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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 06/05/2024, and 10/02/2024. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 04/17/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 03/11/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 20 have typographical errors that need to be corrected. The acronym “AI” is not spelled out within any of the claims and must be defined, (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI)).
Office suggests review of all claims to determine if there are similar errors as listed above. The list above is exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea in the form of “monitoring an electrically operated work vehicle,” “ascertaining average energy consumption,” and “estimating total energy requirement… that needs to be reserved.”
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claim 1 falls into at least one of the statutory categories; namely, a method and a system (apparatus).
Proceeding to eligibility step 2, prong I, the limitations of “monitoring an electrically operated work vehicle,” “ascertaining average energy consumption,” and “estimating total energy requirement to be reserved,” of a covered route between a start position of the work vehicle, and a current operating position, which differs from the start position, of the work vehicle, including its altitude profile, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a control unit,” (e.g. a computing device), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or falls under mathematical concepts. For example, but for the “by a control unit,” language, “monitoring an electrically operated work vehicle,” “ascertaining average energy consumption,” and “estimating total energy requirement to be reserved,” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually steps of making a decision about the covered route, for a vehicle. For example, but for the “by a computing device” language, “monitoring an electrically operated work vehicle,” “ascertaining average energy consumption,” and “estimating total energy requirement to be reserved,” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking about and generating decisions the about the covered route, for a vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, prong II, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device to perform “monitoring an electrically operated work vehicle,” “ascertaining average energy consumption,” and “estimating total energy requirement to be reserved (something that can be performed with pen and paper), are comparing, analyzing steps. The processor (i.e. control unit) in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of “monitoring an electrically operated work vehicle,” “ascertaining average energy consumption,” and “estimating total energy requirement to be reserved,” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims disclose “monitoring an electrically operated work vehicle,” “ascertaining average energy consumption,” and “estimating total energy requirement to be reserved, and outputting information via a user interface, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Proceeding to eligibility step 2B, claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform “monitoring an electrically operated work vehicle,” “ascertaining average energy consumption,” and “estimating total energy requirement to be reserved steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e. control unit). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of “recording via a control unit the covered route of the work vehicle,” and “outputting via the control unit… energy requirement and energy reserve information of the work vehicle,” are insignificant extra solution activity and amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer which do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, and 12-20, 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 1, and 11.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle based upon “estimated total energy requirement to be reserved.” 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAFT et al., US 20220185317, herein further known as Kraft, in view of GASPARD-BOULINC et al., US 20180188051, herein further known as Gaspard, further in view of BOURY et al., WO 2019175485, herein further known as Boury.
Regarding claim 1, Kraft discloses dynamic charge status monitoring (¶¶ [0095], [0098], [0100], [0111], see also FIG. 8) for an electrically operated work vehicle (¶¶ [0010], [0030], see also FIG. 1A), which comprises a drive system (¶¶ [0033-0035]) having an electrical energy store (¶ [0017], FIGS. 6-7) which can be charged at a charging station (¶¶ [0028-0029], [0056], [0063], base station), comprising: recording via a control unit (¶¶ [0029], [0036]), [0041-0055]) a covered route between a start position of the work vehicle at the site of the charging station and a current operating position, which differs from the start position, of the work vehicle (¶¶ [0028], [0056-0058], [0077]),(¶¶ [0029], [0036]), [0041-0055]) an average energy consumption of the work vehicle along the covered route (¶¶ [0064-0066], [0071-0072]), energy consumed per unit distance; updated on a daily or weekly basis); estimating via the control unit a total energy requirement of the work vehicle (¶¶ [0058], estimate travel energy threshold) that needs to be reserved for returning from the current operating position to the start position along one of the covered route and a return route derived therefrom based on the covered route and the average energy consumption (¶¶ [0058-0066], compare the remaining battery energy to the threshold).
However, Kraft does not explicitly teach route including its altitude profile; outputting via the control unit the estimated total energy requirement of the work vehicle that needs to be reserved as energy reserve information via a user interface.
Gaspard teaches route including its altitude profile (¶¶ [0014], [0025], [0052], parameters impacting energy, variation in altitude of the vehicle; route profile, route altitude variation).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the route including its altitude profile as taught by Gaspard.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Gaspard for the reasons stated in Gaspard paragraph [0149], more robust methods and systems wherein planning and optimization capability of an automotive vehicle energy management system may be greatly improved.
Furthermore, Boury teaches outputting via the control unit the estimated total energy requirement of the work vehicle that needs to be reserved as energy reserve information via a user interface (page 3, vehicle energy reserve information for example, voltage of a battery, page 4, rectangular touch screen 10, provided with two end zones 11 and 12 and a central zone 13, display autonomy value of vehicle… on the basis of the energy reserve information, page 5, vehicle energy reserve information, display it in the central area 13 of the touch screen 10).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the outputting via the control unit the estimated total energy requirement of the work vehicle that needs to be reserved as energy reserve information via a user interface as taught by Boury.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Boury for the reasons stated in Boury, page 6, more robust methods and systems which estimate with improved reliability the value of autonomy of a vehicle and to further improve the reliability of the estimated range displayed.
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 1. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, and Boury, further in view of INOUE et al., US 9745723, herein further known as Inoue.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, and Boury disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Kraft discloses control unit output (¶¶ [0029], [0036]), [0041-0055]).
However, Kraft does not explicitly state the energy reserve information via the user interface as remaining work time based on a comparison of the estimated total energy requirement that needs to be reserved and the current energy consumption of the work vehicle as well as the current charge status of the electrical energy store.
Inoue teaches the energy reserve information via the user interface as remaining work time based on a comparison of the estimated total energy requirement that needs to be reserved and the current energy consumption of the work vehicle as well as the current charge status of the electrical energy store (column 10, line 14 through column 12, line 20, column 17, lines 10-25, a display screen… remaining power amount display 96 is a portion wherein remaining power amount of the battery pack 18 is displayed (i.e. current charge status), and a remaining working time display unit 97 is a portion that displays the remaining operation time [h] when the hydraulic excavator is operated with the average power [W] determined, remaining power amount is displayed as a meter, the remaining operation time may be displayed as a meter, remaining power amount display part 96A and the remaining working time display part 97 A are parts for displaying the remaining power amount and the remaining working time, see also claims 1-3).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the energy reserve information via the user interface as remaining work time based on a comparison of the estimated total energy requirement that needs to be reserved and the current energy consumption of the work vehicle as well as the current charge status of the electrical energy store as taught by Inoue.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Inoue for the reasons stated in Inoue column 2, line 21, and column 13, lines 61-65, more robust methods and systems with a view to improving safety, and a view to improving the visibility of the remaining electric power and remaining operation hours.
Furthermore, Inoue teaches charge status monitoring (column 4, line 41-54), an electrically operated work vehicle (claims 1-3, construction machine), comprising a drive system (column 3, line 48, through column 4, line 20, see also FIG. 1) having an electrical energy store (claims 1-3, battery, (e.g. battery pack 18)), a control unit (claims 1-3, battery controller, main controller, controller), ascertaining via the control unit an average energy consumption (column 11, line 50, through column 12, line 20, column 14 line 31 through column 15, line 10, see equations/calculations using average power).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the charge status monitoring, an electrically operated work vehicle comprising a drive system having an electrical energy store, a control unit, and ascertaining via the control unit an average energy consumption as taught by Inoue.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Inoue for the reasons stated in Inoue column 2, line 21, and column 13, lines 61-65, more robust methods and systems with a view to improving safety, and a view to improving the visibility of the remaining electric power and remaining operation hours.
Furthermore, Boury teaches energy reserve information via the user interface (page 3, vehicle energy reserve information for example, voltage of a battery, page 4, rectangular touch screen 10, provided with two end zones 11 and 12 and a central zone 13, display autonomy value of vehicle… on the basis of the energy reserve information, page 5, vehicle energy reserve information, display it in the central area 13 of the touch screen 10).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the energy reserve information via the user interface as taught by Boury.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Boury for the reasons stated in Boury, page 6, more robust methods and systems which estimate with improved reliability the value of autonomy of a vehicle and to further improve the reliability of the estimated range displayed.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 2. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform the methods of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, and Boury, further in view of ZHAO et al., CN 112389440, herein further known as Zhao.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, and Boury disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Kraft discloses control unit (¶¶ [0029], [0036]), [0041-0055]), average energy consumption along the covered route (¶¶ [0064-0066], [0071-0072]), energy consumed per unit distance; updated on a daily or weekly basis).
However, Kraft does not explicitly state according to one or more characteristic parameters for the operation of the work vehicle
Zhao teaches according to one or more characteristic parameters for the operation of the work vehicle (page 2, mechanical characteristic is complex and variable; analysis based on sensing information of different driving, operation of the vehicle will affect the driving property, page 5, step five, performing mechanical characteristic estimation)
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft according to one or more characteristic parameters for the operation of the work vehicle as taught by Zhao.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Zhao for the reasons stated in Zhao page 2, more robust methods and systems including travelling prediction technology for off-road scene crucial for realizing intelligent automobile technology in off-road environment to reduce inappropriate driving mode generated in the process which may cause vehicle passing failure even causing vehicle collision and safety problems.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
Kraft discloses control unit (¶¶ [0029], [0036]), [0041-0055])
However, Kraft does not explicitly state characteristic parameters relate to one or more of a road surface and a ground type determination.
Zhao teaches characteristic parameters relate to one or more of a road surface and a ground type determination (page 2, driving advice for human driver in the off-road running environment, off-road road parameter (i.e. ground type determination), mechanical characteristic is complex and variable; the vehicle road action, analysis based on sensing information of different driving, operation of the vehicle will affect the driving property, page 5, step five, performing ground mechanical characteristic estimation…, page 9-10, second solution for realizing the ground type identification…).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the characteristic parameters relate to one or more of a road surface and a ground type determination as taught by Zhao.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Zhao for the reasons stated in Zhao page 2, more robust methods and systems including travelling prediction technology for off-road scene crucial for realizing intelligent automobile technology in off-road environment to reduce inappropriate driving mode generated in the process which may cause vehicle passing failure even causing vehicle collision and safety problems.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
However, Kraft does not explicitly state characteristic parameters relate to a detected operation.
Gaspard teaches characteristic parameters relate to a detected operation (¶¶ [0014], [0020], estimates of the parameters impacting energy consumption, [0025], vary a number of parameters, [0068], [0076], change commands (i.e. characteristic parameters), while the vehicle is in operation (i.e. detected operation)) .
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the characteristic parameters relate to a detected operation as taught by Gaspard.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Gaspard for the reasons stated in Gaspard paragraph [0149], more robust methods and systems wherein planning and optimization capability of an automotive vehicle energy management system may be greatly improved.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
However, Kraft does not explicitly state characteristic parameters relate to a determined surrounding temperature.
Gaspard teaches characteristic parameters relate to a determined surrounding temperature (¶¶ [0152], [0153]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the characteristic parameters relate to a determined surrounding temperature as taught by Gaspard.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Gaspard for the reasons stated in Gaspard paragraph [0149], more robust methods and systems wherein planning and optimization capability of an automotive vehicle energy management system may be greatly improved.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
Kraft discloses estimated total energy requirement of the work vehicle (¶¶ [0058], estimate travel energy threshold), is stored by control unit (¶¶ [0029], [0036]), [0041-0055]), along with the covered route (¶¶ [0028], [0056-0058], [0077]).
However, Kraft does not explicitly state the characteristic parameters.
Zhao teaches characteristic parameters (page 2, mechanical characteristic is complex and variable; analysis based on sensing information of different driving, operation of the vehicle will affect the driving property, page 5, step five, performing mechanical characteristic estimation).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft characteristic parameters as taught by Zhao.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Zhao for the reasons stated in Zhao page 2, more robust methods and systems including travelling prediction technology for off-road scene crucial for realizing intelligent automobile technology in off-road environment to reduce inappropriate driving mode generated in the process which may cause vehicle passing failure even causing vehicle collision and safety problems.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 3. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 4. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform the methods of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 6. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 16 can clearly perform the methods of claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 7. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 17 can clearly perform the methods of claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 9. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 19 can clearly perform the methods of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao further in view of FUKUNAGA et al., US 20190122454, herein further known as Fukunaga.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
However, Kraft does not explicitly state characteristic parameters relate to a type of work process.
Fukunaga teaches characteristic parameters relate to a type of work process (¶¶ [0038], 0041], [0047], [0060-0061]), consumption amount is calculated, based on the work history for the work type in the work site).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the characteristic parameters relate to a type of work process as taught by Fukunaga.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Fukunaga for the reasons stated in Fukunaga paragraph [0013], [0019] more robust methods and systems so that efficiency of resource replenishment work is improved and work efficiency will be improved.
Regarding claim 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 5. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 15 can clearly perform the methods of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao further in view of KLEMENT et al., DE 102022118589, herein further known as Klement.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
However, Kraft does not explicitly state characteristic parameters relate to one or more of energy which is to be used due to an uphill and energy which can be recovered due to a downhill gradient.
Klement teaches characteristic parameters relate to one or more of energy which is to be used due to an uphill and energy which can be recovered due to a downhill gradient (page 9, Road conditions can have a major impact on vehicle energy consumption, energy consumption increases on road sections that lead uphill, whereas a positive effect on consumption can be achieved when driving downhill through recuperation).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the characteristic parameters relate to one or more of energy which is to be used due to an uphill and energy which can be recovered due to a downhill gradient as taught by Klement.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Klement for the reasons stated in Klement page 2, more robust methods and systems to improve one or more of the efficiency, effectiveness, and accuracy of predicting a vehicle's energy consumption for its travel along a defined route.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 8. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform the methods of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, Zhao, Fukunaga, Klement further in view of DAYAL et al., US 20220363140, herein further known as Dayal.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kraft, Gaspard, Boury, and Zhao disclose all elements of claim 9 above.
Kraft discloses control unit (¶¶ [0029], [0036]), [0041-0055]).
However, Kraft does not explicitly state data gaps in terms of the characteristic parameters are inferred through approximation, for example using an AI process.
Dayal teaches data gaps in terms of the characteristic parameters are inferred through approximation, for example using an AI process (¶¶ [0022], use of machine learning algorithms (i.e. AI process)… provides methods for data gap filling, [0038], [0041], [0054], [0058], describe vehicle operation parameters, and inferring for example fuel consumed by the vehicle for certain ranges of speeds).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the data gaps in terms of the characteristic parameters are inferred through approximation, for example using an AI process as taught by Dayal.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Dayal for the reasons stated in Dayal paragraphs [0002-0003], more robust methods and systems for efficient and seamless management of energy consumption and improve accessible daily operational data, particularly battery status in real-time.
Furthermore, Zhao teaches characteristic parameters (page 2, mechanical characteristic is complex and variable; analysis based on sensing information of different driving, operation of the vehicle will affect the driving property, page 5, step five, performing mechanical characteristic estimation).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft characteristic parameters as taught by Zhao.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Zhao for the reasons stated in Zhao page 2, more robust methods and systems including travelling prediction technology for off-road scene crucial for realizing intelligent automobile technology in off-road environment to reduce inappropriate driving mode generated in the process which may cause vehicle passing failure even causing vehicle collision and safety problems.
Furthermore, Fukunaga teaches characteristic parameters (¶¶ [0038], 0041], [0047], [0060-0061]), consumption amount is calculated, based on the work history for the work type in the work site).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the characteristic parameters relate to a type of work process as taught by Fukunaga.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Fukunaga for the reasons stated in Fukunaga paragraph [0013], [0019] more robust methods and systems so that efficiency of resource replenishment work is improved and work efficiency will be improved.
Furthermore, Klement teaches characteristic parameters (page 9, Road conditions can have a major impact on vehicle energy consumption, energy consumption increases on road sections that lead uphill, whereas a positive effect on consumption can be achieved when driving downhill through recuperation).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate into Kraft the characteristic parameters relate to one or more of energy which is to be used due to an uphill and energy which can be recovered due to a downhill gradient as taught by Klement.
One would be motivated to modify Kraft in view of Klement for the reasons stated in Klement page 2, more robust methods and systems to improve one or more of the efficiency, effectiveness, and accuracy of predicting a vehicle's energy consumption for its travel along a defined route.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the methods in claim 10. The system apparatuses taught/disclosed in claim 20 can clearly perform the methods of claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights