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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 10, “the reference value” is claimed, however a reference value hasn’t been previously introduced within a claim that claim 109 is dependent upon, therefore, for examination purposes, this has been interpreted as reading -- a reference value --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-10, 12, and 17-20 recite an apparatus, therefore claims 1-10, 12, and 17-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 11 and 13-16 recite a method/process, therefore claims 11 and 13-16 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 processing 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 remaining-fuel- amount prediction information indicating a change in a predicted value of a remaining amount of fuel in a vehicle while traveling based on a transport plan is performed and being produced based on a prediction model;
acquire remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information indicating a change in an actual measurement value of a remaining amount of fuel in the vehicle while traveling based on the transport plan is performed; and
determine, based on the remaining-fuel- amount prediction information and the remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information, whether correction of the prediction model is necessary.
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, based on..." encompass mental processes as a human can perform these limitations using observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. “determine, based on..." involves a human making an evaluation and/or judgment or using paper and pencil to determine if a correction of a model is necessary. 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 processing 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 remaining-fuel- amount prediction information indicating a change in a predicted value of a remaining amount of fuel in a vehicle while traveling based on a transport plan is performed and being produced based on a prediction model;
acquire remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information indicating a change in an actual measurement value of a remaining amount of fuel in the vehicle while traveling based on the transport plan is performed; and
determine, based on the remaining-fuel- amount prediction information and the remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information, whether correction of the prediction model is necessary.
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 processing 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 remaining-fuel- amount prediction information …” and “acquire remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement 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 remaining-fuel- amount prediction information …” and “acquire remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement 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 remaining-fuel- amount prediction information …” and “acquire remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement 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 processing 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 11-12 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 1, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-20 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1, 1, 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) 1-5 and 8-20 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 processing apparatus (“In charge-discharge control for a battery in a hybrid vehicle, when a difference between a target SOC (State Of Charge) and a present SOC becomes greater than or equal to a reference range in an estimated route to a destination, a charge schedule is drawn up again as a charge re-schedule. However, if the number of times of the re-schedule becomes greater than or equal to predetermined N times or if a remaining distance to the destination becomes less than a predetermined reference distance, a hybrid control based on the charge schedule is stopped without the charge re-schedule drawn up.” (Abstract)) 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 remaining-fuel- amount prediction information indicating a change in a predicted value of a remaining amount of fuel in a vehicle while traveling based on a transport plan is performed and being produced based on a prediction model (“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 remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information indicating a change in an actual measurement value of a remaining amount of fuel in 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)); and
determine, based on the remaining-fuel- amount prediction information and the remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information, whether correction of the prediction model is necessary (“In contrast, in the event that the difference between the target SOC and the present SOC is not less than the reference range (refer to Step 550), if the following conditions are simultaneously fulfilled, (i) the number of times of the re-schedule is less than N times (refer to Step 560) and (ii) the remaining distance to the destination is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance (refer to Step 570), the charge schedule is drawn up again as a charge re-schedule to thereby correct the charge schedule so as to suit the actual situation. As a result, the HV control section 10 executes control according to the charge schedule after correction, i.e., according to the re-schedule.” (Para 0083)).
In regards to claim 2, Yamada discloses of the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a remaining amount of fuel in the vehicle is indicated by state of charge (SOC) (“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)).
In regards to claim 3, Yamada discloses of the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
acquire a parameter plan value being a value of each of various parameters used for production of the remaining-fuel-amount prediction information and being a value planned based on the transport plan (“For instance, at Step 310, the control section 24 uses the learning information within the determination path to calculate an energy needed for driving through each of segments within the determination path. A method of calculating necessary energy is already known and a detailed description is omitted.” (Para 0069), “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 0015),
acquire a parameter actual result value being an actual result value of each of the various parameters while traveling based on the transport plan is performed (“At Step 540, two travel patterns (as an example of driving situation information) are compared, and it is determined whether the difference therebetween is larger than a reference range (as an example of a reference difference value or threshold value). A travel pattern is transition of a speed, for example. Two travel patterns used for the above determination are (i) the travel pattern from the start point to the present position of the estimated route indicated in the learning information, and (ii) the actual travel pattern from the start point to the present position in this travel.” (Para 0075), “The calculation of the difference between the two travel patterns is executed as follows. For example, (i) multiple points on the route from the start point to the present position of the estimated route may be extracted (with for example, fixed distance intervals); (ii) the difference in the speeds of the two patterns may be calculated with respect to each of the extracted points; and (iii) a total of the absolute values of the calculated speed differences of the individual points may be calculated to thereby obtain the difference of the travel patterns. That is, the integrated value of the gap of the speeds between the two patterns may be the difference or the degree of deviation. Alternatively, the differences in accelerations in the two patterns in the individual points may be integrated to obtain the difference of the two patterns. When the determination result at Step 540 is affirmative, Step 580 is executed subsequently. When negative, Step 550 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0076), see also Fig 9), and
determine, further based on a comparison result between the parameter plan value and the parameter actual result value, whether correction of the prediction model is necessary (“The calculation of the difference between the two travel patterns is executed as follows. For example, (i) multiple points on the route from the start point to the present position of the estimated route may be extracted (with for example, fixed distance intervals); (ii) the difference in the speeds of the two patterns may be calculated with respect to each of the extracted points; and (iii) a total of the absolute values of the calculated speed differences of the individual points may be calculated to thereby obtain the difference of the travel patterns. That is, the integrated value of the gap of the speeds between the two patterns may be the difference or the degree of deviation. Alternatively, the differences in accelerations in the two patterns in the individual points may be integrated to obtain the difference of the two patterns. When the determination result at Step 540 is affirmative, Step 580 is executed subsequently. When negative, Step 550 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0076), “In contrast, in the event that the difference between the target SOC and the present SOC is not less than the reference range (refer to Step 550), if the following conditions are simultaneously fulfilled, (i) the number of times of the re-schedule is less than N times (refer to Step 560) and (ii) the remaining distance to the destination is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance (refer to Step 570), the charge schedule is drawn up again as a charge re-schedule to thereby correct the charge schedule so as to suit the actual situation. As a result, the HV control section 10 executes control according to the charge schedule after correction, i.e., according to the re-schedule.” (Para 0083)), see also Fig 9 and Para 0081 and 0083).
In regards to claim 4, Yamada discloses of the processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine that correction of the prediction model is necessary in a case where the remaining-fuel-amount prediction information and the remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information deviate from each other by equal to or more than a first criterion level, and the parameter plan value and the parameter actual result value do not deviate from each other more than a second criterion level (“The calculation of the difference between the two travel patterns is executed as follows. For example, (i) multiple points on the route from the start point to the present position of the estimated route may be extracted (with for example, fixed distance intervals); (ii) the difference in the speeds of the two patterns may be calculated with respect to each of the extracted points; and (iii) a total of the absolute values of the calculated speed differences of the individual points may be calculated to thereby obtain the difference of the travel patterns. That is, the integrated value of the gap of the speeds between the two patterns may be the difference or the degree of deviation. Alternatively, the differences in accelerations in the two patterns in the individual points may be integrated to obtain the difference of the two patterns. When the determination result at Step 540 is affirmative, Step 580 is executed subsequently. When negative, Step 550 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0076), “In contrast, in the event that the difference between the target SOC and the present SOC is not less than the reference range (refer to Step 550), if the following conditions are simultaneously fulfilled, (i) the number of times of the re-schedule is less than N times (refer to Step 560) and (ii) the remaining distance to the destination is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance (refer to Step 570), the charge schedule is drawn up again as a charge re-schedule to thereby correct the charge schedule so as to suit the actual situation. As a result, the HV control section 10 executes control according to the charge schedule after correction, i.e., according to the re-schedule.” (Para 0083)), see also Fig 9 and Para 0081 and 0083).
In regards to claim 5, Yamada discloses of the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to acquire a sensor value being a value indicating a state of the vehicle while traveling based on the transport plan is performed and being measured by a sensor installed in the vehicle, and the determination unit determines, further based on a comparison result between the sensor value and a reference value, whether correction of the prediction model is necessary (“At Step 540, two travel patterns (as an example of driving situation information) are compared, and it is determined whether the difference therebetween is larger than a reference range (as an example of a reference difference value or threshold value). A travel pattern is transition of a speed, for example. Two travel patterns used for the above determination are (i) the travel pattern from the start point to the present position of the estimated route indicated in the learning information, and (ii) the actual travel pattern from the start point to the present position in this travel.” (Para 0075), “The calculation of the difference between the two travel patterns is executed as follows. For example, (i) multiple points on the route from the start point to the present position of the estimated route may be extracted (with for example, fixed distance intervals); (ii) the difference in the speeds of the two patterns may be calculated with respect to each of the extracted points; and (iii) a total of the absolute values of the calculated speed differences of the individual points may be calculated to thereby obtain the difference of the travel patterns. That is, the integrated value of the gap of the speeds between the two patterns may be the difference or the degree of deviation. Alternatively, the differences in accelerations in the two patterns in the individual points may be integrated to obtain the difference of the two patterns. When the determination result at Step 540 is affirmative, Step 580 is executed subsequently. When negative, Step 550 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0076), see also Fig 9 and Para 0034).
In regards to claim 8, Yamada discloses of the processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein
the sensor value is a value relating to performance of the vehicle (“The following describes an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 1 schematically shows a construction example of a hybrid vehicle according to the embodiment. The hybrid vehicle includes an engine 1 as an internal combustion engine, an alternator 2, a motor 3, a differential gear unit 4, a tire 5a, a tire 5b, an inverter 6, a DC link 7, an inverter 8, a battery 9, an HV (Hybrid Vehicle) control section 10, a GPS sensor 11, a direction sensor 12, a vehicle speed sensor 13, a map DB storage section 14, an acceleration sensor 15, and a navigation ECU (Electronic Control Unit) 20.” (Para 0034),
the reference value indicates a value of normal performance of the vehicle (“At Step 540, two travel patterns (as an example of driving situation information) are compared, and it is determined whether the difference therebetween is larger than a reference range (as an example of a reference difference value or threshold value). A travel pattern is transition of a speed, for example. Two travel patterns used for the above determination are (i) the travel pattern from the start point to the present position of the estimated route indicated in the learning information, and (ii) the actual travel pattern from the start point to the present position in this travel.” (Para 0075), “The calculation of the difference between the two travel patterns is executed as follows. For example, (i) multiple points on the route from the start point to the present position of the estimated route may be extracted (with for example, fixed distance intervals); (ii) the difference in the speeds of the two patterns may be calculated with respect to each of the extracted points; and (iii) a total of the absolute values of the calculated speed differences of the individual points may be calculated to thereby obtain the difference of the travel patterns. That is, the integrated value of the gap of the speeds between the two patterns may be the difference or the degree of deviation. Alternatively, the differences in accelerations in the two patterns in the individual points may be integrated to obtain the difference of the two patterns. When the determination result at Step 540 is affirmative, Step 580 is executed subsequently. When negative, Step 550 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0076), see also Fig 9 and Para 0034), and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine that correction of the prediction model is necessary in a case where the remaining-fuel-amount prediction information and the remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information deviate from each other by equal to or more than a first criterion level, and the sensor value and the reference value do not deviate from each other more than a fourth criterion level (“The calculation of the difference between the two travel patterns is executed as follows. For example, (i) multiple points on the route from the start point to the present position of the estimated route may be extracted (with for example, fixed distance intervals); (ii) the difference in the speeds of the two patterns may be calculated with respect to each of the extracted points; and (iii) a total of the absolute values of the calculated speed differences of the individual points may be calculated to thereby obtain the difference of the travel patterns. That is, the integrated value of the gap of the speeds between the two patterns may be the difference or the degree of deviation. Alternatively, the differences in accelerations in the two patterns in the individual points may be integrated to obtain the difference of the two patterns. When the determination result at Step 540 is affirmative, Step 580 is executed subsequently. When negative, Step 550 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0076), “In contrast, in the event that the difference between the target SOC and the present SOC is not less than the reference range (refer to Step 550), if the following conditions are simultaneously fulfilled, (i) the number of times of the re-schedule is less than N times (refer to Step 560) and (ii) the remaining distance to the destination is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance (refer to Step 570), the charge schedule is drawn up again as a charge re-schedule to thereby correct the charge schedule so as to suit the actual situation. As a result, the HV control section 10 executes control according to the charge schedule after correction, i.e., according to the re-schedule.” (Para 0083)), see also Fig 9 and Para 0081 and 0083).
In regards to claim 9, Yamada discloses of the processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to output information notifying of a trouble in performance of the vehicle in a case where the sensor value and the reference value deviate from each other by equal to or more than the fourth criterion level (“However, if the notice of NG is received from the HV control section 10 (refer to Step 530) or the difference between the speed pattern indicated by the learning information and the present speed pattern is not less than the reference range (refer to Step 540), the control section 24 entirely stops controlling the HV control section 10 based on the charge schedule (refer to Step 580). Thereby, the HV control section 10 comes to execute a usual operation according to the autonomous control mode.” (Para 0084-0085), “In addition, although the above-mentioned details and schedule cancellation condition in the operation (C) are mentioned later, this NG signal (equivalent to an example of a predetermined signal) is to signify that the HV control section 10 determines that the charge schedule of the navigation ECU 20 is not reliable.” (Para 0048)).
In regards to claim 10, Yamada discloses of the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
acquire a parameter plan value being a value of each of various parameters used for production of the remaining-fuel-amount prediction information and being a value planned based on the transport plan (“For instance, at Step 310, the control section 24 uses the learning information within the determination path to calculate an energy needed for driving through each of segments within the determination path. A method of calculating necessary energy is already known and a detailed description is omitted.” (Para 0069), “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 0015),
acquire a parameter actual result value being an actual result value of each of the various parameters while traveling based on the transport plan is performed (“At Step 540, two travel patterns (as an example of driving situation information) are compared, and it is determined whether the difference therebetween is larger than a reference range (as an example of a reference difference value or threshold value). A travel pattern is transition of a speed, for example. Two travel patterns used for the above determination are (i) the travel pattern from the start point to the present position of the estimated route indicated in the learning information, and (ii) the actual travel pattern from the start point to the present position in this travel.” (Para 0075), “The calculation of the difference between the two travel patterns is executed as follows. For example, (i) multiple points on the route from the start point to the present position of the estimated route may be extracted (with for example, fixed distance intervals); (ii) the difference in the speeds of the two patterns may be calculated with respect to each of the extracted points; and (iii) a total of the absolute values of the calculated speed differences of the individual points may be calculated to thereby obtain the difference of the travel patterns. That is, the integrated value of the gap of the speeds between the two patterns may be the difference or the degree of deviation. Alternatively, the differences in accelerations in the two patterns in the individual points may be integrated to obtain the difference of the two patterns. When the determination result at Step 540 is affirmative, Step 580 is executed subsequently. When negative, Step 550 is executed subsequently.” (Para 0076), see also Fig 9),
acquire a sensor value being a value indicating a state of the vehicle while traveling based on the transport plan is performed, and being measured by a sensor installed in the vehicle (“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)), and
determine, further based on a comparison result between the parameter plan value and the parameter actual result value and a comparison result between the sensor value and the reference value, whether correction of the prediction model is necessary (“In contrast, in the event that the difference between the target SOC and the present SOC is not less than the reference range (refer to Step 550), if the following conditions are simultaneously fulfilled, (i) the number of times of the re-schedule is less than N times (refer to Step 560) and (ii) the remaining distance to the destination is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance (refer to Step 570), the charge schedule is drawn up again as a charge re-schedule to thereby correct the charge schedule so as to suit the actual situation. As a result, the HV control section 10 executes control according to the charge schedule after correction, i.e., according to the re-schedule.” (Para 0083)).
In regards to claims 11 and 12, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claims 13-20, the claims recite analogous limitations to claims 2-5 and 2-5, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the above 101 rejections are overcome and are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 6, the closest prior art of record is Yamada (US 20080319597; already of record from IDS) in view of Bruneau (US 20230118287). Yamada in view of Bruneau teaches of the processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the sensor value is a value relating to operation of a driver,
the reference value indicates a value during normal operation.
However, Yamada in view of Bruneau does not specifically teach of the determination unit determines the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine that correction of the prediction model is necessary in a case where the remaining-fuel-amount prediction information and the remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information deviate from each other by equal to or more than a first criterion level, and the sensor value and the reference value do not deviate from each other more than a third criterion level. It is noted that the prior art teaches of correction of the prediction model is necessary in a case where the remaining-fuel-amount prediction information and the remaining-fuel-amount actual measurement information deviate from each other by equal to or more than a first criterion level and of determining if a sensor value and a reference value deviate from a threshold. However, the prior art does not fully teach of combining these limitations in order to determine a correction of a prediction model is necessary, where the sensor measurement is based on an operation of the driver, in combination with the remaining claim limitations. Therefore the claim contains allowable subject matter.
In regards to claim 7, the claim is dependent upon a claim containing allowable subject matter, and therefore contains allowable subject matter as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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