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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed on July 8, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 8, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-8, 10, and 16-20 recite an apparatus, therefore claims 1-8, 10, and 16-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 9 and 11-15 recite a method/process, therefore claims 9 and 11-15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A warning apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire prediction information indicating a change in a predicted value of state of charge (SOC) of a vehicle while traveling based on a transport plan is performed;
acquire an actual measurement value of SOC of the vehicle while traveling based on the transport plan is performed;
determine whether a relationship between the predicted value and the actual measurement value satisfies a predetermined warning condition; and
output first warning information in a case where the warning condition is satisfied.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mental process. For example, "determine whether a relationship..." encompass mental processes as a human can perform these limitations using observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. “determine whether a relationship..." involves a human making an evaluation and/or judgment or using paper and pencil to determine if a threshold has been satisfied. Thus, the claim recites at least a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
A warning apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire prediction information indicating a change in a predicted value of state of charge (SOC) of a vehicle while traveling based on a transport plan is performed;
acquire an actual measurement value of SOC of the vehicle while traveling based on the transport plan is performed;
determine whether a relationship between the predicted value and the actual measurement value satisfies a predetermined warning condition; and
output first warning information in a case where the warning condition is satisfied.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of " A warning apparatus”, “at least one memory…”, and “at least one processor…” the examiner submits that these limitation are merely generic computing components that merely apply the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the claim limitation “acquire prediction information…”, “acquire an actual measurement value…”, and “output first warning information…” does not amount to an inventive concept since it is insignificant extra-solution activity as it is merely a form of data collection and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The examiner submits that these limitations are mere data collection and outputting components to apply the above-noted abstract idea within an indicated field of use (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “acquire prediction information…”, “acquire an actual measurement value…”, and “output first warning information…” amounts to extra-solution data gathering and outputting. Additionally, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). With respect to “acquire prediction information…”, “acquire an actual measurement value…”, and “output first warning information…” it was ruled within Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which are recited within MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that mere data collection or receiving/obtaining and transmitting of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic matter, as it is here. Additionally, " A warning apparatus”, “at least one memory…”, and “at least one processor…” are each generic computing components that merely apply the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)).
Claims 9-10 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 1, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-20 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1, 9, and 10, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significantly more" for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 20080319597; already of record from IDS).
In regards to claim 1, Yamada discloses of a warning apparatus (“Here, the above-mentioned operation (C) of the HV control section 10, which sends out the notice of NG, is explained. The schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) is satisfied when the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable. For example, the HV control section 10 compares the detected present SOC with the target SOC received from the navigation ECU 20. When the difference between the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the HV control section 10 returns the notice of NG. In this example, the schedule cancellation condition is equivalent to a condition that the difference of the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to the threshold value.” (Para 0087)) comprising:
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions (“As shown in FIG. 2, the navigation ECU 20 includes RAM 21, ROM 22, a durable storage medium 23 capable of writing data, and a control section 24. The durable storage medium 23 can continuously maintain data even when a supply of main power to the navigation ECU 20 stops. The durable storage medium 23 represents, for example, a nonvolatile storage medium such as a hard disk, flash memory, and EEPROM, and backup RAM.” (Para 0052)); and
at least one processor (“In accordance with an instruction or signal from the navigation ECU 20 or the like, the HV control section 10 controls whether or not to operate the alternator 2, the motor 3, the inverters 6 and 8, and the battery 9. The HV control section 10 may use a microcomputer or hardware device having a dedicated circuit construction for embodying the following functions.” (Para 0038), see also Para 0100) configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire prediction information indicating a change in a predicted value of state of charge (SOC) of a vehicle while traveling based on a transport plan is performed (“As will be described later, the target SOC is a quantity determined based on advance scheduling of a driving method for the vehicle. The HV control section 10 provides the control appropriate to the target SOC in the passive control mode and simultaneously provides the control based on the advance scheduling of the driving method for the vehicle.” (Para 0046), “At Step 320, the control section 24 determines an optimum driving method for each segment up to the destination based on the acquired learning information and the acquired present SOC. At Step 330, the control section 24 creates an SOC management schedule based on the learning information. The SOC management schedule shows estimated SOC transition up to the destination. FIG. 7 shows a graph as an example of the estimated SOC transition. A value at each point of the estimated SOC transition is referred to as a target SOC. After Step 380, the control section 24 terminates one cycle of the charge scheduling process 300.” (Para 0070), see also Para 0072 and 0077));
acquire an actual measurement value of SOC of the vehicle while traveling based on the transport plan is performed (“At Step 550, the present SOC most recently received at Step 454 in FIG. 8 is compared with the target SOC corresponding to the present position. It is determined whether the difference is greater than a reference range (as example of a reference quantity value or threshold value). When the determination result is negative, the processing escapes from the exception process to advance to Step 460 in the driving-time process 400. When the determination result is affirmative, Step 560 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0077), “The SOC (State of Charge) is an index for indicating a remaining battery quantity. A higher value indicates a larger remaining quantity. The present SOC indicates an SOC of the battery 9 at the present time. The HV control section 10 repeatedly updates the present SOC (or SOC value) by successively detecting states of the battery 9. A reference SOC provides a value such as 60% used for the autonomous control mode.” (Para 0043));
determine whether a relationship between the predicted value and the actual measurement value satisfies a predetermined warning condition (“Here, the above-mentioned operation (C) of the HV control section 10, which sends out the notice of NG, is explained. The schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) is satisfied when the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable. For example, the HV control section 10 compares the detected present SOC with the target SOC received from the navigation ECU 20. When the difference between the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the HV control section 10 returns the notice of NG. In this example, the schedule cancellation condition is equivalent to a condition that the difference of the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to the threshold value.” (Para 0087)); and
output first warning information in a case where the warning condition is satisfied (“Here, the above-mentioned operation (C) of the HV control section 10, which sends out the notice of NG, is explained. The schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) is satisfied when the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable. For example, the HV control section 10 compares the detected present SOC with the target SOC received from the navigation ECU 20. When the difference between the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the HV control section 10 returns the notice of NG. In this example, the schedule cancellation condition is equivalent to a condition that the difference of the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to the threshold value.” (Para 0087), see also Para 0048).
In regards to claim 2, Yamada discloses of the warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warning condition includes a matter that the actual measurement value at a moment of departing from a base is less than the predicted value at the moment (“Here, the above-mentioned operation (C) of the HV control section 10, which sends out the notice of NG, is explained. The schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) is satisfied when the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable. For example, the HV control section 10 compares the detected present SOC with the target SOC received from the navigation ECU 20. When the difference between the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the HV control section 10 returns the notice of NG. In this example, the schedule cancellation condition is equivalent to a condition that the difference of the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to the threshold value.” (Para 0087), see also Para 0090).
In regards to claim 3, Yamada discloses of the warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warning condition includes a matter that the actual measurement value at a moment of departing from a base is less than the predicted value at the moment (“Here, the above-mentioned operation (C) of the HV control section 10, which sends out the notice of NG, is explained. The schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) is satisfied when the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable. For example, the HV control section 10 compares the detected present SOC with the target SOC received from the navigation ECU 20. When the difference between the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the HV control section 10 returns the notice of NG. In this example, the schedule cancellation condition is equivalent to a condition that the difference of the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to the threshold value.” (Para 0087),” Under the above operations, the navigation ECU 20 assumes as follows: if an execution of re-schedule control function is repeated greater than or equal to the reference number of times while the hybrid vehicle runs from the start point to the present position along the estimated route, there may be a possibility that the control according to the charge schedule or re-schedule worsens the fuel consumption. The scheduled running is thus stopped and the HV control section 10 is moved to the autonomous control mode. Herein, it is assumed that executing the re-schedule control or function is repeated greater than or equal to the reference number of times should signify the charge schedule not functioning appropriately in this running or travel in the estimated route.” (Para 0090)), and a
deviation level between the actual measurement value and the predicted value is equal to or more than a first threshold value (“Here, the above-mentioned operation (C) of the HV control section 10, which sends out the notice of NG, is explained. The schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) is satisfied when the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable. For example, the HV control section 10 compares the detected present SOC with the target SOC received from the navigation ECU 20. When the difference between the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the HV control section 10 returns the notice of NG. In this example, the schedule cancellation condition is equivalent to a condition that the difference of the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to the threshold value.” (Para 0087),” Under the above operations, the navigation ECU 20 assumes as follows: if an execution of re-schedule control function is repeated greater than or equal to the reference number of times while the hybrid vehicle runs from the start point to the present position along the estimated route, there may be a possibility that the control according to the charge schedule or re-schedule worsens the fuel consumption. The scheduled running is thus stopped and the HV control section 10 is moved to the autonomous control mode. Herein, it is assumed that executing the re-schedule control or function is repeated greater than or equal to the reference number of times should signify the charge schedule not functioning appropriately in this running or travel in the estimated route.” (Para 0090)).
In regards to claim 4, Yamada discloses of the warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warning condition includes a matter that the actual measurement value at a moment after departing from a base is less than the predicted value at the moment, and a deviation level between the actual measurement value and the predicted value is equal to or more than a second threshold value (“Here, the above-mentioned operation (C) of the HV control section 10, which sends out the notice of NG, is explained. The schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) is satisfied when the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable. For example, the HV control section 10 compares the detected present SOC with the target SOC received from the navigation ECU 20. When the difference between the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the HV control section 10 returns the notice of NG. In this example, the schedule cancellation condition is equivalent to a condition that the difference of the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to the threshold value.” (Para 0087),” Under the above operations, the navigation ECU 20 assumes as follows: if an execution of re-schedule control function is repeated greater than or equal to the reference number of times while the hybrid vehicle runs from the start point to the present position along the estimated route, there may be a possibility that the control according to the charge schedule or re-schedule worsens the fuel consumption. The scheduled running is thus stopped and the HV control section 10 is moved to the autonomous control mode. Herein, it is assumed that executing the re-schedule control or function is repeated greater than or equal to the reference number of times should signify the charge schedule not functioning appropriately in this running or travel in the estimated route.” (Para 0090)).
In regards to claim 7, Yamada discloses of the warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warning condition includes a matter that an electric power amount required while moving from a current point to a predetermined point is less than a remaining electric power amount indicated by the actual measurement value at the moment (“At Step 570, the remaining distance is calculated. The remaining distance is a distance from the present position to the destination along the estimated route or a distance in a straight line from the present position to the destination. It is determined whether the calculated remaining distance is less than a predetermined distance as an example of a reference distance value or a threshold value. If it is less than the predetermined distance, Step 580 is executed subsequently. If it is not less than the predetermined distance, Step 590 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0079), and “At Step 580, a notice of the scheduled running stop is outputted to the HV control section 10, and the processing ends one cycle of the driving-time process 400. Thereby, the HV control section 10 changes its operation mode to the above-mentioned autonomous control mode.” (Para 0080), see also Para 0074).
In regards to claims 9-10, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claims 11-13, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claims 16-18, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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) 5-6, 8, 14-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Aziz et al. (US 20170352082; hereinafter Aziz).
In regards to claim 5, Yamada discloses of the warning apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Yamada does not fully disclose of wherein the warning condition includes a matter that the actual measurement value at a moment after departing from a base is less than the predicted value at the moment, a deviation level between the actual measurement value and the predicted value is equal to or more than a third threshold value and less than a fourth threshold value, and there is no charging facility at and after a criterion point in a traveling route based on the transport plan.
Aziz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the warning condition includes a matter that the actual measurement value at a moment after departing from a base is less than the predicted value at the moment, a deviation level between the actual measurement value and the predicted value is equal to or more than a third threshold value and less than a fourth threshold value, and there is no charging facility at and after a criterion point in a traveling route based on the transport plan (“As an example of a proactive mode, the digital assistant system 102 may know the vehicle's location, direction or route of travel, state of charge, rate of chare expenditure (average, instantaneous and/or projected) and based on a set of rules, send a tip to the user informing the user that if the user continues on the current route, the vehicle will likely not have sufficient charge to make it to the next charging station. For example, if the system knows the current route, the current rate of charge expenditure (or fuel expenditure), the system can calculate a prediction of when (either in time or in distance) the user will not have enough charge to reach the next charging station. What that event occurs, the user can send a tip to the user informing the user of what is about to happen.” (Para 0020), “As a more specific example, if the digital assistant system 102 knows that a user is on the way to an appointment at a given time and identifies that the user will be able to reach the destination but will then not have sufficient charge to reach a charging station afterward, the digital assistant system 102 can tell the user that the user will be able to make the appointment on time but will not likely have a sufficient charge to reach a charging station. In that situation, the digital assistant system 102 can offer to direct the user to the charging station and display the impact to the appointment (i.e., diverting to the charging station and taking enough charge to attend the appointment and make it back to the charging station will make the user 30 minutes late to the appointment). Additionally, or alternatively, the digital assistant system 102 can tell the user that the user will be able to make the appointment but will not likely have a sufficient charge to reach a charging station and offer different options such as providing information that shows when the likelihood of reaching the charging station drops below a given threshold, presenting a recommendation to adjustment the user's driving speed, present a recommendation to utilize an alternative route that may add time to the user's travel time but will preserve more state of charge (along with the impact to the user's appointment), and/or any combination thereof.” (Para 0022), “If a tip is to be displayed, the digital assistant system 102 may select an appropriate channel to use to alert the user to the situation. For example, the digital assistant system 102 may decide to alert the user by initiating an action that mutes the vehicle audio system (or invokes the audio system if it is off), plays an alert sound, displays on a screen within the vehicle that the state of charge may not be sufficient to reach a more distant charging station and ask the user if they would like directions to the nearest charging station. As before, multiple devices can be involved, so if the user is talking on the phone, the alert sound may be played through the phone while the tip may still be played on a screen in the vehicle.” (Para 0023)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warning condition, as taught by Yamada, to include being based on a threshold being higher than a third value, but less than a different threshold value, as taught by Aziz, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to alert the driver that there are is not enough charge to reach a further away charging station but a closer charging station can be reached (Aziz Para 0022-0023).
In regards to claim 6, Yamada in view of Aziz teaches of the warning apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the criterion point is a transport destination in a predetermined visiting order among a plurality of transport destinations, a point where the vehicle is predicted to be located at a criterion time, or a point where the predicted value is predicted to be a criterion value (“As an example of a proactive mode, the digital assistant system 102 may know the vehicle's location, direction or route of travel, state of charge, rate of chare expenditure (average, instantaneous and/or projected) and based on a set of rules, send a tip to the user informing the user that if the user continues on the current route, the vehicle will likely not have sufficient charge to make it to the next charging station. For example, if the system knows the current route, the current rate of charge expenditure (or fuel expenditure), the system can calculate a prediction of when (either in time or in distance) the user will not have enough charge to reach the next charging station. What that event occurs, the user can send a tip to the user informing the user of what is about to happen.” (Para 0020), “As a more specific example, if the digital assistant system 102 knows that a user is on the way to an appointment at a given time and identifies that the user will be able to reach the destination but will then not have sufficient charge to reach a charging station afterward, the digital assistant system 102 can tell the user that the user will be able to make the appointment on time but will not likely have a sufficient charge to reach a charging station. In that situation, the digital assistant system 102 can offer to direct the user to the charging station and display the impact to the appointment (i.e., diverting to the charging station and taking enough charge to attend the appointment and make it back to the charging station will make the user 30 minutes late to the appointment). Additionally, or alternatively, the digital assistant system 102 can tell the user that the user will be able to make the appointment but will not likely have a sufficient charge to reach a charging station and offer different options such as providing information that shows when the likelihood of reaching the charging station drops below a given threshold, presenting a recommendation to adjustment the user's driving speed, present a recommendation to utilize an alternative route that may add time to the user's travel time but will preserve more state of charge (along with the impact to the user's appointment), and/or any combination thereof.” (Para 0022), “If a tip is to be displayed, the digital assistant system 102 may select an appropriate channel to use to alert the user to the situation. For example, the digital assistant system 102 may decide to alert the user by initiating an action that mutes the vehicle audio system (or invokes the audio system if it is off), plays an alert sound, displays on a screen within the vehicle that the state of charge may not be sufficient to reach a more distant charging station and ask the user if they would like directions to the nearest charging station. As before, multiple devices can be involved, so if the user is talking on the phone, the alert sound may be played through the phone while the tip may still be played on a screen in the vehicle.” (Para 0023)).
The motivation of combining Yamada and Aziz is the same as that recited for claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 8, Yamada discloses of the warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the output unit the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
output second warning information in a case where the actual measurement value becomes lower than a fifth threshold value (“As an example of a proactive mode, the digital assistant system 102 may know the vehicle's location, direction or route of travel, state of charge, rate of chare expenditure (average, instantaneous and/or projected) and based on a set of rules, send a tip to the user informing the user that if the user continues on the current route, the vehicle will likely not have sufficient charge to make it to the next charging station. For example, if the system knows the current route, the current rate of charge expenditure (or fuel expenditure), the system can calculate a prediction of when (either in time or in distance) the user will not have enough charge to reach the next charging station. What that event occurs, the user can send a tip to the user informing the user of what is about to happen.” (Aziz Para 0020), “As a more specific example, if the digital assistant system 102 knows that a user is on the way to an appointment at a given time and identifies that the user will be able to reach the destination but will then not have sufficient charge to reach a charging station afterward, the digital assistant system 102 can tell the user that the user will be able to make the appointment on time but will not likely have a sufficient charge to reach a charging station. In that situation, the digital assistant system 102 can offer to direct the user to the charging station and display the impact to the appointment (i.e., diverting to the charging station and taking enough charge to attend the appointment and make it back to the charging station will make the user 30 minutes late to the appointment). Additionally, or alternatively, the digital assistant system 102 can tell the user that the user will be able to make the appointment but will not likely have a sufficient charge to reach a charging station and offer different options such as providing information that shows when the likelihood of reaching the charging station drops below a given threshold, presenting a recommendation to adjustment the user's driving speed, present a recommendation to utilize an alternative route that may add time to the user's travel time but will preserve more state of charge (along with the impact to the user's appointment), and/or any combination thereof.” (Aziz Para 0022), “If a tip is to be displayed, the digital assistant system 102 may select an appropriate channel to use to alert the user to the situation. For example, the digital assistant system 102 may decide to alert the user by initiating an action that mutes the vehicle audio system (or invokes the audio system if it is off), plays an alert sound, displays on a screen within the vehicle that the state of charge may not be sufficient to reach a more distant charging station and ask the user if they would like directions to the nearest charging station. As before, multiple devices can be involved, so if the user is talking on the phone, the alert sound may be played through the phone while the tip may still be played on a screen in the vehicle.” (Aziz Para 0023)), and
output the first warning information in a case where the actual measurement value is not lower than the fifth threshold value but the warning condition is satisfied (“Here, the above-mentioned operation (C) of the HV control section 10, which sends out the notice of NG, is explained. The schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) is satisfied when the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable. For example, the HV control section 10 compares the detected present SOC with the target SOC received from the navigation ECU 20. When the difference between the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the HV control section 10 returns the notice of NG. In this example, the schedule cancellation condition is equivalent to a condition that the difference of the present SOC and the target SOC is greater than or equal to the threshold value.” (Para 0087), see also Para 0048).
The motivation of combining Yamada and Aziz is the same as that recited for claim 1 above.
In regards to claims 14-15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claims 5-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claims 19-20, the claim recites analogous limitations to claims 5-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bruneau (US 20230118287) discloses of determining that there is insufficient SOC to complete a planned route and to output an alert to charge the vehicle.
Roy (US 11567503) discloses of warning that a predicted amount of power is not consistent with an actual power usage of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle J Kingsland whose telephone number is (571)272-3268. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663