DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 12/23/2025.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, and 15-23 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are currently amended; Claims 2, 12, and 14 are canceled and Claims 21-23 are new.
The prior rejections of Claims 1, 5-13, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glugla, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0224997 (“Glugla”), in view of Haputhanthri, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0011475 (“Haputhanthri”).
With regard to Claim 1, Glugla teaches a computing system coupled to at least one vehicle, the computing system comprising:
a processing circuit comprising one or more processors coupled to one or more memory devices storing instructions therein ([0022] describes a vehicle control system communicatively coupled to a cloud computing system including a server computing device) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processing circuit to:
obtain, from a third-party remote computing system, first information comprising at least one of a weather input or traffic information for a vehicle ([0052] describes that data generated on-board a plurality of vehicles can be relayed to and stored at the cloud computing system. [0057] describes that weather can be tracked at the cloud);
receive, from the vehicle, vehicle information comprising a calibration identifier ([0052] describes that the cloud computing device receives from each vehicle information about vehicle powertrains as well as the calibration data that the vehicle has collected);
generate custom calibration information ([0052] describes that the cloud computing system can determine for a vehicle whether another vehicle has matching powertrain characteristics, as well as cells of a calibration table filled with data collected while operating for a threshold period of time in a certain operating region); and
transmit, over a network, the custom calibration information to the vehicle that replaces at least a portion of the vehicle information stored in at least one vehicle controller of the vehicle ([0054] describes that calibration data in the cloud computing device can be downloaded by a vehicle, where [0056] describes that the calibration table of the given vehicle can be adjusted based on the downloaded data).
Glugla, in view of Haputhanthri teaches that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to receive, from a client computing device associated with the vehicle, a desired operating characteristic for the vehicle; and generate, based on the first information, the vehicle information, and the desired operating characteristic for the vehicle, custom calibration information.
Glugla teaches at [0052] that a calibration update request can be received, and calibration information located and generated for updating the vehicle by locating the matching powertrain information and corresponding cells of a calibration table, where [0053] describes that data can be adjusted based on weather and sent to the vehicle. Haputhanthri teaches at [0108] that a customer can input a travel request, along with preferences. [0111]-[0112] describe that a route for the request can be determined, along with calibrations for the route. The calibrations can then be analyzed to ensure that the calibration satisfies the one or more preference parameters submitted by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Glugla to include providing calibration updates that satisfy user-submitted criteria as described in Haputhanthri. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling user control over calibration, thereby ensuring vehicle performance best suits the user’s preferences.
Claim 13 recites a method carried out by the computing system of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 18 recites a system which is substantially the same as the system of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Haputhanthri teaches that the desired operating characteristic comprises at least one of an improved fuel economy, an increased usage of an electric motor in place of an internal combustion engine, or a reduction in transmission shift events. [0112] describes that the user preference can be to prioritize fuel economy over performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Glugla to include providing calibration updates that satisfy user-submitted criteria as described in Haputhanthri. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling user control over calibration, thereby ensuring vehicle performance best suits the user’s preferences.
Claim 15 recites a method carried out by the computing system of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a system which is substantially the same as the system of Claim 3, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Glugla, in view of Haputhanthri teaches that the desired operating characteristic is received from the at least one vehicle controller storing the vehicle information. Glugla teaches at [0052] that the powertrain data and calibration data are received from vehicles; Haputhanthri teaches at [0048] that requests can likewise be generated from a vehicle owner programming a route for their vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Glugla to include providing calibration updates that satisfy user-submitted criteria as described in Haputhanthri. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling user control over calibration, thereby ensuring vehicle performance best suits the user’s preferences.
Claim 16 recites a method carried out by the computing system of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Glugla teaches that the custom calibration information is specific to a condition received for the vehicle. [0045] describes that the calibration table has cells, each of which corresponds to at least two operating conditions. [0052] describes that calibration information is identified related specifically to cells for which the vehicle has not operated in the corresponding conditions for a threshold amount of time.
With regard to Claim 6, Glugla teaches that the condition comprises at least one of a defined route for the vehicle, a load for the vehicle, a region of travel for the vehicle, a season of travel for the vehicle, or an altitude of travel for the vehicle. [0045] describes that engine load is an operating condition.
Claim 17 recites a method carried out by the computing system of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Glugla teaches that the calibration identifier is a base calibration identifier identifying an operating software package specific to the vehicle. [0007] describes that a vehicle can be a new vehicle being produced, where the vehicle is receiving calibration data prior to sale. As this represents an initial calibration table, the information which is sent to retrieve calibration data will identify that the software package specific to the vehicle will receive calibration data for all relevant cells, as [0047] describes that local calibration data is used for calibration tables and a vehicle which has not been driven does not have any time operating at any of the table cell operating conditions.
With regard to Claim 8, Glugla teaches that the base calibration identifier is specific to an engine of the vehicle. [0052] describes that the vehicles identify their powertrain configurations in order to retrieve calibration data received from other vehicles with matching powertrain configurations.
With regard to Claim 9, Glugla teaches that the custom calibration information includes specific parameters based on the calibration identifier, the specific parameters comprising at least one of user operation parameters, engine control parameters, or vehicle device parameters. [0067] describes that the vehicle controller uses the updated calibration table to set the engine operating parameters according to the estimated or calculated current operating conditions. The controller can make powertrain actuator settings which control engine function.
Claim 22 recites a method carried out by the computing system of Claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Glugla teaches that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the processing circuit to: identify at least one similar vehicle based on at least one of a base calibration identifier or an equipment platform identifier and a desired operating characteristic; identify one or more key parameters of the identified similar vehicle; and transmit, over the network, the one or more key parameters in the custom calibration information to the vehicle, wherein the base calibration identifier identifies an operating software package.
Glugla at [0052] describes that the system identifies similar vehicles using the received powertrain configurations, thereby identifying data indicating the powertrain equipment platforms match. The system also identifies vehicles that have traveled a threshold amount of time under particular operating conditions. The identified calibration table entries for the corresponding cells are then used for updating the vehicle’s table.
Claim 23 recites a method carried out by the computing system of Claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 11, Glugla teaches that the vehicle information comprises at least one of a vehicle location, a vehicle route, a vehicle type, or vehicle operating information. [0057] describes that weighting can be carried out, using vehicle location to weight data samples closer to the vehicle that is being updated. [0052] describes that data processing and calculations are carried out in the cloud computing system using data uploaded thereto by vehicles, thereby indicating that the location data is transmitted to the server.
With regard to Claim 19, Haputhanthri teaches that the custom calibration information is specific to the desired operating characteristic for the vehicle. Haputhanthri teaches at [0108] that a customer can input a travel request, along with preferences. [0111]-[0112] describe that a route for the request can be determined, along with calibrations for the route. The calibrations can then be analyzed to ensure that the calibration satisfies the one or more preference parameters submitted by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Glugla to include providing calibration updates that satisfy user-submitted criteria as described in Haputhanthri. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling user control over calibration, thereby ensuring vehicle performance best suits the user’s preferences.
With regard to Claim 21, Glugla teaches that the calibration identifier is a base calibration identifier identifying an operating software package, wherein the base calibration identifier is specific to an engine of the vehicle, and wherein the vehicle information comprises at least one of a vehicle location, a vehicle route, a vehicle type, or vehicle operating information. [0052] describes that the system identifies whether vehicles have corresponding cells of a calibration table filled while operating information indicates the vehicle has traveled with those configurations a threshold amount of time. As the table identifies the vehicle’s engine operating configuration, it is software specific to that engine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose that generating custom calibration information is based on the first information, the vehicle information, and the desired operating characteristic.
However, as is explained in the above rejection, Glugla teaches the vehicle information, which is used to identify the calibration information, as well as first information in the form of weather information. Haputhanthri teaches that calibration information can according to preferences, thereby providing for generating that is additionally based on the desired operating characteristic. Therefore, the combination of references provides the proper basis for the finding that the claims are obvious in view of the prior art.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
1/9/2026
Prosecution Insights