is determined for the route) based on at least one characteristic of a gradient on a segment of the route),
the baseline vehicle route profile including an engine torque and an engine speed (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0051], [0064]; where the profile of energy consumption may be generated using standardized energy consumption data of at least one other vehicle, and where the system (100) is configured to determine profiles for a target vehicle speed and/or a target vehicle torque split to correspond to the speed at which the vehicle achieves an optimum energy consumption);
generating, based on the engine torque and engine speed of the baseline vehicle route profile, a baseline energy consumption ‘…’ (e.g. Paragraphs [0052], [0082]; where the system determines a profile of energy consumption efficiency of the vehicle using standardized energy consumption data reference points based on at least one characteristic of a gradient on a segment of the route (i.e. a baseline consumption value is determined for the route));
processing the baseline vehicle route profile by detecting one or more changes in a road grade of the baseline vehicle route profile (e.g. Paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0064]; where the profile may indicate an optimum energy consumption based on road grades, curvatures, traffic, speed limits, stop signs, tariff signals, etc.; and where one or more varying grades along at least one segment of the route are identified and used to modify the profile of energy consumption); ‘…’
for each segment in the plurality of segments of the baseline vehicle route profile, performing local optimization to generate a respective modified vehicle velocity for the segment based on its respective road grade (e.g. Paragraph [0051]; where the profiles may be updated based on the target speed, and the profile may indicate an optimum energy consumption of the vehicle for the various route characteristics), ‘…’
generating, based on the respective modified vehicle velocities for each segment in the plurality of segments, an updated vehicle route profile (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0065]; where the profiles of the target vehicle speed and/or torque split are determined and correspond to a vehicle speed at which the vehicle achieves and optimum energy consumption; and where the system generates profiles for target vehicle speeds and torque splits such that the vehicle maintains an optimum or improved energy consumption); and
performing global optimization on the updated vehicle route profile to generate an optimized vehicle route profile that includes a respective optimized vehicle velocity for each segment in the plurality of segments, the optimized vehicle route profile having an optimized energy consumption that is different than the baseline energy consumption of the baseline vehicle route profile (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0065]; where the profiles of the target vehicle speed and/or torque split are determined and correspond to a vehicle speed at which the vehicle achieves and optimum energy consumption; and where the system generates profiles for target vehicle speeds and torque splits such that the vehicle maintains an optimum or improved energy consumption).
Agguone fails to teach every feature of generating, based on the engine torque and engine speed of the baseline vehicle route profile, ‘…’ a baseline travel time of the baseline vehicle route profile; for each detected change in the road grade of the baseline vehicle route profile, triggering a breakpoint to divide the baseline vehicle route profile into a plurality of segments, each respective segment in the plurality of segments having a baseline vehicle velocity; wherein the respective modified vehicle velocity for a first segment differs from the respective modified vehicle velocity for a second segment different from the first segment.
However, Sujan-504, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the features of generating, based on the engine torque and engine speed of the baseline vehicle route profile, ‘…’ a baseline travel time of the baseline vehicle route profile. Sujan-504 teaches a system for optimizing route data based on vehicle speed and road grade, where the offline route is used to calculate the time required to travel the distance of a given “look-ahead” window during online optimization; and where the vehicle is supplied with a trip destination and planned route and trip time, known road terrain elements such as road grade can be obtained ahead of time or provide an offline snapshot of the entire route in order to optimize a vehicle speed to minimize fuel consumption on the route (i.e. a baseline travel time is determined) (e.g. Paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the system for controlling vehicle propulsion in the system of Agguone, with the feature of determining a baseline vehicle route profile in the system of Sujan-504, in order to increase efficiency and optimize fuel efficiency when transporting cargo along a route (see at least Paragraphs [0015]-[0016]) of Sujan-504).
Sujan-621, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the features of for each detected change in the road grade of the baseline vehicle route profile, triggering a breakpoint to divide the baseline vehicle route profile into a plurality of segments, each respective segment in the plurality of segments having a baseline vehicle velocity; and wherein the respective modified vehicle velocity for a first segment differs from the respective modified vehicle velocity for a second segment different from the first segment. Sujan-621 teaches a method for dynamic gear state and vehicle speed management, where the vehicle segments are divided based on road grade, where the system determines when a change of a specific route is determined to be increasing (i.e., positive), decreasing (i.e., negative), or neutral relative to a threshold value, the system indicates the change between conditions by dividing each grade into a segment, and the mode selection block may generate a velocity change vector indicating the change in velocity for each segment (e.g. Paragraphs [0050]-[0051], [0055]-[0056]; Figures 9, 10, 17).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the system for controlling vehicle propulsion in the system of Agguone, in view of Sujan-504, with the feature of determining a breakpoint and velocity change for each road segment, in order to improve performance, drivability, and/or fuel economy of the vehicle (see at least Paragraph [0029]) of Sujan-621).
As per Claim 2, and similarly for Claim 12, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and Agguone further discloses the features of wherein the operations further comprise providing the optimized vehicle route profile to a vehicle controller (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0046], [0057], [0079]; where software executed on a controller, such as a processor executing software within a computing device on the vehicle, and where the vehicle propulsion control system may be disposed within a vehicle and determine profiles for a target speed or torque split to achieve an optimum energy consumption efficiency, and may receive a signal from vehicle sensors that indicates a current vehicle speed and the system can adjust the torque to adjust the speed so that is meets the target speed).
As per Claim 3, and similarly for Claim 13, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and Agguone further discloses the features of wherein the vehicle route information comprises at least one of: route map data; route grade data; vehicle head wind velocity; or vehicle local data (e.g. Paragraphs [0051], [0053]; where the propulsion adjustment controller (PAC, 124) receives mapping characteristics indicative of route characteristics, and the route characteristics can include road grade data).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claim 14, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, teaches the features of Claims 3 and 13, respectively, and Agguone further discloses the features of wherein the vehicle local data comprises at least one of: vehicle mass; powertrain data; vehicle transmission gear ratios; or vehicle aerodynamic coefficients (e.g. Paragraphs [0030], [0035], [0067]; where the vehicle parameters of the road load function include vehicle mass or weight, vehicle rolling friction, vehicle drag coefficient, other vehicle parameters, etc.; and where the estimation of energy consumption may be based on a specific power train for a vehicle type; and where the aerodynamic constants provided by the EPA are used to determine energy consumption).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claim 15, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and Agguone further discloses the features of wherein performing local optimization to generate a modified vehicle velocity comprises:
receiving external route data (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0051]; where the profiles are based on various input information, including route information, vehicle characteristic information, traffic information, and other suitable information; and the system may also take into account weather information, current vehicle speed, speed limits, stop signs, traffic signals, and information about other vehicles);
determining that the respective road grade is negative (e.g. Paragraph [0053]; where the propulsion adjustment controller (PAC, 124) may distinguish a negative gradient from a positive gradient); and
increasing the baseline vehicle velocity based a variance factor and the external route data (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0047], [0050]-[0051]; where the profiles are based on various input information, including route information, vehicle characteristic information, traffic information, and other suitable information; and the system may also take into account weather information, current vehicle speed, speed limits, stop signs, and traffic signals; and where the (VPC, 102) may determine to increase the torque demand in order to increase the current vehicle speed to meet energy consumption targets).
As per Claim 6, and similarly for Claim 16, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, teaches the features of Claims 5 and 15, respectively, and Agguone further discloses the features of wherein the external route data comprises at least one of: head wind velocity; traffic congestion; or traffic signal information (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0051]; where the profiles are based on various input information, including route information, vehicle characteristic information, traffic information, and other suitable information; and the system may also take into account weather information, current vehicle speed, speed limits, stop signs, and traffic signals).
As per Claim 7, and similarly for Claim 17, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and Agguone further discloses the features of wherein performing local optimization to generate a modified vehicle velocity comprises:
receiving external route data (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0051]; where the profiles are based on various input information, including route information, vehicle characteristic information, traffic information, and other suitable information; and the system may also take into account weather information, current vehicle speed, speed limits, stop signs, traffic signals, and information about other vehicles);
determining that the respective road grade is positive (e.g., Paragraph [0053]; where the propulsion adjustment controller (PAC, 124) may distinguish a negative gradient from a positive gradient); and
decreasing the baseline vehicle velocity based a variance factor and the external route data (e.g. Paragraph [0047], [0050]; where the (VPC, 102) may determine to decrease the torque demand in order to decrease the current vehicle speed to meet energy consumption targets).
As per Claim 8, and similarly for Claim 18, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, teaches the features of Claims 7 and 17, respectively, and Agguone further discloses the features of wherein the external route data comprises at least one of: head wind velocity; traffic congestion; or traffic signal information (e.g. Paragraphs [0042], [0051]; where the profiles are based on various input information, including route information, vehicle characteristic information, traffic information, and other suitable information; and the system may also take into account weather information, current vehicle speed, speed limits, stop signs, and traffic signals).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0089241 A1, to Kao, et al (hereinafter referred to as Kao; previously of record).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per Claim 9, and similarly for Claim 19, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, but Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, fails to teach every feature of wherein the operations further comprise: determining that a difference between an optimized travel time of the optimized vehicle route profile and the baseline travel time exceeds an acceptability threshold; and based on the difference exceeding the acceptability threshold, generating, for output to the driver, a user-selectable option, that when selected, authorizes the optimized vehicle route profile.
However, Kao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for adaptive routing control for a vehicle, where the vehicle controller may determine if a disturbance event (e.g., a collision, weather, etc.) has increased the estimate travel time for the selected candidate route by a predetermined threshold time (e.g., a preset time value or a preset time percentage), and when it is determined the disturbance event increases the estimated travel time by at least the predetermined threshold time, the vehicle controller man identify alternate candidate routes, estimate a total energy use for each alternate candidate route, and command the electronic device to display each alternate candidate route options to the user and the user input is received for selecting an alternate route (e.g. Paragraphs [0013], [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the system for controlling vehicle propulsion in the system of Agguone, in view of Sujan-504 and Sujan-621, with the feature of providing a user-selectable option in the system of Kao, in order to determine if the user-selected route is fuel efficient, and provide the user with more efficient routing options (see at least Paragraph [0013]) of Kao).
As per Claim 10, and similarly for Claim 20, Agguone, in view of Sujan-504, Sujan-621, and Kao, teaches the features of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and Agguone further teaches the features of wherein the operations further comprise providing the user-selectable option as output from a user interface of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0065], [0081]; where the propulsion adjustment controller (PAC, 124) may generate a signal to bypass or detour certain segments of the route to save energy efficiency, which may be provided to the vehicle operator via HMI controls, and the operator may select whether to follow the recommendation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Agguone, et al (U.S. 2023/0242111 A1), which teaches a method for controlling energy consumption over each segment to optimize the energy consumption across the whole route.
Chunodkar, et al (U.S. 2019/0338849 A1), which teaches a method for determining predictive gear shifting based on upcoming route characteristics.
Filev, et al (U.S. 2014/0277835 A1), which teaches a method for traveling a plurality of road segments, and optimizing the speed profile for each segment.
Smith, et al (U.S. 2022/0176962 A1), which teaches a method for determining a road segment based on grade data, and operating the vehicle based on the time in the segment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT E LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MERRITT E LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights