Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The current application is CON. of application No. 16/795055 (now Pat. No. 12111166) which is Con. of application No. 14/074081 (now Pat. No. 10598503).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12111166. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because CLAIM 1, e.g., is generic to all that is recited in CLAIM 1 and CLAIM 10, e.g., of US Patent No.12111166. In other words, CLAIM 1 and CLAIM 10 of US Patent No. 12111166 fully encompasses the subject matter of the current application’s CLAIM 1 and therefore anticipated CLAIM 1.
With regard to claim 1, is anticipated in the patent claim 1 and claim 10
With regard to claims 2-20, are anticipated in the patent claims 2-20 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 cites with “wherein the charging station availability comprises an availability of a charging station at an associated estimated arrival time of the vehicle at the charging station” which already claimed in claim 1. Thus Claim 10 fails to provide a further limitation the subject matter of independent claim 1.
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 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method of determining a route for an electric-powered vehicle performed by a system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform the method, the method comprising:
receiving destination selection information identifying a destination;
receiving, from a battery control system associated with a battery system of the vehicle, an indication of an available battery system charge level of the battery system;
determining at least one estimated range of the vehicle based on the available battery system charge level;
identifying a plurality of routes to the destination based on the at least one estimated range of the vehicle and locations of one or more charging stations;
identifying one or more points of interest, each point of interest of the one or more points of interest being identified based on a relative proximity of the point of interest to a location of a charging station of the one or more charging stations, at least one point of interest of the one or more points of interest being associated with promotional content;
determining one or more estimated arrival times of the vehicle at the locations of the one or more charging stations along the plurality of routes;
determining, for each charging station of the one or more charging stations, charging station availability at an associated estimated arrival time of the vehicle of the one or more estimated arrival times;
calculating a cost associated with each route of the plurality of routes based on one or more of the charging station availability and the promotional content;
generating route information, the route information identifying the plurality of routes and the calculated cost associated with each route; and
generating at least one signal to display at least a portion of the route information to a user of the vehicle.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method including at least one step. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical concepts”, ““mental processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims (e.g., claim 1) recites the limitation of receiving destination; receiving an indication of an available battery system charge level of the vehicle; determining at least one estimated range of the vehicle; identifying a plurality of routes; identifying one or more points of interest; determining estimated arrival times of the vehicle; determining charging station availability; calculating a cost associated with each route; generating route information; and generating at least one signal to display the route information to a user of the vehicle. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by a system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions”. That is, other than reciting by the system with the processor and the computer readable storage medium, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the system” language, the claims encompass a person looking at data collected, calculating and forming simple judgements. The mere nominal recitation of by the system which does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of “receiving, from a battery control system associated with a battery system of the vehicle, an indication of an available battery system charge level of the battery system; and “determining, for each charging station of the one or more charging stations, charging station availability at an associated estimated arrival time of the vehicle of the one or more estimated arrival times”. The receiving step from “a battery system” and the determining charging stations availability are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information of available battery with charge level of a vehicle and determining what charging stations available with estimated arrival time are amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating signal to display the route information is also recited at a high level of generality which amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The system comprises a processor and computer-readable storage merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic computer elements. The system for determining a route for an electric-powered vehicle is recited at a high level of generality and is merely mathematical concepts”, ““mental processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, determining, identifying, calculating steps and the generating signal to display step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that a system and method for determining an optimal path/route to a destination and determining a reservation for charging a vehicle, and the claims does not provide any indication that the system comprises a processor and a readable storage medium storing instruction is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data, calculating, and generating signal to display information to a user within a vehicle is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-8, cite of receiving a selected route, and generating navigation instruction for the vehicle, and claim 9-20 of determining information of charging stations, promotional event, POIs, and etc. to calculate and generate information which are data gathering and post solution. Therefore, dependent claims 2-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
UYeki (20120123670) discloses a system for updating a charge station database including information about charge station location and characteristic, see the abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cornway (20110288765) in view of Fisher (20130179057).
With regard to claim 1, Cornway discloses a method of determining a route for an electric-powered vehicle performed by a system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (the determination of a route that includes charging performed by a system including a processing in the vehicle or by a processing device outside the vehicle, a routing application implemented by instructions stored on one or more computer readable media, see [0010]+ & [0025]+, wherein the vehicle 105 engines require a source of electric energy to ioerate scuh as a battery, see [0017]+). cause the system to perform the method, the method comprising:
receiving destination selection information identifying a destination; receiving, from a battery control system associated with a battery system of the vehicle, an indication of an available battery system charge level of the battery system; determining at least one estimated range of the vehicle based on the available battery system charge level; identifying a plurality of routes to the destination based on the at least one estimated range of the vehicle and locations of one or more charging stations (the system receives various inputs, including vehicle charge level, origin location, destination location, user references, and external factors. Based on these and other inputs, the system finds a route between destinations and available charging stions, see [0010]+)
identifying one or more points of interest, each point of interest of the one or more points of interest being identified based on a relative proximity of the point of interest to a location of a charging station of the one or more charging stations, at least one point of interest of the one or more points of interest being associated with promotional content; determining one or more estimated arrival times of the vehicle at the locations of the one or more charging stations along the plurality of routes; determining, for each charging station of the one or more charging stations, charging station availability at an associated estimated arrival time of the vehicle of the one or more estimated arrival times (the system accounts for schedules and hours of operation of charging stations determine whether a charging station is open and available to receive the vehicle at the planned time, estimate vehicle arriving time, determines station with the least expensive, see [0012]+)and ;
calculating a cost associated with each route of the plurality of routes based on one or more of the charging station availability and the promotional content compute (computed a cost path to destination (which could be an available charging station, see [0046]+, determine the cost of fuel at the available charging station, see [0050]-[0054]+);
generating route information, the route information identifying the plurality of routes and the calculated cost associated with each route (the routing application 140 has determined the route 205 displayed a list of destinations including textual descriptions of from one destination to next destination, wherein the destination could be a shop, user destination, charging station, and etc., see [0059]+);
Cornway is not clearly teaching generating at least one signal to display at least a portion of the route information to a user of the vehicle.
Fisher discloses a system assists a driver of an electric vehicle (see [0065]). The system includes a server, a vehicle and a client device 11 that displays the proposed route, see [0090]+ which meets the scope of “generating at least one signal to display at least a portion of the route information to a user of the vehicle”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Cornway by including generating signals to display the route information to a user of the vehicle as taught by Fisher. The combination of Cornway and Fisher is an adapted system for improving the vehicle’s navigation smoothly.
With regard to claim 2, Fisher teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication of a selected route of the plurality of routes (a client application creen display for selecting a route to a charge station, see [0081]+).
With regard to claims 3-5, Fisher teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the method further comprises generating navigation instructions associated with the selected route, the navigation instructions providing directed instructions for traveling to the destination (Fig. 15 shown a navigation instruction, to a user,associated with the selected form a location to another location for a vehicle).
With regard to claim 6, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the indication of the selected route of the plurality of routes is received from the user of the vehicle (a user may input a set of destination into the routing application 140 running on processing device 130, see [0041]+).
With regard to claim 7, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the indication of the selected route of the plurality of routes is automatically received in response to determining that the selected route is associated with the lowest calculated cost of the plurality of routes (a route may be computed from a lowest cost path to a destination using the navigation information, see [0046]+).
With regard to claim 8, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the plurality of routes to the destination is further based on one or more routing parameters (navigation information 215 includes road layout information indicating the connections of the roads to one another, see [0043]+).
With regard to claim 9, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more routing parameters comprise at least one of a total vehicle charge capacity, charging station availability, a geographic parameter, an environmental parameter, charging station consumer ratings, user interest information, and point of interest information (the navigation information 215, see [0043]+).
With regard to claim 10, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 9, wherein the charging station availability comprises an availability of a charging station at an associated estimated arrival time of the vehicle at the charging station (charging station 170, see [0033]+).
With regard to claims 11-15, Cornway teaches that the system includes a user preferences 240 in which the system 100 allowed user input sets of her/his preferences such as entering his/her destinations, timing information to reach destination with conforts, his/her wishes of shop, restaurants, barbershop, etc., see [0010]-[0011] & [0040]-[45]+) which meets the scope of claims 11-15.
With regard to claim 16, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein calculating the cost associated with each route of the plurality of routes is further based on one or more routing parameters (the navigation information 215 includes information which used to aid in determining the cost of a particular segment of roadway including speed limit, capacity, grade information, etc., see [0043]+).
With regard to claim 17, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 16, wherein the one or more routing parameters comprise at least one of a total vehicle charge capacity, charging station availability, a geographic parameter, an environmental parameter, charging station consumer ratings, user interest information, point of interest information, and travel time (see [0041]-[0043]+).
With regard to claim 18, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises receiving an indication of a weight associated with each of the one or more routing parameters (each sub-path length the vehicle range taking into account one or more of safety factors determined by the system 100, see [0010]-[0011]+).
With regard to claim 19, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 18, wherein calculating the cost associated with each route of the plurality of routes is based on the relative weight associated with each of the one or more routing parameters (the navigation information 215 includes information used to aid in determining the cost of a particular segment of roadway, see [0043]+).
With regard to claim 20, Cornway teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the promotional content comprises at least one of an advertisement associated with a respective point of interest of the one or more points of interest and an offer associated with a respective point of interest of the one or more points of interest (the algorithm marks path to vertices (POI) with the lowest assigned cost, see [0045]+).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662