DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 11/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 received on 11/24/2025 are considered in this Office Action.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s amendment to claims 3 and 15, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of independent claim 20 rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been considered have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the newly added claim limitation of identifying, for a vehicle, at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system, wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination, the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” and the underlined claim limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application, as it merely uses “navigation system” to perform the claimed limitation of identifying the most probable path, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims 1, 13 and 20 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been considered have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that Koebler fails to disclose the following newly added claim limitation: identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system, wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Koebler teaches identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path (FIG. 3B; FIG. 4A; para. [0070]: “determining the most likely destination is described below, and illustrated in FIG. 3B”; para. [0064]: “a route is determined 201 from the starting position and an actual or estimated ending position, the route is segmented 203 into one or more segments, a model optimal speed (or power) is calculated 205, statistical data from previous trips along the same segment of the route are retrieved 207, and an overall efficiency applied power is calculated from at least the model power and the statistical data 20”; para. [0013]: “The system may use speed limits, traffic conditions, physical calculations, and statistical models from previous trips to the same destination to select the target speeds to optimize around”; para. [0078]: “The power required by the vehicle to travel along a route, or a segment of the route, may be estimated or calculated, and this calculation may be used to determine a calculated speed for the vehicle so that the power usage is optimized or minimized”; para. [0015]: “The power management logic may determine an applied power for the vehicle engine based on information about the external environment of the vehicle that is selected from the group consisting of: the current location of the vehicle, the elevation of the vehicle, upcoming elevations of the vehicle, the current slope/grade of the route, the predicted slope/grade of the next segments (or upcoming segments) of the route, speed limit information of the current route segment, speed limit information of upcoming route segments, the condition of the known or predicted route (or a portion thereof), traffic information or data, traffic surrounding the vehicle, the location of stoplights, the timing of stoplights, a map of the roadway, […]) identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system (FIG. 4A 401; para. [0065]: “The route is determined based on the current position of the vehicle and a final destination position. The destination position may be […] may be derived. […]”; para. [0074]: “The route used by the power management device typically includes a starting position (e.g., the current position of the vehicle, which may be indicated by GPS)”), wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination (para. [0011]: “The destination of the driver does not have to be known (e.g., input into a GPS or other similar system by the driver). The system (e.g., anticipated destination logic) may infer the driver's destination based on a subset of the information inputs to the system, such as the time of day, current location, previous driving habits, and other inputs”; para. [0023]: “a predicted destination may be estimated, based on statistical destination logic (e.g., using map coordinates, and the historical operation of the vehicle”; para. [0053]: “For example, the destination (either a final or an intermediate destination) may be estimated based on the current location of the vehicle, the direction that the vehicle is traveling, the time of day and/or the driver of the vehicle (e.g., if it's 8:00 am, and driver X is driving the car on interstate 280, then the final destination is most likely to the address of X's work place).”) and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination (para. [0065]: “The route is determined based on the current position of the vehicle and a final destination position. The destination position […] may be derived”; para. [0077]: “In some variations, the entire route (or the entire predicted route) may be divided up into N segments”; para. [0072]: “Based on this trip history, the probably of your taking moving from any junction in the route shown in FIG. 3A can be determined based on this trip history.”; para. [0096]: “For example, the historical information is queried to determine what speed the vehicle was traveling every time that the vehicle (or the specific driver of the vehicle) was in the same segment going to the predicted destination. In particular, the historical information is queried to determine how fast the vehicle was traveling during the trip in which the vehicle used the least amount of energy over the same route. The result of this query gives a speed that is most likely the best (e.g., most efficient) speed to travel for the current trip.”, wherein predicted route is based on the predicted destination).
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12217551 (hereinafter ‘551) in view of Koebler (US 20190322174 A1).
Table has been created below to compare 1-18 and 20 of the instant application and claims 1-8 and 15 of ‘551 patent side by side. All matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim limitations are not bolded.
App. No. 18459358
U.S. Patent No. 12217551
1. A method for controller vehicle propulsion of a vehicle, the method comprising:
identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system, wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination;
determining a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path;
determining, for the most probable path, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path and the vehicle energy consumption profile;
determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic and the vehicle energy consumption profile; and selectively controlling vehicle propulsion based on the target vehicle speed profile.
1. A method for estimating a remaining range of a vehicle battery charge, the method comprising:
identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a selected route;
determining a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route; […]
determining, for the selected route, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and the vehicle energy consumption profile; […]
determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic, the vehicle energy consumption profile, […]
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle.
1. […]
determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle […]
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:
calculating an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the most probable path based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile; and
determining whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range.
1. […]
calculating an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the selected route based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile;
determining whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range […]
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising, in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range, generating a first indication.
1. […] in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range, generating a first indication […]
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising, in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range: generating a second indication; and providing one of the first indication and the second indication.
1. […] in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range […] generating a second indication; and
providing one of the first indication and the second indication.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the target vehicle speed profile is determined in response to the determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than the lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range and is further based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery.
1. […]in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range: determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic, the vehicle energy consumption profile, and the state of charge of the vehicle battery […]
7. The method of claim 5, wherein the first indication includes the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at the end of the most probable path.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication includes the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at the end of the selected route.
8. The method of claim 5, wherein the second indication includes a warning indicating that the vehicle battery may be depleted before the vehicle arrives at the end of the most probable path and a recommendation to follow the target vehicle speed profile to avoid depleting the vehicle battery before the vehicle arrives at the end of the most probable path.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the second indication includes a warning indicating that the vehicle battery may be depleted before the vehicle arrives at the end of the selected route and a recommendation to follow the target vehicle speed profile to avoid depleting the vehicle battery before the vehicle arrives at the end of the selected route.
9. The method of claim 5, wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, at a display of the vehicle, the one of the first indication and the second indication.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, at a display of the vehicle, the one of the first indication and the second indication.
10. The method of claim 5, wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, at a mobile computing device, the one of the first indication and the second indication.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, at a mobile computing device, the one of the first indication and the second indication.
11. The method of claim 5, wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, to an autonomous controller of the vehicle, the one of the first indication and the second indication.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, to an autonomous controller of the vehicle, the one of the first indication and the second indication.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one route characteristic includes at least one of a traffic condition, a traffic signal, and a road grade.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one route characteristic includes at least one of a traffic condition, a traffic signal, and a road grade.
13. A system for controlling vehicle propulsion, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system, wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination;
determine a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path;
determine, for the most probable path, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path and the vehicle energy consumption profile;
determine a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic and the vehicle energy consumption profile; and selectively control vehicle propulsion based on the target vehicle speed profile.
8. A system for estimating a remaining range of a vehicle battery charge, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify at least one route characteristic of a portion of a selected route;
determine a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route;
determine, for the selected route, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and the vehicle energy consumption profile; […]
determine a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic, the vehicle energy consumption profile, […].
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle.
8.
[…]
determine a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle; […]
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: calculate an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the most probable path based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile; and
determine whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range;
8.
[…]
calculate an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the selected route based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile;
determine whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range; […]
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to, in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range, generate a first indication.
8.
[…] in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range, generate a first indication […]
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to, in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range: generate a second indication; and provide one of the first indication and the second indication.
8. […]
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range: […]
generate a second indication; and
provide one of the first indication and the second indication
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the target vehicle speed profile is determined in response to the determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than the lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range and is further based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery.
8. […]
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range:
determine a target vehicle speed profile based on […] the state of charge of the vehicle battery; […]
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system, wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination;
determining a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path;
determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle;
determining, for the most probable path, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path and the vehicle energy consumption profile;
calculating an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the most probable path based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile;
determining whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range;
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range:
determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic, the vehicle energy consumption profile, and the state of charge of the vehicle battery; and generating an indication; and
providing the indication.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a selected route;
determining a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route;
determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle;
determining, for the selected route, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the selected route and the vehicle energy consumption profile;
calculating an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the selected route based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile;
determining whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range;
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range:
determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic, the vehicle energy consumption profile, and the state of charge of the vehicle battery; and
generating an indication; and
providing the second indication.
As illustrated in the table above, regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, ‘551 patent teaches performing identical operations on a selected route and fails to specifically teach doing so for the most probable path and selectively controlling vehicle propulsion based on the target vehicle speed profile.
However, Koebler teaches a most probable path (FIG. 3B; FIG. 4A; para. [0070]: “determining the most likely destination is described below, and illustrated in FIG. 3B”; para. [0064]: “a route is determined 201 from the starting position and an actual or estimated ending position, the route is segmented 203 into one or more segments, a model optimal speed (or power) is calculated 205, statistical data from previous trips along the same segment of the route are retrieved 207, and an overall efficiency applied power is calculated from at least the model power and the statistical data 20”; para. [0013]: “The system may use speed limits, traffic conditions, physical calculations, and statistical models from previous trips to the same destination to select the target speeds to optimize around”; para. [0078]: “The power required by the vehicle to travel along a route, or a segment of the route, may be estimated or calculated, and this calculation may be used to determine a calculated speed for the vehicle so that the power usage is optimized or minimized”; para. [0015]: “The power management logic may determine an applied power for the vehicle engine based on information about the external environment of the vehicle that is selected from the group consisting of: the current location of the vehicle, the elevation of the vehicle, upcoming elevations of the vehicle, the current slope/grade of the route, the predicted slope/grade of the next segments (or upcoming segments) of the route, speed limit information of the current route segment, speed limit information of upcoming route segments, the condition of the known or predicted route (or a portion thereof), traffic information or data, traffic surrounding the vehicle, the location of stoplights, the timing of stoplights, a map of the roadway, […]) identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system (FIG. 4A 401; para. [0065]: “The route is determined based on the current position of the vehicle and a final destination position. The destination position may be […] may be derived. […]”; para. [0074]: “The route used by the power management device typically includes a starting position (e.g., the current position of the vehicle, which may be indicated by GPS)”), wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination (para. [0011]: “The destination of the driver does not have to be known (e.g., input into a GPS or other similar system by the driver). The system (e.g., anticipated destination logic) may infer the driver's destination based on a subset of the information inputs to the system, such as the time of day, current location, previous driving habits, and other inputs”; para. [0023]: “a predicted destination may be estimated, based on statistical destination logic (e.g., using map coordinates, and the historical operation of the vehicle”; para. [0053]: “For example, the destination (either a final or an intermediate destination) may be estimated based on the current location of the vehicle, the direction that the vehicle is traveling, the time of day and/or the driver of the vehicle (e.g., if it's 8:00 am, and driver X is driving the car on interstate 280, then the final destination is most likely to the address of X's work place).”) and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination (para. [0065]: “The route is determined based on the current position of the vehicle and a final destination position. The destination position […] may be derived”; para. [0077]: “In some variations, the entire route (or the entire predicted route) may be divided up into N segments”; para. [0072]: “Based on this trip history, the probably of your taking moving from any junction in the route shown in FIG. 3A can be determined based on this trip history.”; para. [0096]: “For example, the historical information is queried to determine what speed the vehicle was traveling every time that the vehicle (or the specific driver of the vehicle) was in the same segment going to the predicted destination. In particular, the historical information is queried to determine how fast the vehicle was traveling during the trip in which the vehicle used the least amount of energy over the same route. The result of this query gives a speed that is most likely the best (e.g., most efficient) speed to travel for the current trip.”, wherein predicted route is based on the predicted destination).
‘551 and Koebler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optimize power usage based on adjusting speed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘551 to incorporate the teachings of Koebler and performing power optimization for probable routes. Doing so would allow energy optimization when the destination is not known, thus allowing accurate control of fuel consumption which optimizes the energy efficiency of a car (Koebler para. [0003] and [0023]).
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12217551 (hereinafter ‘551) in view of Koebler, and further in view of Baglino (US20170030728A1).
App. No. 18459358
U.S. Patent No. 12217551
19. The system of claim 17, wherein the first indication includes the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at the end of the most probable path, and
wherein the second indication includes a warning indicating that the vehicle battery may be depleted before the vehicle arrives at the end of the most probable path and a recommendation to follow the target vehicle speed profile to avoid depleting the vehicle battery before the vehicle arrives at the end of the most probable path.
10. The system of claim 8,
wherein the second indication includes a warning indicating that the vehicle battery may be depleted before the vehicle arrives at the end of the selected route and a recommendation to follow the target vehicle speed profile to avoid depleting the vehicle battery before the vehicle arrives at the end of the selected route.
As illustrated in the table above, regarding claim 19, ‘551 patent in view of Koebler fails to specifically teach the first indication includes the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at the end of the most probable path.
However, Baglino teaches the first indication includes the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at the end of the most probable path (Baglino FIG. 2B-2C; Baglino para. [0031]: “The destination field 212 also contains an energy indicator 214 that shows the energy level that the vehicle is estimated to have when reaching the destination (in this example, 50% energy remaining)”).
Baglino is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of displaying an indicator based on the state of charge of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of ‘551 patent in view of Koebler to incorporate the teachings of Baglino and display the predicted remaining energy at the end of the trip/route. Doing so would enhance user experience by allowing the driver to monitor the status of remaining energy in the vehicle, and know how the level of available energy affects the remainder of the intended driving distance (Baglino, para. [0002]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-12 are directed to a method.
Claims 13-20 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
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 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 20 recites:
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system, wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination;
determining a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path;
determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle;
determining, for the most probable path, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path and the vehicle energy consumption profile;
calculating an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the most probable path based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile;
determining whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range;
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range:
determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic, the vehicle energy consumption profile, and the state of charge of the vehicle battery; and
generating an indication; and
providing the indication.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The steps of identifying, determining and calculating is equivalent to a mental process of judgement based on observation, as it is equivalent to a person determining to adjust the speed of the vehicle for the upcoming route due to insufficient energy after comparison with the predicted required energy. Moreover, an example corresponding to most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination is a person determining which route he/she takes during a routine trip to work/school.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
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 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system, wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination;
determining a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path;
determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle;
determining, for the most probable path, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path and the vehicle energy consumption profile;
calculating an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the most probable path based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile;
determining whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range;
in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range:
determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic, the vehicle energy consumption profile, and the state of charge of the vehicle battery; and
generating an indication; and
providing the indication.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle”, “generating an indication” and “providing the indication” the examiner submits that these limitations are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities, specifically mere data gathering and insignificant post-solution display, that merely use a “processor” to perform the processes. In particular, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps of identifying, calculating and determining, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. Similarly, “the navigation system” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps of identifying, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to perform the steps of identifying, determining, and calculating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “generating and providing the indication”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
In contrast to claim 20, independent claims 1 and 13 recite “selectively controlling vehicle propulsion based on the target vehicle speed profile”, thus applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 20 recites abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggoune (US20200216066A1), in view of Koebler (US 20190322174 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aggoune teaches a method for controller vehicle propulsion (para. [0006]: “A method for controlling vehicle propulsion”), the method comprising:
identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a (para. [0006]: “identify at least one route characteristic of a portion of a route being traversed by a vehicle”; para. [0033]: “The PAC 124 receives route characteristics (e.g., road grade characteristics, route distance, and route directions), vehicle parameters, traffic characteristics, weather characteristics, vehicle to vehicle parameters, other information or characteristics, or a combination thereof”; See para. [0033]-[0036]);
determining a vehicle energy consumption profile for a vehicle based on at least historical data indicating energy consumption of the vehicle for at least a portion of a route previously traversed by the vehicle having at least one route characteristic corresponding to the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the (FIG. 3-5; para. [0043]: “the PAC 124 may determine the vehicle consumption profile using a vehicle weight, manufacturer provided vehicle energy efficiency, historical data corresponding to the vehicle 10 or similar vehicles indicating energy consumption of the vehicle 10 or similar vehicles while traversing portions of a particular route or specific road grades, or other suitable route or road information, other suitable vehicle parameters, or a combination thereof. The vehicle energy consumption profile may indicate that the vehicle 10 consumes a specified amount of energy (e.g., within a tolerance range) while operating at a specific vehicle speed (within a tolerance) while traversing routes having particular road, traffic, and other conditions. For example, the energy consumption of the vehicle 10 may be greater when the vehicle 10 is on an incline and may be less when the vehicle 10 is coasting to a stop.”, wherein “particular route or specific road grades, or other suitable route” indicates at least one route characteristic of the portion of the path);
determining, for the (FIG. 3-5; para. [0061]: “At 406, the method 400 receives route characteristics. As described, the PAC 124 receives various route characteristics (e.g., route characteristics for a route the vehicle 10 is either currently traversing or will traverse) and other information from any other components described herein. In some embodiments, the method continues at 408. In some embodiments, the method continues at 410. At 408, the method 400 determines profiles for a target vehicle speed and/or a target toque split. As described, the PAC 124 determines profiles for a target vehicle speed and/or a target torque split based on the vehicle parameters, the route characteristics, the energy consumption profile of the vehicle 10, other information received, as described, from the various components described herein”; para. [0063]: “At 508, the method 500 determines profiles for a target vehicle speed. As described, the PAC 124 determines a profile for a target vehicle speed based on the vehicle parameters, the route characteristics, the energy consumption profile of the vehicle 10, other information received”; para. [0023]: “The profiles of the target vehicle speed and/or the target vehicle torque split correspond to a vehicle speed at which the vehicle 10 achieves an optimum energy consumption efficiency with respect to a portion of a route being traversed by the vehicle 10”, wherein the combination of vehicle energy consumption profile with at least one route characteristic of the portion to obtain target/recommended speed profile indicates a route energy consumption profile, as it is obtaining the most efficient energy consumption);
determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic and the vehicle energy consumption profile (FIG. 3-5; para. [0061: “para. [0061]: “At 408, the method 400 determines profiles for a target vehicle speed and/or a target toque split. As described, the PAC 124 determines profiles for a target vehicle speed and/or a target torque split based on the vehicle parameters, the route characteristics, the energy consumption profile of the vehicle 10, other information received, as described, from the various components described herein”; para. [0063]: “At 508, the method 500 determines profiles for a target vehicle speed. As described, the PAC 124 determines a profile for a target vehicle speed based on the vehicle parameters, the route characteristics, the energy consumption profile of the vehicle 10, other information received”); and
selectively controlling vehicle propulsion based on the target vehicle speed profile (para. [0062]: “At 410, the method 400 generates a vehicle propulsion controller signal. As described, the PAC 124 is in direct communication with the VPC 102 and may provide signals as an input to the VPC 102. The PAC 124 generates the vehicle propulsion controller signal based on the target vehicle speed. The vehicle propulsion controller signal may be referred to as a recommended target vehicle speed.”), but fails to specifically teach the most probable path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Koebler teaches identifying at least one route characteristic of a portion of a most probable path (FIG. 3B; FIG. 4A; para. [0070]: “determining the most likely destination is described below, and illustrated in FIG. 3B”; para. [0064]: “a route is determined 201 from the starting position and an actual or estimated ending position, the route is segmented 203 into one or more segments, a model optimal speed (or power) is calculated 205, statistical data from previous trips along the same segment of the route are retrieved 207, and an overall efficiency applied power is calculated from at least the model power and the statistical data 20”; para. [0013]: “The system may use speed limits, traffic conditions, physical calculations, and statistical models from previous trips to the same destination to select the target speeds to optimize around”; para. [0078]: “The power required by the vehicle to travel along a route, or a segment of the route, may be estimated or calculated, and this calculation may be used to determine a calculated speed for the vehicle so that the power usage is optimized or minimized”; para. [0015]: “The power management logic may determine an applied power for the vehicle engine based on information about the external environment of the vehicle that is selected from the group consisting of: the current location of the vehicle, the elevation of the vehicle, upcoming elevations of the vehicle, the current slope/grade of the route, the predicted slope/grade of the next segments (or upcoming segments) of the route, speed limit information of the current route segment, speed limit information of upcoming route segments, the condition of the known or predicted route (or a portion thereof), traffic information or data, traffic surrounding the vehicle, the location of stoplights, the timing of stoplights, a map of the roadway, […]) identified by a navigation system of the vehicle based on most probably path information of the navigation system (FIG. 4A 401; para. [0065]: “The route is determined based on the current position of the vehicle and a final destination position. The destination position may be explicitly provided by the operator of the vehicle (e.g., as an operator input), or it may be derived. […]”; para. [0074]: “The route used by the power management device typically includes a starting position (e.g., the current position of the vehicle, which may be indicated by GPS)”), wherein the most probably path information corresponds to a predicted destination (para. [0011]: “The destination of the driver does not have to be known (e.g., input into a GPS or other similar system by the driver). The system (e.g., anticipated destination logic) may infer the driver's destination based on a subset of the information inputs to the system, such as the time of day, current location, previous driving habits, and other inputs”; para. [0023]: “If the destination is not known (e.g., has not been provided to the power management device or system), a predicted destination may be estimated, based on statistical destination logic (e.g., using map coordinates, and the historical operation of the vehicle”; para. [0053]: “For example, the destination (either a final or an intermediate destination) may be estimated based on the current location of the vehicle, the direction that the vehicle is traveling, the time of day and/or the driver of the vehicle (e.g., if it's 8:00 am, and driver X is driving the car on interstate 280, then the final destination is most likely to the address of X's work place).”) and a most probable path for the vehicle to traverse to the predicted destination (para. [0065]: “The route is determined based on the current position of the vehicle and a final destination position. The destination position may be explicitly provided by the operator of the vehicle (e.g., as an operator input), or it may be derived”; para. [0077]: “In some variations, the entire route (or the entire predicted route) may be divided up into N segments”; para. [0072]: “Based on this trip history, the probably of your taking moving from any junction in the route shown in FIG. 3A can be determined based on this trip history.”; para. [0096]: “For example, the historical information is queried to determine what speed the vehicle was traveling every time that the vehicle (or the specific driver of the vehicle) was in the same segment going to the predicted destination. In particular, the historical information is queried to determine how fast the vehicle was traveling during the trip in which the vehicle used the least amount of energy over the same route. The result of this query gives a speed that is most likely the best (e.g., most efficient) speed to travel for the current trip.”, wherein predicted route is based on the predicted destination)
determining, for the most probable path, a route energy consumption profile based on the at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path and the vehicle energy consumption profile (FIG. 4A and 4B; para. [0078]: “The power required by the vehicle to travel along a route, or a segment of the route, may be estimated or calculated, and this calculation may be used to determine a calculated speed for the vehicle so that the power usage is optimized or minimized.”; para. [0085]-[0089]: “appropriate relationship between the information inputs, the speed (e.g., the applied power) and the required energy may be used to determine an optimized speed. In some variations, the energy requirement may be calculated from […] m is the mass of the car, g is the acceleration due to gravity, n is the number of wheels, Vtarn is the target velocity in the nth iteration, C.sub.rr1 and C.sub.rr2 are the coefficients of rolling resistance, and G is the grade of the road. The coefficients of rolling resistance may be measured values or they may be values supplied by tire manufacturer (e.g., tire manufacturer) […] Putting everything together, the equation can be solved for E, the total energy used over the segment”; para. [0083]: “For the sake of simplicity in this example, we can then calculate the amount of energy required to drive at a constant 100 kph speed for the entire route, as well as for 16 other combinations of the speeds 95 kph (26.39 mps), 100 kph (27.78 mps), and 105 kph (29.17 mps).”, wherein the equation to obtain the energy comprises of at least one route characteristic of the portion of the most probable path and the vehicle energy consumption profile);
determining a target vehicle speed profile based on the at least one route characteristic and the vehicle energy consumption profile (para. [0090]: “FIGS. 4A, B describe a method of calculating an array of optimized velocities for an entire route that has been broken up into segments. In some variations, only one or a subset of optimized speeds are calculated”; para. [0084]: “The Table below shows the results of the energy calculation for all of the combinations tried. The lowest energy usage is 4275.94 Watt-hours. This was obtained by going 95 kph (seg1), 105 kph (seg2), 95 kph (seg3), 105 kph (seg4), 100 kph (seg5). The average speed over all 5 segments is still 100 kph, but the energy used is 10.2% less”); and
selectively controlling vehicle propulsion based on the target vehicle speed profile (para. [0012]: “the device or system may adjust the vehicle speed automatically”).
Aggoune and Koebler are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optimize power usage based on adjusting speed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Aggoune to incorporate the teachings of Koebler and performing power optimization for probable route, which is based on the most likely destination. Doing so would allow energy optimization when the destination is not known, thus allowing accurate control of fuel consumption which optimizes the energy efficiency of a car (Koebler para. [0003] and [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, Aggoune in view of Koebler teaches the method of claim 1. Aggoune and Koebler further teaches wherein the at least one route characteristic includes at least one of a traffic condition, a traffic signal, and a road grade (Aggoune para. [0033]: “The PAC 124 receives route characteristics (e.g., road grade characteristics, route distance, and route directions), vehicle parameters, traffic characteristics, weather characteristics, vehicle to vehicle parameters, other information or characteristics, or a combination thereof”; Koebler para. [0015]: “The power management logic may determine an applied power for the vehicle engine based on information about the external environment of the vehicle that is selected from the group consisting of: the current location of the vehicle, the elevation of the vehicle, upcoming elevations of the vehicle, the current slope/grade of the route, the predicted slope/grade of the next segments (or upcoming segments) of the route, speed limit information of the current route segment, speed limit information of upcoming route segments, the condition of the known or predicted route (or a portion thereof), traffic information or data, traffic surrounding the vehicle, the location of stoplights, the timing of stoplights, a map of the roadway, […]).
Regarding claim 13, Aggoune further teaches a system for controlling vehicle propulsion, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Claim 10: “An apparatus for controlling vehicle propulsion comprising: a memory; and a processor, wherein the memory includes instructions executable by the processor to:”) perform claim limitations similar to those recited by the method claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggoune, in view of Koebler, and further in view of LIU (US20160375786A1).
Regarding claim 2, Aggoune in view of Koebler teaches the method of claim 1. Aggoune and Koebler further teaches a vehicle battery of the vehicle (Aggoune para. [0023]: “When the vehicle 10 includes one or more electric motors, a vehicle battery and/or fuel cell provides energy to the electric motors to turn the wheels 22.”; Koebler para. [0016]: “The power management logic may determine an applied power for the vehicle engine based on information about the operational status of the vehicle. The operational status information input may be selected from the group consisting of: […], the battery state”), but fails to specifically teach further comprising determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle.
However, LIU teaches further comprising determining a current state of charge of a vehicle battery of the vehicle (FIG. 9 S103-S105; para. [0030]: “Once activated (step 101), the current battery pack's charge level (e.g., SOC or SOE) is determined (step 103) and the current driving range is calculated based on the battery pack's charge level (step 105). At this stage, driving range is based on the current charge level and a preset set of rules that yield a rate of expected battery drain from multiple assumptions such as top speed, mix of speeds, expected rates of acceleration/deceleration, mix of flat and gradient roadways, expected variations in roadway elevation, etc.”).
LIU is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of optimizing power usage of an electric vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Aggoune in view of Koebler to incorporate the teachings of LIU and determine the current state of charge of a vehicle battery. Doing so would allow to determine whether the route is travelable based on current SOC (LIU FIG. 9 S907: “Range <Destination Travel”), and thus optimize the energy usage by suggesting adjustments to their driving style and/or auxiliary system settings in order to extend their driving range as desired (LIU para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU teaches the method of claim 2. The combination of Koebler in view of LIU further teaches further comprising: calculating an estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at an end of the most probable path based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery and the route energy consumption profile (Koebler para. [0070]: “determining the most likely destination is described below, and illustrated in FIG. 3B”; Koebler para. [0064]: “a route is determined 201 from the starting position and an actual or estimated ending position”; LIU FIG. 9 S907: “Range < Destination Travel”; LIU para. [0055]: “system controller 401 compares the distance to the entered destination to the vehicle's current driving range (step 907)”, wherein “Range < Destination Travel” is equivalent to “Range – Destination Travel <0” and “Range corresponds to the state of charge of the vehicle battery and “Destination Travel” corresponds to the route energy consumption profile); and
determining whether the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery is within a vehicle battery charge range (LIU FIG. 9 S907: “Range < Destination Travel”, where if “Yes” indicates that the estimated remaining charge is less than 0, which is outside battery’s allowable lower limit or the vehicle battery charge range, as batteries have a predetermined allowable range of SOC to prevent accelerated degradation).
Regarding claim 14, it recites the system performing claim limitations similar to those of the method claim 2, and thus is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, it recites the system performing claim limitations similar to those of the method claim 3, and thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 4-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggoune, in view of Koebler, and further in view of LIU, and further in view of Baglino (US20170030728A1).
Regarding claim 4, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU teaches the method of claim 3. LIU further teaches further comprising, in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range (FIG. 9 S907[Wingdings font/0xE0]S911para. [0055]: “If a destination has been entered into the system (step 905), then system controller 401 compares the distance to the entered destination to the vehicle's current driving range (step 907).”), but fails to specifically teach generating a first indication.
However, Baglino teaches in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is within the vehicle battery charge range, generating a first indication (FIG. 2B and 2C; para. [0031]: “The destination field 212 also contains an energy indicator 214 that shows the energy level that the vehicle is estimated to have when reaching the destination (in this example, 50% energy remaining). That is, the energy indicator 214 associated with the destination is an example of an energy-versus-distance measure. The energy indicator and the vehicle route can be colored (or shaded or patterned) to reflect that the vehicle is predicted to have enough energy to reach the destination without recharging or refueling. For example, the route and the energy indicator can be shown in green”).
Baglino is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of displaying an indicator based on the state of charge of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU to incorporate the teachings of Baglino and display the predicted remaining energy at the end of the trip/route. Doing so would enhance user experience by allowing the driver to monitor the status of remaining energy in the vehicle, and know how the level of available energy affects the remainder of the intended driving distance (Baglino, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino teaches the method of claim 4. The combination of Koebler, LIU and Baglino further teaches further comprising, in response to a determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than a lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range (LIU FIG. 9 S907[Wingdings font/0xE0]S911; LIU para. [0055]: “If a destination has been entered into the system (step 905), then system controller 401 compares the distance to the entered destination to the vehicle's current driving range (step 907).”); Baglino para. [0038]: “the route to the destination will be determined, and the energy calculation will be carried out to determine whether the vehicle currently has enough energy for the entire trip.”):
generating a second indication (Koebler FIG. 9; LIU para. [0055]: “the system controller will provide a suggestion as to how to increase driving range (step 507) as described above”; Baglino FIG. 3B-3C; Baglino para. [0039]-[0040]: “the destination, where the energy indicator 214 shows a 30% deficiency (i.e., negative 30%). […] However, to prevent such situation from occurring, the system can present alert 302 to the driver so that appropriate measures can be taken”); and
providing one of the first indication and the second indication (Koebler para. [0115]: “Finally, the user interface may indicate the output of the power management device or system 909, typically an efficient speed output for the engine”; LIU para. [0055]: “the system controller will provide a suggestion as to how to increase driving range (step 507) as described above”, wherein the display will output the suggestion to optimize vehicle energy usage).
Regarding claim 6, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino teaches the method of claim 5. The combination of Koebler, LIU and Baglino further teaches wherein the target vehicle speed profile is determined in response to the determination that the estimated remaining charge is less than the lower limit of the vehicle battery charge range and is further based on the state of charge of the vehicle battery (Koebler para. [0115]: “Finally, the user interface may indicate the output of the power management device or system 909, typically an efficient speed output for the engine”; LIU FIG. 9; LIU para. [0055]: “If a destination has been entered into the system (step 905), then system controller 401 compares the distance to the entered destination to the vehicle's current driving range (step 907). If the current driving range is less than that required to travel to the entered destination (step 909), then the system controller will provide a suggestion as to how to increase driving range (step 507) as described above”; LIU para. [0050]: “Thus, for example, if the controller provides the user with three categories to select from, specifically top speed, HVAC settings, and ‘other’, and the user selects top speed, then controller 401 will provide a suggestion for lowering top speed (e.g., to 65 mph) in order to extend the driving range (e.g., to 48 miles, or to increase driving range by 11 miles).”; Baglino para. [0038]: “the route to the destination will be determined, and the energy calculation will be carried out to determine whether the vehicle currently has enough energy for the entire trip.”; Baglino FIG. 2B-2C and 3B-3C).
Regarding claim 7, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino teaches the method of claim 5. The combination of Koebler and Baglino further teaches wherein the first indication includes the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at the end of the most probable path (Koebler para. [0070]: “determining the most likely destination is described below, and illustrated in FIG. 3B”; Koebler para. [0064]: “a route is determined 201 from the starting position and an actual or estimated ending position”; Baglino FIG. 2B-2C; Baglino para. [0031]: “The destination field 212 also contains an energy indicator 214 that shows the energy level that the vehicle is estimated to have when reaching the destination (in this example, 50% energy remaining)”).
Regarding claim 8, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino teaches the method of claim 5. The combination of Koebler, LIU and Baglino further teaches wherein the second indication includes a warning indicating that the vehicle battery may be depleted before the vehicle arrives at the end of the most probable path and a recommendation to follow the target vehicle speed profile to avoid depleting the vehicle battery before the vehicle arrives at the end of the most probable path (LIU para. [0055]: “If the current driving range is less than that required to travel to the entered destination (step 909), then the system controller will provide a suggestion as to how to increase driving range (step 507) as described above.”; Koebler para. [0115]: “Finally, the user interface may indicate the output of the power management device or system 909, typically an efficient speed output for the engine”; Baglino FIG. 3B-3C; Baglino para. [0040]: “the prediction indicates that the vehicle would run out of energy (unless recharged/refueled), and this is indicated by the route elements 300C and 222C, which can be highlighted accordingly (e.g., in red). However, to prevent such situation from occurring, the system can present alert 302 to the driver so that appropriate measures can be taken”, wherein the combination teaches presenting a suggestion to increase the driving range by adjusting speed based on the optimized speed is presented when the remaining SOC is insufficient).
Regarding claim 9, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino teaches the method of claim 5. The combination of Koebler, LIU and Baglino further teaches wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, at a display of the vehicle, the one of the first indication and the second indication (Koebler para. [0115]: “Finally, the user interface may indicate the output of the power management device or system 909, typically an efficient speed output for the engine”; LIU FIG. 9; LIU para. [0055]: “If a destination has been entered into the system (step 905), then system controller 401 compares the distance to the entered destination to the vehicle's current driving range (step 907). If the current driving range is less than that required to travel to the entered destination (step 909), then the system controller will provide a suggestion as to how to increase driving range (step 507) as described above”; LIU para. [0050]: “Thus, for example, if the controller provides the user with three categories to select from, specifically top speed, HVAC settings, and ‘other’, and the user selects top speed, then controller 401 will provide a suggestion for lowering top speed (e.g., to 65 mph) in order to extend the driving range (e.g., to 48 miles, or to increase driving range by 11 miles).”; Baglino FIG. 2B-2C and 3B-3C).
Regarding claim 10, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino teaches the method of claim 5. Baglino further teaches wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, at a mobile computing device, the one of the first indication and the second indication (FIG. 2A-8C; FIG. para. [0027]: “As another example, the interfaces can be incorporated in one or more mobile devices or other portable equipment (e.g., a smartphone or a GPS device”).
Regarding claim 16, it recites the system performing claim limitations similar to those of the method claim 4, and thus is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, it recites the system performing claim limitations similar to those of the method claim 5, and thus is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18, it recites the system performing claim limitations similar to those of the method claim 6, and thus is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino teaches the system of claim 17. The combination of Koebler, LIU and Baglino further teaches wherein the first indication includes the estimated remaining charge for the vehicle battery at the end of the most probable path (Koebler para. [0070]: “determining the most likely destination is described below, and illustrated in FIG. 3B”; Koebler para. [0064]: “a route is determined 201 from the starting position and an actual or estimated ending position”; Baglino FIG. 2B-2C; Baglino para. [0031]: “The destination field 212 also contains an energy indicator 214 that shows the energy level that the vehicle is estimated to have when reaching the destination (in this example, 50% energy remaining)”), and
wherein the second indication includes a warning indicating that the vehicle battery may be depleted before the vehicle arrives at the end of the most probable path and a recommendation to follow the target vehicle speed profile to avoid depleting the vehicle battery before the vehicle arrives at the end of the most probable path LIU para. [0055]: “If the current driving range is less than that required to travel to the entered destination (step 909), then the system controller will provide a suggestion as to how to increase driving range (step 507) as described above.”; Koebler para. [0115]: “Finally, the user interface may indicate the output of the power management device or system 909, typically an efficient speed output for the engine”; Baglino FIG. 3B-3C; Baglino para. [0040]: “the prediction indicates that the vehicle would run out of energy (unless recharged/refueled), and this is indicated by the route elements 300C and 222C, which can be highlighted accordingly (e.g., in red). However, to prevent such situation from occurring, the system can present alert 302 to the driver so that appropriate measures can be taken”, wherein the combination teaches presenting a suggestion to increase the driving range by adjusting speed based on the optimized speed is presented when the remaining SOC is insufficient).
Regarding claim 20, Aggoune further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising (Claim 19: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising”) claim limitations similar to those recited in method claim 5, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggoune, in view of Koebler, and further in view of LIU, and further in view of Baglino, and further in view of Newman (US 20180203443 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino teaches the method of claim 5. Aggoune further teaches an autonomous vehicle (para. [0017]: “a level of automation for the vehicle. For example, a vehicle may include cruise control, adaptive cruise control, automatic braking, a fully autonomous vehicle control system, or any suitable vehicle propulsion control system or a combination thereof”), but fails to specifically teach wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, to an autonomous controller of the vehicle, the one of the first indication and the second indication.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Newman teaches wherein providing the one of the first indication and the second indication includes providing, to an autonomous controller of the vehicle, the one of the first indication and the second indication (FIG. 9; para. [0107]: “while travelling the route identified in the navigation information, from the navigation information 924 an amount of energy required to travel the identified route, and from the vehicle-related information 982 a state of charge (SOC″) of the energy storage unit. The information thus determined is provided as input to the inference engine or semantic reasoner function of the autonomous driving agent 924 that determines whether there is a sufficient amount of energy stored in the energy storage unit to meet the predicted energy demands imposed by the climate control settings and amount of energy required to travel the route. If there is a sufficient amount of energy stored in the energy storage unit to meet the aggregate energy demands, the rules base causes the autonomous driving agent 904 to implement the preferred or desirable climate control settings. If there is an insufficient amount of energy stored in the energy storage unit, the rules base can cause the autonomous driving agent 904 to modify the preferred or desirable climate control settings to consume an allowable amount of energy while still providing a sufficient amount of energy for the vehicle 100 to travel the planned route.”, wherein “autonomous driving agent” corresponds to autonomous controller).
Newman is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of displaying an indicator based on the state of charge of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Aggoune in view of Koebler and further in view of LIU and further in view of Baglino to incorporate the teachings of Newman and send the information of whether charge is sufficient for the trip. Doing so would optimize energy usage, and allow for the vehicle to complete the trip (Newman, para. [0107]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lu (US 20160046170 A1) teaches predicting a route based on the likely destination, and determine a route feature.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/A.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668