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
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 - 3, 6, 7, 14 - 16, 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2016/0221578 A1) in view of Ross (US 2014/0163798 A1) and Mazza (US 2021/0107502 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Tang discloses: A system, comprising a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to: (Tang discloses in at least Paragraph 0019 an active driver assistance system for optimizing vehicle fuel economy [i.e. a system] which may be implemented using one or more software applications loaded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by a processor)
determine a speed variation between a target speed for a vehicle and an actual speed of the vehicle; (Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0070 & 0071 wherein a relationship between a vehicle velocity and target speed may be determined, including a difference between the two [i.e. a speed variation between a target speed for a vehicle and an actual speed of the vehicle] which is used to compute required drive torque to obtain the target speeds as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0073 & 0074)
upon determining that an acceleration variation between the optimized acceleration and the standard acceleration is less than a threshold, operate the vehicle based on the optimized acceleration; (Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0089 & 0090 wherein a driver resistance flag is determined based on a continuous driver demand for acceleration, which is an acceleration torque value requested by the driver that exceeds an optimized drive torque [i.e. a variation between the two is determined, with driver resistance being determined when the variation is above a threshold of zero]. At least Paragraph 0099 of Tang further discloses wherein based on the driver resistance flag NOT being activated [i.e. the acceleration variation is BELOW the previously established threshold] the arbitration module is configured to activate the LPM mode, which is disclosed in at least Paragraph 0097 to be entirely the determined optimized drive torque [i.e. upon determining that an acceleration variation is less than a threshold, operate the vehicle based on the optimized acceleration])
upon determining that the acceleration variation between the optimized acceleration and the standard acceleration is greater than or equal to the threshold, update the standard acceleration based on [a stored] acceleration value; and then, operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration. (As set forth above, Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0089 & 0090 wherein a driver resistance flag is determined based on a continuous driver demand for acceleration, which is an acceleration value requested by the driver that exceeds an optimized drive torque [i.e. a variation between the two is determined, with driver resistance being determined when the variation is above a threshold of zero]. Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0098 – 0100 wherein if a driver resistance flag IS activated [i.e. the acceleration variation is ABOVE the previously established threshold/upon determining that the acceleration variation is greater than or equal to the threshold], the arbitration module is configured to activate a transition mode, which arbitrates the torque by ramping between the driver requested drive torque and the LPM determined optimized drive torque [i.e. update the standard acceleration based on an acceleration value and then, operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration])
Tang however appears to be silent regarding:
determine an optimized acceleration and a standard acceleration based on the speed variation, wherein the optimized acceleration reduces an energy consumption of the vehicle, and the standard acceleration corresponds to operating parameters for the vehicle;
update the standard acceleration based on a stored acceleration value
However Ross teaches wherein a performance and efficiency control strategy may be determined, corresponding to different control strategies to accelerate a vehicle from one speed to another.
determine an optimized acceleration and a standard acceleration based on the speed variation, wherein the optimized acceleration reduces an energy consumption of the vehicle, and the standard acceleration corresponds to operating parameters for the vehicle; (However Ross teaches in at least Paragraphs 0047 & 0048 wherein multiple strategies may be determined to complete a requested change in speed, including the determination of a performance strategy [i.e. a standard acceleration] and an efficiency strategy [i.e. an optimized acceleration], which may include different rates of acceleration as taught in at least Paragraph 0006 of Ross. At least Paragraphs 0048 & 0053 of Ross teach wherein the performance strategy completes the action with greater responsiveness, including through the use of gear shifting [i.e. the performance strategy corresponds to operating parameters of the vehicle] and the efficiency strategy corresponds to a control strategy in which less fuel is consumed [i.e. an energy consumption of the vehicle is reduced]. At least Paragraphs 0051 & 0052 of Ross further teach wherein the acceleration request used to determine the control strategies may be defined according to a net increase in vehicle speed [i.e. the acceleration(s) are determined based on the speed variation])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the determination of performance and efficiency control strategies to meet a demanded change in vehicle speed as taught by Ross.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ross in at least Paragraphs 0047 & 0048, control strategies may be developed to improve the performance or efficiency of the vehicle during acceleration maneuvers according to driver preferences, improving the control of the vehicle according to user preferences and measures of efficiency.
However Mazza teaches wherein a preset incremental acceleration value may be utilized in order to adjust acceleration of a vehicle from a current level to a target acceleration value.
update the standard acceleration based on a stored acceleration value (However Mazza teaches in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0050 wherein an acceleration value may be incrementally adjusted based on a vehicle acceleration value and a target acceleration value differing from one another by more than a tolerance range as taught in at least Paragraph 0024 of Mazza [i.e. upon determining that the acceleration variation between the optimized acceleration and the standard acceleration is greater than or equal to the threshold]. At least Paragraphs 0025, 0026, & 0050 of Mazza further teach wherein the incremental acceleration value adjustment [i.e. the stored acceleration value] may be settable through presetting in the driver assistance system [i.e. the standard acceleration is updated based on a stored acceleration value] with the vehicle being operated based on the changed acceleration value as taught in at least Paragraphs 0025 – 0027 of Mazza [i.e. operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the incremental adjustment of vehicle acceleration from a current value to a target value based on a preset incremental acceleration value adjustment as taught by Mazza.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Mazza in at least Paragraphs 0041 & 0050, a driver may feel that the assistance mode is intervening and assisting the driver, improving the driver awareness that an adjustment to a target acceleration value is taking place in an incremental manner.
Regarding Claim 2:
The system of claim 1, wherein an operating range of the vehicle is increased in response to operating the vehicle based on the updated acceleration as compared to operating the vehicle based on the standard acceleration.
Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0060 & 0097 wherein an optimized drive cycle of a vehicle, which may include acceleration intensity, may increase the fuel efficiency of the vehicle by minimizing fuel usage over a travel distance. At least Paragraphs 0098 & 0100 of Tang further disclose wherein in the transition mode, the torque [i.e. acceleration] may be arbitrated by ramping between the driver requested drive torque [i.e. standard acceleration] and optimized torque [i.e. a standard acceleration value is updated] thus rendering the updated torque value during the ramp partially optimized [i.e. the operating range of the vehicle is increased based on the decreased fuel usage from the optimized acceleration portion of the updated acceleration].
Regarding Claim 3:
The system of claim 1, wherein an operating range of the vehicle is increased in response to operating the vehicle based on the optimized acceleration.
Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0060 & 0097 wherein an optimized drive cycle of a vehicle, which may include acceleration intensity, may increase the fuel efficiency of the vehicle by minimizing fuel usage over a travel distance [i.e. the operating range of the vehicle is increased based on the decreased fuel usage from the optimized acceleration].
Regarding Claim 6:
The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further include instructions to operate the vehicle based additionally on at least one of road characteristics and an operation of a second vehicle.
Tang discloses in at least Paragraph 0031 wherein information regarding the operating environment of the vehicle may be utilized in order to formulate a vehicle operating strategy, including data such as other vehicles in the vicinity, as well as road conditions as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0039.
Regarding Claim 7:
The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further include instructions to select the acceleration value based on the operating parameters of the vehicle.
Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0098 & 0100 wherein the transition mode may include ramping torque between a driver-requested drive torque [i.e. an operating parameter of the vehicle] and an optimized drive torque, rendering the acceleration value being set on the basis of the operating parameters of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 14:
Tang discloses: A method, comprising: (Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0018 & 0019 an active driver assistance system for optimizing vehicle fuel economy [i.e. a method])
determining a speed variation between a target speed for a vehicle and an actual speed of the vehicle; (Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0070 & 0071 wherein a relationship between a vehicle velocity and target speed may be determined, including a difference between the two [i.e. a speed variation between a target speed for a vehicle and an actual speed of the vehicle] which is used to compute required drive torque to obtain the target speeds as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0073 & 0074)
upon determining that an acceleration variation between the optimized acceleration and the standard acceleration is less than a threshold, operating the vehicle based on the optimized acceleration; (Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0089 & 0090 wherein a driver resistance flag is determined based on a continuous driver demand for acceleration, which is an acceleration value requested by the driver that exceeds an optimized drive torque [i.e. a variation between the two is determined, with driver resistance being determined when the variation is above a threshold of zero]. At least Paragraph 0099 of Tang further discloses wherein based on the driver resistance flag NOT being activated [i.e. the acceleration variation is BELOW the previously established threshold] the arbitration module is configured to activate the LPM mode, which is disclosed in at least Paragraph 0097 to be entirely the determined optimized drive torque [i.e. upon determining that an acceleration variation is less than a threshold, operate the vehicle based on the optimized acceleration])
upon determining that the acceleration variation between the optimized acceleration and the standard acceleration is greater than or equal to the threshold, updating the standard acceleration based on [a stored] acceleration value; and then, operating the vehicle based on the updated acceleration. (As set forth above, Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0089 & 0090 wherein a driver resistance flag is determined based on a continuous driver demand for acceleration, which is an acceleration value requested by the driver that exceeds an optimized drive torque [i.e. a variation between the two is determined, with driver resistance being determined when the variation is above a threshold of zero]. Tang discloses in at least Paragraphs 0098 – 0100 wherein if a driver resistance flag IS activated [i.e. the acceleration variation is ABOVE the previously established threshold/upon determining that the acceleration variation is greater than or equal to the threshold], the arbitration module is configured to activate a transition mode, which arbitrates the torque by ramping between the driver requested drive torque and the LPM determined optimized drive torque [i.e. update the standard acceleration based on an acceleration value; and then, operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration])
Tang however appears to be silent regarding:
determining an optimized acceleration and a standard acceleration based on the speed variation, wherein the optimized acceleration reduces an energy consumption of the vehicle, and the standard acceleration corresponds to operating parameters for the vehicle;
update the standard acceleration based on a stored acceleration value
However Ross teaches wherein a performance and efficiency control strategy may be determined, corresponding to different control strategies to accelerate a vehicle from one speed to another.
determining an optimized acceleration and a standard acceleration based on the speed variation, wherein the optimized acceleration reduces an energy consumption of the vehicle, and the standard acceleration corresponds to operating parameters for the vehicle; (However Ross teaches in at least Paragraphs 0047 & 0048 wherein multiple strategies may be determined to complete a requested change in speed, including the determination of a performance strategy [i.e. a standard acceleration] and an efficiency strategy [i.e. an optimized acceleration], which may include different rates of acceleration as taught in at least Paragraph 0006 of Ross. At least Paragraphs 0048 & 0053 of Ross teach wherein the performance strategy completes the action with greater responsiveness, including through the use of gear shifting [i.e. the performance strategy corresponds to operating parameters of the vehicle] and the efficiency strategy corresponds to a control strategy in which less fuel is consumed [i.e. an energy consumption of the vehicle is reduced]. At least Paragraphs 0051 & 0052 of Ross further teach wherein the acceleration request used to determine the control strategies may be defined according to a net increase in vehicle speed [i.e. the acceleration(s) are determined based on the speed variation])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the determination of performance and efficiency control strategies to meet a demanded change in vehicle speed as taught by Ross.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ross in at least Paragraphs 0047 & 0048, control strategies may be developed to improve the performance or efficiency of the vehicle during acceleration maneuvers according to driver preferences, improving the control of the vehicle according to measures of efficiency and user preferences.
However Mazza teaches wherein a preset incremental acceleration value may be utilized in order to adjust acceleration of a vehicle from a current level to a target acceleration value.
update the standard acceleration based on a stored acceleration value (However Mazza teaches in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0050 wherein an acceleration value may be incrementally adjusted based on a vehicle acceleration value and a target acceleration value differing from one another by more than a tolerance range as taught in at least Paragraph 0024 of Mazza [i.e. upon determining that the acceleration variation between the optimized acceleration and the standard acceleration is greater than or equal to the threshold]. At least Paragraphs 0025, 0026, & 0050 of Mazza further teach wherein the incremental acceleration value adjustment [i.e. the stored acceleration value] may be settable through presetting in the driver assistance system [i.e. the standard acceleration is updated based on a stored acceleration value] with the vehicle being operated based on the changed acceleration value as taught in at least Paragraphs 0025 – 0027 of Mazza [i.e. operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the incremental adjustment of vehicle acceleration from a current value to a target value based on a preset incremental acceleration value adjustment as taught by Mazza.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Mazza in at least Paragraphs 0041 & 0050, a driver may feel that the assistance mode is intervening and assisting the driver, improving the driver awareness that an adjustment to a target acceleration value is taking place in an incremental manner.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 2, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 3, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 7, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 6, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 5, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2016/0221578 A1) in view of Ross (US 2014/0163798 A1) and Mazza (US 2021/0107502 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 14 above, and further in view of Zebiak (US 2024/0181896 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
The system of claim 1, wherein the acceleration value is a predetermined constant value.
Tang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the acceleration value is a predetermined constant value.
However Zebiak teaches in at least Paragraphs 0046, 0048, & 0049 wherein torque settings of an acceleration maneuver may be adjusted incrementally by adding or subtracting a specific value to increase or decrease the time of the acceleration maneuver by a corresponding value [i.e. a predetermined constant value], thereby increasing the acceleration by a corresponding constant value, until the maneuver is sufficiently optimized.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the adjustment of vehicle acceleration by a specified value during optimization as taught by Zebiak.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zebiak in at least Paragraphs 0051 & 0052, the acceleration of the vehicle may be gradually incremented to arrive at an optimized low-energy torque profile, improving the optimization process of the vehicle acceleration.
Regarding Claim 5:
The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further include instructions to combine the standard acceleration and the acceleration value.
Tang does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the acceleration value and standard acceleration value are combined.
However Zebiak teaches in at least Paragraphs 0046, 0048, & 0049 wherein torque settings of an acceleration maneuver may be adjusted incrementally by adding or subtracting a specific value to increase or decrease the time of the acceleration maneuver by a corresponding value [i.e. the standard acceleration and the acceleration value are combined], thereby increasing the acceleration by a corresponding constant value, until the maneuver is sufficiently optimized.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 4, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 8 - 13 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2016/0221578 A1) in view of Ross (US 2014/0163798 A1) and Mazza (US 2021/0107502 A1) as applied to claims 1, 7, & 14 above, and further in view of Koebler (US 2019/0283600 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
The system of claim 7, wherein the instructions further include instructions to: determine a first estimated energy consumption value corresponding to the updated acceleration and a second estimated energy consumption value corresponding to the standard acceleration; and upon determining that an energy variation between the first estimated energy consumption value and the second estimated energy consumption is less than an energy consumption threshold, operate the vehicle based on the standard acceleration.
Tang discloses in at least Claim 15 and Paragraphs 0058 – 0060 wherein an assessment may be performed regarding if there is a potential for optimizing fuel economy of the vehicle based on the environment and constraints. If there is no potential for optimization [i.e. the energy consumption difference is below a minimum threshold], the driver-requested drive torque is output [i.e. the vehicle is operated based on the standard acceleration]. This assessment however does not appear to take place based on actually computing an estimated energy consumption value of each acceleration.
However Koebler teaches in at least Paragraphs 0052 & 0053 wherein command inputs, including acceleration desired by a driver, may be input to a power management device, the acceleration being adjustable by the power management control logic to correct inefficiencies or determine an optimal acceleration as taught in at least Paragraphs 0126 & 0129. At least Paragraph 0080 of Koebler teaches wherein the power management device determines a power requirement for a vehicle by simulating the energy requirement over a route segment under different operational parameters, with optimization taking place based on such as further taught in at least Paragraphs 0081 – 0085 by comparison of the estimated energy consumptions to one another [i.e. determine a first estimated energy consumption value corresponding to the updated acceleration and a second estimated energy consumption value corresponding to the standard acceleration].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the estimation of vehicle energy consumption for different control patterns as taught by Koebler.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Koebler in at least Paragraphs 0007 & 0080, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle may be improved by obtaining estimated energy requirements for different operating patterns, enabling the selection of an energy-optimal control strategy.
Regarding Claim 9:
The system of claim 8, wherein the instructions further include instructions to, upon determining that the energy variation between the first estimated energy consumption value and the second estimated energy consumption is greater than or equal to the energy consumption threshold, operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration.
Tang discloses in at least Claim 15 and Paragraphs 0058 – 0060 wherein an assessment may be performed regarding if there is a potential for optimizing fuel economy of the vehicle based on the environment and constraints. If there is potential for optimization [i.e. the energy consumption difference is above a minimum threshold], the optimized drive torque is output [i.e. the vehicle is operated based on the updated acceleration].
Regarding Claim 10:
The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further include instructions to, upon determining that an available energy store of the vehicle is less than an energy threshold, operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration.
Tang does not appear to specifically disclose operating a vehicle in an optimized or non-optimized mode based on the comparison of vehicle energy store to a threshold.
However Ross teaches in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein the energy available in an electric storage source is compared to a threshold, and used to determine control strategy, including the selection of a first optimized control strategy if the available energy is less than a predefined threshold [upon determining that an available energy store of the vehicle is less than an energy threshold, operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the selection of control strategy based on stored energy levels as taught by Ross.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ross in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0052, the availability of energy required to power the motor may be taken into account in determining control strategy, improving the energy utilization of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 11:
The system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further include instructions to, upon determining that an available energy store of the vehicle is greater than or equal to the energy threshold, select the acceleration value based on the operating parameters of the vehicle.
Tang does not appear to specifically disclose operating a vehicle in an optimized or non-optimized mode based on the comparison of vehicle energy store to a threshold.
However Ross teaches in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein the energy available in an electric storage source is compared to a threshold, and used to determine control strategy, including the selection of a first optimized control strategy if the available energy is less than a predefined threshold [i.e. upon determining that an available energy store of the vehicle is greater than an energy threshold, optimizing the acceleration is not required, and thus the vehicle is operated based on the operating parameters of the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the selection of control strategy based on stored energy levels as taught by Ross.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ross in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0052, the availability of energy required to power the motor may be taken into account in determining control strategy, improving the energy utilization of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 12:
The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further include instructions to: determine a first estimated energy consumption value corresponding to the updated acceleration and a second estimated energy consumption value corresponding to the standard acceleration; and upon determining that an energy variation between the first estimated energy consumption value and the second estimated energy consumption is less than an energy consumption threshold, operate the vehicle based on the standard acceleration.
Tang discloses in at least Claim 15 and Paragraphs 0058 – 0060 wherein an assessment may be performed regarding if there is a potential for optimizing fuel economy of the vehicle based on the environment and constraints. If there is no potential for optimization [i.e. the energy consumption difference is below a minimum threshold], the driver-requested drive torque is output [i.e. the vehicle is operated based on the standard acceleration]. This assessment however does not appear to take place based on actually computing an estimated energy consumption value of each acceleration.
However Koebler teaches in at least Paragraphs 0052 & 0053 wherein command inputs, including acceleration desired by a driver, may be input to a power management device, the acceleration being adjustable by the power management control logic to correct inefficiencies or determine an optimal acceleration as taught in at least Paragraphs 0126 & 0129. At least Paragraph 0080 of Koebler teaches wherein the power management device determines a power requirement for a vehicle by simulating the energy requirement over a route segment under different operational parameters, with optimization taking place based on such as further taught in at least Paragraphs 0081 – 0085 by comparison of the estimated energy consumptions to one another [i.e. determine a first estimated energy consumption value corresponding to the updated acceleration and a second estimated energy consumption value corresponding to the standard acceleration].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Tang by incorporating the estimation of vehicle energy consumption for different control patterns as taught by Koebler.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Koebler in at least Paragraphs 0007 & 0080, the fuel efficiency of the vehicle may be improved by obtaining estimated energy requirements for different operating patterns, enabling the selection of an energy-optimal control strategy.
Regarding Claim 13:
The system of claim 12, wherein the instructions further include instructions to, upon determining that the energy variation between the first estimated energy consumption value and the second estimated energy consumption is greater than or equal to the energy consumption threshold, operate the vehicle based on the updated acceleration.
Tang discloses in at least Claim 15 and Paragraphs 0058 – 0060 wherein an assessment may be performed regarding if there is a potential for optimizing fuel economy of the vehicle based on the environment and constraints. If there is potential for optimization [i.e. the energy consumption difference is above a minimum threshold], the optimized drive torque is output [i.e. the vehicle is operated based on the updated acceleration].
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as those found in Claim 10, above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Hattori (US 2023/0169142 A1): Hattori recites an optimal solution calculating device, including an assessment of optimal fuel usage for a vehicle, based on an iterative approach wherein solutions are computed at each optimization step. When the difference between optimization steps is below a specified threshold difference, the solution is considered fully optimized.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights