DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 recites at least one step or instruction for calculating a value, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites (I typically bolded additional elements and underlined abstract ideas);
1. A range estimation system for an electrified vehicle associated with, the range estimation system comprising: a computing server and configured to: determine a route for the electrified vehicle and a set of operating parameters of the electrified vehicle, determine historical operating data for other vehicles traveling along the determined route or another route that is similar to the determined route, construct a data pool for a plurality of vehicles including the electrified vehicle and the other vehicles, the data pool including the set of operating parameters and the historical operating data, segment the determined route into a plurality of route segments, for each route segment, apply a pattern recognition machine learning model to the data pool to identify one or more combinations of OEM vehicles that traveled that route segment, determine whether the identified combinations of vehicles satisfy a data pool diversity threshold indicative of a desirable data diversity for range estimation; in response to the identified combinations of vehicles satisfying the data pool diversity threshold, estimate a range depletion for each route segment based on the historical data for the respective identified combinations of OEM vehicles, and estimate a total range depletion for the determined route based on the estimated range depletions for each route segment; and a control system of the electrified vehicle, the control system being configured to determine and display an estimated range of the electrified vehicle based on the estimated total range depletion provided by the computing server; and control a display of the electrified vehicle to display the estimated range of the electrified vehicle.
evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG). Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 9 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16)is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 9), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: server, electric vehicle as recited in independent Claim 1, 9 and its dependent claims; and a server, a client device and a trackable sensor as recited in independent Claim 1, 9 and its dependent claims are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 9 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 9 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., server as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 9 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 9 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a server, a electric vehicle as recited in independent Claim 1, 9 and its dependent claims.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, ¶23 simply requires them to be computing servers. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term server is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the server. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements 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) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the systems and methods of Claims 1, 9 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 9 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Note: the amendments made to the claims on 03/02/26 do not change this rejection since they were drawn to more data gather, data sorting and displaying data/calculations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
This rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 11-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kubo (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0142305).
Regarding claim 1 and 9, Kubo discloses range estimation system for an electrified vehicle the range estimation system comprising:
a computing server (¶38 discloses a server) associated with the OEM and configured to: determine a route (¶41 discloses determining a route) for the electrified vehicle and a set of operating parameters of the electrified vehicle,
determine historical data (¶44) for other OEM vehicles traveling along the determined route or another route that is similar to the determined route,
construct a data pool for a plurality of vehicles including the electrified vehicle and the other vehicles, the data pool including the set of operating parameters and the historical operating data ((¶44 discloses other vehicles and ¶50 discloses how the data from the other vehicles is recognized as being along the same route),
segment (¶53 calls these links with the previous few paragraphs discussing how each link of the route is analyzed and broken down into even curves along the route) the determined route into a plurality of route segments, for each route segment, apply a pattern recognition machine learning model to the data pool to
identify one or more combinations of OEM vehicles that traveled that route segment (¶44 discusses data is compared to “other vehicles”), determine whether the identified combinations of vehicles satisfy a data pool diversity threshold indicative of a desirable data diversity for range estimation (the requirement is a vehicle that has passed through the segment);
in response to the identified combinations of vehicles satisfying the data pool diversity threshold, estimate a range depletion for each route segment based on the historical data for the respective identified combinations of OEM vehicles (¶49-52 discloses how the data is used to estimate), and
estimate a total range depletion for the determined route based on the estimated range depletions for each route segment (¶55); and
a control system of the electrified vehicle, the control system being configured to determine and display an estimated range of the electrified vehicle based on the estimated total range depletion provided by the computing server (¶68);
and control a display of the electrified vehicle to display the estimated range of the electrified vehicle (¶87).
Regarding claim 3 and 11 which depends from claim 2 and 10 respectively, Kubo discloses wherein the computing server is configured to estimate the range depletion for each route segment and the total range depletion for the determined route in real-time (¶68 discusses how this is being done real time).
Regarding claim 4 and 12 which depends from claim 3 and 11 respectively, Kubo discloses wherein the computing server is further configured to update the pattern recognition machine learning model in real-time (¶44 discusses how this is being done in real time).
Regarding claim 5 and 13 which depends from claim 1 and 9 respectively, Kubo discloses wherein the data pool diversity threshold is indicative of a threshold quantity of vehicles that traveled particular route segments at different historical times (¶44).
Regarding claim 6 and 14 which depends from claim 1 and 9 respectively, Kubo discloses wherein the computing server is further configured to continuously receive information from the plurality of OEM vehicles to augment the data pool (¶44).
Regarding claim 17 and 19 which depends from claim 1 and 9 respectively, Kubo discloses wherein the computing server is further configured to perform segmental range validation or analysis including at least determining a degree of accuracy of the estimated range depletion for a particular route segment or group of route segments (¶49-52 discloses how the data is used to estimate).
Regarding claim 18 and 20 which depends from claim 17 and 19 respectively, Kubo discloses wherein the computing server is further configured to estimate the total range depletion for the determined route only after successfully performing the segmental range validation or analysis on all of the route segments or groups of route segments (¶49-52 discloses how the data is used to estimate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the amendments to the claims would overcome the 101 rejection but displaying data on a screen has been deemed meaningless extrasolution activity that does not overcome a 101 rejection.
Applicant argues on page 11 that the Kubo reference does not update a pool of data of vehicles having gone through the same area. ¶20 was cited which tells of saved data of other vehicles that have gone through same area. Where the claims require diversity and some number of vehicles to validate the data there are no limitations defining the meets and bounds. As such one vehicle can satisfy this limitation.
Applicant argues on pages 11 and 12 that the Kubo reference does not satisfy a pattern recognition limitation. The limitations to meet this requirement are clearly state and the Kubo reference recognizes certain segments of roads where data is available and applies information from those segments to the current vehicle. Under BRI that data can be described as a pattern that is being recognized and applied.
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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights