DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 1/17/2025, 1/18/2025, and again on 1/18/2025 have been acknowledged.
Office Note: Only a cursory review over the references was conducted due to the extremely large number of references included on the IDS and further zero rational as to why each reference was included (This part was left blank on ALL the IDS submissions). In view of the large number of references, the Examiner requests the Applicant to point out relevant sections of each listed IDS references to help further prosecution.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Russia on 10/3/20221.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Objection to Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. Applicant is reminded that the Abstract is required to clearly and concisely surmise applicants claimed subject matter in under 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Drawings
Figures 1-8 are objected to as they use a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawings/flow charts to represent items instead of the labels which actually make the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or the use of the specification to understand. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and metes and bounds of a claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot easily or clearly be derived without a specification or key or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished. Proper action is requested.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 11-30 are pending.
Claims 11, 16, 21, and 26 are the independent claims.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 11-30 are replete with terms which are not clear, concise, exact, and/or lack antecedent basis.
There are antecedent issues and variable names changes that are not consistent throughout the claims, making it difficult to understand the metes and bounds.
The claims should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Examples of unclear, indefinite, inexact or verbose terms used in the claims are listed below.
Office Note: This list is not exhaustive but exemplary in nature to demonstrate the replete issues with the current claim set that requires action for applicant. The Office suggests applicant going through all claims also, in case the Office missed any issues.
Claim 12 states “the first motor vehicle” yet no first motor vehicle has been introduced thus it becomes unclear if this is a new term, or term previously introduced, with antecedent issues, or a typo meaning “the second vehicle”. Later in Claim 12, after “the first motor vehicle” it states “a first motor vehicle”. It appears these are typos where the claims fail to properly introduce variables. As currently presented, Claim 12 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as “a first vehicle”, then later “the first vehicle”. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 21-25 states “the device comprising at least: a CPU” and the term “the device” is later stated throughout the claims. These claims are rejected for failing to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Is this “device” the driving device or “the computing device”? The Office is going to interpret this as “the computing device”. The Office suggests using the same variable names for each and every variable for clarity. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 11, 16, 21 and 26 states “generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” in the last limitation and it states “generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” in the preamble. Are these two limitation’s the same variable with antecedent issues, is this a new variable, or is this a mere typo? This become confusing when multiple tracks with multiple vehicles are being accounted for. As currently presented, Claims 11, 16, 21 and 26 fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office is going to introduce this as “the adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” after being properly introduced in the preamble. The Office again suggests using the same names for each and every variable for clarity. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 12-15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 states “generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” in the last limitation yet the limitation before states “a method for generating the first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” and are these the same variable with antecedent issues, is this a new variable, or is this a mere typo? As currently presented, Claims 12-15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office is going to introduce this as “the first energy-efficient track”. The Office again suggests using the same names for each and every variable for clarity. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 12-15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 state “a method for generating the first energy-efficient track” and this term has antecedent issues as a method was already introduced in Claim 11, 16, 21, and 26, in which Claims 12-15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 depends, thus this becomes unclear if this is a new method, or a new method within the method previously introduced. If this is the latter, which it appears to be, then when the claims later states “the method”, it becomes unclear what method is being referenced or addressed, or better yet, which method. As currently presented, Claims 12-25, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as “the method” with “further steps of the same method” or other language supported in the specification. The Office again suggests using the same names for each and every variable for clarity. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 11, 16, 21 and 26 states “and generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, based on an adjusted speed profile, adjusted energy-efficiency evaluation, and adjusted trajectory of the vehicle in operation, as well as the estimated speed profile and estimated trajectory of the second motor vehicle on the portion of the route” and the limitation is unclear thus indefinite. As currently presented, how is the adjustment of the energy-efficient track being generated? The limitation states it based on an adjusted speed profile, adjusted energy evaluation, yet these two variables appear to be black boxes with missing crucial steps. When the Office looks into the specification, step 2033 is where these values are calculated, but again, this step appears to be a black box and missing and steps or function, thus the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear thus indefinite. Further, this adjustment energy efficient track is based on an adjusted trajectory of the vehicle, and again, this value has not been calculated, nor is this value known thus what is actually required is unclear, or what is being carried out is unclear. Again, Claims 11, 16, 21 and 26 appear to be missing steps. As currently presented, Claims 11, 16, 21 and 26 fail to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. When the Office looked into the specification, these steps metes and bounds cannot be understood, thus the Office will interpret ANY adjustment of a current trajectory based on an estimated second vehicle speed and trajectory, as these are the only values understood. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 12-15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 state “a portion of the route” and this portion appears to be connected to the first vehicle, yet “a portion” was already introduced with the second vehicle and the vehicle in operation, thus is this the same portion, or a new portion with antecedent issues, or is this a typo? As currently presented Claims 12-15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as a new portion, however there is already a term for “the portion” associated with the second vehicle, thus each time “the portion” is stated, it becomes unclear what portion is being referenced, thus the metes and bounds become unclear, and indefinite. The Office suggests renaming the variables clearly, to be associated with what vehicle or what step for clarity. The Office is going to interpret there to be two portions of the road used for efficiency calculations. A first portion(section) associated with the first vehicle and a second portion(section) associated with the second vehicle. Appropriate action is required.
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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to an process (method). Therefore, Claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus (device). Therefore, Claim 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 21 is directed to an apparatus (vehicle). Therefore, Claim 21 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 26 is directed to an apparatus (medium). Therefore, Claim 26 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Claims 11, 16, 21, and 26 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 21 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 21 recites: A motor vehicle comprising at least a driving device and an engine that is connected to and actuates the driving device, and a motor vehicle control system that is adapted to control the engine of the motor vehicle, the system comprising at least: a computer device for generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for a vehicle in operation, the device comprising at least: a CPU; and a memory
that stores a program code that, when executed by the CPU of the device, induces the CPU to perform steps according to a method for generating an adjustment energy efficient track for a vehicle in operation,
the method comprising at least the following steps:
generating a first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation,
the track comprising a speed profile of the vehicle in operation and its trajectory on a portion of a route;
detecting a second motor vehicle located on the same portion of the route,
wherein the second motor vehicle is detected using environmental sensors of the vehicle in operation,
and generating a track for the second motor vehicle,
based at least on its estimated speed profile and estimated trajectory on the portion of the route;
and generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, based on an adjusted speed profile, adjusted energy-efficiency evaluation, and adjusted trajectory of the vehicle in operation, as well as the estimated speed profile and estimated trajectory of the second motor vehicle on the portion of the route.
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. Specifically, the “detecting” and “multiple generating” steps encompass a user to make gather information generate data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
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 “CPU of the computing device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “CPU” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the “detecting” and “multiple generating” steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the CPU is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a CPU. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of “detecting” and “generating” steps is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that the motor vehicle with an engine and multiple devices using a CPU, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a CPU to perform the process. In particular, the generating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of detecting data for use in the generating step), and amounts to mere data gathering analysis, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 CPU 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 (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 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 21 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 detecting and generating 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 the apparatus, the CPU amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of detecting and generating, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of detecting and generating data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 11, 16, and 26 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 12-15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 11, 16, 21, and 26.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with generated data. As currently presented, the claims are missing this final step of applying the generated adjusted trajectory to the vehicle. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 11-12, 16-17, 21-22, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Belapurkar et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0236959).
With respect to Claim 21: Belapurkar discloses “A motor vehicle comprising at least a driving device” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0031-0043 with Figure 1 (the autonomous vehicle 10 generally includes a propulsion system 20)];
“and an engine that is connected to and actuates the driving device” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0031-0043 with Figure 1 (the autonomous vehicle 10 generally includes a propulsion system 20, a transmission system 22)];
“and a motor vehicle control system that is adapted to control the engine of the motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0031-0043 with Figure 1 (the autonomous vehicle 10 generally includes a propulsion system 20, a transmission system 22, a steering system 24, a brake system 26, a sensor system 28, an actuator system 30, at least one data storage device 32, at least one controller 34, and a communication system 36)];
“the system comprising at least: a computer device for generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for a vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0031-0043 with Figure 1 (The controller 34 includes at least one processor 44 and a computer readable storage device or media 46)];
“the device comprising at least: a CPU” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0031-0043 with Figure 1 (The controller 34 includes at least one processor 44 and a computer readable storage device or media 46)];
“and a memory that stores a program code” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0031-0043 with Figure 1 (The controller 34 includes at least one processor 44 and a computer readable storage device or media 46)];
“that, when executed by the CPU of the device, induces the CPU to perform steps according to a method for generating an adjustment energy efficient track for a vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0031-0043 with Figure 1 (The controller 34 includes at least one processor 44 and a computer readable storage device or media 46)];
“the method comprising at least the following steps: generating a first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0062 (is configured to determine an initial range and/or an initial energy efficiency of the first vehicle)];
“the track comprising a speed profile of the vehicle in operation and its trajectory on a portion of a route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0053 and 0087 (The data access is exemplarily but not limited to a vehicle speed, available fuel/range ratio, an overview of pedal positions, an aerodynamic profile, an average energy consumption of a vehicle, an acceleration profile of a vehicle)];
“detecting a second motor vehicle located on the same portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 (the data processing unit 52b is configured to determine the second vehicle 10b based on a same or partially same itinerary within a predetermined timeframe)];
“wherein the second motor vehicle is detected using environmental sensors of the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 (data processing unit 52b is configured to compare the itinerary of all vehicles 10a-10n of the group of vehicles. The data processing unit 52b is configured to determine a second vehicle 10b to form a fleet with a first vehicle 10a from the group of vehicles)];
“and generating a track for the second motor vehicle based at least on its estimated speed profile and estimated trajectory on the portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0064 (the data processing unit 52b is configured to determine the second vehicle 10b based on a same or partially same itinerary within a predetermined timeframe)];
“and generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 (The fleet forming system 52 is configured to send instructions, (e.g., position in the fleet, vehicle speed, time for joining the fleet, etc.) to the autonomous driving system (ADS) 70 of each vehicle joining the fleet. As described with reference to FIG. 3, the ADS 70 controls each vehicle willing to join the fleet based on the received instructions from the fleet forming system 52. Alternatively, the fleet forming system 52 directly accesses the ADS 70 to control each individual vehicle to form the fleet)];
“based on an adjusted speed profile, adjusted energy-efficiency evaluation, and adjusted trajectory of the vehicle in operation, as well as the estimated speed profile and estimated trajectory of the second motor vehicle on the portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 (The fleet forming system 52 is configured to send instructions, (e.g., position in the fleet, vehicle speed, time for joining the fleet, etc.) to the autonomous driving system (ADS) 70 of each vehicle joining the fleet. As described with reference to FIG. 3, the ADS 70 controls each vehicle willing to join the fleet based on the received instructions from the fleet forming system 52. Alternatively, the fleet forming system 52 directly accesses the ADS 70 to control each individual vehicle to form the fleet)].
Office Note: The Office is interpreting the term “portion” as “section” for analysis and applying of prior art.
With respect to Claim 22: Belapurkar discloses “The vehicle of claim 21, characterized in that the first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated by means of the CPU of the device implementing a method for generating the first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0064 (if the initial range and/or initial energy efficiency of the first vehicle 10a is sufficient for reaching the destination of its itinerary, the data processing unit 52b is configured to calculate an individual energy consumption level for each vehicle for different positions in the fleet and to calculate a fleet average consumption level based on the individual energy consumption level for each vehicle. Further, the data processing unit 52b is configured to select the position of each vehicle based on the individual energy consumption level in relation to the fleet average consumption level)];
“the method comprising the following steps: collecting primary data that involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle data associated with a portion of a route to be passed by the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0016, 0056-0067 (the data processing unit 52b is configured to calculate a new range and/or a new energy efficiency for each one of the other vehicles for different positions of the first vehicle 10a in the fleet and to determine if the initial range and/or the initial energy efficiency of the first vehicle 10a is sufficient for reaching a destination of its itinerary) and (the data processing unit is configured to receive destination location, required arrival time, and/or vehicle profile for each vehicle and compare these data of each vehicle with each other. For example, this is done for comparing the itinerary of all vehicles of the group of vehicles)];
“and data associated with the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079];
“wherein the vehicle in operation passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the first and the last position may be less favorable in terms of aerodynamic conditions and therefore positions in the fleet where vehicles consume more energy. In addition, the system 52 can determine the type of vehicles in the fleet (e.g., a car or a truck). This may also have an influence on the positioning of the vehicles in the fleet as a vehicle positioned behind a truck gets a position with even better aerodynamic conditions)];
“collecting secondary data that involves generating a track of the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0090 (The energy cost may be calculated by the integral of several parameters, like a grade profile of the first vehicle on its route, a speed of the fleet the first vehicle joined, the acceleration profile of the first vehicle, the position of the first vehicle in the fleet (e.g., lead vehicle), etc. For assessing the value for the first vehicle joining a fleet and its potential position in the fleet, the system 52 calculates an overall value comparing the cost in a baseline configuration and the cost in a scenario configuration)];
“wherein the energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (he fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (he fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))].
With respect to Claims 11 and 12: all limitations have been examined with respect to the motor vehicle in Claims 21-22. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 11 and 12 can clearly perform on the motor vehicle of Claims 21-21. Therefore Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 16 and 17: all limitations have been examined with respect to the motor vehicle in Claims 21-22. The device taught/disclosed in Claims 16 and 17 can clearly perform on the motor vehicle of Claims 21-21. Therefore Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 26 and 27: all limitations have been examined with respect to the motor vehicle in Claims 21-21. The computer medium taught/disclosed in Claims 26 and 27 can clearly perform on the motor vehicle of Claims 21-22. Therefore Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under the same rationale.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 13-14, 18-19, 23-24, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Belapurkar et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0236959) in view of Barefoot et al. (United States Patent Publication 2009/0043439).
With respect to Claim 23: While Belapurkar discloses “The vehicle of claim 21, characterized in that the first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated by means of the CPU of the device implementing a method for generating the first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0064 (if the initial range and/or initial energy efficiency of the first vehicle 10a is sufficient for reaching the destination of its itinerary, the data processing unit 52b is configured to calculate an individual energy consumption level for each vehicle for different positions in the fleet and to calculate a fleet average consumption level based on the individual energy consumption level for each vehicle. Further, the data processing unit 52b is configured to select the position of each vehicle based on the individual energy consumption level in relation to the fleet average consumption level)];
“the method comprising the following steps: collecting primary data that involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle data associated with a portion of a route to be passed by the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0016, 0056-0067 (the data processing unit 52b is configured to calculate a new range and/or a new energy efficiency for each one of the other vehicles for different positions of the first vehicle 10a in the fleet and to determine if the initial range and/or the initial energy efficiency of the first vehicle 10a is sufficient for reaching a destination of its itinerary) and (the data processing unit is configured to receive destination location, required arrival time, and/or vehicle profile for each vehicle and compare these data of each vehicle with each other. For example, this is done for comparing the itinerary of all vehicles of the group of vehicles)];
“and data associated with the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079];
“wherein the vehicle in operation passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the first and the last position may be less favorable in terms of aerodynamic conditions and therefore positions in the fleet where vehicles consume more energy. In addition, the system 52 can determine the type of vehicles in the fleet (e.g., a car or a truck). This may also have an influence on the positioning of the vehicles in the fleet as a vehicle positioned behind a truck gets a position with even better aerodynamic conditions)];
“collecting secondary data that involves generating a track of the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0090 (The energy cost may be calculated by the integral of several parameters, like a grade profile of the first vehicle on its route, a speed of the fleet the first vehicle joined, the acceleration profile of the first vehicle, the position of the first vehicle in the fleet (e.g., lead vehicle), etc. For assessing the value for the first vehicle joining a fleet and its potential position in the fleet, the system 52 calculates an overall value comparing the cost in a baseline configuration and the cost in a scenario configuration)];
“wherein the energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (he fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (he fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“wherein when the first motor vehicle is passing through the portion of the route, its actual speed profile is determined in at least one moment in time” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0087 (The fleet forming system 52 is configured to access, illustrated by block 510, the destination location, the required arrival time, sensor data and vehicle profile. This may be a temporary trip-specific permission. The data access is exemplarily but not limited to a vehicle speed, available fuel/range ratio, an overview of pedal positions, an aerodynamic profile, an average energy consumption of a vehicle, an acceleration profile of a vehicle)];
“and the energy consumption control signal for the first motor vehicle is a signal for a motion control system of the first motor vehicle and/or an on-board information system of the first motor vehicle, and this signal is a signal to decrease or increase wheel speed of at least one wheel of the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0062 and 0087 (the fleet forming system 52 is configured to send instructions, (e.g., position in the fleet, vehicle speed, time for joining the fleet, etc.) to the autonomous driving system (ADS) 70 of each vehicle joining the fleet. As described with reference to FIG. 3, the ADS 70 controls each vehicle willing to join the fleet based on the received instructions from the fleet forming system 52. Alternatively, the fleet forming system 52 directly accesses the ADS 70 to control each individual vehicle to form the fleet.)];
Belapurkar does not specifically state controlling the first vehicle based on a difference between estimated and actual vehicle speed.
Barefoot, which is in the same field of on endeavor of fleet vehicle control teaches “and when the actual speed profile of the first motor vehicle deviates from its estimated speed profile, which is a part of said track for the first motor vehicle, an energy consumption control signal is generated for the first motor vehicle; and the energy consumption control signal for the first motor vehicle is a signal for a motion control system of the first motor vehicle and/or an on-board information system of the first motor vehicle, and this signal is a signal to decrease or increase wheel speed of at least one wheel of the first motor vehicle” [Barefoot, ¶ 0014, 0083, and 0089 (The drive control method compares the actual speed to the desired speed and adjusts the drive commands sent to the vehicle so as to make the difference between the actual and desired speeds as small as possible)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Barefoot into the invention of Belapurkar to include data in controlling vehicles efficiency, such as speed and time, in fleets of vehicles as Belapurkar discloses but to also control vehicles speed when their estimated speed does not match their actual speed as taught by Barefoot with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Barefoot into Belapurkar to create a more robust system that better control vehicles, thus increasing desired efficiency by “making the differences as small as possible” [Barefoot, ¶ 0089] and lowering control costs [Barefoot, ¶ 0100]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control in fleets for efficiency and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 24: While Belapurkar discloses “The vehicle of claim 21, characterized in that the first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated by means of the CPU of the device implementing a method for generating the first energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0064 (if the initial range and/or initial energy efficiency of the first vehicle 10a is sufficient for reaching the destination of its itinerary, the data processing unit 52b is configured to calculate an individual energy consumption level for each vehicle for different positions in the fleet and to calculate a fleet average consumption level based on the individual energy consumption level for each vehicle. Further, the data processing unit 52b is configured to select the position of each vehicle based on the individual energy consumption level in relation to the fleet average consumption level)];
“the method comprising the following steps: collecting primary data that involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle data associated with a portion of a route to be passed by the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0016, 0056-0067 (the data processing unit 52b is configured to calculate a new range and/or a new energy efficiency for each one of the other vehicles for different positions of the first vehicle 10a in the fleet and to determine if the initial range and/or the initial energy efficiency of the first vehicle 10a is sufficient for reaching a destination of its itinerary) and (the data processing unit is configured to receive destination location, required arrival time, and/or vehicle profile for each vehicle and compare these data of each vehicle with each other. For example, this is done for comparing the itinerary of all vehicles of the group of vehicles)];
“and data associated with the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079];
“wherein the vehicle in operation passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the first and the last position may be less favorable in terms of aerodynamic conditions and therefore positions in the fleet where vehicles consume more energy. In addition, the system 52 can determine the type of vehicles in the fleet (e.g., a car or a truck). This may also have an influence on the positioning of the vehicles in the fleet as a vehicle positioned behind a truck gets a position with even better aerodynamic conditions)];
“collecting secondary data that involves generating a track of the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0090 (The energy cost may be calculated by the integral of several parameters, like a grade profile of the first vehicle on its route, a speed of the fleet the first vehicle joined, the acceleration profile of the first vehicle, the position of the first vehicle in the fleet (e.g., lead vehicle), etc. For assessing the value for the first vehicle joining a fleet and its potential position in the fleet, the system 52 calculates an overall value comparing the cost in a baseline configuration and the cost in a scenario configuration)];
“wherein the energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (the fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (he fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0056-0067 and 0077-0079 (he fleet forming system 52 assembles at block 412 the data of the vehicles (e.g., the time and energy value) of each vehicle on the road. The fleet forming system 52 then optimizes, at block 414, the positions of the vehicles in the fleet (fleet configuration), travel paths, and vehicle speeds to maximize value or minimize cost. The fleet forming system 52 has information about an energy infrastructure, i.e., fuel/charge locations, fuel/charge times, usage predictions. In addition, the fleet forming system 52 has knowledge about roadways, i.e., allowable travel speeds, slopes/grades, signal/stops, parking. Further, the fleet forming system 52 is adapted to determine when a vehicle is changing a fleet, or when a vehicle joins and leaves the fleet. In a further embodiment, the vehicle is adapted to continuously scan and interface with other vehicles or the coordination system (fleet forming system))];
“wherein when the vehicle in operation is passing through the portion of the route, its actual speed profile is determined in at least one moment in time” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0087 (The fleet forming system 52 is configured to access, illustrated by block 510, the destination location, the required arrival time, sensor data and vehicle profile. This may be a temporary trip-specific permission. The data access is exemplarily but not limited to a vehicle speed, available fuel/range ratio, an overview of pedal positions, an aerodynamic profile, an average energy consumption of a vehicle, an acceleration profile of a vehicle)];
“and the energy consumption control signal for the vehicle in operation is a signal for a motion control system of the vehicle in operation and/or an on-board information system of the vehicle in operation, and this signal is a signal to decrease or increase wheel speed of at least one wheel of the vehicle in operation” [Belapurkar, ¶ 0062 and 0087 (the fleet forming system 52 is configured to send instructions, (e.g., position in the fleet, vehicle speed, time for joining the fleet, etc.) to the autonomous driving system (ADS) 70 of each vehicle joining the fleet. As described with reference to FIG. 3, the ADS 70 controls each vehicle willing to join the fleet based on the received instructions from the fleet forming system 52. Alternatively, the fleet forming system 52 directly accesses the ADS 70 to control each individual vehicle to form the fleet.)];
Belapurkar does not specifically state controlling the vehicle in operation based on a difference between estimated and actual vehicle speed.
Barefoot, which is in the same field of on endeavor of fleet vehicle control teaches “and when the actual speed profile of the vehicle in operation deviates from its estimated speed profile, which is a part of said track for the vehicle in operation, an energy consumption control signal is generated for the vehicle in operation; and the energy consumption control signal for the vehicle in operation is a signal for a motion control system of the vehicle in operation and/or an on-board information system of the vehicle in operation, and this signal is a signal to decrease or increase wheel speed of at least one wheel of the vehicle in operation” [Barefoot, ¶ 0014, 0083, and 0089 (The drive control method compares the actual speed to the desired speed and adjusts the drive commands sent to the vehicle so as to make the difference between the actual and desired speeds as small as possible)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Barefoot into the invention of Belapurkar to include data in controlling vehicles efficiency, such as speed and time, in fleets of vehicles as Belapurkar discloses but to also control vehicles speed when their estimated speed does not match their actual speed as taught by Barefoot with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Barefoot into Belapurkar to create a more robust system that better control vehicles, thus increasing desired efficiency by “making the differences as small as possible” [Barefoot, ¶ 0089] and lowering control costs [Barefoot, ¶ 0100]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control in fleets for efficiency and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 13 and 14: all limitations have been examined with respect to the motor vehicle in Claims 23-24. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 13 and 14 can clearly perform on the motor vehicle of Claims 23-24. Therefore Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 18 and 19: all limitations have been examined with respect to the motor vehicle in Claims 23-24. The device taught/disclosed in Claims 18 and 19 can clearly perform on the motor vehicle of Claims 23-24. Therefore Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 28 and 29: all limitations have been examined with respect to the motor vehicle in Claims 23-24. The computer medium taught/disclosed in Claims 28 and 29 can clearly perform on the motor vehicle of Claims 23-24. Therefore Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c