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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 17 February 2026. Claims 11-28 are examined and pending. Claims 11-13 and 20-22 are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the drawings objection(s) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such the drawings objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment/arguments, with respect to the claim rejection under double patenting on pages 13-15 as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree, even if the claims of “536”, 453”, “875” and “238” recite features that are not in the present application, they are the narrower claims. The breadth of the instant application would be obvious over the instant application (broader claims) and/or secondary references.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more on pages 10-13 have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route, wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a CPU”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as movement times of vehicles and vehicles mandatory stops at portion(s) of the route could evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route, wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time. The mere nominal recitation of “a CPU” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
The additional limitations/elements of collecting primary data, which involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle; data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with a second motor vehicle, wherein a second motor vehicle is also the vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle, wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point; wherein the data associated with the first motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the first motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the first motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the first motor vehicle before a mandatory stop; and wherein the data associated with the second motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the second motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the second motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the second motor vehicle before a mandatory stop; collecting secondary data, which involves generating a track for the first motor vehicle, wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route, and wherein the first motor vehicle stops for a given period of time while moving along a portion of the route and passing the mandatory stop point; generating an estimated track for the second motor vehicle, wherein said estimated track is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle; wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route; a CPU computer device, a memory that stores a program code, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (vehicles movements, mandatory stopping portions of routs, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a CPU computer device, a memory that stores a program code, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the collecting and generating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No). As such, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on pages 15-16 of the remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argue neither Papajewski nor Naserian discloses a mandatory stop point. Naserian relates to stopping at traffic signals, see, e.g., Naserian at [0005]: "The host vehicle also includes a controller programmed to receive data from a traffic device indicative of an upcoming traffic signal state. The controller is also programmed to calculate a duration of the host vehicle at a stop location based on the upcoming traffic signal state." Such stops are not mandatory; instead, the necessity of a stop depends on the state of the traffic signal. As such, Naserian does not disclose "mandatory stop points.".
Examiner have considered the arguments and respectfully disagree. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant appears to emphasize that a mandatory stop should not be interpreted or does not encompass an upcoming traffic signal stop. The claim does not provide a specific definition/interpretation or boundaries to what a mandatory stop should be defined/interpreted or bounded by. Therefore, state of the traffic signal could be a mandatory stop (i.e., red light state) and therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Naserian teaches a mandatory stop point.
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 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route, wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a CPU”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as movement times of vehicles and vehicles mandatory stops at portion(s) of the route could evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route, wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stop point for a given period of time. The mere nominal recitation of “a CPU” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of collecting primary data, which involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle; data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with a second motor vehicle, wherein a second motor vehicle is also the vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle, wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point; wherein the data associated with the first motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the first motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the first motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the first motor vehicle before a mandatory stop; and wherein the data associated with the second motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the second motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the second motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the second motor vehicle before a mandatory stop; collecting secondary data, which involves generating a track for the first motor vehicle, wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route, and wherein the first motor vehicle stops for a given period of time while moving along a portion of the route and passing the mandatory stop point; generating an estimated track for the second motor vehicle, wherein said estimated track is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle; wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route; a CPU computer device, a memory that stores a program code, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (vehicles movements, mandatory stopping portions of routs, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a CPU computer device, a memory that stores a program code, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the collecting and generating steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 12-19 and 21-28 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp
Applicant claims 11-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-31 of copending Application No. 18/580,536. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-28 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 11-31 of 18/580,536 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s).
Applicant claims 11-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-31 of copending Application No. 18/699,875. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-28 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 12-31 of 18/699,875 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s).
Applicant claims 11-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-31 of copending Application No. 18/712,238. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-28 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 12-31 of 18/712,238 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s). Applicant claims 11-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-39 of copending Application No. 18/691,453. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-28 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 21-39 of 18/691,453 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s).
Applicant claims 11-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-30 of copending Application No. 18/580,475. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claims 11-28 of the present application would have been obvious over claims 11-28 of 18/691,003 and/or in view of the secondary reference(s).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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.
Claims 11-14, 16-19, 21-24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papajewski et al (US 20130261970 A1) in view of Naserian et al (US 20180215386 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Papajewski discloses a method for generating an energy-efficient track for a vehicle in operation moving along a portion of a route that contains a mandatory stop point, that is performed by a CPU of a computer device (see at least [abstract]), the method comprising at least the following steps: collecting primary data, which involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle; data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle (see at least [0019-0021] and [0038-0048]), and data associated with a second motor vehicle, wherein a second motor vehicle is also the vehicle in operation and passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle (see at least [0019-0023] and [0035-0048]), wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the portion of the roue (see at least [0019-0023] and [0035-0048]); wherein the data associated with the first motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the first motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the first motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the first motor vehicle before a portion of a route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); and wherein the data associated with the second motor vehicle include at least data associated with a movement time of the second motor vehicle that include data associated with an actual movement time of the second motor vehicle and data associated with a maximum movement time of the second motor vehicle before the portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); collecting secondary data, which involves generating a track for the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), and wherein the first motor vehicle stops for a given period of time while moving along a portion of the route and passing the portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); generating an estimated track for the second motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein said estimated track is generated based on the track generated for the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); wherein the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following steps: generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), and evaluating energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
However, Papajewski do not specifically disclose wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point; wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stopping point of the route for a given period of time.
Naserian teaches wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point (see at least [0025], [0027-0042], [0045], [0047-0051] and [0055-0069]); wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stopping point of the route for a given period of time (see at least [0018-0019], [0028], [0031-0032], [0043], and [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Papajewski, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Naserian wherein the data associated with the portion of the route include at least data associated with the mandatory stop point; wherein energy efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route is evaluated on the basis of the first motor vehicle stopping at said mandatory stopping point of the route for a given period of time. This would be done to increase efficiency of a vehicle and optimize is propulsion system (see Naserian para 0002).
With respect to claim 12, Papajewski discloses characterized in that the data associated with the first and/or second motor vehicle include at least one of the following: the type and model of the first motor vehicle, its mass, its aerodynamic characteristics, its wheel formula, its estimated and/or actual resource consumption and its estimated and/or actual VHI, data from its positioning sensors, weight sensors, and wheel speed sensors, or a combination thereof (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]); wherein the data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle further include at least one of the following data obtained from external sources: the geometry of the portion of the route, the road grade of the portion of the route, the allowed speed on the portion of the route, the quality of road surface of the portion of the route, speed limits on the portion of the route, turns on the portion of the route, weather conditions on the portion of the route, its infrastructure, and/or a combination thereof (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
With respect to claim 13, Papajewski discloses characterized in that the step of collecting primary data further involves collecting data associated with the portion of the route, along which the second motor vehicle is moving (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein the data include at least one of the following: the geometry of the portion of the route, the route grade of the portion of the route, the allowed speed on the portion of the route, the quality of route surface of the portion of the route, speed limits on the portion of the route, turns on the portion of the route, weather conditions on the portion of the route, or its infrastructure, and/or a combination thereof (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
With respect to claim 15, Papajewski discloses characterized in that the primary data associated with the first motor vehicle and the primary data associated with the portion of the route form an estimated track for the first motor vehicle, wherein such estimated track further contains an estimated speed profile of the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
With respect to claim 16, Papajewski discloses characterized in that the step of generating a track for the first motor vehicle further comprises a step of obtaining actual data on resource consumption by the first motor vehicle based on how it passed a given portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
With respect to claim 17, Papajewski discloses characterized in that the step of evaluating the resource efficiency of how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route involves comparing the estimated data on resource consumption by the first motor vehicle on the portion of the route with the actual data on resource consumption by the first motor vehicle on the portion of the route (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
With respect to claim 18, Papajewski discloses characterized in that the estimated data on resource consumption by the first motor vehicle on the portion of the route are compared with the actual data on resource consumption by the first motor vehicle on the portion of the route taking into account the speed profile generated for the first motor vehicle as well as the stop made by the first motor vehicle in the mandatory stop point for a given period of time (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
With respect to claim 19, Papajewski discloses characterized in that when the first motor vehicle is passing through the portion of the route, its actual speed profile is determined in at least one moment in time (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), and in case the actual speed profile of the first motor vehicle deviates from its estimated speed profile, a resource consumption control signal is generated for the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]), wherein the resource consumption control signal for the first motor vehicle is a signal for the motion control system of the first motor vehicle and/or the on-board information system of the first motor vehicle which is a signal to decrease or to increase the wheel speed of at least one wheel of the first motor vehicle (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], and [0035-0048]).
With respect to claims 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 they are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. As such, claims 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 and are incorporated herein.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papajewski et al (US 20130261970 A1) in view of Naserian et al (US 20180215386 A1) in view of Mason et al (US 20170307391 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Papajewski as modified by Naserian do not specifically teach characterized in that the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following additional steps: refining the primary data associated with the first motor vehicle based on how it passed the portion of the route; refining the primary data associated with the portion of the route based on how it was passed by the first motor vehicle; wherein the refining of the primary data associated with the portion of the route is also based on the data obtained from the environmental sensors of the first motor vehicle.
Mason teaches characterized in that the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following additional steps: refining the primary data associated with the first motor vehicle based on how it passed the portion of the route; refining the primary data associated with the portion of the route based on how it was passed by the first motor vehicle (see at least [0026-0027], [0030], [0034-0035], and [0043-0045]); wherein the refining of the primary data associated with the portion of the route is also based on the data obtained from the environmental sensors of the first motor vehicle (see at least [0026-0027], [0030], [0034-0035], and [0043-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Papajewski as modified by Naserian, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Naserian wherein characterized in that the track for the first motor vehicle is generated by performing the following additional steps: refining the primary data associated with the first motor vehicle based on how it passed the portion of the route; refining the primary data associated with the portion of the route based on how it was passed by the first motor vehicle; wherein the refining of the primary data associated with the portion of the route is also based on the data obtained from the environmental sensors of the first motor vehicle. This would be done to reduce energy use costs, improve operational efficiencies, improve customer service, and/or reduce vehicle emissions (see Mason para 0027).
With respect to claim 23, it is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 14. As such, claim 23 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 14 and is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667