DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 27 February 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 9 and 16. Applicant did not add or cancel any claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 20 November 2025 and 26 February 2026 will be considered either upon a determination of the independent claims overcoming the current prior art of record or upon filing a Request for Continued Examination, whichever occurs first. Considering references at this stage of prosecution only harms the Examiner as discovery of relevant art would require a new ground of rejection and a second Non-Final Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s assertions rely on several inferences regarding the definitions of certain terms. Those inferences are not consistent with the specification and how those terms are described within the context of the invention. Due to the nuances between applicant’s assertions, the relevant claimed elements and the prior art of record, Examiner considers it necessary to outline the interpretation of several important claim terms.
For the term “vehicle state”, the specification defines the term as using collected data for route information and battery information for vehicle operation considerations (see para. 0113).
The “route related state” is interpreted to be based on data including current drive mode, the current location of the vehicle, possible destinations and/or road segments (see paras. 0127, 0130, when determining a first and second vehicle state).
The “battery related state” is interpreted to include the state-of-charge of the battery (see paras. 0127, 0130, when determining a first and second vehicle state).
The term “drive mode” is interpreted to be an acceleration curve (see para. 0115), as “eco mode” is engaged, so is a specific acceleration curve. Selected based on the vehicle state and route (see para. 0114).
The “eco mode activation plan” is interpreted as the timing for activation of a drive mode for a respective vehicle state (see para. 0068).
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and related arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Based on the interpretations noted above, Examiner’s position is based on Payne disclosing equivalents to the claimed terms. First, regarding “vehicle state”, Payne teaches that the route information (including location/segment) and battery information (including state-of-charge) are used to determine and update charge/discharge rates for the route (see col. 12:43-52, “the CPU module 106 may use the information associated with the known route in the memory 108 and/or current battery charge information from the BMS 114 in calculations to determine optimal charge/discharge rates and limits for the vehicle 100 in order to maximize performance”). Because “vehicle state” is only defined by what data it is incorporating, the use of battery and route information is equivalent to and reads on “vehicle state”.
Relatedly, as the “route related state” and “battery related state” determine the claimed “vehicle state”, the above teaching is also relevant for disclosing these terms.
Second, the term “drive mode” as claimed is equivalent to an acceleration curve. When “drive mode” is interpreted as an acceleration curve, a battery discharge rate is functionally equivalent to a “driving mode”. It is known that the energy discharged per unit time by a battery directly influences the how quickly a distance is covered. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to interpret the claimed “driving mode” as equivalent to battery discharge rate of a vehicle taught by Payne.
Further, if the energy discharged per unit time is changed, and assuming level ground, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge that the velocity at which a distance is covered changes according to the change in energy discharged. Accordingly, as Payne teaches changing a discharge rate according to the route information and battery information, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that changing drive modes/acceleration curves is equivalent to the changing discharge rates of Payne.
Additionally, the interpretation of “drive mode” is important when interpretating the term “eco mode activation plan”. Applicant’s specification explicitly connects the “eco mode activation plan” to the selection of a “drive mode” (See para. 0114, “the eco mode activation planner may leverage the previously determined vehicle state and the predicted route to select an optimal drive mode”; see para. 0117, “In other words, the eco mode activation planner prepares the decision-making model for determining the drive mode strategy (e.g., the eco mode activation plan)”). As previously outline, Payne discloses changing battery discharge rates and that these rate changes are equivalent to changing drives modes. Moreover, Payne teaches determining plans for a vehicle to be able to travel the whole route updating the charge/discharge rates (see col. 10: 14-24). It is also noted that Payne discloses an EV mode may be disabled and an internal combustion engine may be used; thus teaching an explicit change in mode (see col. 7:37-50, engaging engine no longer in “EV mode” as denoted by “remain in EV mode”). And finally, it is asserted that an “EV mode” is equivalent to a “eco mode”, so “remaining or not remaining in EV mode” is an alternative teaching for the claimed changing modes (see col. 7:37-50). Thus, Payne uses information for making an operational plan on changing modes/acceleration curves.
Accordingly, Examiner has shown that Payne teaches determining, a mode activation plan, that specifies, for each respective vehicle state, based on routing and battery states, whether a first or a second drive mode acceleration curve is active.
The rejection is maintained.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,266,443).
For claim 1, Payne discloses a method, comprising: collecting data from one or more systems of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle comprises a battery (see Fig. 1, #104); generating a predicted route based on the collected data, wherein the collected data includes a navigation map for a portion of a vehicle transportation network (see col. 6:52-7:11); determining a state of the vehicle based on the collected data and the predicted route (see col. 7:21-50); wherein the state of the vehicle is one of one or more vehicle states and each vehicle state of the one or more vehicle states comprises at least a route related state and a battery related state (see col. 12:43-52); determining, using a decision-making model, an eco mode activation plan for each vehicle state of the one or more vehicle states (see col. 12:53-13:12, each different segment is a different route state (with implicit battery changes), and therefore a different vehicle state; equivalent to a mode plan for each state), based on the predicted route (see col. 13:59-14:12), that specifies whether a first drive mode responsive to an operator request for acceleration or a second drive mode responsive to the operator request for acceleration is active (see col. 9:66-10:44, super sports mode, eco mode; col. 1:36-44, acceleration request equivalent to discharge rate limit).
Payne does not explicitly disclose a first and a second acceleration curve. However, Payne discloses different drive modes. These drive modes are known by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have different acceleration curves (super sports versus eco modes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that different acceleration curves are used in different driving modes and reflect different discharge rate limits based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve the battery charge and/or discharge rates and limits to be adjusted, based both on immediate power demand from the driver and the needs of the driver and vehicle to complete the trip with optimal battery power usage (see col. 1:45-49).
Continuing with the claim, Payne further teaches wherein the second drive mode reduces a rate of discharge of the battery as compared to the first drive mode (see col. 9:66-10:44, col. 12:21-42); and setting the vehicle to use the first drive mode or the second drive mode based on the eco mode activation plan and the state of the vehicle (see col. 11:14-19; col. 12:21-53).
With reference to claim 2, Payne further discloses wherein the state of the vehicle comprises at least one of a current charge of the battery, or a current rate of discharge of the battery (see col. 7:21-50).
Regarding claim 3, Payne further discloses initializing the decision-making model using the state of the vehicle, the predicted route, and the collected data (see col. 15:1-46); and calculating, using the decision-making model, the drive mode to minimize at least one of a total energy consumed by the vehicle, a consumption of the battery, a regeneration of the battery, a wasted energy of the battery, a number of changes to the drive mode, or a total trip time (see col. 15:1-46).
Pertaining to claim 4, Payne does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. Markov decision processes are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art of decision making models. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include a Markov decision process based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve the battery charge and/or discharge rates and limits to be adjusted, based both on immediate power demand from the driver and the needs of the driver and vehicle to complete the trip with optimal battery power usage (see col. 1:45-49).
With regards to claim 5, Payne further teaches wherein the one or more systems of the vehicle comprises at least one of a navigation system, a communication system, or a system that monitors a driver behavior (see col. 14:56-67).
For claim 6, Payne further teaches storing a trip record to an archive file, wherein the trip record comprises: the collected data (see col. 7:21-36); the predicted route (see col. 7:21-50, col. 14:1-12); an actual route of the vehicle (see col. 7:21-50, col. 14:1-12); the state of the vehicle and a first timestamp associated with the state of the vehicle (see col. 7:21-50, col. 3-61-4:8, col. 5:6-11); and updating the navigation map using the trip record (see col. 7:21-50).
Payne does not explicitly disclose a second timestamp. However, Payne teaches that timestamps are recorded for many different data recordings. Taking a second timestamp would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve the battery charge and/or discharge rates and limits to be adjusted, based both on immediate power demand from the driver and the needs of the driver and vehicle to complete the trip with optimal battery power usage (see col. 1:45-49).
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar to the claimed subject matter of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 9 and 16 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined for claim 1.
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar to the claimed subject matter of claim 2. Accordingly, claims 10 and 17 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined for claim 2.
Claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar to the claimed subject matter of claim 3. Accordingly, claims 11 and 18 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined for claim 3.
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to the claimed subject matter of claim 5. Accordingly, claims 12 and 19 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined for claim 5.
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to the claimed subject matter of claim 6. Accordingly, claims 13 and 20 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined for claim 6.
Claims 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,266,443), as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Bohmer, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0018957).
With regards to claim 7, Payne does not explicitly disclose including aggregated driver data. However, a teaching from Bohmer discloses wherein the navigation map includes aggregated driver data from an external source (see para. 0061). Payne teaches the data from an external source (see col. 3:6-25, remote). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Payne to include the teachings of Bohmer based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve at least partially automated control of a motor vehicle, wherein the parameter value of at least one parameter of the at least partially automated control depends upon an item of occupant information relating to a vehicle occupant (see para. 0001).
Referring to claim 8, Payne further teaches wherein the collected data comprises: traffic data for the portion of the vehicle transportation network (see col. 6:62-7:11). Bohmer teaches proximity data of a road user other than the vehicle (see para. 0032, traffic); weather conditions for a location of the vehicle (see para. 0032); and driver behavior data for a driver of the vehicle (see para. 0014).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to the claimed subject matter of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined for claim 7.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to the claimed subject matter of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined for claim 8.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663