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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Amendments filed on August 25th, 2025
This action is made Final.
Claims 1-9 are pending claims.
Applicants amended claims 1, 3, and 4.
Applicants cancelled claim 2.
Applicants added claims 6-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chauncey et al., US PG PUB# 2020/0216001 A1 (hereinafter Chauncey).
As for independent claim 1:
Chauncey discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a controller, the controller being configured to execute:
acquiring first data about an amount of fuel or power consumed when a first vehicle passes through each of a plurality of first road segments (0009, Chauncey discloses fuel consumption for a vehicle and road segments 0058);
generating, based on the first data, first information on the fuel or power consumption amounts of the first vehicle in a section of a predetermined length that includes the first road segment; and mapping the first information on the first road segment on a road map (Chauncey discloses mapping module in 0007, 0016 and 0057 where Chauncey shows route determination and road segment. The invention provides a method of determining fuel use of a vehicle for at least one segment of a route of travel. The method includes determining one or more vehicle characteristics of the vehicle, the vehicle characteristics including at least one of a vehicle profile or a vehicle load; determining one or more segment characteristics of the at least one segment, including at least one of a slope, government imposed traffic controls, volume of traffic, or weather conditions; and determining, with a processor, a fuel economy for the vehicle relating to the at least one segment as a function of the one or more vehicle characteristics and the one or more segment characteristics);
wherein the controller overlays a graphic for presenting the first information, on the first road segment included in the road map (0007, 0048, and 0057, see mapping module and identification of road segment. Chauncey disclosed mapping module identifies segments and route. Chauncey disclosed audiovisual device generating visual and audio to the operator with feedback and display).
As for dependent claim 3:
Chauncey discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller decides color of the graphic based on the fuel or power consumption amount of the first vehicle (0057, The determination module obtains information from the fuel-use log and determines the amount of fuel used during all or a portion of the sortie, the amount of fuel wasted, and the minimum amount of fuel required to complete all or a portion of the sortie. The mapping module identifies one or more routes of travel between a departure and a destination. The mapping module may further break down each route of travel into a plurality of continuous segments of the route of travel. In one embodiment, the mapping module is remote to the vehicle, e.g., in a back-office server, and may transmit a calculated route to the vehicle.)
As for independent claim 4:
Chauncey discloses information processing apparatus comprising a controller, the controller being configured to execute:
acquiring first data about an amount of fuel or power consumed when a first vehicle passes through a first road segment; acquiring second data about amounts of fuel or power consumed when a plurality of second vehicles pass through the first road segment (0009, Chauncey discloses fuel consumption for a vehicle and road segments 0057. Chauncey discloses acquiring data form a plurality of vehicles in the cited sections and 0123);
generating, based on the first and second data, first information that is a result of comparing the fuel or power consumption amounts in a section of a predetermined length that includes the first road segment, between the first vehicle and the plurality of second vehicles; and mapping the first information on the first road segment on a road map (Chauncey discloses mapping module in 0007, 0016 and 0057 where Chauncey shows route determination and road segment. The invention provides a method of determining fuel use of a vehicle for at least one segment of a route of travel. The method includes determining one or more vehicle characteristics of the vehicle, the vehicle characteristics including at least one of a vehicle profile or a vehicle load; determining one or more segment characteristics of the at least one segment, including at least one of a slope, government imposed traffic controls, volume of traffic, or weather conditions; and determining, with a processor, a fuel economy for the vehicle relating to the at least one segment as a function of the one or more vehicle characteristics and the one or more segment characteristics.)
wherein the controller overlays a graphic for presenting the first information, on the first road segment included in the road map (0007, 0048, and 0057, see mapping module and identification of road segment. Chauncey disclosed mapping module identifies segments and route. Chauncey disclosed audiovisual device generating visual and audio to the operator with feedback and display).
As for dependent claim 5:
Chauncey discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of second vehicles are vehicles having a same attribute as the first vehicle (see second vehicle profile in 0123).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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:
5. 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.
6. Claims 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chauncey et al., US PG PUB# 2020/0216001 A1 (hereinafter Chauncey) in view of Mineta, US PG PUB# 2011/0246019 A1 (hereinafter Mineta).
As for dependent claim 6:
Chauncey does not disclose information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the graphic includes the acquired fuel consumption or power consumption for the first road segment. Mineta disclosed information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the graphic includes the acquired fuel consumption or power consumption for the first road segment in 0047-0049. In the cited section Mineta discloses energy map and fuel consumption for roadway segment. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the apparatus of Chauncey to incorporate the teaching of Mineta, thus allow a graphic display of fuel consumption associated with roadway segment (Mineta, 0047).
As for dependent claim 7:
Chauncey -Mineta discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the graphic includes the acquired fuel consumption and power consumption for the first road segment (Mineta,0047-0048, Figure 7, see acquired fuel consumption and power consumption).
As for dependent claim 8:
Chauncey -Mineta discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the graphic includes the acquired fuel consumption or power consumption for the first road segment (Mineta, 0048-0049)
As for dependent claim 9:
Chauncey -Mineta discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the graphic includes the acquired fuel consumption and power consumption for the first road segment (Mineta, 0048-0049, see acquired fuel consumption and power consumption).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office refers applicants to MPEP 2123, where the MPEP 2123 states the entire reference is cited and specific cited sections of the reference are not limiting in any way. Any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d
During patent examination, the pending claims must be 'given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.' Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
Reference is made to MPEP 2144.01 - Implicit Disclosure
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
As for 35 USC 102 rejection:
As for independent claims 1 and 4:
Applicants assert Chauncey fails to disclose overlaying a graphic for presenting the first information, on the first road segment included in the road map (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg.5).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
As shown above in the last Office Action mailed on, Chauncey shows and suggests the overlaying a graphic for presenting the first information, on the first road segment included in the road map in 0007, 0048, and 0057, see mapping module and identification of road segment. Chauncey disclosed mapping module identifies segments and route. Chauncey disclosed audiovisual device generating visual and audio to the operator with feedback and display. From the evidence shown above, Chauncey shows and suggests all the limitations in claim 1. At this time claim 1 is not in condition for an allowance.
Claim 4 contains similar subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore not allowable for the same reason stated above.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
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 DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571)272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172