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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed September 22, 2026. Claims 1, 7, 11, 13, 16, and 20 are amended. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection of claim 11. The claim objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-20 regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In the instant case, claim 16 recites: “A computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith...”. However, paragraph [0079] of the filed disclosure, recites: “The computer readable storage medium can be [emphasis added] a tangible device…”. Further, this paragraph states “The computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but is not limited to [emphasis added] …”. Further, this paragraph states “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se…”. However, the language provided by the applicant does not explicitly redefine “a computer readable storage medium” as presented in Claim 16. The specification provides open interpretation as to what constitutes a computer readable storage medium and attempts to circumvent signals per se interpretation by providing the statement “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as transitory signals per se…”. This is improper as the applicant cannot dictate how the United States Patent and Trademark Office interprets claim language. If the intent is to redefine what constitutes a computer readable storage medium in order to only include non-transitory forms of storage, then applicant should provide amendments that do so. However, the above excerpt from specification paragraph [0079] is insufficient to prevent claim 16 from being interpreted as including non-transitory forms of storage mediums. Since the specification is silent regarding redefining storage mediums and leaves interpretation of types of devices open ended, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that claim 16 covers both transitory and non-transitory mediums. Therefore, it fails step 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant is recommended to amend claim 16 to specify a “non-transitory” computer readable storage medium.
Accordingly, appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 11, and 16 have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b). The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 16 regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues a lack of rational underpinning behind the combination of Payne and Yang as applicant states the combination would not predict a fuel burn rate “based on a standard operation”. However, there does not appear to be suggestions to indicate Payne and Yang are operating outside of a standard operation. From at least [0045] and [0052] of applicant’s disclosure, it appears that the standard operation alters between combustion, electrical, or both modes. With the applicant’s disclosure of the standard operation of a hybrid vehicle in mind, it appears that any hybrid vehicle is functioning under standard operations until an explicit abandonment of standard operations. However, within applicant’s disclosure, the alteration, while disclosed to pertain to standard operations, does not specifically indicate whether the standard operation itself is altered or if the operation is altered to an operation that is not the standard operation.
Regarding the prior art, see Fig. 6 of Yang. From the figure, a two-dimensional coordinate system is shown with the state of charge (SOC) on the y-axis and the expected torque as the x-axis (Yang, [0125]). The coordinate plane is divided by areas defined by required torque and SOC available, where transitions between the regions comprise hysteresis areas that act as durations to switch operations depending on SOC and torque (Yang, [0129]). From the graph, it shows that operations of the vehicle vary between pure motor, pure engine, or some proportion of the two propulsion system, where lowered SOC can result in switching to an hybrid engine-motor effort within the area defined by T_g as the maximum required torque. This battery drop below the thresholds shown triggers a change in operation.
Examiner notes that the amendments appear to not materially amend the claims. The amendments changing the language of the “engine” to “motor” to address the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) resolves the antecedent basis issue. However, examiner views these components as synonymous in context of the claims. The rest of the amendments appear to introduce “hybrid” to identify “the hybrid vehicle” and correct minor antecedent issues that have not altered the scope of the claims. For at least these reasons, examiner issues a final rejection for the claims presented.
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 16 is directed towards a computer program product stored on a computer readable storage medium having program instructions. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer readable storage medium can be read to be “transitory” or “non-transitory, where the reading of “transitory” does not fall under the four statutory categories (See MPEP 2106.03(I)). Therefore, independent claim 16, and its dependent claims 17-20, are rejected under being unpatentable.
Dependent claims 17-20 are also rejected as relying on the matter of independent claim 16 above.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200300204A1 (Payne) from the IDS in further view of US20170036664A1 (Yang).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Payne discloses a computer-implemented method and a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processing unit. The method and program comprise:
generating a driving profile for a hybrid vehicle, wherein the hybrid vehicle comprises an electric motor and a combustion engine;
[0039] of Payne, “In such cases, route-prediction module 330 can predict the route of vehicle 100 based on historical driving patterns (historical driving data 390), user calendar data 380 (e.g., scheduled appointments), or both.”
estimating, based on the driving profile, an amount of future driving;
[0039] of Payne, “Once route-prediction module 330 has predicted a likely destination and associated route, stale-fuel consumption module 340 can use that information in deciding when to activate engine 205 automatically on one or more occasions in accordance with the fuel consumption plan to consume at least a portion of the fuel.”
predicting, based on the amount of future driving, a fuel burn rate and a fuel expiration, wherein predicting the fuel burn rate is based on a standard operation of the hybrid vehicle and the standard operation utilizes the electric motor until a battery percentage falls below a battery threshold;
While Payne discloses predicting, based on the amount of future driving, a fuel burn rate and a fuel expiration (Payne, [0039]), wherein predicting the fuel burn rate is based on a standard operation of the hybrid vehicle (Payne, [0048]), Payne does not explicitly disclose that the standard operation utilizes the electric engine until a battery percentage falls below a battery threshold.
From a similar field of endeavor of hybrid vehicle driving control, Yang discloses a method and apparatus for controlling operation modes of a hybrid electric vehicles (Yang, Abstract). Specifically, Yang discloses utilizing a plurality of different operation modes such as a “pure motor mode” and a plurality of hybrid motor and engine modes (Yang, [0218]). Said modes of Yang are determined by a switching unit that checks if the state of charge of the battery (see at least [0219-0231] and Table 1 of Yang).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system of Yang to the system of Payne as the system of Yang allows for supplementing the stale fuel consumption of Payne with motor power, allowing for higher torque output of the car to maximize and further optimizing standard operations of the hybrid vehicle with a driver’s battery usage.
generating a fuel burn plan configured to cause the hybrid vehicle to burn an amount of fuel in a fuel tank prior to the fuel expiration, the fuel burn plan alters the standard operation of the hybrid vehicle
Payne discloses generating a fuel burn plan configured to cause the vehicle to burn an amount of fuel in a fuel tank prior to the fuel expiration (see Fig. 4 and at least [0043] of Payne, where step 430 generates a fuel burn plan (fuel consumption plan 370) configured to cause the vehicle to burn an amount of fuel in a fuel tank prior to the fuel expiration), where the fuel burn plan alters the standard operation of the hybrid vehicle (Payne, [0045]).
initiating a driving session for the hybrid vehicle; and
[0058] of Payne, “At block 440, stale-fuel consumption module 340 activates engine 205 of vehicle 100 automatically on one or more occasions in according with the fuel consumption plan 370 to consume at least a portion of the fuel tank 210 on each occasion.”
applying the fuel burn plan to the driving session, wherein the fuel burn plan comprises operating the combustion engine until a fuel level falls below a fuel threshold for the fuel burn plan.
Payne discloses applying the fuel burn plan to the driving session ([0058], “… on one or more occasions in accordance with the fuel consumption plan 370 to consume at least a portion of the fuel in fuel tank 210 on each occasion.”), wherein the fuel burn plan comprises operating the combustion engine until a fuel level falls below a fuel threshold for the burn plan ([0042], “Stale-fuel consumption module 340 generally includes instructions that cause the one or more processors 110 to (1) determine a fuel consumption plan based, at least in part, on the predetermined refueling schedule 360 for vehicle 100 and the freshness level of the fuel in fuel tank 210 and (2) activate an internal combustion engine of the vehicle automatically on one or more occasions in accordance with the fuel consumption plan to consume at least a portion of the fuel.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, with all of the limitations of claims 1 and 16, the method and program further comprise:
determining, based on the predicted fuel burn rate, that the amount of fuel will be above a low level threshold in the fuel tank at the fuel expiration.
See [0045] of Payne. Payne discloses determining, based on the predicted fuel burn rate (fuel consumption plan 370), that the amount of fuel will be above a low level threshold in the fuel tank (“For example, more fuel can be consumed prior to or following the period of idleness to track the desired approximately linear fuel consumption plan 370”, where more fuel is consumed in response to it being above a threshold of the plan) at the fuel expiration, where the fuel expiration would be the end of the linear consumption plan.
Regarding claim 5, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the method further comprises:
wherein the standard operation comprises a set of rules that determines a mode of operation for the hybrid vehicle.
[0047] of Payne, “For example, if the predicted route exceeds the normal distance that vehicle 100 can travel in EV drive mode or includes stretches where greater power is required (e.g., high-speed freeway driving or hill climbing), stale-fuel consumption module 340 can activate engine 205 during the portions of the predicted route that require additional power.”, where activating engine 205 during the portions of the predicted route that require additional power is hybrid drive mode ([0031]).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, with all of the limitations of claim 5 and 18, the method and program further comprise:
wherein the hybrid vehicle has an electric mode where the electric motor provides propulsion and a combustion mode where the combustion engine provides the propulsion.
While Payne discloses a hybrid vehicle that has an electric mode where the electric motor provides propulsions ([0031]), Payne does not explicitly disclose a combustion mode where the combustion engine provides the propulsion. However, Payne further discloses a hybrid drive mode/HV mode, where both the engine and motor provide propulsion. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that there exists a combustion mode where the combustion engine provides the propulsion as there are a finite number of combinations of propulsions to try (i.e., motor and engine power results in HV mode, motor only power results in EV mode, and engine only power would be the combustion mode).
Regarding claim 7, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the method further comprises:
wherein the fuel burn plan is configured to use the amount of fuel during each driving session.
[0058] of Payne, “At block 440, stale-fuel consumption module 340 activates engine 205 of vehicle 100 automatically on one or more occasions in accordance with the fuel consumption plan 370 to consume at least a portion of the fuel in fuel tank 210 on each occasion.”
Regarding claim 9, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the method further comprises:
wherein the fuel burn plan is configured to use the combustion engine continuously until the amount of fuel is used.
[0057] of Payne, “One basic objective of the fuel consumption plan 370 is to consume the fuel at a rate such that the fuel in fuel tank 210 is nearly or completely used up by the time the next scheduled refueling occurs in accordance with refueling schedule 360.”
Regarding claim 10, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the method further comprises:
receiving a set of driving data from the hybrid vehicle, wherein the driving profile is based on the set of driving data, and the driving data is captured by one or more sensors on the hybrid vehicle.
[0083] of Payne, “Moreover, the sensor system 120 can include operator sensors that function to track or otherwise monitor aspects related to the driver/operator of the vehicle 100.”, where sensor system is on the vehicle (see Fig. 1 of Payne).
Regarding claim 11, Payne discloses a system comprising:
a processor; and
See Fig. 1 of Payne, where processor(s) 110 are designated in the figure.
a computer-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the processor and storing program instructions which, when executed by the processor, are configured to cause the processor to:
See Fig. 1 of Payne. Data store(s) 115 in the figure are a component of the processor and operably connected to the processor ([0073]).
determine a driving session, for a hybrid vehicle, is initiated, wherein the hybrid vehicle comprises an electric motor and a combustion engine;
See the rationale of claim 1 of Payne.
generate a driving profile for the hybrid vehicle;
See the rationale of claim 1 of Payne.
estimate, based on the driving profile, an amount of future driving;
See the rationale of claim 1 of Payne.
predict, based on the amount of future driving, a fuel burn rate and a fuel expiration, wherein the predicting the fuel burn rate is based on a standard operation of the hybrid vehicle and the standard operation utilizes the electric motor until a battery percentage falls below a battery threshold;
See the rationale of claim 1 of Payne.
generate a fuel burn plan configured to cause the hybrid vehicle to burn an amount of fuel in a fuel tank prior to the fuel expiration, the fuel burn plan alters the standard operation of the hybrid vehicle;
See the rationale of claim 1 of Payne.
initiate, by the processor, the fuel burn plan, wherein the fuel burn plan is configured to alter the standard operation of the hybrid vehicle such that the hybrid vehicle will burn the fuel before an expiration of the amount of fuel in the hybrid vehicle; and
See the rationale of claim 1 of Payne.
apply the fuel burn plan to the driving session, wherein the fuel burn plan comprises operating the combustion engine until a fuel level falls below a fuel threshold for the fuel burn plan.
See the rationale of claim 1 of Payne.
Regarding claim 13, with all of the limitations of claim 11, the system further comprises:
wherein the standard operation of the hybrid vehicle would cause the amount of fuel to expire prior to the amount of fuel in the fuel tank reaching a low level threshold of the fuel tank.
From the rejection of claim 12, Payne discloses a standard operation of the vehicle (historical usage patterns) is utilized by the hybrid vehicle to minimize stale-fuel through the prediction based on the usage patterns. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that if the prediction system that predicts such periods of use and idleness ([0048]) were not active (i.e., the stale-fuel consumption module 340 did not activate the engine 205 to consume fuel at risk to become stale ([0048])), the amount of fuel would expire prior to the amount of fuel in a fuel tank reaching a low level threshold of the fuel tank.
Regarding claim 14, with all of the limitations of claim 13, the system further comprises:
wherein the program instructions are further configured to cause the processor to:
receive a predicted expiration date for the amount of fuel; and
[0038] of Payne, “That is, refueling schedule 360 permits a fuel-consumption rate to be determined that guides consuming fuel automatically before it becomes stale.”
determine, based on a current date being beyond the predicted expiration date, the amount of fuel is expired.
[0043] of Payne, “In other words, the predetermined refueling schedule 360 can be based, at least in part, on a known, calculated, or predicted period of time after which the fuel in fuel tank 210 becomes “stale.””, where the amount of fuel in the fuel tank and its freshness is tracked by equations 1 and 2 in [0036].
Regarding claim 15, with all of the limitations of claim 14, the system further comprises:
wherein the program instructions are further configured to cause the processor to:
notify a driver of the hybrid vehicle the amount of fuel is past the predicted expiration date; and
While Payne does not explicitly disclose notifying a drive of the hybrid vehicle the amount of fuel is past the predicted expiration date, Payne does disclose that the hybrid vehicle comprises an output system 135 that includes any device, component, arrangement or groups thereof that enable information/data to be presented to a vehicle passenger ([0085]). Furthermore, Payne discloses embodiments that utilize autonomous driving that causes the vehicle to drive autonomously to the refueling station in accordance with the predetermined refueling schedule ([0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the system of Payne notifies the driver that the amount of fuel is past the predicted expiration date as not providing the notification that the system is behaving based off of its own autonomous decision making to those inside the vehicle may cause distress to those inside unknowing how the vehicle works.
maintain the hybrid vehicle in an electric motor mode.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the system of Payne would utilize an EV drive mode ([0031]) in light of the fuel in the fuel tank being stale.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
