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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Specification section in Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, and subsequently withdraws objections to said sections.
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding claim 8 as being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for being indefinite in Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, and subsequently withdraws the rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 as being patent ineligible as it is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the Examiner acknowledges the interview on 9/11/2025 with the Applicant and the initial agreement that the Examiner’s recommended changes along with discussed arguments would overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101 as found in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9-10. However, after discussion with a primary examiner colleague and reconsideration of the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner submits that the arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101. The Applicant’s arguments try to align the amended claim with Amdocs language which the MPEP explains in essence that an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem which may therefore recite significantly more than the judicial exception, but nothing within claim 1 appears to be unconventional. The limitations of claim 1 merely performs a generically recited calculation that is dynamic of for example battery state of charge of a vehicle and does not explain at any point how this is done. Furthermore, the providing of information to or from a battery is not unconventional either, as evidenced by the prior art that has already been cited. Furthermore, the amended limitation of determine an amount of an energy management calculation… recites not only the mathematical concept from the previous Office Action, but now recites determining which in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at information and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. Further, claims 2-20 also do not appear to further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
However, new claim 21 recites the limitation wherein the at least one processor is configured to control operation of the battery according to the energy management result, which includes additional limitations that are patent eligible as they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the rejection based on35 USC § 101 is maintained for claims 1-20.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Hancock et al. (US Publication 2025/0033517 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Hancock], the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claims and argues (see pp. 11-12) that Hancock does not disclose an amount of the energy management calculations that are related to the vehicle. However, these amended claims have been re-considered by the Examiner based on Hancock and the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that Hancock does not disclose the limitation determine an amount of an energy management calculation related to energy management of the vehicle to be processed by the at least one processor, wherein the amount is based on at least one of a driving information of the vehicle or the battery state information, wherein the determined amount is dynamically adjustable during operation of the vehicle perform the determined amount of the energy management calculation wherein the energy management calculation is based on the battery state information. However, this is disclosed in [0054] (monitor energy management data comprising energy data attributes for the zone, data attributes of the at least one electric vehicle, and at least one non-vehicle energy device in the zone, perform an energy use optimization calculation based at least in part on said energy management data) and [0146] (optimization calculations may be used in near real-time or real-time (i.e., dynamically) and taking into account the dynamic energy needs of the zone, and the vehicle and non-vehicle energy needs (e.g., HVAC or lighting)), and is construed to determine a necessary amount of the calculation is related to the management of the vehicle as opposed to the non-vehicle energy needs. Furthermore, in [0151] individual EV data may comprise a data feed that contains specific information that comes from the actual electric vehicle, and contains information including vehicle location data in the form of GPS, battery information including current battery state (charge status) that is the amount that the battery is currently charged, battery temperature and age, battery capacity (e.g. the max charge the battery may hold, which may change with age and temperature), battery charge and discharge rates, and general vehicle information, such as if the EV is autonomous or non-autonomous).
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 2 as being unpatentable over Hancock et al. (US Publication 2025/0033517 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Hancock], in view of Gantt et al. (US Publication 2020/00393259 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Gantt] the Applicant argues that the claim is patentable by virtue of its dependency as it doesn’t remedy the deficiencies of Hancock regarding the an amount of the energy management calculations that are related to the vehicle.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
New claim 21 has been rejected under 35 USC § 103, as detailed below, as being unpatentable over Hancock et al. (US Publication No.2025/0033517 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Hancock], in view of Si et al. (US Publication No. 2025/0055289 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Si].
The Applicant has elected to further amend claim 4. Therefore, the Examiner’s view of Allowable Subject Matter in the previous Office Action is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Sowa et al. (US Publication No. 2023/0294544 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Sowa] has been necessitated.
Therefore, a new rejection of claim 4 based on 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock et al. (US Publication No.2025/0033517 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Hancock], in view of Sowa has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Claims 3 and 5-20 contain allowable subject matter as discussed in the previous office action and the objection to those claims is hereby maintained as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 is directed to a system of managing a vehicle’s energy usage (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
An autonomous driving platform comprising:
at least one processor operatively coupled to a battery of a vehicle, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain, from the battery, battery state information related to a state of the battery;
determine an amount of an energy management calculation related to energy management of the vehicle to be processed by the at least one processor, wherein the amount is based on at least one of a driving information of the vehicle or the battery state information, wherein the determined amount is dynamically adjustable during operation of the vehicle perform the determined amount of the energy management calculation wherein the energy management calculation is based on the battery state information[mental process/step and mathematical concept]; and
provide to the battery an energy management result obtained from the energy management calculation.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine an amount of an energy management calculation…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at information and forming a simple judgement. This information is the ” energy management calculation” and is merely performing a mental process mathematical concept based on data acquired. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An autonomous driving platform comprising:
at least one processor operatively coupled to a battery of a vehicle, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain, from the battery, battery state information related to a state of the battery[insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
determine an amount of an energy management calculation related to energy management of the vehicle to be processed by the at least one processor, wherein the amount is based on at least one of a driving information of the vehicle or the battery state information, wherein the determined amount is dynamically adjustable during operation of the vehicle perform the determined amount of the energy management calculation wherein the energy management calculation is based on the battery state information; and
provide to the battery an energy management result obtained from the energy management calculation[insignificant extra-solution activity (providing/transmitting results of the mathematical concept)].
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtain…,” and “provide…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing results step on the driver display console is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting the energy management calculations result from the calculating step), and amounts to mere post solution transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The Applicant’s arguments try to align the amended claim with Amdocs language which the MPEP explains in essence that an unconventional technical solution to a technological problem which may therefore recite significantly more than the judicial exception, but nothing within claim 1 appears to be unconventional. The limitations of claim 1 merely performs a generically recited calculation that is dynamic of for example battery state of charge of a vehicle and does not explain at any point how this is done. Furthermore, the providing of information to or from a battery is not unconventional either, as evidenced by the prior art that has already been cited. Further, claim 2-20 also do not appear to further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to process the calculations … amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtain…,” and “provide…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claims 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-20 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 as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as determine or calculate and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as obtain and provide. Furthermore, the recitation of either adjust (see claim 4) or control (see claim 6 and 7) that is made in the dependent claims is directed toward the calculation and or a ratio of the calculation that is being designated which is not interpreted as being sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
However, claim 21 contains the limitation wherein the at least one processor is configured to control operation of the battery according to the energy management result which is patent eligible as it properly integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hancock et al. (US Publication No. 2025/0033517 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hancock.
Regarding claim 1, Hancock discloses:
An autonomous driving platform comprising ([0013] directed to managing at least one autonomous vehicle):
at least one processor ([0054] digital data processor utilized) operatively coupled to a battery of a vehicle, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: obtain, from the battery, battery state information related to a state of the battery ([0016] In some embodiments, the vehicle operation data comprises, for at least one of the electric vehicles, at least one of a battery capacity, a battery charge level, a rate of battery charge, a rate of battery discharge, a battery age, a battery temperature, a historical battery discharge rate);
determine an amount of an energy management calculation related to energy management of the vehicle to be processed by the at least one processor ([0054] monitor energy management data comprising energy data attributes for the zone, data attributes of the at least one electric vehicle, and at least one non-vehicle energy device in the zone, perform an energy use optimization calculation based at least in part on said energy management data), wherein the amount is based on at least one of a driving information of the vehicle or the battery state information ([0151] Individual EV data may comprise a data feed that contains specific information that comes from the actual electric vehicle, and contains information including vehicle location data in the form of GPS, battery information including current battery state (charge status) that is the amount that the battery is currently charged, battery temperature and age, battery capacity (e.g. the max charge the battery may hold, which may change with age and temperature), battery charge and discharge rates, and general vehicle information, such as if the EV is autonomous or non-autonomous), wherein the determined amount is dynamically adjustable during operation of the vehicle perform the determined amount of the energy management calculation wherein the energy management calculation is based on the battery state information ([0146] optimization calculations may be used in near real-time or real-time and taking into account the dynamic energy needs of the zone, and the vehicle and non-vehicle energy needs); and
provide to the battery an energy management result obtained from the energy management calculation ([0054] provide a charge instruction for the at least one electric vehicle based at least in part on said energy use optimization calculation, and provide a control instruction for said at least one non-vehicle energy device in the zone based at least in part on said energy use optimization calculation, [0087] provide an optimal or improved recommendation or strategy for energy use based on overall user needs, and in [0131] where the recommendations are provided to computers and other databases that are necessarily within a vehicle that are communicably coupled and relate to energy management results (i.e., an energy management system and a battery management system (BMS) of a vehicle)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock et al. (US Publication No. 2025/0033517 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hancock, in view of Gantt et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0393259 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gantt.
