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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No additional information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted for consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the United Kingdom on 08/13/2021.
Status of Application
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16, are pending.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 14, are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 6, and 15, are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1, 13, and 14, are independent claims.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Amended Claims” and “Applicant Arguments/Remarks” dated 12/01/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 12/01/2025 with respect to claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Objection to Drawings, the applicant’s response and amended drawings have been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Drawing FIGS. 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are withdrawn.
Regarding Objection to Title, the applicant’s response and amended specification has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Title is withdrawn.
Regarding Objection to Abstract, the applicant’s response and amended abstract has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Abstract is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, and the remarks, “claims 1, 13, and 14 are hereby amended to address the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection thereof.” Furthermore the applicant remarks, “the claims are amended to specify that outputting the determined journey speed is for use in connection with autonomous or semi-autonomous control of the vehicle, and also that outputting the indication of insufficient remaining battery energy to perform the route is for use in connection with autonomous or semi-autonomous control of the vehicle. Furthermore the applicant remarks, “ Applicant submits that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 13, and 14 and dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, and 16, which each depend from independent claim 1, should be withdrawn,” to which the Office respectfully disagrees It remains the Offices stance that the Applicants Specification does not disclose any “autonomous or semi-autonomous control of the vehicle.” Therefore the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 is not withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 , 35 U.S.C.103, and the remarks, “independent claims 1, 13, and 14 as hereby amended should be allowed” and “Applicant submits that the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l) rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 14 and dependent claims 3, 5, 12, 15, and 16, which each depend from independent claim 1, should be withdrawn,” has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C.103, are withdrawn.
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, 13, and 14, are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1, 13, and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 limitations are representative of claims 13 and 14, and the claims 13, and 14, are rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea in the form of calculating/generating route profile data, calculating/generating a destination state of charge (SoC), comparing destination SoC with end of route SoC, and determining/generating a journey speed to reach a destination.
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of falls into at least one of the statutory categories; namely, an apparatus (i.e. control system, claim 1, and vehicle, claim 13), and methods of claim 14.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2, prong I, the limitations of calculating/generating route profile data, calculating/generating a destination state of charge (SoC), comparing destination SoC with end of route SoC, and determining/generating a journey speed to reach a destination, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. control system 100). That is, other than reciting “by a computing device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the computing device” language, calculating/generating route profile data, calculating/generating a destination state of charge (SoC), comparing destination SoC with end of route SoC, and determining/generating a journey speed to reach a destination, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually taking steps of making a decision about the calculating/generating route profile data, calculating/generating a destination state of charge (SoC), comparing destination SoC with end of route SoC, and determining/generating a journey speed to reach a destination for a vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, prong II, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element(s) – using a computing device to perform calculating/generating route profile data, calculating/generating a destination state of charge (SoC), comparing destination SoC with end of route SoC, and determining/generating a journey speed to reach a destination, are generating, calculating, steps. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality, (i.e., control system 100), is a generic processor performing a generic computer function of calculating/generating route profile data, calculating/generating a destination state of charge (SoC), comparing destination SoC with end of route SoC, determining/generating a journey speed to reach a destination, and transmitting/output the journey speed such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element transmitting/output the journey speed does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims discloses “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Proceeding to edibility step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform calculating/generating route profile data, calculating/generating a destination state of charge (SoC), comparing destination SoC with end of route SoC, determining/generating a journey speed to reach a destination, steps amounts to no 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 limitations of transmitting/outputting the journey speed amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer which do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. The Applicant publication US 2024/0369368, paragraph [0093] discloses a control system may output the journey speed as, for example, an audio output and/or a visual output.
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12, and 15-16, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claims 1, 13, and 14.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling with the calculating/generating route profile data, calculating/generating a destination state of charge (SoC), comparing destination SoC with end of route SoC, and determining/generating a journey speed. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 13, and 14, 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. The limitation “perform the route for use in connection with autonomous or semi-autonomous control of the vehicle” is not recited within the specification and the limitation is not clearly defined to differentiate the “autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle.”
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to resolve the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 13, and 14.
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.
Claims 1, 13, and 14, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation “perform the route for use in connection with autonomous or semi-autonomous control of the vehicle” is indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established.
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to resolve the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 13, and 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, 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 Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights