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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed 11/25/2025. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1-9, 11-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/2025, pg(s). 10-15, with respect to the prior art rejections to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20250128709 A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US 20230166601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches A method, comprising:
receiving driving range optimization settings for an electric vehicle (“S901: Determine that a vehicle enters a first mode, where a speed limit value of the vehicle in the first mode is a speed limit value 1.”, [0199], “the first mode may be an ECO mode or a power-saving mode.”, [0162]);
collecting vehicle data corresponding to a driving state of the electric vehicle (see “state of charge”, [0202] citation below);
determining an estimated driving range (“range 1”, [0230]) based on the vehicle data (“S902: Determine a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1.”, [0201], “the determining a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1 includes determining the range 1 based on the state of charge, the speed limit value 1, and historical energy consumption information.”, [0202], “In the foregoing mode 1, the range 1 may be understood as a maximum mileage that the vehicle may travel in the mode 1”, [0230], Fig. 9B);
determining a vehicle driving state adjustment (“speed limit value”, [0235]) that extends the estimated driving range to an adjusted driving range (“range 2”, [0235]) (“S910: When the range 1 is less than or equal to the first distance, adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to the speed limit value 6.”, [0235], “after the speed limit value of the vehicle is adjusted to the speed limit value 6, the vehicle may obtain the target mileage 2 in real time, and compare the target mileage 2 with the range determined based on the state of charge and the speed limit value 6.”, [0245], “the range 2 may be determined based on the state of charge and the speed limit value 6.”, [0246]);
determining that the adjusted driving range satisfies a threshold (“S912: Determine whether the range 2 is greater than a second distance.”, [0249]);
based on the determination that the adjusted driving range satisfies the threshold, selecting, based on the driving range optimization settings, a first implementation method (“S914”, Fig. 9B) for the vehicle driving state adjustment (“S914: If the speed limit value is not adjusted to the minimum speed limit value, the vehicle may continue to adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to a speed limit value 7, where the speed limit value 7 is less than or equal to the speed limit value 6.”, [0258]), wherein the first implementation method automatically implements the vehicle driving state adjustment (see “the vehicle may continue to adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to a speed limit value 7”, [0258] citation above, “The speed limit value adjustment module 715 may dynamically adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle”, [0158])
implementing the vehicle driving state adjustment according to the selected implementation method (“After receiving the instruction sent by the control apparatus 710, the executor 720 may execute the instruction for adjusting the speed limit value.”, [0159], see also “S914”, Fig. 9B).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches An electric vehicle, comprising:
a battery (“battery”, [0003, 0151]);
sensors (“sensing system 120 may include several types of sensors”, [0100], Fig. 1); and
an edge electronic control unit (“The foregoing control apparatus may be located in a vehicle”, [0152], “the apparatus includes the processor. The processor is connected to a memory. The memory stores instructions. The processor invokes the instructions stored in the memory, to implement any one of the foregoing methods or implement a function of each unit of the apparatus.”, [0359], Fig. 7) comprising:
at least one processing unit (“processor”, [0359]); and
a memory (“memory”, [0359]) including instructions, which when executed by the at least one processing unit, cause the at least one processing unit to:
collect vehicle data from the sensors corresponding to a driving state of the electric vehicle (see “state of charge”, [0202] citation below);
determine an estimated driving range (“range 1”, [0230]) based on a capacity of the battery and the vehicle data (“S902: Determine a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1.”, [0201], “the determining a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1 includes determining the range 1 based on the state of charge, the speed limit value 1, and historical energy consumption information.”, [0202], “In the foregoing mode 1, the range 1 may be understood as a maximum mileage that the vehicle may travel in the mode 1”, [0230], Fig. 9B);
determine a vehicle driving state adjustment (“speed limit value”, [0235]) that extends the estimated driving range to an adjusted driving range (“range 2”, [0235]) (“S910: When the range 1 is less than or equal to the first distance, adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to the speed limit value 6.”, [0235], “after the speed limit value of the vehicle is adjusted to the speed limit value 6, the vehicle may obtain the target mileage 2 in real time, and compare the target mileage 2 with the range determined based on the state of charge and the speed limit value 6.”, [0245], “the range 2 may be determined based on the state of charge and the speed limit value 6.”, [0246]);
receive driving range optimization settings for the electric vehicle (“S901: Determine that a vehicle enters a first mode, where a speed limit value of the vehicle in the first mode is a speed limit value 1.”, [0199], “the first mode may be an ECO mode or a power-saving mode.”, [0162]);
determine that the adjusted driving range satisfies a threshold (“S912: Determine whether the range 2 is greater than a second distance.”, [0249]);
based on the determination that the adjusted driving range satisfies the threshold, select, based on the driving range optimization settings, a first implementation method (“S914”, Fig. 9B) for the vehicle driving state adjustment (“S914: If the speed limit value is not adjusted to the minimum speed limit value, the vehicle may continue to adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to a speed limit value 7, where the speed limit value 7 is less than or equal to the speed limit value 6.”, [0258]), wherein the first implementation method automatically implements the vehicle driving state adjustment (see “the vehicle may continue to adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to a speed limit value 7”, [0258] citation above, “The speed limit value adjustment module 715 may dynamically adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle”, [0158])
implement the vehicle driving state adjustment according to the selected implementation method (“After receiving the instruction sent by the control apparatus 710, the executor 720 may execute the instruction for adjusting the speed limit value.”, [0159], see also “S914”, Fig. 9B).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Liu teaches, when the adjusted driving range is determined to exceed a threshold, automatically implementing the vehicle driving state adjustment for the user (corresponds to Applicant’s “first implementation method”).
Liu teaches generating an alert or a notification for user to charge the vehicle (see “prompt the user that the range is insufficient to reach the destination, or prompt the user to find the charging pile.”, [0261]), but does not explicitly teach
a second implementation method for the vehicle driving state adjustment,
the second implementation method generates a notification having an option for a user to implement the vehicle driving state adjustment.
However, Schneider teaches
a second implementation method for the vehicle driving state adjustment (see “a user-selectable option or a suggestion associated with such speed limits 142 in a notification presented via the user interface 130, such that the driver can choose to apply such speed limits 142.”, [0057] citation below),
the second implementation method generates a notification having an option for a user to implement the vehicle driving state adjustment (“The notification may suggest that the driver decrease speeds to reduce amounts of brake power associated with subsequent braking operations, such that more, or all, of the energy associated with brake power of the subsequent braking operations can be provided to the battery system 114 by the regenerative brake system 106. In other examples, the brake controller 120 and/or the speed controller 128 can automatically apply speed limits 142 in this situation to reduce the speed of the machine 102 and to thereby reduce amounts of brake power associated with subsequent braking operations so that more energy associated with the brake power is provided to the battery system 114, or the notification manager 148 can include a user-selectable option or a suggestion associated with such speed limits 142 in a notification presented via the user interface 130, such that the driver can choose to apply such speed limits 142.”, [0057]).
Liu teaches determining a vehicle driving state adjustment that extends a driving range to an adjusted driving range, and implementing the vehicle driving state adjustment according to an implementation method of automatically implementing the vehicle driving state adjustment, on the basis of the adjusted driving range satisfying a threshold. Schneider teaches determining a vehicle driving state adjustment and implementing the vehicle driving state adjustment according to an implementation method of generating a notification for a user to implement the vehicle driving state adjustment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu with the teachings of Schneider such that the method of Liu provides for a selection between both an automated implementation and a manual implementation method of the vehicle driving state adjustment, as suggested by Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to increase user control of operation such that “the driver can choose to apply such speed limits” [0057], as taught by Schneider.
Regarding claim 14, and similarly claim 2, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The electric vehicle of claim 13, and Liu further teaches wherein the vehicle driving state adjustment includes at least one of:
reducing vehicle speed; limiting the vehicle speed; changing a throttle map; reducing an auxiliary electrical load; or changing a route (“S907: When the range is less than or equal to the threshold D, the speed limit value of the vehicle may be adjusted to a speed limit value 5, where the speed limit value 5 is less than the speed limit value 1.”, [0221]).
Regarding claim 15, and similarly claim 3, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The electric vehicle of claim 14, and Schneider further teaches wherein reducing the auxiliary electrical load comprises reducing use of at least one of:
climate control; internal lighting; non-essential external lighting; an entertainment system; or auxiliary accessory charging (“The auxiliary systems 118 can include other types of electrically-powered systems, such as such as heaters, coolers, fans, hydraulic pumps, hydraulic accumulators, accessory pumps, pumps associated with pressure regulating valves, charge and/or discharge accumulators, electric motors, electric converters, other electrical systems, audio systems, lights, display screens, navigation systems, and/or other systems and accessories.”, [0019], “n some examples, the brake controller 120 can be configured to avoid using certain auxiliary systems 118 as parasitic systems based on environmental factors or other factors. For instance, if the machine 102 is a staffed machine, the brake controller 120 can avoid turning on a heater in the cab of the machine 102 as a parasitic system if an ambient temperature measurement is above a threshold temperature, even if the cab heater would use a relatively high amount of energy. In some examples, some parasitic systems can be used in combination. For instance, the brake controller 120 can turn on a battery heating system and a battery cooling system of the machine 102 simultaneously to increase energy consumption, and to heat and cool the battery system 114 simultaneously without moving a temperature of the battery system 114 outside an operating range.”, [0049]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Liu with the teachings of Schneider such that the vehicle driving state adjustment of Liu comprises reducing an auxiliary load, as suggested by Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to further extend the driving range of the vehicle by limiting the use of auxiliary systems that are not critical to operation, as suggested by Schneider [0008, 0048-0049].
Regarding claim 4, and similarly claim 16, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The method of claim 1, and Liu further teaches wherein determining the implementation method based on the driving range optimization settings comprises determining the implementation method based on at least one of:
an improvement of the adjusted driving range over the estimated driving range; a type of the electric vehicle; a driver profile of a driver of the electric vehicle; an automation level of the electric vehicle; or an environmental factor (“The speed limit value adjustment module 715 may dynamically adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle based on one or more of the driving habit, the road condition information, the driving intention, and the energy consumption information, and send, to the executor, the instruction for adjusting the speed limit value.”, [0158]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The method of claim 1, and Liu further teaches wherein the implementation method comprises providing the notification to a driver of the electric vehicle (“As shown in FIG. 3B, the vehicle may display a prompt box 401 through the central display screen when it is detected that the range is less than a fourth threshold (for example, 40 km). The prompt box 401 includes prompt information “It is detected that the range is less than 40 km. The speed limit value is already decreased to 70 km/h. Charge the vehicle in time”. In this case, the vehicle may adjust the speed limit value from 90 km/h to 70 km/h.”, [0129]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The method of claim 1, and Schneider further teaches wherein the implementation method comprises providing the notification to a fleet management application (“Although the notification manager 148 can cause display of notifications to a driver of the machine 102 as discussed above, the notification manager 148 can also, or alternately, cause similar notifications or information to be transmitted to an off-board computing system. For example, the notification manager 148 can transmit information to a fleet manager.”, [0060]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Liu with the teachings of Schneider such that the implementation method comprises providing a notification to a fleet management application, as suggested by Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “to determine and/or monitor energy recovery performance metrics associated with individual machines, a fleet of machines, and/or machine operators” [0060], as taught by Schneider.
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The electric vehicle of claim 13, and Liu further teaches wherein the first implementation method comprises at least one of:
providing the notification to a driver of the electric vehicle to perform the vehicle driving state adjustment (“S914: If the speed limit value is not adjusted to the minimum speed limit value, the vehicle may continue to adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to a speed limit value 7, where the speed limit value 7 is less than or equal to the speed limit value 6.”, [0258], “After receiving the instruction sent by the control apparatus 710, the executor 720 may execute the instruction for adjusting the speed limit value.”, [0159], see also “S914”, Fig. 9B); or
providing the notification to a fleet management application to perform the vehicle driving state adjustment;
Schneider further teaches
the second implementation method comprises instructing a vehicle control unit of the electric vehicle to automatically perform the vehicle driving state adjustment (“the notification manager 148 can include a user-selectable option or a suggestion associated with such speed limits 142 in a notification presented via the user interface 130, such that the driver can choose to apply such speed limits 142.”, [0057]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Liu with the teachings of Schneider such that the second implementation method comprises instructing the vehicle to automatically perform the vehicle driving state adjustment, as suggested by Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to increase user control of operation such that “the driver can choose to apply such speed limits” [0057], as taught by Schneider.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20250128709 A1) in view of Oobayashi et al. (US 20220108248 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches A system, comprising:
at least one processing unit (“The foregoing control apparatus may be located in a vehicle”, [0152], “the apparatus includes the processor. The processor is connected to a memory. The memory stores instructions. The processor invokes the instructions stored in the memory, to implement any one of the foregoing methods or implement a function of each unit of the apparatus.”, [0359], Fig. 7); and
a memory (“memory”, [0359]) including instructions, which when executed by the at least one processing unit, cause the system to:
collect vehicle data corresponding to a first driving state of a first electric vehicle (see “state of charge”, [0202] citation below);
determine a first estimated driving range (“range 1”, [0230]) for the first electric vehicle (“S902: Determine a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1.”, [0201], “the determining a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1 includes determining the range 1 based on the state of charge, the speed limit value 1, and historical energy consumption information.”, [0202], “In the foregoing mode 1, the range 1 may be understood as a maximum mileage that the vehicle may travel in the mode 1”, [0230], Fig. 9B);
determine a first vehicle driving state adjustment (“speed limit value”, [0235]) (“range 2”, [0235]) (“S910: When the range 1 is less than or equal to the first distance, adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to the speed limit value 6.”, [0235], “after the speed limit value of the vehicle is adjusted to the speed limit value 6, the vehicle may obtain the target mileage 2 in real time, and compare the target mileage 2 with the range determined based on the state of charge and the speed limit value 6.”, [0245], “the range 2 may be determined based on the state of charge and the speed limit value 6.”, [0246]);
determine that the first adjusted driving range meets a first threshold (“S912: Determine whether the range 2 is greater than a second distance.”, [0249]);
receive (“S901: Determine that a vehicle enters a first mode, where a speed limit value of the vehicle in the first mode is a speed limit value 1.”, [0199], “the first mode may be an ECO mode or a power-saving mode.”, [0162]);
determine, based on the (“S914”, Fig. 9B) for the first vehicle driving state adjustment (“S914: If the speed limit value is not adjusted to the minimum speed limit value, the vehicle may continue to adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to a speed limit value 7, where the speed limit value 7 is less than or equal to the speed limit value 6.”, [0258]);
based on the determination that the first adjusted driving range meets the first threshold, cause the first vehicle driving state adjustment to be implemented according to the first implementation method (After receiving the instruction sent by the control apparatus 710, the executor 720 may execute the instruction for adjusting the speed limit value.”, [0159], see also “S914”, Fig. 9B);
Liu does not explicitly teach
collect vehicle data corresponding to a first driving state of a first electric vehicle and a second driving state of a second electric vehicle;
determine a first estimated driving range for the first electric vehicle and a second estimated driving range for the second electric vehicle based on the vehicle data;
determine a first vehicle driving state adjustment and a second vehicle driving state adjustment, where the first vehicle driving state adjustment extends the first estimated driving range to a first adjusted driving range and the second vehicle driving state adjustment extends the second estimated driving range to a second adjusted driving range;
determine that the first adjusted driving range meets a first threshold and the second adjusted driving range meets a second threshold;
receive and the second electric vehicle;
determine, based on the and a second implementation method for the second vehicle state adjustment;
based on the determination that the second adjusted driving range meets the second threshold, cause the second vehicle driving state adjustment to be implemented according to the second implementation method
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate these steps for a second vehicle since it has been held that duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). The above limitations are merely repeating each step taught by Liu for a second vehicle which does not produce an unexpected result.
Further, Liu does not explicitly teach
receive fleet settings for the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle;
determine, based on the fleet settings, a first implementation method for the first vehicle driving state adjustment and a second implementation method for the second vehicle driving state adjustment; and
…the second implementation method, which is different from the first implementation method.
However, Oobayashi further teaches
receive fleet settings for the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle (“In S14, the process generates the vehicle allocation schedule and the charging schedule according to the request of the mobility service operator, the request of the user U, and the station information. Specifically, in S14, the process sets a priority and priority level for the energy consumption and the performance deterioration based on the need of the business provider and the need of the user U.”, [0055]);
determine, based on the fleet settings, a first implementation method for the first vehicle driving state adjustment and a second implementation method for the second vehicle driving state adjustment (“The plan generation unit 143 generates the vehicle allocation schedule and the charging schedule for the entire service vehicles SV, and then generates the operation plan for each service vehicle SV based on the vehicle allocation schedules and the charging schedules of the entire service vehicles.”, [0049], see also “In S15, the operation plan for each service vehicle SV is generated based on each schedule generated in S14, and the process proceeds to S16.”, [0057], “The plan provision approval unit 124 acquires a modified operation plan from the service vehicle SV when the service vehicle SV generates the modified operation plan. The energy manager 100 mounted on the service vehicle SV may generate the modified operation plan by modifying a reference operation plan provided by the operation manager 110”, [0031]); and
(“In S15, the operation plan for each service vehicle SV is generated based on each schedule generated in S14, and the process proceeds to S16.”, [0057], “When the arbitration simulation unit 74 generates the modified operation plan, the plan acquisition proposal unit 71 changes the initial operation plan (corresponding to the above-described reference operation plan) to the modified operation plan, and proposes the modified operation plan to the operation manager 110. The modified operation plan is an operation plan that is presumed to be able to suppress at least one of energy consumption or performance deterioration compared with the reference operation plan acquired from the operation manager 110.”, [0093]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Liu with the teachings of Oobayashi such that the settings of Liu are fleet settings, as taught by Oobayashi, and determining and implementing, based on the fleet settings, implementation methods for a first and second vehicle driving state adjustment, as suggested by Oobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “maximize profits of a business provider of the mobility service by maximizing sales volume of the service provision and minimizing cost associated with the service provision” [0041] as taught by Oobayashi.
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Oobayashi teaches The system of claim 18, and Liu further teaches wherein:
the first implementation method comprises providing a notification to a driver of the electric vehicle to perform the first vehicle driving state adjustment (“S914: If the speed limit value is not adjusted to the minimum speed limit value, the vehicle may continue to adjust the speed limit value of the vehicle to a speed limit value 7, where the speed limit value 7 is less than or equal to the speed limit value 6.”, [0258], “After receiving the instruction sent by the control apparatus 710, the executor 720 may execute the instruction for adjusting the speed limit value.”, [0159], see also “S914”, Fig. 9B);
Oobayashi further teaches
the second implementation method comprises instructing the second vehicle to automatically perform the second vehicle driving state adjustment (“The service vehicle SV is an autonomous driving vehicle capable of autonomous driving without the driver's driving operation.”, [0063], “The AD computer 90 cooperates with the operation manager 110 to perform the autonomous driving of the subject vehicle As based on the operation plan.”, [0068]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Liu with the teachings of Oobayashi such that the second implementation method comprises instructing the second vehicle to automatically perform the second vehicle driving state adjustment, as taught by Oobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to operate the vehicles as a service vehicle [0016] and operate the second vehicle “without the driver's driving operation” [0063] as taught by Oobayashi.
Regarding claim 20, Liu in view of Oobayashi teaches The system of claim 18, and Liu further teaches wherein:
the first vehicle driving state adjustment comprises at least one of:
reducing a speed of the first vehicle;
setting a limit on the speed of the first vehicle;
changing a throttle map of the first vehicle;
reducing an auxiliary electrical load of the first vehicle; or
changing a route change of the first vehicle (“S907: When the range is less than or equal to the threshold D, the speed limit value of the vehicle may be adjusted to a speed limit value 5, where the speed limit value 5 is less than the speed limit value 1.”, [0221]); and
the second vehicle driving state adjustment comprises at least one of:
reducing a speed of the first vehicle;
setting a limit on the speed of the first vehicle;
changing a throttle map of the first vehicle;
reducing an auxiliary electrical load of the first vehicle; or
changing a route change of the first vehicle (“S907: When the range is less than or equal to the threshold D, the speed limit value of the vehicle may be adjusted to a speed limit value 5, where the speed limit value 5 is less than the speed limit value 1.”, [0221]).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20250128709 A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US 20230166601 A1) in view of Ostrowski et al. (US 20200307621 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The method of claim 4,
However, Ostrowski teaches
receiving an indication of a driving state of at least one other electric vehicle in a fleet including the electric vehicle (“RFS(s) generate TSs 315 and identify trip similarities and categories, and generate trip similarity scores and TSs 315 according to and by analyzing TD 335 received, collected, aggregated, and analyzed from all vehicles or HEVs 100 in the global fleet. Such TD 335 is utilized and analyzed by RFS(s) and includes for example, one or more of the estimated and/or predicted trip length or distance, predicted or planned or actual trip start and stop locations, frequency of trips having and/or similar to current trip parameters, and/or trip time or duration, and other related trip information.”, [0077]); and
determining the implementation method based on the driving state of the at least one other electric vehicle in the fleet (“RFS(s) analyze such TD 335 to generate TSs 315 that include a trip similarity score, which identifies and/or establishes how similar each trip of each vehicle or HEV 100 in the global fleet is to that of particular vehicles and HEVs 100. In this way, similar trips of all global fleet vehicles/HEVs 100 may also be grouped together for analytical, categorization, and/or grouping purposes to enable real-time and instantaneous RFS generation of TSs 315 according to received TD 335. Once such global fleet groupings are generated by RFS(s), then RFS(s) generate TSs 315 according to the TD 335, and RS 320 and TS 315 is communicated to the vehicle and HEV 100, the vehicle controller(s) generate(s) DNs 300 according to the received TSs 315 and RS 320, for each operating REV 100 and vehicle. The generated DNs 300 also incorporate recommendations included with RS 320 that are identified by RFS(s). The RFS(s) continuously identify global fleet vehicles/HEVs 100 that have the most optimal operating conditions according to the trip similarity categories and/or groupings. Consequently, fuel and/or battery consumption can be reduced by a particular operating vehicle or HEV 100, utilizing the DNs 300 generated according to the TSs 315 and RSs 320.”, [0078]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu in view of Schneider with the teachings of Ostrowski such that the implementation method of Liu is determined based on the driving state of other electric vehicles in a fleet, as suggested by Ostrowski, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be so that “fuel and/or battery consumption can be reduced by a particular operating vehicle or HEV 100, utilizing” data obtained from other vehicles that travel along similar routes to that of the electric vehicle [0078], as taught by Ostrowski.
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The method of claim 6,
However, Ostrowski teaches
wherein providing the notification comprises providing a persistent notification requiring a driver action to be dismissed (“Variations of the REV controller(s) also contemplate further configurations that, at discrete time intervals, readjust the driver notification(s), according to updated recommendation signals and/or other signals and information, received by the communication unit from the remote fleet server(s). Such updated notification(s) in these variations also include at least one and/or one or more of an updated fuel and/or battery consumption estimate(s). These updates are generated and communicated by the remote fleet server(s) in response to one or more new real-time and/or instantaneous operating condition(s) received from the REV, which include(s) the HEV controller-generated estimate errors communicated by the HEV communication unit(s) to the remote server(s).”, [0013]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu in view of Schneider with the teachings of Ostrowski such that the implementation method of Liu comprises providing a persistent notification to a driver, as suggested by Ostrowski, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to provide notifications “in response to one or more new real-time and/or instantaneous operating condition(s) received from the REV, which include(s) the HEV controller-generated estimate errors communicated by the HEV communication unit(s) to the remote server(s)” [0013], as taught by Ostrowski.
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The method of claim 8, further comprising:
However, Ostrowski teaches
receiving, from the fleet management application, an indication of a selection of the option to perform the vehicle driving state adjustment (“At least one of the controller(s) VSC 200, VCS 205, and others, are also configured to detect, capture, generate, adjust, and/or communicate various vehicle and systems and subsystems data, information, vehicle trip and travel data, and performance parameters VPPs 305, which are also communicated within and externally to vehicle and HEV 100 via the various communication units and signaling paths. Such VPPs 305 can include, for purposes of illustration and example, but not for purposes of limitation, vehicle speed, coasting, acceleration, braking, actual fuel remaining and consumption and capacity, actual battery power capacity and power remaining and consumption, and settings and preferences for cruise control, climate controls, interior and external vehicle lighting, infotainment system, navigation system, and other HEV systems, subsystems, components, and/or devices.”, [0067] “the controller(s) of vehicle or HEV 100 are modified to automatically adjust or enable manual adjustment of VPPs 305 according to at least one of peer match PM signal 310, trip similarity signal TS 315, and recommendation signal RS 320, which are received via the communications units from and generated by at least one and/or one or more remote fleet server(s) RFSs (FIGS. 1, 2).”, [0068]); and
performing the vehicle driving state adjustment (see “the controller(s) of vehicle or HEV 100 are modified to automatically adjust or enable manual adjustment of VPPs 305.”, [0068 citation above]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Liu in view of Schneider with the teachings of Ostrowski such that the method further comprises receiving an indication of a selection to perform the vehicle driving state adjustment from the fleet management application, as suggested by Ostrowski, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to conserve energy of the vehicle by having a remote server preform computation, as suggested by Ostrowski [0005-0008].
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Schneider teaches The method of claim 1, and Liu further teaches wherein the vehicle data comprises:
a vehicle parameter derived from the sensor data, the vehicle parameter comprises at least one of:
battery state of charge; an energy consumption rate; an energy efficiency factor; driver historical behavior; climate control usage; or auxiliary accessory usage (“S902: Determine a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1.”, [0201]).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the “state of charge” [0201] of Liu is obtained through some kind of sensor data.
See, Ostrowski teaches
sensor data from at least one of:
at least one sensor on the electric vehicle (“sensors for detecting and/or determining the maximum charge, charge-state or state-of-charge (SoC)”, [0047]); or
at least one sensor on at least one other electric vehicle in a fleet including the electric vehicle; and
a vehicle parameter derived from the sensor data, the vehicle parameter comprises at least one of:
battery state of charge; an energy consumption rate; an energy efficiency factor; driver historical behavior; climate control usage; or auxiliary accessory usage (“various other vehicle functions, actuators, and components may be controlled by the controllers within and in cooperation with HEV 100 systems and components, and may receive signals from other controllers, sensors, and actuators, which may include, for purposes of illustration but not limitation, front-end accessory drive (FEAD) components and various sensors for battery charging or discharging, including sensors for detecting and/or determining the maximum charge, charge-state or state-of-charge (SoC), voltage and current, battery chemistry and life-cycle parameters, and discharge power limits, external environment ambient air temperature (TMP), pressure, humidity, and component temperatures, voltages, currents, and battery discharge power and rate limits, and other components”, [0047]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu in view of Schneider with the teachings of Ostrowski such that the vehicle parameter of Liu is derived from a sensor, as suggested by Ostrowski, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would achieve the predictable result of calculating a vehicle battery’s SOC using sensor data. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20250128709 A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US 20230166601 A1) in view of Ostrowski et al. (US 20200307621 A1) in view of Havrisciuc et al. (US 20240351478 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Schneider in view of Ostrowski teaches The method of claim 11, and Liu further teaches wherein determining the estimated driving range comprises determining the estimated driving range based on:
the vehicle parameter (“S902: Determine a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1.”, [0201]);
at least one of:
a route; a navigation time; terrain data; or an environmental factor (“the determining a range 1 based on a state of charge and the speed limit value 1 includes determining the range 1 based on the state of charge, the speed limit value 1, and historical energy consumption information.”, [0202], “the control apparatus 710 may predict the range 1 under the state of charge and the speed limit value 1 based on an estimation obtained from 100 km that the vehicle most recently travels.”, [0203]).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the “range 1” [0201] of Liu is determined using a known battery capacity.
See, Havrisciuc teaches
wherein determining the estimated driving range comprises determining the estimated driving range based on:
battery capacity (“FIG. 11 shows an exemplary method 152 performed by the control system 18 in accordance with the present invention. The control system 18 gathers information regarding the FCEV 10 to determine the energy capacity of the FCEV 10, and to determine the amount of energy required to power the FCEV 10. For example, the control system 18 obtains information regarding static vehicle parameters (step 154) from memory 22. The static vehicle parameters include tire size, frontal area, drag coefficient, loss tables for the axle and the battery, battery size and hydrogen tank size…The control system 18 processes this information to estimate the energy required (ER) to complete the route (step 166).”, [0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Liu in view of Schneider and Ostrowski with the teachings of Havrisciuc such that the estimated driving range of Liu is determined based on the battery capacity, as suggested by Havrisciuc, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would achieve the predictable result of calculating a vehicle’s range using the battery’s size. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666