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 23-28 have been added. Claims 21-22 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-11, 14-20, and 23-28 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14-20, and 23-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
(D) “”
(E) “”
() “”
Independent claim 11 contains similar steps directed to a machine.
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) ()-() fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations ()-() encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations ()-() include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) (A) constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, limitation(s) (F) constitute(s) insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claims and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claims .
Examiner recommends amending the independent claims to incorporate the subject matter of claims 23-26 which include a practical application and would overcome the subject matter eligibility rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11, 15-19, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loo et al. (US 10,352,712 B1) hereinafter Loo and Klampfl et al. (US 2009/0204316 A1) hereinafter Klampfl.
Claim 1:
Loo discloses a method for optimizing a fueling plan comprising: determining navigation data for a trip; [col. 8, lines 12-20; Fig. 5, step 503] determining fuel type data for a vehicle; [col. 2, lines 27-35; when discussing fuel options the reference says "what fuel options exist along a given route for the motor vehicle," which a person having ordinary skill in the art would interpret as a fuel type for the vehicle.] determining fuel price data for a plurality of fuel locations within a geographic threshold of the trip; and [col. 8, lines 12-20; Fig. 5, step 503] generating a fueling plan based on the navigation data, fuel type data, and fuel price data, wherein generating the fueling plan comprises: identifying a first fueling location having a first fuel cost, wherein the first fuel location is a first distance from a current vehicle location; [col. 8, lines 21-35; Fig. 5, steps 505-507] providing the fueling plan via a user interface associated with the vehicle. [col. 8, lines 36-42; Fig. 5, step 509]
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose identifying a second fuel location having a second fuel cost that is less than the first fuel cost, wherein the second fuel location is a second distance from the current vehicle location, and wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance; determining a first amount of fuel necessary to travel from the first fuel location to the second fuel location; and configuring the fuel plan to indicate a set of fuel instructions comprising at least (i) navigation instructions to the first fuel location, (ii) an amount of fuel to add to the vehicle at the first fuel location, the amount of fuel determined based at least in part on the determined first amount of fuel, and (iii) navigation instructions to the second fuel location.
However, Klampfl does disclose identifying a second fuel location having a second fuel cost that is less than the first fuel cost, wherein the second fuel location is a second distance from the current vehicle location, and wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance; [The example set forth in Table 1 and ¶¶54-55 shows a series of fuel stops (any of which could be interpreted as a second location as long as a first location precedes it); for example, if the stop on day 4 is a first location with a first price and first distance, the stop on day 5 is a second stop with a further distance and a lower price] determining a first amount of fuel necessary to travel from the first fuel location to the second fuel location; and [¶45] configuring the fuel plan to indicate a set of fuel instructions comprising at least (i) navigation instructions to the first fuel location, (ii) an amount of fuel to add to the vehicle at the first fuel location, the amount of fuel determined based at least in part on the determined first amount of fuel, and (iii) navigation instructions to the second fuel location [¶¶21, 24-25 describes setting a starting point and destination and generates routes based partially on where to buy fuel; ¶52 describes solving an optimization problem to determine how much fuel to buy with a minimum amount of fuel required as described in ¶45; navigation instructions are implied from ¶¶21, 24-25 but additionally in the example set forth in Table 1 and ¶¶54-55].
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 Loo with the multi-stop fuel planning algorithm of Klampfl to optimize fueling over the course of a longer and/or multi-day trip thus realizing additional savings.
Claim 5:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Loo also discloses wherein the determining the 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. [col. 8, lines 12-20; Fig. 5, step 503]
Claim 6:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the navigation data comprises a driver profile.
However, Klampfl does disclose wherein the navigation data comprises a driver profile. [¶21]
Claim 7:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Loo 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, Klampfl discloses 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. [¶¶47-48 can be interpreted as maximizing cost vs duration since more stops would enable the MIP to reduce cost but less stops would decrease duration. Table 1 and ¶¶54-55 shows this as "Optimization" would decrease cost as shown but "Optimization with Penalty" reduces duration by reducing stops.]
Claim 8:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the driver profile comprises a user preference to minimize a duration of the trip, and wherein the fueling plan is generated based at least in part on the user preference to minimize the duration of the trip.
However, Klampfl discloses wherein the driver profile comprises a user preference to minimize a duration of the trip, and wherein the fueling plan is generated based at least in part on the user preference to minimize the duration of the trip. [¶¶47-48 can be interpreted as maximizing cost vs duration since more stops would enable the MIP to reduce cost but less stops would decrease duration. Table 1 and ¶¶54-55 shows this as "Optimization" would decrease cost as shown but "Optimization with Penalty" reduces duration by reducing stops.]
Claim 9:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Loo also discloses wherein the determining the fuel type data for the 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 for the vehicle. [col. 8, lines 3-11; Fig. 5, step 501]
Claim 11:
Loo discloses a system comprising: an engine control unit (ECU) [Figs. 1-2] configured to determine fuel type data for a vehicle; [col. 2, lines 27-35; when discussing fuel options the reference says "what fuel options exist along a given route for the motor vehicle," which a person having ordinary skill in the art would interpret as a fuel type for the vehicle.] control circuitry configured to: determine navigation data for a trip; [col. 8, lines 12-20; Fig. 5, step 503] determine fuel price data for a plurality of fuel locations within a geographic threshold of the trip; and [col. 8, lines 12-20; Fig. 5, step 503] generate a fueling plan based on the navigation data, fuel type data, and fuel price data, wherein the generating fueling plan comprises: identifying a first fuel location having a first fuel cost, wherein the first fuel location is a first distance from a current vehicle location; [col. 8, lines 21-35; Fig. 5, steps 505-507] input/output (I/O) circuitry configured to: provide the fueling plan via a user interface associated with the vehicle. [col. 8, lines 36-42; Fig. 5, step 509]
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose identifying a second fuel location having a second fuel cost that is less than the first fuel cost, wherein the second fuel location is a second distance from the current vehicle location, and wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance; determining a first amount of fuel necessary to travel from the first fuel location to the second fuel location; and configuring the fuel plan to indicate a set of fuel instructions comprising at least (i) navigation instructions to the first fuel location, (ii) an amount of fuel to add to the vehicle at the first fuel location, the amount of fuel determined based at least in part on the determined first amount of fuel, and (iii) navigation instructions to the second fuel location.
Klampfl discloses identifying a second fuel location having a second fuel cost that is less than the first fuel cost, wherein the second fuel location is a second distance from the current vehicle location, and wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance; [The example set forth in Table 1 and ¶¶54-55 shows a series of fuel stops (any of which could be interpreted as a second location as long as a first location precedes it); for example, if the stop on day 4 is a first location with a first price and first distance, the stop on day 5 is a second stop with a further distance and a lower price] determining a first amount of fuel necessary to travel from the first fuel location to the second fuel location; and [¶45] configuring the fuel plan to indicate a set of fuel instructions comprising at least (i) navigation instructions to the first fuel location, (ii) an amount of fuel to add to the vehicle at the first fuel location, the amount of fuel determined based at least in part on the determined first amount of fuel, and (iii) navigation instructions to the second fuel location [¶¶21, 24-25 describes setting a starting point and destination and generates routes based partially on where to buy fuel; ¶52 describes solving an optimization problem to determine how much fuel to buy with a minimum amount of fuel required as described in ¶45; navigation instructions are implied from ¶¶21, 24-25 but additionally in the example set forth in Table 1 and ¶¶54-55].
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 Loo with the multi-stop fuel planning algorithm of Klampfl to optimize fueling over the course of a longer and/or multi-day trip thus realizing additional savings.
Claim 15:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Loo also discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, determine navigation data for the trip by receiving one or more of a destination, a starting location, a plurality of routes, traffic data, or road condition data. [col. 8, lines 12-20; Fig. 5, step 503]
Claim 16:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine navigation data by receiving, via the I/O circuitry a driver profile.
However, Klampfl discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine navigation data by receiving, via the I/O circuitry a driver profile. [¶15, 21; transceiver 26 would be known by a person having ordinary skill in the art to have I/O circuitry]
Claim 17:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the driver profile comprises the user preference to minimize a cost of the trip and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine the amount of fuel to add to the vehicle based at least in part on the user preference to minimize the cost of the trip.
However, Klampfl discloses wherein the driver profile comprises the user preference to minimize a cost of the trip and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine the amount of fuel to add to the vehicle based at least in part on the user preference to minimize the cost of the trip. [¶¶47-48 can be interpreted as maximizing cost vs duration since more stops would enable the MIP to reduce cost but less stops would decrease duration. Table 1 and ¶¶54-55 shows this as "Optimization" would decrease cost as shown but "Optimization with Penalty" reduces duration by reducing stops.]
Claim 18:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the driver profile comprises a user preference to minimize a duration of the trip, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to generate the fueling plan based at least in part on the user preference to minimize the duration of the trip.
However, Klampfl discloses wherein the driver profile comprises a user preference to minimize a duration of the trip, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to generate the fueling plan based at least in part on the user preference to minimize the duration of the trip. [¶¶47-48 can be interpreted as maximizing cost vs duration since more stops would enable the MIP to reduce cost but less stops would decrease duration. Table 1 and ¶¶54-55 shows this as "Optimization" would decrease cost as shown but "Optimization with Penalty" reduces duration by reducing stops.]
Claim 19:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Loo also discloses wherein the ECU is further configured to determine, the fuel type data for the vehicle by 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. [col. 8, lines 3-11; Fig. 5, step 501]
Claim 27:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the amount of fuel to add to the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a comparison of (i) a current fuel level of the vehicle and (ii) the first amount of fuel necessary to travel from the first fuel location to the second fuel location.
However, Klampfl discloses wherein the amount of fuel to add to the vehicle is determined based at least in part on a comparison of (i) a current fuel level of the vehicle and (ii) the first amount of fuel necessary to travel from the first fuel location to the second fuel location. [¶¶30, 45 describe inputs in to the MIP model and ¶52 summarizes the output of the model]
Claim 28:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine the amount of fuel to add to the vehicle based at least in part on a comparison of (i) a current fuel level of the vehicle and (ii) the first amount of fuel necessary to travel from the first fuel location to the second fuel location.
However, Klampfl discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine the amount of fuel to add to the vehicle based at least in part on a comparison of (i) a current fuel level of the vehicle and (ii) the first amount of fuel necessary to travel from the first fuel location to the second fuel location. [¶¶30, 45 describe inputs in to the MIP model and ¶52 summarizes the output of the model]
Claim(s) 4, 10, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loo and Klampfl as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Driscoll et al. (US 2016/0035001 A1) hereinafter Driscoll.
Claim 4:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: automatically configuring a first fuel pump at the first fuel location and a second fuel pump at the second 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 first fuel pump at the first fuel location and a second fuel pump at the second 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 Loo and Klampfl with the intelligent fuel purchasing of Driscoll to speed up refueling thus decrease the time for trip.
Claim 10:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the determining the fuel price data for the plurality of fuel locations comprises receiving an offer for a discount at a particular fueling location of the plurality of fuel locations.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the determining the fuel price data for the plurality of fuel locations comprises receiving an offer for a discount at a particular 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 Loo and Klampfl with the intelligent fuel purchasing of Driscoll to reduce travel cost.
Claim 14:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to; automatically configure a first fuel pump at the first fuel location and a second fuel pump at the second location with one or more of the fuel type data for the vehicle or an amount of fuel.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to; automatically configure a first fuel pump at the first fuel location and a second fuel pump at the second 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 Loo and Klampfl with the intelligent fuel purchasing of Driscoll to speed up refueling thus decrease the time for trip.
Claim 20:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, determine fuel price data for the plurality of fuel locations by receiving via I/O circuitry, an offer for a discount at a particular fueling location of the plurality of fuel locations.
However, Driscoll does disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, determine fuel price data for the plurality of fuel locations by receiving via I/O circuitry, an offer for a discount at a particular fueling location of the plurality of fuel locations. [¶¶94, 101; ¶19 describes communications protocols which are analogous to I/O circuitry]
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 Loo and Klampfl with the intelligent fuel purchasing of Driscoll to reduce travel cost.
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loo and Klampfl as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 11,077,768 B2) hereinafter Yang and Banks (US 10,933,885 B1) hereinafter Banks.
Claim 23:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: determining, based on the fuel type data, that the vehicle cannot reach the first fuel location; and in response to the determining, automatically configuring the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption by limiting acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Yang discloses further comprising: determining, based on the fuel type data, that the vehicle cannot reach the first fuel location; and in response to the determining, automatically configuring the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption [Abstract; col. 6, line 60 to col. 7 line 6].
Further, Banks discloses by limiting acceleration of the vehicle. [col. 1, lines 35-56]
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 Loo and Klampfl with the destination algorithm of Yang to help mitigate drivers from getting stranded by not having enough fuel.
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 Loo, Klampfl, and Yang with the reduced responsiveness of Banks to reduce acceleration and thus increase fuel economy.
Claim 24:
Loo, Klampfl, Yang, and Banks as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 23.
Loo 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.
Banks discloses 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. [col. 1, lines 35-56]
Claim 25:
Loo and Klampfl, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: determine, based on the fuel type data, that the vehicle cannot reach the first fuel location; and in response to the determining, automatically configure the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption by limiting acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Yang discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: determine, based on the fuel type data, that the vehicle cannot reach the first fuel location; and in response to the determining, automatically configure the vehicle to reduce fuel consumption [Abstract; col. 6, line 60 to col. 7 line 6].
Further, Banks discloses by limiting acceleration of the vehicle. [col. 1, lines 35-56]
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 Loo and Klampfl with the destination algorithm of Yang to help mitigate drivers from getting stranded by not having enough fuel.
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 Loo, Klampfl, and Yang with the reduced responsiveness of Banks to reduce acceleration and thus increase fuel economy.
Claim 26:
Loo, Klampfl, Yang, and Banks as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 24.
Loo doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the ECU is further configured to reduce responsiveness of an acceleration pedal of the vehicle.
Banks discloses wherein the ECU is further configured to reduce responsiveness of an acceleration pedal of the vehicle. [col. 1, lines 35-56]
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights