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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 20 January 2026. Claims 11-30 are examined and pending. Claims 11-30 are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the drawings objection(s) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant did not provide corrected drawing. As such, the objection has is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more on pages 23-25 have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route, wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a CPU”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as movement times of vehicles and vehicles mandatory stops at portion(s) of the route could evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route, wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time. The mere nominal recitation of “a CPU” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps.
The additional limitations of collecting primary data, which involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle; data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with a second motor vehicle, wherein a second motor vehicle is also the vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle, wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point; wherein the data associated with the first motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the first motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the first motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the first motor vehicle before a mandatory stop; and wherein the data associated with the second motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the second motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the second motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the second motor vehicle before a mandatory stop; collecting secondary data, which involves generating a track for the first motor vehicle, wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route, and wherein the first motor vehicle stops for a given period of time while moving along a portion of the route and passing the mandatory stop point; generating an estimated track for the second motor vehicle, wherein said estimated track is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle; 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; a CPU computer device, a memory that stores a program code, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (vehicles movements, mandatory stopping portions of routs, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a CPU computer device, a memory that stores a program code, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the collecting and generating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No). As such, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on page 28 of the remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argue neither Papajewski nor Naserian discloses a mandatory stop point. Naserian relates to stopping at traffic signals, see, e.g., Naserian at [0005]: "The host vehicle also includes a controller programmed to receive data from a traffic device indicative of an upcoming traffic signal state. The controller is also programmed to calculate a duration of the host vehicle at a stop location based on the upcoming traffic signal state." Such stops are not mandatory; instead, the necessity of a stop depends on the state of the traffic signal. As such, Naserian does not disclose "mandatory stop points.".
Examiner have considered the arguments and respectfully disagree. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant appears to emphasize that a mandatory stop should not be interpreted or does not encompass an upcoming traffic signal stop. The claim does not provide a specific definition/interpretation or boundaries to what a mandatory stop should be defined/interpreted or bounded by. Therefore, state of the traffic signal could be a mandatory stop (i.e., red light state) and therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Naserian teaches a mandatory stop point.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show steps or information as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 1-10 are not labeled with any information aside from part numbers. These figures provide no information when considered apart from the specification, and do not provide information. Flow charts or method charts in particular provide zero information when they only have a step number inside the box. The drawings that provide steps or method steps require to have the steps described in the box (as opposed to the number “301”) such that the drawings will provide information about what the invention is trying to explain without having to cross reference the specification.
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 not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route, wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a CPU”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as movement times of vehicles and vehicles mandatory stops at portion(s) of the route could evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route, wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time. The mere nominal recitation of “a CPU” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of collecting primary data, which involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle; data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with a second motor vehicle, wherein a second motor vehicle is also the vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle, wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point; wherein the data associated with the first motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the first motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the first motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the first motor vehicle before a mandatory stop; and wherein the data associated with the second motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the second motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the second motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the second motor vehicle before a mandatory stop; collecting secondary data, which involves generating a track for the first motor vehicle, wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route, and wherein the first motor vehicle stops for a given period of time while moving along a portion of the route and passing the mandatory stop point; generating an estimated track for the second motor vehicle, wherein said estimated track is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle; 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; a CPU computer device, a memory that stores a program code, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (vehicles movements, mandatory stopping portions of routs, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a CPU computer device, a memory that stores a program code, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the collecting and generating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 12-15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-30 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp
Applicant claims 11-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-31 of copending Application No. 18/580,536. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-30 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 11-31 of 18/580,536 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s).
Applicant claims 11-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-31 of copending Application No. 18/699,875. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-30 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 12-31 of 18/699,875 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s).
Applicant claims 11-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-31 of copending Application No. 18/712,238. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-30 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 12-31 of 18/712,238 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s). Applicant claims 11-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-39 of copending Application No. 18/691,453. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-30 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 21-39 of 18/691,453 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s).
Applicant claims 11-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-28 of copending Application No. 18/691,003. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-30 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 11-28 of 18/691,003 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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.
Claims 11-14, 16-19, 21-24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papajewski et al (US 20130261970 A1) in view of Naserian et al (US 20180215386 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Papajewski discloses a method for generating an energy-efficient track for a vehicle in operation moving along a portion of a route that contains a mandatory stop point, that is performed by a CPU of a computer device (see at least [abstract]), the method comprising at least the following steps: collecting primary data, which involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle; data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle (see at least [0019-0021] and [0038-0048]), and data associated with a second motor vehicle, wherein a second motor vehicle is also the vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle (see at least [0019-0023] and [0035-0048]), wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the portion of the roue (see at least [0019-0023] and [0035-0048]); wherein the data associated with the first motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the first motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the first motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the first motor vehicle before a portion of a route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); and wherein the data associated with the second motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the second motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the second motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the second motor vehicle before the portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); collecting secondary data, which involves generating a track for the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), and wherein the first motor vehicle stops for a given period of time while moving along a portion of the route and passing the portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); generating an estimated track for the second motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein said estimated track is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); 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 (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), and evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
However, Papajewski do not specifically disclose wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point; wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stopping point of the route for a given period of time.
Naserian teaches wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point (see at least [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]); wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stopping point of the route for a given period of time (see at least [0018-0019], [0028], [0031-0032], [0043], and [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Papajewski, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Naserian wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point; wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stopping point of the route for a given period of time. This would be done to increase efficiency of a vehicle and optimize is propulsion system (see Naserian para 0002).
With respect to claim 12, Papajewski discloses characterized in that the data associated with the second motor vehicle additionally include a first energy-efficient track for the second vehicle which is generated by means of a CPU of a computer device implementing a method for generating the first energy-efficient track for the second vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), the method comprising the following steps: collecting primary data that involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), data associated with a portion of a route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with the second vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein the second vehicle passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); collecting secondary data that involves generating a track of the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route; generating an energy-efficient track for the second vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein the energy-efficient track for the second vehicle is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); 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 (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
Papajewski do not specifically disclose evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route.
Naserian teaches evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route (see at least [0018-0019], [0028], [0031-0032], [0043], and [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Papajewski, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Naserian of evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route. This would be done to increase efficiency of a vehicle and optimize is propulsion system (see Naserian para 0002).
With respect to claim 13, Papajewski discloses Papajewski do not specifically 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, 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.
Naserian teaches 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 (see at least [0018-0019], [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]), 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 (see at least [0018-0019], [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]); 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 (see at least [0018-0019], [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]), and this signal is a signal to decrease or increase wheel speed of at least one wheel of the first motor vehicle (see at least [0018-0019], [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Papajewski, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Naserian 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, 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. This would be done to increase efficiency of a vehicle and optimize is propulsion system (see Naserian para 0002).
With respect to claim 14, Papajewski discloses Papajewski do not specifically disclose wherein when the second vehicle is passing the portion of the route that has been passed by the first motor vehicle, its actual speed profile is determined in at least one moment in time, and when the actual speed profile of the second vehicle deviates from its estimated speed profile, which is a part of the estimated track for the second vehicle, an energy consumption control signal is generated for the second vehicle; and the energy consumption control signal for the second vehicle is a signal for a motion control system of the second vehicle and/or an on-board information system of the second vehicle, and this signal is a signal to decrease or increase wheel speed of at least one wheel of the second vehicle.
Naserian teaches wherein when the second vehicle is passing the portion of the route that has been passed by the first motor vehicle, its actual speed profile is determined in at least one moment in time, and when the actual speed profile of the second vehicle deviates from its estimated speed profile, which is a part of the estimated track for the second vehicle, an energy consumption control signal is generated for the second vehicle (see at least [0018-0019], [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]); and the energy consumption control signal for the second vehicle is a signal for a motion control system of the second vehicle and/or an on-board information system of the second vehicle (see at least [0018-0019], [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]), and this signal is a signal to decrease or increase wheel speed of at least one wheel of the second vehicle (see at least [0018-0019], [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Papajewski, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Naserian wherein when the second vehicle is passing the portion of the route that has been passed by the first motor vehicle, its actual speed profile is determined in at least one moment in time, and when the actual speed profile of the second vehicle deviates from its estimated speed profile, which is a part of the estimated track for the second vehicle, an energy consumption control signal is generated for the second vehicle; and the energy consumption control signal for the second vehicle is a signal for a motion control system of the second vehicle and/or an on-board information system of the second vehicle, and this signal is a signal to decrease or increase wheel speed of at least one wheel of the second vehicle. This would be done to increase efficiency of a vehicle and optimize its propulsion system (see Naserian para 0002).
With respect to claims 16, 17, 18, and 19, they are computer device claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 11, 12, 13, and 14. As such, claims 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 21, 22, 23, and 24, they are motor vehicle claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 11, 12, 13, and 14. As such, claims 21, 22, 23, and 24 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 26, 17, 28, and 29, they are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 11, 12, 13, and 14. As such, claims 26, 27, 28, and 29 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 and are incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 20, 25, and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 35 USC 101, and double patenting, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667