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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-13, 15-21 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the order of the words “the operating mode is read in from an interface to detection unit different from a detection unit detecting the identification parameter” is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, 13-16, 18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim; US 2022/0139216) in view of Biberstein et al. (Biberstein; US 2022/0237952).
As per claim 1, Kim teaches a method for providing at least one emission value of a means of transport, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
- reading in an identification parameter that represents at least one type of the means of transport present in an observation area (detection unit reading or identifying vehicle number or plate number of vehicles passing through an area; see e.g. para. [0071] and para. [0075]);
- ascertaining the at least one emission value of the means of transport from a memory that stores an assignment of at least the one type of the means of transport to the emission value, wherein the at least one emission value represents a parameter of an emission coming from the means of transport into an environment of the means of transport (emission calculation unit 230 may set an remission factor for each of air pollutant based on the vehicle information provided by the vehicle information detection unit 210 and calculate emission for each of a plurality of emission sources using the emission factors. The emission calculation unit 230 may calculate each of hot start emission, cold start emission, deterioration emission, evaporation emission, sulfur oxide emission, and ammonia emission as emission sources, The emission calculation unit 230 may store the vehicle information and data calculated or obtained using the vehicle information in the database 250; see e.g. para. [0080-86] and [0111]); and
- outputting the at least one emission value to an output interface in order to provide the at least one emission value (the emission statistics engine 240 may generate and provide statistical data by statisticalizing the data stored in the database 250 according to a user's settings; see e.g. para. [0084-86]).
Kim does not explicitly teach the claimed determining, using one or more sensors, modification and/or installation information, which represents a unit externally attached to the means of transport, and/or a sound level and/or a strength of an electromagnetic field emitted by the means of transport during travel, wherein the at least one emission value is based on using the modification and/or installation information and/or the sound level and/or the strength of the electromagnetic field emitted by the means of transport during travel.
Biberstein, however, teaches determining, using one or more sensors (camera for example), modification and/or installation information, which represents a unit externally attached to means of transport (determining that a trailer is externally attached to a vehicle; see e.g. para. [0027] and step 302 of FIG. 3), and/or a sound level and/or a strength of an electromagnetic field emitted by the means of transport during travel, wherein at least one emission value is based on using the modification and/or installation information and/or the sound level and/or the strength of the electromagnetic field emitted by the means of transport during travel (a range of the vehicle charges based on a change in drag force, which is based on the installed trailer, see e.g. para. [0030] and FIG. 3, wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that an increase in drag force changes emission value. Therefore, it would have been obvious that installation of a trailer with and/or installation of any other equipment with a vehicle can change the discussed drag force which in turn would change emission value, and such installation needs to be considered when calculating the emission value).
Kim and Biberstein are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved range calculation and/or emission calculation which in turn may avoid being stranded without fuel or charge.
As per claim 2, the Method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein during said step of reading, the identification parameter is read in using an optical or electromagnetic image of the means of transport and/or information read out wirelessly from a memory of the means of transport (the carried out using a camera; see e.g. para. [0072] of Kim)
As per claim 3, the Method according to claim 2 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein during said step of reading, the identification parameter is determined by evaluating a detected license number of the means of transport and/or by evaluating a contour, a production model and/or a color of the means of transport (the identification is determined using license plate number of the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0071] of Kim).
As per claim 4, the Method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein, the means of transport includes a road vehicle, an aircraft and/or a ship (the identification is determined using license plate number of the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0071] of Kim, wherein Biberstein also teaches a vehicle; see e.g. FIG. 1).
As per claim 5, the Method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein the emission value is a quantity and/or type of a gas, , a sound level, a quantity and/or type of particulate matter, and/or a strength of an electromagnetic field emitted by the means of transport during the travel (the hot start emission calculation module 231 may identity the driving speed of the target vehicle and the driving distance for each section and reflect the driving speed and driving distance to the emission factor for each pollutant, e.g. CO, VOC, NOx, PM1O, and PM2.5, thereby calculating the pollutant emission amount in the hot start situation; see e.g. para. [0111] of Kim).
As per claim 6, the Method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, said ascertaining is carried out using a database stored in a traffic monitoring authority, as the memory, and/or wherein the steps of the method are carried out in a device of a moving carrier unit (The external server interworking unit 220 may interwork with, or interface with, the external server 300 to obtain specification information for the vehicle. The external server interworking unit 220 may be an interface with an external server. Por example, the vehicle information detection unit 210 ray generate vehicle identification information by identifying the vehicle member (e.g. plate number) of each vehicle passing through an regional section and provide the vehicle identification information to the external server interworking unit 220. The extremal server interworking unit 220 may send a request for specification information for a corresponding vehicle to the external server 300 based on the vehicle identification information, obtain the vehicle specification information from the external server 300, and provide the obtained vehicle specification information to the vehicle information detection unit 210; see e.g. para. [0075]).
As per claim 7, the method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein said reading includes [of] reading, a speed of the means of transport, and wherein, during said ascertaining, the emission value is ascertained using the speed of the means of transport (Kim teaches that the factor setting module 212 may set factors necessary for calculating emission, such as an emission factor, a deterioration factor, and a fuel consumption factor. For example, the factor setting module 212 may set a fuel consumption factor according to the driving speed for each vehicle type, a sulfur content of each vehicle fuel, an ammonia emission factor of the vehicle, a hot-to-cold emission ratio of the vehicle, a deterioration factor according to the model year and warranty period of the vehicle, a sulfur content for each vehicle fuel, aa evaporation emission factor for the gasoline vehicle, and an ammonia emission factor of the vehicle. To this end, the factor setting module 212 may store information related to each factor or may receive or collect the factor-related information from an external server having the factor-related information and manage the factor related-information; see e.g. para. [0102]).
As per claim 8, the method according to claim 7 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein during said reading, an average speed of the means of transport during the travel through a predefined route portion is read in as the speed of the means of transport (Kim teaches per-section driving distance and speed is detected, from which average speed can be detected; see e.g. para. [0016-17]).
As per claim 10, see e.g. analysis of merits of claim 1.
As per claim 11, Even though the disclosed combination of Kim and Biberstein teaches the claimed determining, ascertaining and outputting steps, they do not teach that the disclosed determining, ascertaining and outputting steps are directed to a further means of transport or vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed sensor(s) 100 of Kim can be programmed such that it can capture data from a plurality of vehicles 10 at and send the data for processing, rather than a single sensor for a single lane, which is desired for reduced cost or efficient data handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Kim and Biberstein to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of reducing cost or efficient data handling.
As per claim 13, A device configured to execute and/or control the method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein in corresponding units (Kim teaches one or more devices, 100, 200 to carry out the method steps; see e.g. FIGS. 1, 5 and 6).
As per claim 14, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program configured to execute and/or control the steps of the method according to claim 1, as taught by Kim and Biberstein, is stored (the server 200, see FIG. 1, running or executing one or more programs to carry out the tasks as discussed earlier; see e.g. para. [0065]).
As per claim 15, A Machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program according to claim 14, as taught by Kim and Biberstein, is stored (one or more memories or databases, see e.g. para. [0065] where computer program instruction and/or other related data can reside to carry out the discussed tasks).
As per claim 16, the method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein the means of transport includes a passenger car, a truck, a motorcycle, or a rail vehicle (Kim teaches the disclosed vehicle is a passenger car; see e.g. para. [0074] and FIG. 1).
As per claim 18, the method according to claim 7 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein the speed and the identification parameter are determined using a measurement result of a shared or identical sensor (Kim teaches detecting an identity of a vehicle using a camera or image sensor, as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, wherein an identical sensor or shared image sensor can be used to determine speed of the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0074]).
As per claim 20, the method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, wherein the modification and/or installation information represents a unit externally attached to the means of transport (the discussed trailer is externally attached to the vehicle as discussed earlier, see e.g. FIG. 1 of Biberstein).
As per claim 21, see e.g. analysis of merits of claim 1.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Biberstein and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu; CN 105096620).
As per claim 12, the method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, except the claimed wherein said outputting includes outputting the at least one emission value to a display unit, a toll calculation unit for calculating a traffic route usage charge for the means of transport and/or a traffic control unit for controlling a traffic flow comprising the means of transport.
Hu, however, teaches outputting the at least one emission value to a display unit (a display module 5, see e.g. FIG. 1, which can output an evaluated pollutant emission information; see e.g. abstract). Kim and Biberstein are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of notifying an outside unit about emission information so a relevant personnel can take mitigating action to rule out fraud.
As per claim 17, the method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, except the claimed wherein the emission value is type of gas, is carbon dioxide and/or a nitrogen oxide.
Hu, however, teaches that emission is carbon dioxide (see e.g. page 6, last three lines). Kim and Biberstein are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of notifying an outside unit about emission information so a relevant personnel can take mitigating action to rule out fraud.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Biberstein and further in view of Karunaratne et al. (Karunaratne; US 2016/0069288).
As per claim 9, the method according to claim 1 as taught by Kim and Biberstein, except the claimed wherein said reading includes reading an operating mode of the means of transport, and wherein the at least one emission value is ascertained using the operating mode.
Karunaratne, however, teaches reading an operating mode of means of transport, and wherein at least one emission value is ascertained using the operating mode (see e.g. para. [0059]). Kim, Biberstein and Karunaratne are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved range estimation and/or to remain within an emission threshold for a certain zone, area or region.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Biberstein and further in view of Karunaratne and Harris (Harris; US 2009/0240388).
As per claim 19, the method according to claim 9 as taught by Kim, Biberstein and Karunaratne, except the claimed wherein the operating mode is read in from an interface to detection unit different from a detection unit detecting the identification parameter.
Harris, however, teaches monitoring an operating mode of a vehicle and reading the operating mode using a wireless sensor of remote system 228 (see e.g. FIG. 2 and para. [0040-41]), wherein the wireless detection unit in remote system 228 is different from the disclosed cameras of Kim.
Kim, Biberstein, Karunaratne and Harris are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving reliability by using a plurality of sensors to collect data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights