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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on January 16, 2026. Claims 8, 10, and 13 have been amended. No claims have been newly added or cancelled. Therefore, claims 8-14 are currently presented for examination.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Examiner notes for purposes of clarity that new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and double patenting rejections have been added based on the amended claim scope.
Applicant’s amendments and/or remarks, filed on January 16, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for claims 8-14 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Regarding the statement that independent claim 8 overcomes the 101 rejection as the claims are directed to a practical application (Remarks, Pages 5-6), the examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amendments further clarify battery depletion activities that are performed during the transport mode, the examiner respectfully notes that as currently claimed, the step of “…activate a transport mode…” is being interpreted as a server outputting a command/instruction to a vehicle (e.g. since a vehicle is not currently claimed as part of the system until claim 14), and therefore would not be considered a practical application as the claim does not positively integrate the physical battery depletion activities with the abstract idea. However, the examiner notes that claim 14 does overcome the 101 rejection based on the amended claim scope, as noted in the updated 101 rejection further below.
Applicant’s amendments and/or remarks, filed on January 16, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections for claims 8-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive for the following reasons:
Independent claim 8 has been amended to include at least “activate a transport mode, the transport mode comprising battery depletion activities for a battery of the vehicle based on the vehicle location, the vehicle event data, and a transport length, wherein the battery depletion activities include one or more of enabling max accessory loads, activating vehicle sensors to a high-load mode, activating discharge of cell groups by activating cell balancing resistors, or activating inefficient operation of a vehicle inverter”. Examiner agrees that Baker (US20090224869A1) does not disclose the amended limitations because even though Baker discloses activating a transport mode (Paragraph 0012), Baker does not explicitly recite the claimed battery depletion activities. However, regarding the statement that Baker describes an opposite technical function of the claimed invention (Remarks, Page 6), while the Examiner understands that Baker’s power consumption management scheme is noted as being beneficial for power conservation, Baker also describes the scheme as generally applicable to a variety of additional uses (Paragraph 0031, “In accordance with the principles of the present invention, the monitoring device 35 utilizes a power consumption management scheme to conserve, regulate and/or manage consumption of power from a host power source”) and therefore is not limited as a teaching reference for just power conservation purposes. Nevertheless, due to the nature of the amendments, the scope of the invention has been changed and therefore requires new analysis and application of prior art. Further search and consideration found that Hartzog et al. (US20240047689A1) teaches the amended limitations as shown in the new grounds of rejection further below.
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
Claim 8, 9, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/515,772 (reference application is currently pending as of writing this office action).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the instant application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as seen below (limitations not patentably distinct are shown as Bolded and Underlined in the table below):
Instant Application
Reference Application (18/515,772) – Last amended on December 3, 2025 as of writing this office action
Claim 8:
A vehicle system for a vehicle, the vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle processor for storing vehicle data including vehicle location and vehicle event data; and
a server communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor and configured to:
determine when the vehicle is being transported based on the vehicle location and the vehicle event data; and
in response to determining that the vehicle is being transported, activate a transport mode, the transport mode comprising battery depletion activities for a battery of the vehicle based on the vehicle location, the vehicle event data, and a transport length, wherein the battery depletion activities include one or more of enabling max accessory loads, activating vehicle sensors to a high-load mode, activating discharge of cell groups by activating cell balancing resistors, or activating inefficient operation of a vehicle inverter.
Claim 1:
A vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle processor for storing vehicle data including vehicle event data, vehicle mode, and vehicle location, wherein the vehicle location includes one or more of current vehicle location, route information, or traffic information; and
a server communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor and configured to:
determine, based on the vehicle data, that a vehicle incorporating the vehicle system is to be transported on a transport vehicle;
determine that a state-of-charge of the vehicle exceeds a state-of-charge limitation of the transport vehicle; and
based on determining that the state-of-charge of the vehicle exceeds the state-of- charge limitation of the transport vehicle:
start battery depletion activities of the vehicle based on the vehicle location and the vehicle event data, wherein the battery depletion activities include one or more of enabling max accessory loads including one or more of a chiller operation increase or an increase in coolant flow rate, additional vehicle imaging, activating vehicle sensors to a high-load mode, activating discharge of cell groups by activating cell balancing resistors, and activating inefficient operation of vehicle components including one or more of a vehicle motor or vehicle inverter; and
continue the battery depletion activities until the state-of-charge of the vehicle is in compliance with the state-of-charge limitation of the transport vehicle.
Claim 9:
The vehicle system of Claim 8, wherein the vehicle location includes Global Positioning System (GPS) location and route information.
Claims 2 and 4:
The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle location also includes one or more of Global Positioning System (GPS) location and weather information.
The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the vehicle location includes route information indicating ferry transport along a route.
Claim 14:
A vehicle incorporating the vehicle system of Claim 8.
Claim 7:
A vehicle incorporating the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 of the reference application recite the limitations of Claims 8, 9, and 14 of the instant application, except for activating a transport mode in response to determining that the vehicle is being transported.
Nevertheless, primary reference Baker (US20090224869A1) discloses a power consumption management scheme (Paragraph 0031) comprising:
in response to determining that the vehicle is being transported, activate a transport mode (Paragraph 0032 describes the server configured to command a monitoring device (“The monitoring device 35 also has the ability to establish two-way communication with the communications network 26… From the server 30, an end-user has access to reports 32 using network access devices 38 such as PC's 40 to monitor the usage of one or more vehicles 34. In an incoming transfer of data to the monitoring device 35, an end-user sends various operational commands related to the operation of the monitoring device 35”); Paragraph 0012 describes activating a transport mode based on location of a vehicle (e.g. detecting changing locations) and vehicle event data (“The transport mode is selected when the determined operational status of the monitored vehicle indicates that the monitored vehicle is moving across the earth without performing a work function”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reference application by incorporating the features taught by Baker that allow activating a mode when a vehicle is being transported for the benefit of distinguishing between current vehicle states (Paragraph 0008).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Independent Claim 8, the claim recites “…or activating inefficient operation of a vehicle inverter”. The term “inefficient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the limitation is being interpreted as an inverter operation resulting in battery depletion.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on a rejected independent claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 8 recites:
A vehicle system for a vehicle, the vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle processor for storing vehicle data including vehicle location and vehicle event data; and a server communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor and configured to:
determine when the vehicle is being transported based on the vehicle location and the vehicle event data; and
in response to determining that the vehicle is being transported, activate a transport mode, the transport mode comprising battery depletion activities for a battery of the vehicle based on the vehicle location, the vehicle event data, and a transport length, wherein the battery depletion activities include one or more of enabling max accessory loads, activating vehicle sensors to a high-load mode, activating discharge of cell groups by activating cell balancing resistors, or activating inefficient operation of a vehicle inverter.
Step 1: Independent claim 8 is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations (represented by bolded font) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor” or “server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, the bolded limitation in the context of claim 8 may encompass a user determining that a vehicle is being transported by another vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements (represented by underlined font) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a vehicle processor for storing vehicle data including vehicle location and vehicle event data” and “a server communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor”, the examiner submits that these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that the elements are considered mere generic computer components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Regarding the additional limitation of “in response to determining that the vehicle is being transported, activate a transport mode…”, the examiner submits that as currently claimed, this is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity because this limitation is being interpreted as the server transmitting/outputting an instruction (see MPEP § 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)), as a vehicle is not claimed until claim 14.
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) do not add anything 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. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The independent claims do 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.
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 “a vehicle processor for storing vehicle data including vehicle location and vehicle event data” and “a server communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the components are anything other than a generic processor or server. Furthermore, the additional limitation of “in response to determining that the vehicle is being transported, activate a transport mode…” is considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which is not considered enough to qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP § 2106.05(A)).
Therefore, independent claim 8 is not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent Claims 9-13, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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:
Claim 9 further characterizes the vehicle location information stored by the vehicle processor and does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 12 describe notifying a user (“notify a user when it is determined that the vehicle is being transported” and “notify a user of low vehicle battery life during the transport mode”), which at the level of generality claimed, is directed towards transmitting data and is considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) indicates that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner).
Claim 11 describes an additional mental process of “monitor vehicle battery life during the transport mode”, which at the level of generality claimed may encompass, for example, a user observing the amount of charge in a vehicle.
Claim 13 describes a pre-conditioning of a battery upon determining that the vehicle has been transported (“pre-condition a temperature of the battery to allow for faster charging after the transport mode has completed”) which is recited at a high level of generality (e.g. pre-conditioning at a given time after determining the vehicle is being transported) and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claims 9-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claim 8.
Examiner notes that claim 14 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection based on the amended claim scope of claim 8 and recommends amending in the subject matter from claim 14 (e.g. an explicit recitation of a vehicle wherein the battery depletion activities are performed) into independent claim 8 to overcome the 101 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US20090224869A1; hereinafter Baker) in view of Hartzog et al. (US20240047689A1; hereinafter Hartzog).
Regarding Claim 8, Baker discloses a vehicle system (Paragraph 0031, “The system 33 includes an electric vehicle monitoring device (or monitoring device) 35…having the ability to systematically detect, collect, store, interpret and/or transmit data relating to the use of a host vehicle 34…the monitoring device 35 utilizes a power consumption management scheme to conserve, regulate and/or manage consumption of power from a host power source”) comprising:
a vehicle processor (Paragraph 0034, “The monitoring device includes a controller 44 (electronic processing) having a microprocessor 45 or the like, memory 70 of one of various types”);
for storing vehicle data including vehicle location and vehicle event data (Paragraph 0035 describes the monitoring device as including a GPS and transmittable operational data (“…the monitoring device 35 includes a GPS antenna 46 that communicates with satellites…Also included is an antenna 29 that transmits vehicle data (one or both of vehicle use data and vehicle operational data)”) which reasonably indicates that operational data is stored; Examiner notes that “vehicle event data” is being interpreted to comprise data relating to a vehicle’s operating status which is consistent with Paragraph 0031 of the instant specification); and
a server communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor (Paragraph 0021, “…the vehicle monitoring system having a communications network, a server receiving communications from the communication network, and a plurality of network access terminals communicating with the server”) and configured to:
determine that the vehicle is being transported based on the vehicle location and the vehicle event data; and in response to determining that the vehicle is being transported, activate a transport mode (Paragraph 0032 describes the server configured to command the monitoring device (“The monitoring device 35 also has the ability to establish two-way communication with the communications network 26… From the server 30, an end-user has access to reports 32 using network access devices 38 such as PC's 40 to monitor the usage of one or more vehicles 34. In an incoming transfer of data to the monitoring device 35, an end-user sends various operational commands related to the operation of the monitoring device 35”); Paragraph 0012 describes activating a transport mode based on location (e.g. detecting changing locations) and vehicle event data (“The transport mode is selected when the determined operational status of the monitored vehicle indicates that the monitored vehicle is moving across the earth without performing a work function. For example, where a motorized vehicle's motor is not functioning and the vehicle is moving across the earth at a certain speed, and the vehicle has no defined work function associated with this operational state, the monitoring device assumes that the vehicle is being transported”)).
However, Baker does not explicitly recite: the transport mode comprising battery depletion activities for a battery of the vehicle based on the vehicle location, the vehicle event data, and a transport length, wherein the battery depletion activities include one or more of enabling max accessory loads, activating vehicle sensors to a high-load mode, activating discharge of cell groups by activating cell balancing resistors, or activating inefficient operation of a vehicle inverter.
Nevertheless, Hartzog teaches a safety system for a vehicle (see at least Paragraph 0019) comprising:
the transport mode comprising battery depletion activities for a battery of the vehicle based on the vehicle location, the vehicle event data, and a transport length, wherein the battery depletion activities include one or more of enabling max accessory loads, activating vehicle sensors to a high-load mode, activating discharge of cell groups by activating cell balancing resistors, or activating inefficient operation of a vehicle inverter (Paragraph 0019 describes activating battery depletion activities using resistors (e.g. heating elements) upon an event (“A safety system can also be used to activate the heating element(s) in the event of an internal or external signal…Activation of the heating element(s) may be used to decrease the total energy of the system to a lower state of charge. A lower state of charge may be selected based on many conditions, such as, but not limited to a vehicle crash or an airport transport mode…”); Paragraph 0019 further describes features for setting a target battery depletion amount (“…target states of charge may be selected based on many factors. The selection of 30% is based on the limitations of air shipment of lithium ion batteries imposed at the time of this application”) which reasonably indicate that the target values are based on at least a vehicle location and expected transport length (e.g. length of travel of an air shipment route between airports)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Baker invention to expand the features for sending an activation signal to a vehicle (see at least Paragraph 0012) to include instructions for activating accessory loads, as taught by Hartzog, for the benefit of regulating a vehicle’s battery to reduce fire risk (Hartzog, Paragraph 0019, “prevent latent battery fires as the vehicle is transported or disposed”; “allows the battery to be safely discharged to a lower energy level”).
Regarding Claim 14, Baker as currently modified teaches claim 8. Baker further discloses:
a vehicle incorporating the vehicle system of claim 8 (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0031, “The system 33 includes an electric vehicle monitoring device (or monitoring device) 35 that is associated with each vehicle”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Hartzog and Treharne (US20240025294A1; hereinafter Treharne).
Regarding Claim 9, Baker as currently modified teaches claim 8. While Baker further discloses wherein the vehicle location includes Global Positioning System (GPS) location (Paragraph 0035, “…the monitoring device 35 includes a GPS antenna 46 that communicates with satellites”), Baker does not explicitly recite including: route information.
Nevertheless, Treharne teaches an electric vehicle being transported (see at least Abstract and Figure 1A, “towed electrified vehicle 112”) configured to store:
route information (Paragraph 0049, “The operator may input a desired target SOC (or DTE) for the traction battery as well as a travel distance or duration as represented at 264. Alternatively, travel distance, trip duration and/or route may be entered via the vehicle navigation system, or transferred from a mobile device, such as a smartphone, by a wired or wireless connection to the electrified vehicle”; Examiner notes that route information is being interpreted to broadly comprise route information communicable to the vehicle being transported, which is consistent with Paragraph 0030 of the instant specification (“Route information generally pertains to the route the vehicle 10 is traveling, including origin and destination information. The route information may be gathered from user input, a vehicle navigation system, or past driver activity and may be communicated to the vehicle processor 200. Additionally, route information may include the route which a transport vehicle is taking”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Baker invention to expand the vehicle location information (see at least Paragraph 0035) to include route information, as taught by Treharne, for the benefit of managing a vehicle’s battery based on anticipated route (Treharne, Paragraph 0049).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Hartzog and Kleve et al. (US20110080282A1; hereinafter Kleve).
Regarding Claim 10, Baker as currently modified teaches claim 8. While Baker further discloses that the server communicates vehicle information (Paragraph 0059, “… In transport mode the monitoring device 35 begins sending periodic “transport messages” containing current GPS information about the vehicle's 35 location, speed, and direction”), Baker does not explicitly recite: wherein the server is configured to notify a user when it is determined that the vehicle is being transported.
Nevertheless, Kleve teaches a vehicle monitoring system and server (see at least Figure 1 and Abstract) comprising:
wherein the server is configured to notify a user when it is determined that the vehicle is being transported (Paragraph 0120, “If the GPS coordinates of the vehicle change and the vehicle has not been started, then it's likely the vehicle is being towed, and an owner can be alerted”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Baker invention to expand server communication (see at least Paragraphs 0021 and 0059) to include alerting a user when the vehicle is being transported, as taught by Kleve, for the benefit of improving user awareness of a vehicle’s current state (Kleve, Paragraph 0120).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Hartzog and Scharmann (US20240409004A1; hereinafter Scharmann).
Regarding Claim 11, Baker as currently modified teaches claim 8. While Baker further discloses that the server monitors the vehicle during the transport mode (Paragraph 0021, “…the vehicle monitoring system having a communications network, a server receiving communications from the communication network, and a plurality of network access terminals communicating with the server”; Paragraph 0059, “… In transport mode the monitoring device 35 begins sending periodic “transport messages” containing current GPS information about the vehicle's 35 location, speed, and direction”), Baker does not explicitly recite: wherein the server is configured to monitor vehicle battery life.
Nevertheless, Scharmann teaches features for monitoring a vehicle’s battery during transport (Figure 8 and Paragraph 0114, “FIG. 8 illustrates a diagram of an example system 800 for thermal event monitoring and notification according to an embodiment hereof. In the example of FIG. 8 , the vehicle 105 may be transported by another vehicle 805”) comprising:
wherein the server is configured to monitor vehicle battery life (Paragraph 0080, “The vehicle 105 may include a battery management system 360. The battery management system 360 may monitor one or more batteries used by the vehicle 105. The battery management system 360 may be configured to obtain battery data 365 related to the one or more batteries used by the vehicle 105. The battery data 365 may include a charge level, voltage, capacity, leakage, gas levels, internal resistance, and temperature of a battery…The battery data 365 may be used by various systems of the vehicle computing system 200 or another computing system (e.g., the remote computing platform 110, the third-party computing platform 125, the user device 115). For example, the vehicle computing system 200 may utilize the communications unit 325 to send the battery data 365 to the user device 115”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Baker invention to expand server monitoring (see at least Paragraphs 0021 and 0034) to include tracking the vehicle’s battery life, as taught by Scharmann, to help prevent extensive damage to the vehicle during transport due to battery irregularities (Scharmann, Paragraph 0042, “This may also help avoid extensive damage caused by a thermal event by allowing possible mitigation from a user or remote service that is not within/onboard the vehicle”).
Regarding Claim 13, Baker as currently modified teaches claim 8. While Baker further discloses that the server is configured to allow modifications to the power consumption of the vehicle (Paragraph 0032, “…the end-user may modify one or more parameters of the power consumption management system as illustrated in FIG. 8 by sending an operational command through a network access device 38, which communicates with the Internet, which transfers the operational command through the communications network 26 to the antenna 29”), Baker does not explicitly recite: wherein the server is configured to pre-condition a temperature of the vehicle battery to allow for faster charging after the transport mode has completed.
Nevertheless, Scharmann teaches features for monitoring a vehicle’s battery during transport (Figure 8 and Paragraph 0114, “FIG. 8 illustrates a diagram of an example system 800 for thermal event monitoring and notification according to an embodiment hereof. In the example of FIG. 8 , the vehicle 105 may be transported by another vehicle 805”) comprising:
wherein the server is configured to pre-condition a temperature of the vehicle battery to allow for faster charging after the transport mode has completed (Paragraph 0128 describes regulating the temperature of a vehicle battery (“In some examples, in operation 940, the vehicle computing system 200 may output a signal to transition the vehicle 105 to an on state 625 or an awake state…Transitioning the vehicle 105 to the on state 625 can provide power that can allow the vehicle computing system 200 to take mitigation actions to attempt to stop the thermal event 605. For instance, the thermal event 605 may be thermal runaway 710 due to overheating of the battery 705 and the vehicle 105 may transition to the on state 620 in order for the vehicle computing system 200 to attempt to cool off the battery 705”); Paragraph 0117 describes a server (via “computing platform 110”) managing the operation (“…method 900 may be performed by a control circuit of the computing platform 110”); Examiner notes that regulating a vehicle’s battery temperature to within an optimal range reasonably allows for faster charging (e.g. preventing overheating allows for faster charging)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Baker invention to expand power management (see at least Paragraph 0032) to include temperature regulation of a vehicle’s battery, as taught by Scharmann, to help prevent extensive damage to the vehicle during transport due to battery irregularities (Scharmann, Paragraph 0042, “This may also help avoid extensive damage caused by a thermal event by allowing possible mitigation from a user or remote service that is not within/onboard the vehicle”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Hartzog, Scharmann and Maslyn et al. (US20140018975A1; hereinafter Maslyn).
Regarding Claim 12, Baker as currently modified teaches claim 11. While Baker further discloses that the server communicates vehicle information during the transport mode (Paragraph 0059, “… In transport mode the monitoring device 35 begins sending periodic “transport messages” containing current GPS information about the vehicle's 35 location, speed, and direction”), Baker does not explicitly recite: wherein the server is configured to notify a user of low vehicle battery life.
Nevertheless, Maslyn teaches features for monitoring a vehicle battery (see at least Abstract) comprising:
wherein the server is configured to notify a user of low vehicle battery life (Paragraph 0021, “The telematics system 106 may utilize the battery SOC information alone, or in conjunction with the telematics system service center 116, to determine whether the measured SOC level of the battery is at, within, or below certain thresholds. In certain embodiments, the threshold may be a low SOC threshold, indicating that the vehicle battery 102 is nearly depleted. In response to determining that a measured SOC level of the battery is at or below a low SOC threshold, the telematics system 106 may generate and transmit a low SOC notification 124 to the user device 114 directly or indirectly via the telematics system service center 116 using the communications network 112”; Examiner notes that low vehicle battery life is being interpreted to broadly comprise low charge, which is consistent with Paragraph 0039 of the instant specification (“Additionally, the server 300 may be configured to notify an owner or user of the storage mode being activated and/or if the battery 12 reaches a predetermined low vehicle battery life (i.e., near zero charge)”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Baker invention to expand server communication during transport (see at least Paragraphs 0021 and 0059) to remotely alert a user when a vehicle’s battery life is low, as taught by Maslyn, for the benefit of expanding user awareness of the vehicle’s current state and allowing for responsive mitigation (Maslyn, Paragraph 0026).
Conclusion
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 EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights