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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0014] (Page 4, line 13) “vehicle 1 0” should read “vehicle 10”
Paragraph [0017] (Page 5, line 24) “vehicle 1 0” should read “vehicle 10”
Paragraph [0023] (Page 9, line 16) “battery system I 1a” should read “battery system 11a”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites “data processing hardware” which is not described in the specification as originally filed or published. The specification instead supports and/or recites cloud systems such as cloud computing systems as can be found in paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s specification as filed and/or published in (US20240425032A1).
Regarding claims 2-10, Claims 2-10 are also rejected as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 recites “data processing hardware” and “memory hardware” which are not described in the specification as originally filed or published. The specification instead supports and/or recites cloud systems such as cloud computing systems and cloud database systems as can be found in paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s specification as filed and/or published in (US20240425032A1).
Regarding claims 12-20, Claims 12-20 are also rejected as they are dependent on claim 11 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation "the recommended route" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a recommended route in claim 7 or claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. For examination purposes, the recommended route mentioned in claim 7 is interpreted to be the same as the route mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on similar grounds as that detailed above with respect to claim 7.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a computer-implemented method and a vehicle operating system respectively.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “ determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location” and “determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location” and Claim 11 recites the limitations “ determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location” and “determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting data processing hardware nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of a data processing hardware, these claims encompass a person observing user data to determine an intended travel location, determining a route based on the intended travel location(s), determining and/or evaluating whether they have enough range (charge and/or fuel) to travel to the intended locations and if not determining operations (actions) they can execute in order increase their range. If a claim limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ”Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the additional element “receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle” and “receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data” and Claim 11 recites additional element “receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle” and “receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data”, which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the additional element “providing, for output from a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, an operation recommendation for an occupant of the vehicle to perform, the operation recommendation configured to increase the current range of the vehicle when performed by the occupant of the vehicle” and Claim 11 recites additional element “providing, for output from a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, an operation recommendation for an occupant of the vehicle to perform, the operation recommendation configured to increase the current range of the vehicle when performed by the occupant of the vehicle”, which are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to post solution outputting/displaying of data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 11 as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of increasing range of a vehicle. The claimed computer component is recited at a high generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform an existing process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected as they do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US2020/0117204A1) in view of Graham (US2015/0345958A1), hereinafter Lindemann and Graham respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lindemann teaches a computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware of a vehicle operating system that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle (see at least [0009] “determining, e.g., via the vehicle controller based on a current state of the energy storage device (e.g., the battery pack's current SOC), an estimated driving range for the motor vehicle”); determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location (see at least [0036] “Upon determining that the current estimated driving range is not larger than the overall distance of the candidate route and, thus, there is an insufficient amount of stored energy to reach the desired destination”); and based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location, providing, for output from a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, an operation recommendation for an occupant of the vehicle to perform (see at least [0007] “A representative control algorithm derives a definitive action plan that is presented to a driver to remediate scenarios where it is established, e.g., based on EV range prediction techniques, that the in-vehicle power storage system has insufficient energy for the vehicle to reach a desired destination or a charging station.” and [0017] “the control operation includes saving estimated energy expenditures and action plans to reach a vehicle destination using candidate routes; and displaying each action plan with instructions for executing the corresponding vehicle maneuvering and/or accessory usage actions.” also see at least [0009] and [0026]), the operation recommendation configured to increase the current range of the vehicle when performed by the occupant of the vehicle (see at least [0007] “there are presented novel driver behavior suggestion and coaching algorithms to help maximize electric-drive vehicle range.”).
Examiner interprets that an operation recommendation is encompassed at least by action plans and/or action plan with instructions for executing the corresponding vehicle maneuvering and/or accessory usage actions.
Lindemann suggests receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data (see at least [0032] “It is also envisioned that the CPU 36 or telematics unit processors 40 receive vehicle origin and destination information from other sources, such as...a dedicated mobile software application operating on a smartphone or other handheld computing device.”); and determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location (see at least [0009] “determining, e.g., via the vehicle controller through cooperative operation with a graphical human-machine interface (HMI) and a GPS transceiver, cellular data chip, etc., an origin and destination for the motor vehicle; conducting, e.g., via the vehicle controller through a resident or remote memory-stored map database, a geospatial query to identify a candidate route with a corresponding route distance for traversing from the vehicle's origin to the selected destination”).
Graham suggests receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle (see at least [0034] “In determining whether or not the vehicle has sufficient range, the system controller may use either the current fuel or battery charge level”). Graham more explicitly teaches receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data (see at least [0030] “Schedule information may be obtained in a variety of ways. In at least one embodiment, the system is only configured to allow the schedule information to be obtained using one of the identified techniques, while in other embodiments the system is configured to allow schedule information to be obtained using any of a variety of techniques. In one technique, when the user plugs their smartphone or other compatible device into port 121 (step 303), the system automatically synchronizes the calendar on the user's device with the on-board calendar (step 305). In an alternate technique, when the user comes into close proximity to the vehicle (step 307), for example by entering and sitting in the vehicle, a short range link is established between the user's smartphone or other compatible device and the on-board system using communication link 119 (step 309), for example using Bluetooth or similar short range wireless technology. Once the user's device and the on-board system are linked, the system automatically synchronizes the calendar on the user's device with the on-board calendar (step 305).”); determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location (see at least [0033] “After the locations for the different appointments on the user's schedule have been identified, the system controller prepares a travel route for the selected driving period (step 323) and enters that route into the vehicle's navigation system 127 (step 325).” and [0031] “Once system controller 101 has obtained and synchronized the user's calendar with the calendar maintained within the system (e.g., within memory 103), the system controller determines the schedule for the next driving period (step 313)...After a schedule has been entered into the system, the controller determines the locations that correspond to each of the scheduled appointments (step 315).” and [0033] “After the locations for the different appointments on the user's schedule have been identified, the system controller prepares a travel route for the selected driving period (step 323)”); and determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location (see at least [0039] “Once the vehicle's driving range is known, the system controller can determine if the vehicle has sufficient range to travel the planned route (step 401).”).
Examiner interprets that current range is encompassed at least by current fuel or battery charge level and user data is encompassed at least by schedule information and/or calendar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lindemann of a computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware of a vehicle operating system that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle; determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location; and based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location, providing, for output from a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, an operation recommendation for an occupant of the vehicle to perform, the operation recommendation configured to increase the current range of the vehicle when performed by the occupant of the vehicle and the suggested teaching of Lindemann of receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data; and determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location with the suggested teaching of receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle found in Graham and the more explicit teachings of receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data; determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location; and determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location found in Graham. One could combine the teachings in order to have a computer-implemented method executed on data processing hardware of a vehicle operating system that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle; receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data; determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location; determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location; and based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location, providing, for output from a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, an operation recommendation for an occupant of the vehicle to perform, the operation recommendation configured to increase the current range of the vehicle when performed by the occupant of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to extend driving range and/or increase overall vehicle fuel economy (see at least Lindemann, [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the vehicle operating system is located remotely from the vehicle (see at least [0012] “For any of the disclosed systems, methods, and vehicles, a resident/remote vehicle controller may be programmed to:...” and [0054] “Aspects of this disclosure may be implemented, in some embodiments, through a computer executable program of instructions, such as program modules, generally referred to as software applications or application programs executed by an onboard vehicle computer or a distributed network of resident and remote computing devices.”).
Examiner interprets that vehicle operating system is located remotely is encompassed at least by remote vehicle controller and/or remote computing devices.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the vehicle operating system is located at the vehicle (see at least [0012] “For any of the disclosed systems, methods, and vehicles, a resident/remote vehicle controller may be programmed to:...” and [0054] “Aspects of this disclosure may be implemented, in some embodiments, through a computer executable program of instructions, such as program modules, generally referred to as software applications or application programs executed by an onboard vehicle computer or a distributed network of resident and remote computing devices.”).
Examiner interprets that vehicle operating system is located at the vehicle is encompassed at least by resident vehicle controller onboard vehicle computer and/or a distributed network of resident computing devices.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the HMI comprises a display of the vehicle (see at least [0026] “Some of the other vehicle hardware components 16 shown generally in FIG. 1 include, as non-limiting examples, an electronic video display device 18...Generally, these hardware components 16 function, at least in part...as a human/machine interface (HMI)”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the operations further comprise, based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location (see at least [0012] “For any of the disclosed systems, methods, and vehicles, a resident/remote vehicle controller may be programmed to: respond to the estimated driving range being less than the total distance of a candidate route by conducting another geospatial query to identify an alternative candidate route for reaching the vehicle destination; and, responsive to the estimated driving range being equal to or greater than the total distance of the alternative candidate route, outputting an instruction (e.g., to an autonomous driving control module or as a prompt to the driver) to traverse from the vehicle origin to the vehicle destination using this candidate route.”), determining the operation recommendation based on an objective parameter specified by the occupant of the vehicle (see at least [0042] “Through this evaluation, the method 100 identifies energy cost-down opportunities in each suggested action as part of a coordinated effort to minimize impact to driver comfort and time-in-trip while merging multiple opportunities together to produce an optimal action plan giving driver-impact costs based on conditions.”).
Examiner interprets that an objective parameter is encompassed at least by minimize impact to driver comfort and time-in-trip.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lindemann does not explicitly teach wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the recommended route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data.
Graham more explicitly teaches wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle (see at least [0030] “Schedule information may be obtained in a variety of ways. In at least one embodiment, the system is only configured to allow the schedule information to be obtained using one of the identified techniques, while in other embodiments the system is configured to allow schedule information to be obtained using any of a variety of techniques...Once the user's device and the on-board system are linked, the system automatically synchronizes the calendar on the user's device with the on-board calendar (step 305).”); and determining the recommended route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data (see at least [0031] “Once system controller 101 has obtained and synchronized the user's calendar with the calendar maintained within the system (e.g., within memory 103), the system controller determines the schedule for the next driving period (step 313)...After a schedule has been entered into the system, the controller determines the locations that correspond to each of the scheduled appointments (step 315).” and [0033] “After the locations for the different appointments on the user's schedule have been identified, the system controller prepares a travel route for the selected driving period (step 323)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann with the teaching of wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the recommended route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data found in Graham. One could combine the teaching in order to have a computer-implemented method wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the recommended route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize a vehicle’s route based on a driver’s schedule and further benefit EV drivers that face charging station scarcity (see at least Graham, [0002] and [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Lindemann teaches a vehicle operating system comprising: data processing hardware (see at least [0054] “Aspects of this disclosure may be implemented, in some embodiments, through a computer executable program of instructions, such as program modules, generally referred to as software applications or application programs executed by an onboard vehicle computer or a distributed network of resident and remote computing devices.” also see at least [0055]); and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising (see at least [0056] “Any of the methods described herein may include machine-readable instructions for execution by: (a) a processor, (b) a controller, and/or (c) any other processing device. Any algorithm, software, control logic, protocol, or method disclosed herein may be embodied in software stored on a tangible medium such as, for example, a flash memory, a CD-ROM, a floppy disk, a hard drive, a digital versatile disk (DVD), or other memory devices.”): receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle (see at least [0009] “determining, e.g., via the vehicle controller based on a current state of the energy storage device (e.g., the battery pack's current SOC), an estimated driving range for the motor vehicle”); determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location (see at least [0036] “Upon determining that the current estimated driving range is not larger than the overall distance of the candidate route and, thus, there is an insufficient amount of stored energy to reach the desired destination”); and based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location, providing, for output from a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, an operation recommendation for an occupant of the vehicle to perform (see at least [0007] “A representative control algorithm derives a definitive action plan that is presented to a driver to remediate scenarios where it is established, e.g., based on EV range prediction techniques, that the in-vehicle power storage system has insufficient energy for the vehicle to reach a desired destination or a charging station.” and [0017] “the control operation includes saving estimated energy expenditures and action plans to reach a vehicle destination using candidate routes; and displaying each action plan with instructions for executing the corresponding vehicle maneuvering and/or accessory usage actions.” also see at least [0009] and [0026]), the operation recommendation configured to increase the current range of the vehicle when performed by the occupant of the vehicle (see at least [0007] “there are presented novel driver behavior suggestion and coaching algorithms to help maximize electric-drive vehicle range.”).
Examiner interprets that data processing hardware is encompassed at least by onboard vehicle computer or a distributed network of resident and/or remote computing devices, memory hardware is encompassed at least by tangible medium such as, for example, a flash memory, a CD-ROM, a floppy disk, a hard drive, a digital versatile disk (DVD), or other memory devices, and an operation recommendation is encompassed at least by action plans and/or action plan with instructions for executing the corresponding vehicle maneuvering and/or accessory usage actions.
Lindemann suggests receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data (see at least [0032] “It is also envisioned that the CPU 36 or telematics unit processors 40 receive vehicle origin and destination information from other sources, such as...a dedicated mobile software application operating on a smartphone or other handheld computing device.”); and determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location (see at least [0009] “determining, e.g., via the vehicle controller through cooperative operation with a graphical human-machine interface (HMI) and a GPS transceiver, cellular data chip, etc., an origin and destination for the motor vehicle; conducting, e.g., via the vehicle controller through a resident or remote memory-stored map database, a geospatial query to identify a candidate route with a corresponding route distance for traversing from the vehicle's origin to the selected destination”).
Graham suggests receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle (see at least [0034] “In determining whether or not the vehicle has sufficient range, the system controller may use either the current fuel or battery charge level”). Graham more explicitly teaches receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data (see at least [0030] “Schedule information may be obtained in a variety of ways. In at least one embodiment, the system is only configured to allow the schedule information to be obtained using one of the identified techniques, while in other embodiments the system is configured to allow schedule information to be obtained using any of a variety of techniques. In one technique, when the user plugs their smartphone or other compatible device into port 121 (step 303), the system automatically synchronizes the calendar on the user's device with the on-board calendar (step 305). In an alternate technique, when the user comes into close proximity to the vehicle (step 307), for example by entering and sitting in the vehicle, a short range link is established between the user's smartphone or other compatible device and the on-board system using communication link 119 (step 309), for example using Bluetooth or similar short range wireless technology. Once the user's device and the on-board system are linked, the system automatically synchronizes the calendar on the user's device with the on-board calendar (step 305).”); determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location (see at least [0033] “After the locations for the different appointments on the user's schedule have been identified, the system controller prepares a travel route for the selected driving period (step 323) and enters that route into the vehicle's navigation system 127 (step 325).” and [0031] “Once system controller 101 has obtained and synchronized the user's calendar with the calendar maintained within the system (e.g., within memory 103), the system controller determines the schedule for the next driving period (step 313)...After a schedule has been entered into the system, the controller determines the locations that correspond to each of the scheduled appointments (step 315).” and [0033] “After the locations for the different appointments on the user's schedule have been identified, the system controller prepares a travel route for the selected driving period (step 323)”); determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location (see at least [0039] “Once the vehicle's driving range is known, the system controller can determine if the vehicle has sufficient range to travel the planned route (step 401).”).
Examiner interprets that current range is encompassed at least by current fuel or battery charge level and user data is encompassed at least by schedule information and/or calendar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lindemann of a vehicle operating system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle; determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location; and based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location, providing, for output from a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, an operation recommendation for an occupant of the vehicle to perform, the operation recommendation configured to increase the current range of the vehicle when performed by the occupant of the vehicle and the suggested teaching of Lindemann of receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data; and determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location with the suggested teaching of receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle found in Graham and the more explicit teaching of receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data; determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location; determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location found in Graham. One could combine the teachings in order to have a vehicle operating system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle; receiving, from a user device in communication with the vehicle operating system, user data; determining, based on the user data, a route for the vehicle to travel along from a first location to a second location; determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location; and based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location, providing, for output from a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, an operation recommendation for an occupant of the vehicle to perform, the operation recommendation configured to increase the current range of the vehicle when performed by the occupant of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to extend driving range and/or increase overall vehicle fuel economy (see at least Lindemann, [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the vehicle operating system is located remotely from the vehicle (see at least [0012] “For any of the disclosed systems, methods, and vehicles, a resident/remote vehicle controller may be programmed to:...” and [0054] “Aspects of this disclosure may be implemented, in some embodiments, through a computer executable program of instructions, such as program modules, generally referred to as software applications or application programs executed by an onboard vehicle computer or a distributed network of resident and remote computing devices.”).
Examiner interprets that vehicle operating system is located remotely is encompassed at least by remote vehicle controller and/or remote computing devices.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the vehicle operating system is located at the vehicle (see at least [0012] “For any of the disclosed systems, methods, and vehicles, a resident/remote vehicle controller may be programmed to:...” and [0054] “Aspects of this disclosure may be implemented, in some embodiments, through a computer executable program of instructions, such as program modules, generally referred to as software applications or application programs executed by an onboard vehicle computer or a distributed network of resident and remote computing devices.”).
Examiner interprets that vehicle operating system is located at the vehicle is encompassed at least by resident vehicle controller onboard vehicle computer and/or a resident computing devices.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the HMI comprises a display of the vehicle (see at least [0026] “Some of the other vehicle hardware components 16 shown generally in FIG. 1 include, as non-limiting examples, an electronic video display device 18...Generally, these hardware components 16 function, at least in part...as a human/machine interface (HMI)”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the operations further comprise, based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location (see at least [0012] “For any of the disclosed systems, methods, and vehicles, a resident/remote vehicle controller may be programmed to: respond to the estimated driving range being less than the total distance of a candidate route by conducting another geospatial query to identify an alternative candidate route for reaching the vehicle destination; and, responsive to the estimated driving range being equal to or greater than the total distance of the alternative candidate route, outputting an instruction (e.g., to an autonomous driving control module or as a prompt to the driver) to traverse from the vehicle origin to the vehicle destination using this candidate route.”), determining the operation recommendation based on an objective parameter specified by the occupant of the vehicle (see at least [0042] “Through this evaluation, the method 100 identifies energy cost-down opportunities in each suggested action as part of a coordinated effort to minimize impact to driver comfort and time-in-trip while merging multiple opportunities together to produce an optimal action plan giving driver-impact costs based on conditions.”).
Examiner interprets that an objective parameter is encompassed at least by minimize impact to driver comfort and time-in-trip.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lindemann does not explicitly teach wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the recommended route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data.
Graham more explicitly teaches wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle (see at least [0030] “Schedule information may be obtained in a variety of ways. In at least one embodiment, the system is only configured to allow the schedule information to be obtained using one of the identified techniques, while in other embodiments the system is configured to allow schedule information to be obtained using any of a variety of techniques...Once the user's device and the on-board system are linked, the system automatically synchronizes the calendar on the user's device with the on-board calendar (step 305).”); and determining the recommended route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data (see at least [0031] “Once system controller 101 has obtained and synchronized the user's calendar with the calendar maintained within the system (e.g., within memory 103), the system controller determines the schedule for the next driving period (step 313)...After a schedule has been entered into the system, the controller determines the locations that correspond to each of the scheduled appointments (step 315).” and [0033] “After the locations for the different appointments on the user's schedule have been identified, the system controller prepares a travel route for the selected driving period (step 323)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann with the teaching of wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the recommended route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data found in Graham. One could combine the teaching in order to have a vehicle operating system, wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the recommended route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize a vehicle’s route based on a driver’s schedule and further benefit EV drivers that face charging station scarcity (see at least Graham, [0002] and [0022]).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US2020/0117204A1) in view of Graham (US2015/0345958A1) in further view of Lindhuber et al. (US2012/0078496A1), hereinafter Lindemann, Graham, and Lindhuber respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lindemann suggests wherein the operation recommendation instructs the occupant of the vehicle to apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle (see at least [0042] “For this particular operation, a grouped area of conditions associated with a particular vehicle maneuvering action or accessory usage action is analyzed to approximate a "reasonable" energy savings that may be realized by a given modification to that action, such as an increase/decrease or activation/deactivation or applied maximum/minimum. This may include, for example, evaluating: a speed opportunity cost function associated with a suggested speed-related vehicle maneuvering action; an HVAC opportunity cost function associated with a suggested HVAC-related accessory usage action; and an acceleration/deceleration opportunity cost function associated with a suggested accel./decal.-related vehicle maneuvering action.”).
Examiner interprets that apply less throttle while accelerating is suggested at least by a suggested accel./decal.-related vehicle maneuvering action.
Lindhuber more explicitly teaches wherein the operation recommendation instructs the occupant of the vehicle to apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle (see at least [0064] “Therefore, according to the exemplary embodiment in FIG. 1, the accelerator pedal position FP is in range B3. The driver is shown an ECO tip "take the foot off the gas" based on the accelerator pedal position inefficient driving style due to the demand for too high a load.” also see at least [0037]).
Examiner interprets that apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle is encompassed at least by an ECO tip "take the foot off the gas" based on the accelerator pedal position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Lindemann of wherein the operation recommendation instructs the occupant of the vehicle to apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Lindhuber. One could combine the teachings in order to have a computer-implemented method wherein the operation recommendation instructs the occupant of the vehicle to apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to extend driving range and/or increase overall vehicle fuel economy (see at least Lindemann, [0008]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lindemann suggests wherein the operation recommendation instructs the occupant of the vehicle apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle (see at least [0042] “For this particular operation, a grouped area of conditions associated with a particular vehicle maneuvering action or accessory usage action is analyzed to approximate a "reasonable" energy savings that may be realized by a given modification to that action, such as an increase/decrease or activation/deactivation or applied maximum/minimum. This may include, for example, evaluating: a speed opportunity cost function associated with a suggested speed-related vehicle maneuvering action; an HVAC opportunity cost function associated with a suggested HVAC-related accessory usage action; and an acceleration/deceleration opportunity cost function associated with a suggested accel./decal.-related vehicle maneuvering action.”).
Examiner interprets that apply less throttle while accelerating is suggested at least by a suggested accel./decal.-related vehicle maneuvering action.
Lindhuber more explicitly teaches wherein the operation recommendation instructs the occupant of the vehicle apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle (see at least [0064] “Therefore, according to the exemplary embodiment in FIG. 1, the accelerator pedal position FP is in range B3. The driver is shown an ECO tip "take the foot off the gas" based on the accelerator pedal position inefficient driving style due to the demand for too high a load.” also see at least [0037]).
Examiner interprets that apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle is encompassed at least by an ECO tip "take the foot off the gas" based on the accelerator pedal position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Lindemann of wherein the operation recommendation instructs the occupant of the vehicle apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Lindhuber. One could combine the teachings in order to have a vehicle operating system, wherein the operation recommendation instructs the occupant of the vehicle apply less throttle while accelerating the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to extend driving range and/or increase overall vehicle fuel economy (see at least Lindemann, [0008]).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US2020/0117204A1) in view of Graham (US2015/0345958A1) in further view of Neubecker et al. (US2016/0305791A1), hereinafter Lindemann, Graham, and Neubecker respectively.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge (see at least [0036] “Upon determining that the time increase associated with executing a driver-coaching action plan is substantially greater than the time increase associated with executing on-demand charging, e.g., by at least a preset value of 20% or fifteen (15) minutes, method 100 may continue to the process blocks presented in FIG. 4 to determine whether or not to issue a deploy request to a mobile charging vehicle or to instruct the driver to proceed to a nearby charging/fuel station.” also see at least [0048] “Decision block 143 determines whether a vehicle occupant has either selected one of the available recharging/refueling sources (YES)…However, if the driver/occupant wishes to initiate a recharging/refueling operation (block 143=YES), the method 100 may responsively proceed to process block 145 and generates additional waypoints for the candidate route to carry out the charging operation. As an example, after the vehicle's origins and destinations are determined, and a candidate route is identified, the route may need to be modified to accommodate an on-demand mobile charging event. At process block 147, a deploy request may be transmitted to a selected mobile charging vehicle to commence on-demand charging; alternatively, a modified route may be displayed to the user with a corresponding set of turn-by-turn directions to reach a selected refueling/recharging station. Method 100 then proceeds to process block 149 to confirm the vehicle 10 has been sufficiently recharged, such that the vehicle 10 may resume towards the final destination.”).
Graham suggests wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge (see at least [0034] “In at least one embodiment, the method shown in FIG. 3 is modified to include re-charging or re-fueling stops.” also see at least [0040] and [0042]).
Neubecker more explicitly teaches wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge (see at least [0028] “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate example vehicle routes 200 including a starting point 215 (shown at point A) and an endpoint, waypoint, or destination 225 (shown at point B). The route 200 may include a first route 205 extending from the start point 215 to the destination 225. The first route 205 may include a first energy source 220, such as a charge station or fuel station.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lindemann of wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge with the suggest teaching of wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge found in Graham and the more explicit teaching of wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge found in Neubecker. One could combine the teachings in order to have a computer-implemented, wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize a vehicle’s route based on a driver’s schedule (see at least Graham, [0002] and [0022]) and further to extend driving range (see at least Lindemann, [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Neubecker teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the third location comprises a charging station (see at least [0048] “if the driver/occupant wishes to initiate a recharging/refueling operation (block 143=YES), the method 100 may responsively proceed to process block 145 and generates additional waypoints for the candidate route to carry out the charging operation. As an example, after the vehicle's origins and destinations are determined, and a candidate route is identified, the route may need to be modified…a modified route may be displayed to the user with a corresponding set of turn-by-turn directions to reach a selected refueling/recharging station.”).
Neubecker more explicitly teaches wherein the third location comprises a charging station (see at least [0028] “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate example vehicle routes 200 including a starting point 215 (shown at point A) and an endpoint, waypoint, or destination 225 (shown at point B). The route 200 may include a first route 205 extending from the start point 215 to the destination 225. The first route 205 may include a first energy source 220, such as a charge station or fuel station.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lindemann of wherein the third location comprises a charging station with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Neubecker with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have a computer-implemented method, wherein the third location comprises a charging station with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to extend driving range of a vehicle (see at least Lindemann, [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lindemann and Graham teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 11 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge (see at least [0036] “Upon determining that the time increase associated with executing a driver-coaching action plan is substantially greater than the time increase associated with executing on-demand charging, e.g., by at least a preset value of 20% or fifteen (15) minutes, method 100 may continue to the process blocks presented in FIG. 4 to determine whether or not to issue a deploy request to a mobile charging vehicle or to instruct the driver to proceed to a nearby charging/fuel station.” also see at least [0048] “Decision block 143 determines whether a vehicle occupant has either selected one of the available recharging/refueling sources (YES)…However, if the driver/occupant wishes to initiate a recharging/refueling operation (block 143=YES), the method 100 may responsively proceed to process block 145 and generates additional waypoints for the candidate route to carry out the charging operation. As an example, after the vehicle's origins and destinations are determined, and a candidate route is identified, the route may need to be modified to accommodate an on-demand mobile charging event. At process block 147, a deploy request may be transmitted to a selected mobile charging vehicle to commence on-demand charging; alternatively, a modified route may be displayed to the user with a corresponding set of turn-by-turn directions to reach a selected refueling/recharging station. Method 100 then proceeds to process block 149 to confirm the vehicle 10 has been sufficiently recharged, such that the vehicle 10 may resume towards the final destination.”).
Graham suggests wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge (see at least [0034] “In at least one embodiment, the method shown in FIG. 3 is modified to include re-charging or re-fueling stops.” also see at least [0040] and [0042]).
Neubecker more explicitly teaches wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge (see at least [0028] “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate example vehicle routes 200 including a starting point 215 (shown at point A) and an endpoint, waypoint, or destination 225 (shown at point B). The route 200 may include a first route 205 extending from the start point 215 to the destination 225. The first route 205 may include a first energy source 220, such as a charge station or fuel station.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lindemann of wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge with the suggest teaching of wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge found in Graham and the more explicit teaching of wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge found in Neubecker. One could combine the teachings in order to have a vehicle operating system, wherein the operation recommendation indicates an alternate route for the vehicle to travel along from the first location to the second location, the alternate route comprising a third location located between the first location and the second location for the vehicle to refuel or recharge with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize a vehicle’s route based on a driver’s schedule (see at least Graham, [0002] and [0022]) and further to extend driving range (see at least Lindemann, [0008]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Neubecker teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 18 as detailed above.
Lindemann teaches wherein the third location comprises a charging station (see at least [0048] “if the driver/occupant wishes to initiate a recharging/refueling operation (block 143=YES), the method 100 may responsively proceed to process block 145 and generates additional waypoints for the candidate route to carry out the charging operation. As an example, after the vehicle's origins and destinations are determined, and a candidate route is identified, the route may need to be modified…a modified route may be displayed to the user with a corresponding set of turn-by-turn directions to reach a selected refueling/recharging station.”).
Neubecker more explicitly teaches wherein the third location comprises a charging station (see at least [0028] “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate example vehicle routes 200 including a starting point 215 (shown at point A) and an endpoint, waypoint, or destination 225 (shown at point B). The route 200 may include a first route 205 extending from the start point 215 to the destination 225. The first route 205 may include a first energy source 220, such as a charge station or fuel station.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lindemann of wherein the third location comprises a charging station with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Neubecker with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have a vehicle operating system, wherein the third location comprises a charging station with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to extend driving range of a vehicle (see at least Lindemann, [0008]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US2020/0117204A1) in view of Graham (US2015/0345958A1) in view of Neubecker et al. (US2016/0305791A1) in further view of Jung et al. (US2020/0072627A1), hereinafter Lindemann, Graham, Neubecker, and Jung respectively.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Neubecker teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9 as detailed above.
Lindemann does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise reserving the charging station for the vehicle based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location.
However, Jung more explicitly teaches wherein the operations further comprise reserving the charging station for the vehicle (see at least [0018] “In a further advantageous embodiment, the device includes a reservation unit for determining an estimated arrival time at the selected charging station and for reserving the selected charging station at the estimated arrival time, wherein the reservation unit preferably comprises a mobile communication unit for mobile communication with a reservation service for managing charging periods of charging stations. Charging stations can be reserved via the reservation unit as soon as an estimated arrival time is determined. For this purpose, preferably via the mobile communication unit a mobile phone connection is established with a corresponding service. For example, a reservation can be made via a corresponding Internet service.”) based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location (see at least [0036] “Based on this estimated status of the charge level on the charging station information including the positions of charging stations and on the planned route, then a charging station is selected in the charging planning unit 18…Thus, on the one hand, it can be taken into account that the maximum travel range of the electric vehicle will be sufficient to reach the selected charging station with a safe probability, based on the current and predicted charge level of the energy storage. On the other hand, it can be taken into account that only the smallest possible deviation from the planned route is necessary to reach the selected charging station.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann with the teaching of wherein the operations further comprise reserving the charging station for the vehicle based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location found in Jung. One could combine the teachings in order to have a computer-implemented method, wherein the operations further comprise reserving the charging station for the vehicle based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid long waiting times at charging stations and further enhance user experience (see at least Jung, [0018]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Neubecker teaches the vehicle operating system of claim 19 as detailed above.
Lindemann does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise reserving the charging station for the vehicle based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location.
However, Jung more explicitly teaches wherein the operations further comprise reserving the charging station for the vehicle (see at least [0018] “In a further advantageous embodiment, the device includes a reservation unit for determining an estimated arrival time at the selected charging station and for reserving the selected charging station at the estimated arrival time, wherein the reservation unit preferably comprises a mobile communication unit for mobile communication with a reservation service for managing charging periods of charging stations. Charging stations can be reserved via the reservation unit as soon as an estimated arrival time is determined. For this purpose, preferably via the mobile communication unit a mobile phone connection is established with a corresponding service. For example, a reservation can be made via a corresponding Internet service.”) based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location (see at least [0036] “Based on this estimated status of the charge level on the charging station information including the positions of charging stations and on the planned route, then a charging station is selected in the charging planning unit 18…Thus, on the one hand, it can be taken into account that the maximum travel range of the electric vehicle will be sufficient to reach the selected charging station with a safe probability, based on the current and predicted charge level of the energy storage. On the other hand, it can be taken into account that only the smallest possible deviation from the planned route is necessary to reach the selected charging station.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann with the teaching of wherein the operations further comprise reserving the charging station for the vehicle based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location found in Jung. One could combine the teachings in order to have a vehicle operating system, wherein the operations further comprise reserving the charging station for the vehicle based on determining that the current range of the vehicle is insufficient to operate the vehicle along the route from the first location to the second location with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to avoid long waiting times at charging stations and further enhance user experience (see at least Jung, [0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kapadia et al. (US2021/0215493A1) Discloses a vehicle powered by a traction battery includes one or more controllers, programmed to measure a vehicle load, responsive to identifying a road climb having a grade greater than a predefined threshold on a route, calculate a required power and a minimum speed for the vehicle to complete the road climb with the vehicle load, predict an operating state of charge (SoC) and an operating temperature of the traction battery upon arriving at the road climb, predict an available battery power using the operating SoC and the operating temperature of the traction battery, estimate an available wheel power using the available battery power, and responsive to verifying the available wheel power is greater than the required power, output an autonomous driving instruction such that the vehicle enters and traverses the road climb with the minimum speed.
Kiyama et al. (US2014/0163877A1) Discloses a navigation system for an electric vehicle including a telematics center, a display terminal, and a charging station. In response to a request from the display terminal, the telematics center sends a route search result, which is created based on information on an electric vehicle and the charging station and which includes base point information whose remaining battery capacity is to be confirmed, to the display terminal. The display terminal displays route guidance information, the current position, and a result of comparison between the current remaining battery capacity and the base point information to the user who is driving the electric vehicle.
Mays (US2012/0173075A1) Discloses operational efficiency and/or control systems and methods for vehicles in order to improve fuel efficiency when traveling in a fuel powered vehicle from point A to point B. The systems and methods can determine the “best” or most efficient route to take based on one or more priorities, make driving recommendations to the operator, and/or automatically control one or more systems (e.g., engine, brakes, transmission, etc.) of the vehicle. The systems and methods can calculate the “best” route based on predefined trip requirements, including cost, schedule, route preferences, and/or risk of potential delays, etc.
Rahbari Asr et al. (US2019/0178678A1) Discloses a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) that includes a communication unit configured to periodically respond to a charge signal, and to adjust a travel route and charge waypoint, according to an estimated charge station travel route and waypoint charge time received from a remote fleet server. The estimates are received in response to periodic operating conditions that are generated and communicated to the server. The operating conditions include one or more of charge station, environment, and location data, vehicle data, and battery performance data, among other data. The controller further configured to respond to travel route and/or charge complete signals, and to generate and store an estimate error as a difference between the actual and estimated optimal charge route and charge time. The controller readjusts at least one of the travel route and charge waypoint, responsive to the updated estimated optimal charge route and waypoint charge time received from the server.
Roth (US2021/0055120A1) Discloses a method for vehicle route selection including identifying a plurality of routes based on a current location of a vehicle and a destination location. The method also includes determining an energy cost for each of the plurality of routes. The method also includes determining a time cost for each of the plurality of routes. The method also includes determining a total cost for each of the plurality of routes using the energy cost and the time cost for each respective route of the plurality of routes. The method also includes providing, to an occupant of the vehicle, the plurality of routes and the total cost for each respective route of the plurality of routes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N RORIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) 7:30 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662