Regarding claim 2, Hancock discloses:
The autonomous driving platform of claim 1 (see claim 1),
but Hancock does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is included in the vehicle.
However, Gantt teaches in [0004] According to one aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of managing electrical energy consumption and generation of a vehicle. Furthermore, [0057-58] teaches energy usage management including processors that are located on the vehicle that collect data and actuate control over the vehicle functions.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of energy management within an electric vehicle before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the energy management method of Hancock, by incorporating the vehicle energy management system teachings of Gantt, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of a vehicle’s processor onboarding the capabilities to manage its energy distribution more efficiently.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Gantt in [0003], this allows improved power management of a vehicle battery by integrating various sources of vehicle information in various ways to help promote more efficient power management of the vehicle battery and/or other power-related systems.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock et al. (US Publication No. 2025/0033517 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hancock, in view of Sowa et al. (US Publication No. 2023/0294544A1), hereinafter referred to as Sowa.
Regarding claim 4, Hancock discloses:
The autonomous driving platform of claim 1 (see claim 1),
but Hancock does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the amount of the energy management calculation performed by the at least one processor based further on a characteristic of the energy management calculation.
However, Sowa teaches in [0005] controller uses a battery life model to determine optimal battery setpoints that may be also adjusted based on the estimated amount of the battery degradation. This is construed as adjusting the system thresholds, which may be necessarily calculated, based on a characteristic of the energy management calculation of which the state of the battery is incorporated.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of energy management within an electric vehicle before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the energy management method of Hancock, by incorporating the battery life model teachings of Sowa, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of a vehicle’s processor managing its energy distribution more effectively.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Sowa in [0006], this allows optimized power generation and energy efficiency.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock et al. (US Publication No. 2025/0033517 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hancock, in view of Si et al. (US Publication No. 2025/0055289 A1), hereinafter referred to as Si.
Regarding claim 21, Hancock discloses:
The autonomous driving platform of claim 1 (see claim 1),
But Hancock does not disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to control operation of the battery according to the energy management result.
However, Si teaches in [0006] sentence 1 that provides an energy storage system, comprising: energy storage batteries interconnected and a communication link, where an energy storage battery is provided with a unique controller configured to control a corresponding energy storage battery to connect to or bypass from the energy storage system. Furthermore, the controller is configured to perform a balancing control method, where the controller is configured to obtain a first state value of the corresponding energy storage battery, send the first state value to another controllers based on the communication link, receive second state values sent by another controllers, and determine whether to connect the corresponding energy storage battery to the energy storage system or to bypass the corresponding energy storage battery from the energy storage system based on the first state value and second state values. This is construed as controlling the operation of the battery based off of state values, which may necessarily be calculations of the energy management system.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of energy management within an electric vehicle before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the energy management method of Hancock, by incorporating the battery energy management system teachings of Si, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of a vehicle’s processor managing its energy distribution more effectively.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Si in [0016], this allows improved availability of the energy storage system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, specifically from claim 5:
wherein the amount of the energy management calculation is determined as a ratio of processing cycles for each of a first portion of the energy management calculation and a second portion of the energy management calculation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please also see PTO Form-892 for
references cited regarding this application.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661