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 Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/825,729, with an effective filing date of 9/5/2024. Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15 are currently pending. Claims 10 and 14 have been canceled. Claim 9 has been made into an independent claim.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Claim Objection section in Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, and subsequently withdraws objections to said section. However, upon further consideration, new objections are hereby made to the Drawings and the Specification sections as described below.
Examiner acknowledges the changes made regarding 35 USC § 101 to independent claims 1, 9, and 12 found in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-12. The Examiner has considered the amended claim limitation wherein providing the first cost function to the first equipment triggers the first equipment to postpone or to prepone a planned operation and the amendment properly integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the rejection of claims 9-11 and 14-15 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to a lack of clarity, the Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amending of claim 9 into independent form in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 4-5 and 7, and subsequently withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to said claims.
Further regarding the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, the Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 10 which renders the rejection moot.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-15 as being anticipated by Kapp et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0264675 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Kapp], the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102 is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, the reconsideration of Kapp has been necessitated. Therefore, a new rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-9, 11-12, and 15 based on 35 USC § 102 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation produce a first cost function indicative of the power management condition during the first period of time, the Applicant argues that the cost function in Kapp is different than the cost function in instant claim 1. However, Kapp in [0050] discloses to achieve a goal of the vehicle not running out of fuel, not only the energy resources of the propulsion system are considered (e.g., electricity of a traction battery and/or hydrogen in a normal fuel tank), but in addition also the available energy resources of the cooling container are taken into account. Overall energy usage and distribution is then controlled by an energy management controller 5 taking all relevant and important information into account. This is construed as the system cost function being indicative of the power management condition during a period of time based on the description by the Applicant in [0007] of the specification where power management condition indicative of power availability and/or usage of power associated with the power source.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the claim 1 limitation provide the first cost function to the first equipment, wherein providing the first cost function to the first equipment triggers the first equipment to postpone or to prepone a planned operation, the Applicant argues that Kapp does not disclose this feature. However, Kapp discloses in [0010] that the system redirects at least a fraction of the energy originally intended for either powering the container or propelling the motor vehicle and allocates it for the respective other purpose under certain circumstances, which is interpreted as triggering a postponement or preponement of an operation (i.e., diverting energy from the propulsion system to a heating/cooling system, thereby postponing the propulsion and prioritizing the cooling, or vice versa).
Therefore, this argument is moot.
Regarding fellow independent claims 9 and 12, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, these claims recite similar features to claim 1 and their rejections should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant further argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Drawings
Drawings 1-7 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show: (a) with respect to Figs. 1, 3-5, and 7 details regarding the identifications (i.e.,Fig.1 items 10, 21, 22, 700, 702, 31, and 32), as described in the specification and (b) with regard to Figs. 2 and 6, details regarding the blocks contained therein (i.e. Fig. 6 items 601, 602, and 603), as described by the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified an informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: it contains phraseology that may be implied (e.g., line 2 “…is provided”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
___________________________________________
The use of the term(s) WiFi (e.g., [0080] sentence 1) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (e.g., [0208] sentence 2), which is/are trade name(s) or a mark(s) used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term(s) should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term(s) should be capitalized wherever it/they appear(s) or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
___________________________________________
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0073] appears to contain a typographical error “which may attached to the vehicle” which should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kapp et al. (US 20230264675 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kapp.
Regarding claim 1, Kapp discloses:
A computer system comprising processing circuitry ([0033] describes use on non-transitory storage medium and computer implemented method and systems and a program instructions) configured to handle power management of a vehicle ([0002] sentence (s)1, where the embodiments of the present disclosure pertain to a method and a system for energy management of a motor vehicle carrying a container powered by an auxiliary power unit and see Fig. 1 below which discloses the system on a vehicle),
wherein the vehicle comprises a power source arranged to supply power via a Power Take-Off, PTO, interface to a first equipment ([0007]s.1 energy resources required to power at least one main motor of the motor vehicle to reach a target via propulsion of the motor vehicle and for powering the container destination with the motor vehicle along the route, where the Examiner construes as providing propulsion to the vehicle and powering the container as Power take-off interfaces as defined by the Applicant’s disclosure in which propulsion is necessarily provided via a motor driving a shaft and the power supplied to the container is provided by a form of electrical outlet),
PNG
media_image1.png
161
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the computer system further being configured to:
obtain a power management condition indicative of power availability and/or usage of power associated with the power source for a first period of time ([0007] s1, a method for energy management of a motor vehicle carrying a container powered by an auxiliary power unit comprises determining total energy resources available on the motor vehicle for propulsion of the motor vehicle and for powering the container; determining a first energy fraction of the total energy resources required to power the container with the auxiliary power unit along a route of the motor vehicle; determining a second energy fraction of the total energy resources required to power at least one main motor of the motor vehicle to reach a target destination with the motor vehicle along the route of the motor vehicle; and reallocating at least a fraction of the total energy resources from the auxiliary power unit to the at least one main motor of the motor vehicle or vice versa depending on the first energy fraction and the second energy fraction),
produce a first cost function indicative of the power management condition during the first period of time ( [0055] the energy management controller may utilize a smart cost function that relies on real-time data input and [0050] s.1, to achieve a goal of the vehicle not running out of fuel, not only the energy resources of the propulsion system are considered (e.g., electricity of a traction battery and/or hydrogen in a normal fuel tank), but in addition also the available energy resources of the cooling container are taken into account, s.2, Overall energy usage and distribution is then controlled by an energy management controller 5 taking all relevant and important information into account, which is construed as the system cost function being indicative of the power management condition during a period of time based on the description by the Applicant in [0007] of the specification where power management condition indicative of power availability and/or usage of power associated with the power source), and
provide the first cost function to the first equipment, wherein providing the first cost function to the first equipment triggers the first equipment to postpone or to prepone a planned operation ([0010] that the system redirects at least a fraction of the energy originally intended for either powering the container or propelling the motor vehicle and allocates it for the respective other purpose under certain circumstances, which is interpreted as triggering a postponement or preponement of an operation (i.e., diverting energy from the propulsion system to a heating/cooling system, thereby postponing the propulsion and prioritizing the cooling, or vice versa), [0054] the energy management controller may be configured to reallocate at least a fraction of the total energy resources of the auxiliary power unit to the at least one main motor of the motor vehicle or vice versa depending on the first energy fraction and the second energy fraction, which is construed as providing the output to the first equipment (i.e., propulsion system) and the second equipment (i.e., heating/cooling system) and [0055] as discussed above regarding utilizing a cost function indicative of a power management condition).
Claims 9, 12, and 15 recite a vehicle, a computer program product, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claims 9, 12, and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kapp discloses:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to produce the first cost function based on an expected adjustment in vehicle functionality caused by supplying power and/or energy from the power source to the first equipment via the PTO interface during the first period of time (see claim 1 regarding utilizing cost functions to manage an expected adjustment in vehicle functionality, (i.e., providing propulsion)).
Regarding claim 3, Kapp discloses:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further
configured to produce the first cost function based on an expected adjustment in power and/or performance for a second equipment and/or for an internal unit of the vehicle, wherein the second equipment and/or the internal unit is/are powered by the power source, wherein the expected adjustment is caused by supplying power and/or energy from the power source to the first equipment via the PTO interface (see claim 1 regarding the first and second energy fraction and their relationship, specifically reallocation of those resources based on those and the utilization of a cost function).
Regarding claim 5, Kapp discloses:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to produce the first cost function based on an operation to be performed by the first equipment (see claim 1 where cost function takes into account the first energy fraction which is associated to an operation performed by the first/second equipment).
Regarding claim 6, Kapp discloses:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a request to power the first equipment via the PTO interface, the request being indicative of a requested power and/or energy to use for an operation by the first equipment (see claim 1 where energy is reallocated based on requests from the respective systems (e.g., maintaining proper temperature) and [0018] the energy management controller may be configured to issue a r command to stop the motor vehicle in case that the total energy resources are required (i.e., requested) to power the container with the auxiliary power unit), and
based on the requested power and/or energy to use for the operation and based on the provided first cost function, for a second period of time, adapt a power management policy for the vehicle ( see claim 1 and [0018] as discussed above and [0059] where a scheduled target destination can be changed to an alternative target destination or the vehicle be stopped altogether which is construed as a second period of time).
Regarding claim 7, Kapp discloses:
The computer system of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is
further configured to adapt the power management policy for the vehicle by:
predicting a power behaviour and/or energy behaviour of the first equipment for the second period of time, based on the requested power and/or energy to use, and based on the provided first cost function (see claims 1 and 6 regarding reallocation of power based on a predicted behavior of keeping the cargo at the proper temperature), and to:
adapt the power management policy based on the predicted behaviour of the first equipment for the second period of time (see claims 1 and 6 regarding stopping or altering the vehicles route based on the predicted behavior of not having enough energy to reach the scheduled target destination, which is interpreted as adapting the power management policy based on the predicted behavior for the second period of time).
Regarding claim 8, Kapp discloses:
The computer system of claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to predict the power behavior and/or energy behaviour of the first equipment for the second period of time further based on an obtained urgency factor relating to the operation of the requested power and/or energy to use (see claims 1, 6, and 7 regarding predicted power behavior of an equipment for a second period of time and the preservation of an allowable temperature for the cargo hold and [0054] s3, the highest priority may be placed on proper temperature control of the freight).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, the Applicant has elected to cancel these claims and they are subsequently no longer under consideration.
Regarding claim 11, Kapp discloses:
The vehicle according to claim 9 wherein the first equipment is any of a fridge unit, a concrete mixer, a battery, or a pump, and wherein the power supplied by the power source via the PTO interface is electrical energy or torque ([0005] s.1 for heated/cooled cargo trucks carrying temperature-controlled containers and Fig. 1 above which displays such a truck).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims
at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapp et al. (US 20230264675 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kapp, in view of Borhan et al. (US 20250137414 A1), hereinafter referred to as Borhan.
Regarding claim 4, Kapp discloses:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to produce the first cost function (see claim 1 regarding cost function utilization for energy management),
but Kapp does not explicitly disclose:
based on a risk of exceeding a power threshold and/or energy threshold of the power source during the first period of time.
However, Borhan teaches in [0052] s2, that constraints refer to system based constraints provided to the optimizer circuit based on the defined or allowably designated limits of the vehicle system associated with the operation of the vehicle including but not limited to maximum/minimum ranges of components including power output. Furthermore, in [0078] s2, optimizer will minimize the cost function in order to achieve the predictive state of the vehicle system subject to one or more constraints. This is construed by the Examiner as a wholistic system optimizing process that would necessarily include power or energy thresholds that would be designated for the power sources since energy inputs and outputs are also considered ([0035] s 1-3 and 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicular power management and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicular power management system and method of Kapp, by incorporating the teachings of Borhan, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of monitoring the energy/power thresholds to ensure the threshold is not exceeded hence improving the accuracy and performance of the vehicle and/or vehicle system (e.g., reducing emissions, maximizing fuel efficiency, etc.).
Claim 13 recites a method having substantially the same features of claims 3-5 above, therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 3-5.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Xu et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 112368198 A) is directed towards a vehicle power management system (100) for optimizing power efficiency in a vehicle by managing power distribution between a first power source and a second power source.
Schumacher et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0202380 A1) is directed towards a method involving receiving an input parameter, where the input parameter includes one of a desired runtime for the vehicle accessory and a desired condition setting for the vehicle accessory.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights