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 Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/720,636 filed on 06/15/2024.
• Claims 8-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/720,636 filed on 06/15/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025, 01/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The abstract is not in a separate page.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 USPQ 645 (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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 14 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/699,878 in view of Mason (US20170307391A1).
Claim 8 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/699,878 recites a method for generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for a vehicle in operation, that is performed by a CPU of a computer device, the method comprising at least a step of generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment energy-efficient track is generated based on a main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on a portion of a route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated. Claim 8 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/699,878 lacks the claim limitations of “generating a resource-efficient track”. Mason teaches a generating a resource-efficient track for various resource types of vehicles including gasoline powered vehicles (e.g., gas or diesel), electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and alternative fuel vehicles in para[69] and para [29]. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine teaching from U.S. Patent Application No. 18/699,878 and Mason because this would reduce energy use costs, improve operational efficiencies, improve customer service, and/or reduce vehicle emissions.
The comparison of claim 8 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/720,636 and claim 8 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/699,878 is listed below.
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/720,636
(Instant application)
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/699,878
(Co-pending application)
A method for generating an adjustment resource-efficient track for a vehicle in operation, that is performed by a CPU of a computer device, the method comprising at least a step of generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track is generated based on a main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on a portion of a route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated; and wherein the step of generating the adjustment resource-efficient track comprises at least the following steps: determining a current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route; determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement; collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route; and generating the adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains a second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
A method for generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for a vehicle in operation, that is performed by a CPU of a computer device, the method comprising at least a step of generating an energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment energy-efficient track is generated based on a main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on a portion of a route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated; and wherein the step of generating an adjustment energy-efficient track comprises at least the following steps: determining a current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route; determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement; collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route; and generating an adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains the second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main energy-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation.
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 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 8, 14 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 8 is directed towards a method, claim 14 is directed towards a machine.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claims 8, 14 recite “generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track is generated based on a main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation” and “ generating the adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by a CPU of a computer device”. That is, other than reciting “by a CPU of a computer device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a CPU of a computer device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a CPU of a computer device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “a CPU of a computer device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose computer environment. 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 is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9-13 and 15-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims 9-13 and 15-19 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claims 8 and 14.
Claims 9 and 15 merely further specify how to generate a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route and evaluate resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by a CPU of a computer device”. That is, other than reciting “by a CPU of a computer device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a CPU of a computer device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a CPU of a computer device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claims 10, 12-13 and 16, 18-19 merely further specify additional elements of receiving a plurality of measured values from a plurality of sensors located on the vehicle. The receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 11 and 17 merely further specify how to refine the primary data collected from the sensors. The refining data steps from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected as being indefinite because the claim limitation reciting “
determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route”. It is not clear what this claim limitation is referring to, particularly what “the portion of the route” is referring to? Is it referring to “an adjustment portion of the route” or another portion of the route? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any portion of route disclosed by the references.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected as being indefinite because the claim limitation reciting “
determining an adjustment portion of the route, wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement”. It is not clear what this claim limitation is referring to, particularly what “are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement”? Is it referring to “an adjustment portion of the route located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement” or “the main resource-efficient track located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement” or both “an adjustment portion of the route and the main resource-efficient track” are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement ? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any portion of route disclosed by the references.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected as being indefinite because the claim limitation reciting “and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains a second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation”. It is not clear what this claim limitation is referring to, particularly what “matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation”? Is the second preferred speed range matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation or the speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as speed disclosed by the references.
Claims 9-13 and 15-19 are rejected because their dependence on claims 8 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-12, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mason (US20170307391A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 14:
Mason teaches:
A method for generating an adjustment resource-efficient track for a vehicle in operation, that is performed by a CPU of a computer device, (Mason, para[69], “it may be more energy efficient to select the route R1”, para[115], “display a recommended vehicle driving speed to further decrease energy use”, and para[06], “a computer system including computer hardware”)
the method comprising at least a step of generating a resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, (Mason, para[69], “the route R1 has a distance of 10 miles and the route R2 has a distance of 15 miles. Although the route R1 is shorter, it may be more energy efficient to select feasible route R2 over feasible route R1. For example, if an internal combustion vehicle is identified as the vehicle to be used, the fuel required to go up the hill may exceed the fuel required to traverse the longer route”)
wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track is generated based on a main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, (Mason, para[69], “the route R1 has a distance of 10 miles and the route R2 has a distance of 15 miles. Although the route R1 is shorter, it may be more energy efficient to select feasible route R2 over feasible route R1. For example, if an internal combustion vehicle is identified as the vehicle to be used, the fuel required to go up the hill may exceed the fuel required to traverse the longer route”)
wherein the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on a portion of a route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, (Mason, para[115], “display a recommended vehicle driving speed to further decrease energy use”, para [117], “follow the recommended speeds.”, para[69], “it may be more energy efficient to select the route R1”)
and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least a first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated; (Mason, Fig. 10 and para[115], “the turn-by-turn instructions can be audibly announced in real time to alert the driver. In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 10, the feedback portion 1010 can display a recommended vehicle driving speed to further decrease energy use ”, para [117], “the recommended vehicle driving speed can be between about 80% and about 95%, between about 75% and about 90%, and/or between about 85% and about 100% of the posted speed limit.”)
and wherein the step of generating the adjustment resource-efficient track comprises at least the following steps: determining a current location of the vehicle in operation, wherein the current location of the vehicle in operation does not correspond to its estimated location on the portion of the route; (Mason, para[25], “the in-vehicle devices 105 can report information to the vehicle management system 110, such as driver location”)
determining an adjustment portion of the route, (Mason, para[108], “VIII. Dynamically Adjustable Routing…identify a new preferred route during the course of travel…receive re-routing information in real time to provide dynamically adjustable routing”)
wherein its start coordinates match the current location of the vehicle in operation and its end coordinates match the start coordinates of the portion of the route, (Mason, para[47],” the starting waypoint is a vehicle's current location…The starting waypoint and the destination waypoint can be the same (e.g., a round trip route)”)
for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, and wherein the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement; (Mason, para[47],” the starting waypoint is a vehicle's current location”) Examiner note: It is not clear what this claim limitation is referring to, particularly what “are located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement” is referring to? Is it referring to “an adjustment portion of the route located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement” or “the main resource-efficient track located in the vehicle in operation's direction of movement”? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any portion of route disclosed by the references.
collecting primary adjustment data, which involves obtaining data associated with the vehicle in operation and data associated with the adjustment portion of the route; (Mason, para[116],” The speed of the vehicle can advantageously be adjusted to balance the kinetic energy and potential energy components of the total energy of the vehicle as it traverses the hill.”, and para [25], “the in-vehicle devices 105 can report information to the vehicle management system 110, such as driver location, speed, energy consumption”)
and generating the adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the adjustment resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the adjustment portion of the route, (Mason, para[115], “display a recommended vehicle driving speed to further decrease energy use”, para [117], “follow the recommended speeds.”, para[69], “it may be more energy efficient to select the route R1”)
and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation contains a second preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation generated in such a way that when the vehicle in operation is moving at any of the speeds from the second preferred speed range, its speed at the start coordinates of the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, matches any of the speeds from the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation. (Mason, para [117], “the recommended vehicle driving speed can be between about 80% and about 95%, between about 75% and about 90%, and/or between about 85% and about 100% of the posted speed limit.”) Examiner note: Mason teaches a first preferred speed range between about 80% and about 95% of speed limit, a second preferred speed range between about 75% and about 90%. And the second preferred speed range matches the speeds from the first preferred speed range (80%-90%) of the speed limit.
Regarding claims 9 and 15:
Mason, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Mason teaches:
The method of claim 8, characterized in that the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation is generated by means of the CPU of the computer device implementing a method for generating a resource-efficient track for a motor vehicle, the method comprising the following steps: collecting primary data that involves obtaining data associated with a first motor vehicle, data associated with a portion of a route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, and data associated with the vehicle in operation, wherein the vehicle in operation passes the portion of the route after the first motor vehicle; (Mason, para[111],” The centralized dispatch center can include a display that shows where some or all of the vehicles of a fleet are currently located and where there are issues of traffic congestion, construction, detours, accidents, etc.” )
collecting secondary data that involves generating a track of the first motor vehicle, wherein said track is generated based on how the first motor vehicle passed the portion of the route; (Mason, para[111],”The centralized dispatch center can include a display that shows where some or all of the vehicles of a fleet are currently located and where there are issues of traffic congestion, construction, detours, accidents, etc.”, and para[112], “the route calculation module 225 calculates a new set of alternative feasible routes based on the current location of the vehicle and the received information”)
and generating the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation, wherein the resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation 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: (Mason, para[112],” At block 910, the route calculation module 225 calculates a new set of alternative feasible routes based on the current location of the vehicle and the received information and determines the cost (e.g., energy use cost) of each feasible route”)
generating a speed profile of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route; (Mason, para[25],” the in-vehicle devices 105 can report information to the vehicle management system 110, such as driver location, speed, energy consumption, and so forth.”)
evaluating resource efficiency of the first motor vehicle on the passed portion of the route; (Mason, para[25],” the in-vehicle devices 105 can report information to the vehicle management system 110, such as driver location, speed, energy consumption, and so forth.”) Examiner note: Mason teaches collecting driver location and energy consumption, it is a simple calculation to calculate the energy efficiency on the past portion of the route.
wherein the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation contains at least an estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, (Mason, para[115], “display a recommended vehicle driving speed to further decrease energy use”, para [117], “follow the recommended speeds.”, para[69], “it may be more energy efficient to select the route R1”)
and wherein the estimated speed profile of the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated, contains at least the first preferred speed range for the vehicle in operation on the portion of the route, for which the main resource-efficient track for the vehicle in operation was generated (Mason, Fig. 10 and para[115], “the turn-by-turn instructions can be audibly announced in real time to alert the driver. In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 10, the feedback portion 1010 can display a recommended vehicle driving speed to further decrease energy use ”, para [117], “the recommended vehicle driving speed can be between about 80% and about 95%, between about 75% and about 90%, and/or between about 85% and about 100% of the posted speed limit.”)
Regarding claims 10 and 16:
Mason, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Mason teaches:
The method of claim 9, characterized in that the data associated with the first 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, and/or a combination thereof; (Mason, para[25],” the in-vehicle devices 105 can report information to the vehicle management system 110, such as driver location, speed, energy consumption, and so forth.”)
the data associated with the vehicle in operation include at least one of the following: the type and model of the vehicle in operation, 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, and/or a combination thereof; and the data associated with the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle include at least one of the data of the portion of the route to be passed by the first motor vehicle, obtained from external sources, and/or a combination thereof: 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, or its infrastructure. (Mason, para[25],” the in-vehicle devices 105 can report information to the vehicle management system 110, such as driver location, speed, energy consumption, and so forth.”)
Regarding claims 11 and 17:
Mason, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Mason teaches:
The method of claim 9, 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; (Mason, para[111],”The centralized dispatch center can include a display that shows where some or all of the vehicles of a fleet are currently located and where there are issues of traffic congestion, construction, detours, accidents, etc.”)
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, para[23],” evaluate vehicle energy usage based on factors such as terrain or elevation, vehicle characteristics, driver characteristics, road conditions, traffic, speed limits, stop time, turn information, traffic information, and weather information”)
Regarding claims 12 and 18:
Mason, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 9. Mason teaches:
The method of claim 9, 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. (Mason, Fig. 10 and para[115], “the turn-by-turn instructions can be audibly announced in real time to alert the driver. In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 10, the feedback portion 1010 can display a recommended vehicle driving speed to further decrease energy use ”, para [117], “the recommended vehicle driving speed can be between about 80% and about 95%, between about 75% and about 90%, and/or between about 85% and about 100% of the posted speed limit.”)
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) 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US20170307391A1) in view of Zhu (US 20180203450 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 19:
Mason, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12. Mason teaches:
wherein 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 on the portion of the route; (Mason, para[25], “the in-vehicle devices 105 can report information to the vehicle management system 110, such as driver location, speed, energy consumption”)
wherein 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; (Mason, para [41], “improve energy efficiency and reduce energy use”, para[59], “energy use … can be used for comparison of routes”, and para[60], “estimated or actual effect on energy use”)
and wherein 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. (Mason, para [56],” outputting the route can also include outputting speed recommendations or other real-time driver feedback for at least portions of the route. Such recommendations can be output to control or attempt to control energy use”)
Mason does not explicitly teach, but Zhu teaches:
The method of claim 12, characterized in that the estimated track for the first motor vehicle contains estimated acceleration points and/or deceleration points on the portion of the road; (Zhu, para[17],”The projected acceleration or deceleration can be estimated using a predetermined algorithm or function.”)
the track generated for the first motor vehicle further contains actual acceleration points and/or deceleration points determined based on how the first motor vehicle passed the given portion of the route; (Zhu, para[45],” the actual accelerations 405 at different points”)
wherein the track generated for the first motor vehicle further contains the data on mismatches between the actual acceleration points and/or deceleration points and respective estimated acceleration points and/or deceleration points on the portion of the route; (Zhu, para[45],” the difference between the actual acceleration/deceleration and the projected acceleration/deceleration at different points”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify route scheduling or route selection for a fleet of vehicles of Mason to include these above teachings from Zhu in order to include estimated acceleration points and/or deceleration points on the portion of the road and actual acceleration points and/or deceleration points determined based on how the first motor vehicle passed the given portion of the route and wherein the track generated for the first motor vehicle further contains the data on mismatches between the actual acceleration points and/or deceleration points and respective estimated acceleration points and/or deceleration points on the portion of the route. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “according to the planned route to reach the specified destination safely and efficiently.”(Zhu, Description)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Payne (US11897446B2) teaches navigation systems for integrating unknown route segments into a digital map by detecting turns made by a vehicle, and in particular for mapping unidentified route segments in areas where a digital map are devoid of pre-mapped segments.
Kao (US20200089241A1) teaches a method of vehicle energy use estimation and route planning. More specifically, aspects of this disclosure relate to intelligent motor vehicles with control logic for predictive eco-route planning and adaptive driving control.
Kang (US20180058868A1) teaches a method for generating energy-optimized travel routes with a vehicle navigation system includes generating candidate travel routes between a route origin and one or more route destinations, and then dividing each candidate travel route into a plurality of route segments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3667