DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 14, 2024. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “operation” should read “the operation”.
Claim 3, lines 2 and 8, “operation” should read “the operation”.
Claim 8, line 2, “at least one sensor” should read “the at least one sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“journey management module” in claim 6.
“calculation module” in claim 6.
“operation module” in claim 6.
“scoring management module” in claim 6.
“notification management module” in claim 6.
“vehicle owner management module” in claim 7.
“order management module” in claim 7.
“first path planning module” in claim 7.
“second path planning module” in claim 7.
“user management module” in claim 8.
“administrator backend module” in claim 9.
“reward feedback module” in claim 9.
“payment module” in claim 9.
“first generating module” in claim 10.
“second generating module” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 6-10, claim limitations, “journey management module”, “calculation module”, “operation module”, “scoring management module”, “notification management module”, “vehicle owner management module”, “order management module”, “first path planning module”, “second path planning module”, “user management module”, “administrator backend module”, “reward feedback module”, “payment module”, “first generating module”, and “second generating module”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification [0005, 0015-0019] recites these components but only recites the outcomes of their use, not what materials or acts are used to achieve the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 5-10 are 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.
As to claim 2, the limitation “the data calculation analysis method” at line 16 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a data calculation analysis method”.
As to claim 7, the limitation “the data calculation analysis method” at line 11 is unclear. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “a data calculation analysis method”.
As to claims 6-10, claim limitations, “journey management module”, “calculation module”, “operation module”, “scoring management module”, “notification management module”, “vehicle owner management module”, “order management module”, “first path planning module”, “second path planning module”, “user management module”, “administrator backend module”, “reward feedback module”, “payment module”, “first generating module”, and “second generating module”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification [0005, 0015-0019] recites these components but only recites the outcomes of their use, not what materials or acts are used to achieve the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 6 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1 and 6 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a machine and a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claims (claims 1 and 6) recite the limitation of “calculate/calculating a driving process data generated by a specific vehicle during operation on a predetermined driving route”, “calculating carbon emissions of each road section of the predetermined driving route based on the driving process data”, “compare/comparing the actual carbon emission with a minimum carbon emission to generate an actual carbon reduction amount”, and “determine/determining whether the actual carbon reduction amount is above a first predetermined value”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and calculates the driving process data and carbon emissions of each road section of the predetermined driving route based on the driving process data; compares the actual carbon emission with a minimum carbon emission; and determines whether the actual carbon reduction amount is above a first predetermined value. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply calculating a driving process data generated by a specific vehicle during operation on a predetermined driving route; calculating carbon emissions of each road section of the predetermined driving route based on the driving process data; comparing the actual carbon emission with a minimum carbon emission to generate an actual carbon reduction amount; and determining whether the actual carbon reduction amount is above a first predetermined value in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of at least one sensor (claims 1 and 6), electronic device (claims 1 and 6), big data model (claims 1 and 6), an adder (claims 1 and 6), a processor (claims 1 and 6), a path planning system (claims 1 and 6), a journey management module (claim 6), a calculation module (claim 6), an operation module (claim 6), a scoring management module (claim 6), or a notification management module (claim 6) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1 and 6 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “obtain/obtaining an actual carbon emission according to the carbon emissions of each road section”, “generating a notification signal for a user to drive on the predetermined driving route when the actual carbon reduction amount is above the first predetermined value”, at least one sensor (claims 1 and 6), electronic device (claims 1 and 6), big data model (claims 1 and 6), an adder (claims 1 and 6), a processor (claims 1 and 6), a path planning system (claims 1 and 6), a journey management module (claim 6), a calculation module (claim 6), an operation module (claim 6), a scoring management module (claim 6), and a notification management module (claim 6). The obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving/gathering data) and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The generating step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The at least one sensor in claims 1 and 6 and adder in claims 1 and 6 are claimed generically and operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “electronic device” in claims 1 and 6, “big data model” in claims 1 and 6, “a processor” in claims 1 and 6, “a path planning system” in claims 1 and 6, “a journey management module” in claim 6, “a calculation module” in claim 6, “an operation module” in claim 6, “a scoring management module” in claim 6, and “a notification management module” in claim 6, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “electronic device”, “big data model”, “a processor”, “a path planning system”, “a journey management module”, “a calculation module”, “an operation module”, “a scoring management module”, and “a notification management module” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the at least one sensor”, “the electronic device”, “the big data model”, “the adder”, “the processor”, “the path planning system”, “the journey management module”, “the calculation module”, “the operation module”, “the scoring management module”, and “the notification management module” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 performance of an action 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.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 6 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 6 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-5 depend from claim 1 and claims 7-10 depend from claim 6.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, in claim 2, the additional limitations of “receiving vehicle-related information, driving route starting point information, and driving route ending point information of the specific vehicle” is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity, using a similar analysis applied to claims 1 and 6 above. The “generating a general route option, a carbon-reducing route option, and a fast route option based on the vehicle-related information, the driving route starting point information, and the driving route ending point information”, “planning a low-carbon driving route with the minimum carbon emission according to the carbon-reducing route option”, and “planning the predetermined driving route according to the general route option” are further steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by a human using a pen and paper using a similar analysis applied to claims 1 and 6 above. As a further example, in claim 4, the “determining a similarity between the low-carbon driving route and the predetermined driving route” is further step that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by a human using a pen and paper using a similar analysis applied to claims 1 and 6 above. The “generating a reward feedback message when the similarity between the low-carbon driving route and the predetermined driving route is higher than a second predetermined value” and “generating a carbon emission payment message when the similarity between the low-carbon driving route and the predetermined driving route is lower than a third predetermined value” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, using a similar analysis applied to claims 1 and 6 above.
As such, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., US 2022/0335520 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lin, in view of Russo, US 2024/0094016 A1, hereinafter referred to as Russo, respectively.
As to claim 1, Lin teaches a path planning method and system of using data calculation analysis, wherein the path planning method comprises:
calculating a driving process data generated by a specific vehicle during operation on a predetermined driving route by at least one sensor of a vehicle, electronic device, or big data model using a vehicle carbon emission data collection algorithm (see at least paragraphs 26-29 regarding the portable electronic device 1 is carried by a user and is moved along the route. When the portable electronic device 1 is being moved along the route, the portable electronic device 1 performs, with respect to each of the segments of the route, a segmental carbon-emission calculation procedure. The segmental carbon-emission calculation procedure includes sub-steps of S21 to S24. In sub-step S21, the processor 14 obtains a type of the traveling means the user uses to pass through the segment, bringing along the portable electronic device 1. For example, if, to travel through the segment, the user is taking a bus, driving a passenger vehicle (referred to as a car hereinafter), riding a motorcycle, or riding a bicycle, then the type of traveling means would be a bus, a car, a motorcycle or a bicycle. In sub-step S22, the processor 14 determines a traveled distance of the portable electronic device through the segment (a distance traveled by the portable electronic device to pass from a starting node of the segment to a terminating node of the segment). Specifically, the processor 14 calculates the traveled distance based on the locations determined by the satellite navigation module 12 while the portable electronic device 1 traveled through the segment. See also at least Claim 1, Lin);
calculating carbon emissions of each road section of the predetermined driving route based on the driving process data (see at least paragraphs 26-30 regarding in sub-step S23, the processor 14 calculates a segmental carbon emission amount which is a product of the traveled distance determined in sub-step S22 and one of the predefined carbon-emission coefficients that corresponds to the type of traveling means obtained in sub-step S21. The processor 14 stores the segmental carbon emission amount thus calculated in the storage medium 13. See also at least Claim 1 regarding performing, with respect to each of the segments, a segmental carbon-emission calculation procedure which includes obtaining a type of traveling means used to bring the portable electronic device to travel through the segment, determining a distance traveled by the portable electronic device through the segment, and calculating a segmental carbon emission amount which is a product of the distance and a predefined carbon-emission coefficient that corresponds to the type of traveling means, Lin);
obtaining an actual carbon emission according to the carbon emissions of each road section by using an adder to perform a comprehensive addition operation (see at least paragraphs 26-38 regarding after the portable electronic device 1 has been moved to a last one of the nodes, the processor 14 calculates a one-trip carbon emission amount for this round of taking the route by adding up the segmental carbon emission amounts of all the segments of the route. The processor 14 then stores the one-trip carbon emission amount for this round in the storage medium 13, which will serve as an additional historic one-trip carbon emission amount for the next round taking the route. See also at least Claim 1 regarding calculating a one-trip carbon emission amount for this round of taking the route by adding up the segmental carbon emission amounts of all the segments of the route, Lin);
comparing the actual carbon emission with a minimum carbon emission to generate an actual carbon reduction amount (see at least paragraphs 26-38 regarding the processor 14 calculates a one-trip emission comparison amount based on the one-trip carbon emission amount calculated in step S3 and the carbon emission average amount, which is stored in the storage medium 13. See also at least Claim 1 regarding calculating a one-trip emission comparison amount based on the one-trip carbon emission amount and a carbon emission average amount, which is an average of a plurality of historic one-trip carbon emission amounts calculated previously for the route, Lin).
Lin does not explicitly teach determining whether the actual carbon reduction amount is above a first predetermined value by a processor; or generating a notification signal for a user to drive on the predetermined driving route when the actual carbon reduction amount is above the first predetermined value.
However, Russo teaches determining whether the actual carbon reduction amount is above a first predetermined value by a processor (see at least paragraphs 44-46 regarding various impact thresholds may be associated with various types of gas emissions, such as methane, carbon dioxide, and the like, where carbon emission metric related to each type of greenhouse gas may be compared to a corresponding impact threshold. For example, and without limitation, carbon emission metric 144 may include a measurement of carbon dioxide emissions that may be compared to an impact threshold of carbon dioxide, where the impact threshold includes an upper limit of carbon dioxide emissions of a transport. If the measurement of carbon dioxide of the carbon emission metric exceeds corresponding impact threshold, then an offset element 148 may be generated by processor 128); and generating a notification signal for a user to drive on the predetermined driving route when the actual carbon reduction amount is above the first predetermined value (see at least paragraphs 44-46 regarding various impact thresholds may be associated with various types of gas emissions, such as methane, carbon dioxide, and the like, where carbon emission metric related to each type of greenhouse gas may be compared to a corresponding impact threshold. For example, and without limitation, carbon emission metric 144 may include a measurement of carbon dioxide emissions that may be compared to an impact threshold of carbon dioxide, where the impact threshold includes an upper limit of carbon dioxide emissions of a transport. If the measurement of carbon dioxide of the carbon emission metric exceeds corresponding impact threshold, then an offset element 148 may be generated by processor 128. Memory 124 contains instructions configuring processor 128 to generate an offset element 148 as a function of the carbon emission metric 112 and impact threshold 160. For the purposes of this disclosure, an “offset element” is information or instructions related to reducing a subsequent carbon emission metric of one or more transports. … In some embodiments, offset element 148 may include an alternative route for the second vehicle during the second transport. As a non-limiting example, second route may be shorter so as to decrease carbon emissions. As a non-limiting example, second route may be less busy so as to decrease carbon emissions, for example due to time spent idling in traffic. As a non-limiting example, second route may be less mountainous so as to decrease carbon emissions. For the purposes of this disclosure, an “alternate route” is a route that differs from the route followed by the first vehicle during a first transport).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Russo which teaches determining whether the actual carbon reduction amount is above a first predetermined value by a processor; and generating a notification signal for a user to drive on the predetermined driving route when the actual carbon reduction amount is above the first predetermined value with the system of Lin as both systems are directed to a system and method for providing one or more carbon emission metrics based on the transport data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining whether the actual carbon reduction amount is above a first predetermined value by a processor; and generating a notification signal for a user to drive on the predetermined driving route when the actual carbon reduction amount is above the first predetermined value and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Lin.
As to claim 3, Lin does not explicitly teach calculating the driving process data, a mileage information, and a fuel consumption data of the specific vehicle operating on the predetermined driving route during operation by the at least one sensor of the vehicle, electronic device, or big data model using the vehicle carbon emission data collection algorithm through a transportation management system, an on-board automatic diagnosis system, or an over-the-air download technology.
However, such matter is taught by Russo (see at least Abstract regarding a computing device that receives transport data related to a transport. Transport may be conducted by a vehicle of a transportation organization. Computing device may provide one or more carbon emission metrics based on the transport data. The transport data may be transmitted to a remote device, such as a remote device of an operator or a party of the transportation organization. See also at least paragraphs 19-24 regarding transport data 112 may include information related to vehicle data of a transport. For the purposes of this disclosure, “vehicle data” is data related to a transport vehicle utilized during a transport. Vehicle data may include fuel usage data. For the purposes of this disclosure, “fuel usage data”, or “fuel consumption data”, is data pertaining to amounts of fuel consumed over a period of time by a vehicle such as, for example, a transportation vehicle. See also at least paragraphs 36-38 regarding one or more sensors communicatively connected to computing device 104 may detect mileage data (e.g., a mileage) of a vehicle and transmit the data to computing device 104 for storage in database. In other embodiments, transport data 112 may be retrieved from a remote database, such as, for example, a website, academic database, government database, or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Russo which teaches calculating the driving process data, a mileage information, and a fuel consumption data of the specific vehicle operating on the predetermined driving route during operation by the at least one sensor of the vehicle, electronic device, or big data model using the vehicle carbon emission data collection algorithm through a transportation management system, an on-board automatic diagnosis system, or an over-the-air download technology with the system of Lin as both systems are directed to a system and method for providing one or more carbon emission metrics based on the transport data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of calculating the driving process data, a mileage information, and a fuel consumption data of the specific vehicle operating on the predetermined driving route during operation by the at least one sensor of the vehicle, electronic device, or big data model using the vehicle carbon emission data collection algorithm through a transportation management system, an on-board automatic diagnosis system, or an over-the-air download technology and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Lin.
As to claim 6, Examiner notes claim 6 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 8, Examiner notes claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., US 2022/0335520 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lin, in view of Russo, US 2024/0094016 A1, hereinafter referred to as Russo, and further in view of Barth et al., US 2010/0076675 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barth, respectively.
As to claim 2, Lin teaches receiving vehicle-related information, driving route starting point information, and driving route ending point information of the specific vehicle inputted by the electronic device via a vehicle operation data sorting platform or a third-party map data platform (see at least paragraph 28-33 regarding the processor 14 determines a traveled distance of the portable electronic device through the segment (a distance traveled by the portable electronic device to pass from a starting node of the segment to a terminating node of the segment). The processor 14 determines whether the portable electronic device 1 has been moved to the last one of the nodes based on the locations determined by the satellite navigation module 12, that is, based on whether a current location of the portable electronic device 1 matches a predefined destination of the route, Lin), however, Lin, as modified by Russo, does not explicitly teach generating a general route option, a carbon-reducing route option, and a fast route option based on the vehicle-related information, the driving route starting point information, and the driving route ending point information by at least one of a high-precision map data model, a traffic prediction model, and a multi-objective path planning algorithm; planning a low-carbon driving route with the minimum carbon emission according to the carbon-reducing route option using the data calculation analysis method; or planning the predetermined driving route according to the general route option using the data calculation analysis method.
However, Barth teaches generating a general route option, a carbon-reducing route option, and a fast route option based on the vehicle-related information, the driving route starting point information, and the driving route ending point information by at least one of a high-precision map data model, a traffic prediction model, and a multi-objective path planning algorithm (see at least paragraph 58 regarding the system can prompt for origin, destination, nearest location or other information to assist the computer in identifying links between two nodes (80). This information is then used to pull or calculate energy/emission values from the roadwork database associated with links in the routing request (90). A data exchange format can then be used to annotate a map showing the possible routes and fuel/emissions values. This information is then processed to identify lowest emission, lowest fuel consumption, fastest time or any combination thereof (100). The method can identify the route having the lowest fuels consumption and/or emissions production to the user (110). See also at least Claims 1-2 regarding calculate a possible travel route from the start point to the destination point, wherein the route that uses the least fuel and/or produces the least emissions is identified as a travel route from the one or more possible travel routes. Wherein the system is further configured to determine a fastest possible travel route); planning a low-carbon driving route with the minimum carbon emission according to the carbon-reducing route option using the data calculation analysis method; and planning the predetermined driving route according to the general route option using the data calculation analysis method (see at least FIG. 6 and paragraphs 49-51 and 57-58 regarding a data exchange format referred to herein includes KML (Keyhole Markup Language) which can be used to annotate maps from to display points and lines on the digital map. A markup language refers to a language that has code that indicates layout, styling, and placement of graphics. This information is then processed to identify lowest emission, lowest fuel consumption, fastest time or any combination thereof (100). The method can identify the route having the lowest fuels consumption and/or emissions production to the user (110). See also at least Claim 1 regarding calculating a possible travel route from the start point to the destination point, wherein the route that uses the least fuel and/or produces the least emissions is identified as a travel route from the one or more possible travel routes, wherein the system is further configured to determine a fastest possible travel route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Barth which teaches generating a general route option, a carbon-reducing route option, and a fast route option based on the vehicle-related information, the driving route starting point information, and the driving route ending point information by at least one of a high-precision map data model, a traffic prediction model, and a multi-objective path planning algorithm; planning a low-carbon driving route with the minimum carbon emission according to the carbon-reducing route option using the data calculation analysis method; and planning the predetermined driving route according to the general route option using the data calculation analysis method with the system of Lin, as modified by Russo, as both systems are directed to a system and method for providing one or more carbon emission metrics based on the transport data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of generating a general route option, a carbon-reducing route option, and a fast route option based on the vehicle-related information, the driving route starting point information, and the driving route ending point information by at least one of a high-precision map data model, a traffic prediction model, and a multi-objective path planning algorithm; planning a low-carbon driving route with the minimum carbon emission according to the carbon-reducing route option using the data calculation analysis method; and planning the predetermined driving route according to the general route option using the data calculation analysis method and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Lin as modified by Russo.
As to claim 5, Lin, as modified by Russo, does not explicitly te