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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 have been canceled. Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-22 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
a) Szubbocsev teaches adjusting the navigation speed of a vehicle only in response to a particular speed being selected, rather than “automatically” configuring a reduction of vehicle fuel consumption; and
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Szubbocsev discloses, “determining an estimated total amount of electrical power required to navigate the vehicle along the current route to reach the destination includes: utilizing the assigned speed limit for one or more navigable pathways included in the current route to determine the estimated total amount of electrical power; and in response to determining that the on-board computer cannot navigate the current route to reach the destination without having to charge the battery device utilizing the external power source, determining an estimated total amount of electrical power required to navigate the vehicle from the starting location along the current route to reach the destination for a set of speeds that includes a speed that is 20%, 30% and 40% below the assigned speed limit for one or more navigable pathways included in the current route.” Therefore the navigation speed is adjusted in response to a determination that the vehicle would not have enough energy to reach the destination at it’s current speed and a new speed is selected based on this determination in order to enable reaching said destination.
b) nowhere does Szubbocsev teach or suggest the automatic limitation of acceleration of a vehicle to reduce vehicle fuel consumption. While Szubbocsev does discuss “travel distance, travel time, average speed, vehicle weight and maximum acceleration are all factors that influence battery charge/discharge rates,” see Szubbocsev para. [0065], this is merely listing vehicle parameters than can affect a vehicle battery discharge rate, and is not equivalent to teaching or suggesting adjusting the acceleration of a vehicle automatically in order to reduce fuel consumption.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by limiting the speed (i.e. a speed that is 20%, 30% and 40% below the assigned speed limit) would inherently limit the acceleration since acceleration is necessary to reach the posted speed limit. Therefore by adding a limit to the traveling speed, an acceleration limitation is necessarily applied.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (US 2015/0226563 A1) hereinafter Cox, Vavrus (US 2008/0221787 A1) hereinafter Vavrus, and Szubbocsev (US2019/0294173 A1) hereinafter Szubbocsev.
Claim 1:
Cox discloses a method for optimizing a fueling plan comprising: determining navigation data for a trip; [¶¶13; 107] determining fuel price data for a plurality of fuel locations within a geographic threshold of the trip; and [¶¶114-115] generating a fueling plan based on the navigation data,
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose determining fuel type data for a vehicle; generating a fueling plan based on the fuel type data, determining, based on the fuel type data, that the vehicle cannot reach the selected fuel location; and in response to the determining, automatically configuring the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption by limiting acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Vavrus does disclose determining fuel type data for a vehicle; [Claim 10] generating a fueling plan based on the fuel type data [Claim 10].
Further, Szubbocsev discloses determining, based on the fuel type data, that the vehicle cannot reach the selected fuel location; and in response to the determining, automatically configuring the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption by limiting acceleration of the vehicle. [Claim 20]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox with the fuel type determination of Vavrus to ensure fuel stops have the correct fuel for the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the energy conservation strategy of Szubbocsev to reduce the number of stops required on a trip. It should be noted that while Cox utilizes fuel and Szubbocsev is an electric vehicle, both systems relate to a total amount of available energy to propel a vehicle to a desired location and are therefore considered to be solving the same problem.
Claim 5:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Cox also discloses wherein determining navigation data for the trip comprises receiving one or more of a destination, a starting location, a plurality of routes, traffic data, or road condition data. [¶¶13; 107]
Claim 6:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Cox also discloses wherein the navigation data comprises a driver profile. [¶57]
Claim 9:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Cox also discloses wherein determining fuel type data for a vehicle comprises determining one or more of a vehicle type, a vehicle VIN, a preferred fuel composition for the vehicle, a current fuel level, or a vehicle weight. [¶67]
Claim 11:
Cox discloses a system comprising: an engine control unit (ECU) [Fig. 2A, Item 20] control circuitry configured to: determine navigation data for a trip; [¶¶13; 107] determine fuel price data for a plurality of fuel locations within a geographic threshold of the trip; and [¶¶114-115] generate a fueling plan based on the navigation data,
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose configured to determine fuel type data for a vehicle; generating a fueling plan based on the fuel type data determining, based on the fuel type data, that the vehicle cannot reach the selected fuel location; and in response to the determining, automatically configuring the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption by limiting acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Vavrus does disclose configured to determine fuel type data for a vehicle; [Claim 10] generating a fueling plan based on the fuel type data [Claim 10].
Further, Szubbocsev discloses determining, based on the fuel type data, that the vehicle cannot reach the selected fuel location; and in response to the determining, automatically configuring the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption by limiting acceleration of the vehicle. [Claim 20]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox with the fuel type determination of Vavrus to ensure fuel stops have the correct fuel for the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the energy conservation strategy of Szubbocsev to reduce the number of stops required on a trip. It should be noted that while Cox utilizes fuel and Szubbocsev is an electric vehicle, both systems relate to a total amount of available energy to propel a vehicle to a desired location and are therefore considered to be solving the same problem.
Claim 15:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Cox also discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, when determining navigation data for the trip, receive one or more of a destination, a starting location, a plurality of routes, traffic data, or road condition data. [¶¶13; 107]
Claim 16:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Cox also discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, when determining navigation data, receive a driver profile. [¶57]
Claim 19:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Cox also discloses wherein the ECU is further configured to, when determining fuel type data for the vehicle, determine one or more of a vehicle type, a vehicle VIN, a preferred fuel composition for the vehicle, a current fuel level, or a vehicle weight. [¶67]
Claim(s) 4, 7-8, 10, 14, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Driscoll et al. (US 2016/0035001 A1) hereinafter Driscoll.
Claim 4:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: automatically configuring a fuel pump at the selected fuel location with one or more of the fuel type data for the vehicle or an amount of fuel.
However, Driscoll does disclose further comprising: automatically configuring a fuel pump at the selected fuel location with one or more of the fuel type data for the vehicle or an amount of fuel. [¶62]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the intelligent fuel purchasing of Driscoll to speed up refueling thus decrease the time for trip.
Claim 7:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the driver profile comprises a user preference to minimize a cost for the trip and wherein generating the fueling plan comprises determining a route based on the user preference to minimize the cost for the trip.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the driver profile comprises a user preference to minimize a cost for the trip and wherein generating the fueling plan comprises determining a route based on the user preference to minimize the cost for the trip. [¶17]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the intelligent route planning of Driscoll align the route with a user preference.
Claim 8:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the driver profile comprises a user preference to minimize a duration for the trip and wherein generating the fueling plan comprises determining a route based on the user preference to minimize the duration for the trip.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the driver profile comprises a user preference to minimize a duration for the trip and wherein generating the fueling plan comprises determining a route based on the user preference to minimize the duration for the trip. [¶17]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the intelligent route planning of Driscoll align the route with a user preference.
Claim 10:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein determining fuel price data for a plurality of fuel locations comprises receiving an offer for a discount on fuel at a first fueling location of the plurality of fuel locations.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein determining fuel price data for a plurality of fuel locations comprises receiving an offer for a discount on fuel at a first fueling location of the plurality of fuel locations. [¶¶94, 101]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the intelligent fuel purchasing of Driscoll to reduce travel cost.
Claim 14:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to automatically configure a fuel pump at the selected fuel location with one or more of the fuel type data for the vehicle and an amount of fuel.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to automatically configure a fuel pump at the selected fuel location with one or more of the fuel type data for the vehicle and an amount of fuel. [¶62]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the intelligent fuel purchasing of Driscoll to speed up refueling thus decrease the time for trip.
Claim 17:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to receive a driver profile comprising the user preference to minimize a cost for the trip and when generating the fueling plan, determine a route based on the user preference to minimize the cost for the trip.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to receive a driver profile comprising the user preference to minimize a cost for the trip and when generating the fueling plan, determine a route based on the user preference to minimize the cost for the trip. [¶17]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the intelligent route planning of Driscoll align the route with a user preference.
Claim 18:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to receive a driver profile comprising a user preference to minimize a duration for the trip and when generating the fueling plan, determine a route based on the user preference to minimize the duration for the trip.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to receive a driver profile comprising a user preference to minimize a duration for the trip and when generating the fueling plan, determine a route based on the user preference to minimize the duration for the trip. [¶17]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the intelligent route planning of Driscoll align the route with a user preference.
Claim 20:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, when determining fuel price data for a plurality of fuel locations, receive an offer for a discount on fuel at a first fueling location of the plurality of fuel locations.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, when determining fuel price data for a plurality of fuel locations, receive an offer for a discount on fuel at a first fueling location of the plurality of fuel locations. [¶¶94, 101]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox and Vavrus with the intelligent fuel purchasing of Driscoll to reduce travel cost.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bartz et al. (US 2022/0242213 A1) hereinafter Bartz.
Claim 21:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein automatically configuring the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption by limiting acceleration is executed by a vehicle ECU that is configured to reduce responsiveness of an acceleration pedal of the vehicle.
However, Bartz does disclose wherein automatically configuring the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption by limiting acceleration is executed by a vehicle ECU that is configured to reduce responsiveness of an acceleration pedal of the vehicle. [¶158]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev with the energy conservation strategy of Bartz further maximize the available range. It should be noted that while Cox utilizes fuel and Bartz is an electric vehicle, both systems relate to a total amount of available energy to propel a vehicle to a desired location and are therefore considered to be solving the same problem.
Claim 22:
Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Cox doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the ECU is further configured to reduce responsiveness of an acceleration pedal of the vehicle.
However, Bartz does disclose wherein the ECU is further configured to reduce responsiveness of an acceleration pedal of the vehicle. [¶158]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel planning of Cox, Vavrus, and Szubbocsev with the energy conservation strategy of Bartz further maximize the available range. It should be noted that while Cox utilizes fuel and Bartz is an electric vehicle, both systems relate to a total amount of available energy to propel a vehicle to a desired location and are therefore considered to be solving the same problem.
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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747