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 .
Response to Amendment
Objections to the Specification: Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcome the objections of the record. The objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(a): Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the rejections of the record. The 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b): Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the rejections of the record. The 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the rejections of the record. The 101 rejections have been maintained.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, limitations pertaining to “transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range” which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed toward non-statutory matter. This rejection is respectfully traversed.
The Examiner alleges that claims 1 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea of "mental processes" because the claim limitations of determining a route and determining that the current range is insufficient could be performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 11 to recite "transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range."
Applicant respectfully submits that under Prong 1 of revised Step 2A, claims 1 and 11 as amended do not recite an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." The amended claims recite transmitting commands to a controller to modify powertrain parameters that cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust throttle response or regenerative braking. A person cannot practically perform these steps in the human mind-a person cannot mentally transmit commands to a vehicle controller, nor can a person mentally cause a powertrain system to dynamically adjust throttle response or regenerative braking. These are physical actions performed on vehicle hardware that are fundamentally beyond the capability of the human mind.
The MPEP provides examples of claims that do not recite mental processes, including "a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver" (SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) and "a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets" (SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Similarly, the amended claims here require transmitting commands to physical vehicle hardware to modify powertrain parameters-steps that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Because claims 1 and 11 as amended include limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Prong 1 of Step 2A. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the pending claims and a notice of allowance.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Claims 1-20 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed toward non-statutory matter, but are being rejected as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more making the claims subject matter ineligible.
Further the amended limitation "transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range" although not a mental would be analyzed as an additional and would not integrate the abstract idea of determining a route and determining that the current range is insufficient into a practical application as it is has elements such as vehicle operating system described at a high level of generality that transmits a command which can reasonably be interpreted as merely outputting data which amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. A positive recitation the control of the vehicle such as adjusting at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range, may help to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the rejections under 101 are maintained.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A a vehicle operating system that causes the vehicle operating system
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[[.]];
and transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range.
Claim 11. A
a vehicle a vehicle operating system in communication with the vehicle and configured
receiving, from[[ a]] the 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[[.]]; and
transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method including at least one step and a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See at least MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of 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. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “vehicle operating system”. That is, other than reciting “vehicle operating system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “vehicle operating system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement of whether a vehicle has sufficient range to travel from one location to a second location. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of receiving current range of a vehicle, receiving user data, providing…an operation recommendation, and transmitting…commands. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and user for use in the evaluating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing and outputting steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting/displaying of data from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying (outputting), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “vehicle operating system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The vehicle operating system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the providing and transmitting steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the that the user device and/or vehicle is anything but a conventional user device and/or vehicle, and further the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle operating system is anything other than a conventional cloud system that is external to the vehicle or within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as steps pertaining to outputting data which amounts to the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function as detailed above. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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) in further view of Staats et al. (US2020/0070801A1), hereinafter Lindemann, Graham, and Staats respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Lindemann teaches a vehicle operating system 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.”); 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”).
Lindemann does not explicitly teach transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range.
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).”).
Staats suggests transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range (see at least [0036] “If the vehicle has insufficient energy, or insufficient momentum to propel the vehicle to the designation location, then an operating condition of the vehicle may change. For example, the vehicle may change a throttle setting and/or change a brake setting to increase a speed of the vehicle”).
Examiner interprets that the claim is written in the alternative with the recitation of “at least one of therefore only one of the limitations needs to be addressed. Examiner interprets that throttle response is encompassed at least by throttle setting.
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 method executed on a vehicle operating system that causes the vehicle operating system 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 Lindemann 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 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, 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; 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 and the suggested teaching of transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range found in Staats. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method executed on a vehicle operating system that causes the vehicle operating system 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; 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 transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range 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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
Lindemann does not explicitly teach wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the
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 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 route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data found in Graham. One could combine the teaching in order to have a method wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the 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, (Currently Amended) Lindemann teaches a a vehicle a vehicle operating system in communication with the vehicle and configured 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]) comprising: receiving, from[[ a]] the 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 a vehicle operating system in communication with the vehicle 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.”); 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”).
Lindemann does not explicitly teach transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range.
Graham suggests receiving, from[[ a]] the 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.
Staats suggests transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range (see at least [0036] “If the vehicle has insufficient energy, or insufficient momentum to propel the vehicle to the designation location, then an operating condition of the vehicle may change. For example, the vehicle may change a throttle setting and/or change a brake setting to increase a speed of the vehicle”).
Examiner interprets that the claim is written in the alternative with the recitation of “at least one of therefore only one of the limitations needs to be addressed. Examiner interprets that throttle response is encompassed at least by throttle setting.
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 system comprising: a vehicle; and a vehicle operating system in communication with the vehicle and configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the 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; 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; 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 the vehicle in communication with the vehicle operating system, a current range of the vehicle found in Graham, the more explicit teachings of teaches 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, and the suggested teaching of transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range found in Staats. One could combine the teachings in order to have a system comprising: a vehicle; and a vehicle operating system in communication with the vehicle and configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the 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; 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 transmitting, from the vehicle operating system to a controller of the vehicle, commands to modify at least one parameter of a powertrain system of the vehicle based on route information, wherein the commands cause the powertrain system to dynamically adjust at least one of throttle response or regenerative braking to optimize vehicle range 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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
Lindemann does not explicitly teach wherein: the user data comprises calendar data associated with the occupant of the vehicle; and determining the
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 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 route comprises predicting the second location based on the calendar data found in Graham. One could combine the teaching in order to have a 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 view of Staats et al. (US2020/0070801A1 in further view of Lindhuber et al. (US2012/0078496A1), hereinafter Lindemann, Graham, Staats, and Lindhuber respectively.
Regarding claim 5, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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 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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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 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 view of Staats et al. (US2020/0070801A1) in further view of Neubecker et al. (US2016/0305791A1), hereinafter Lindemann, Graham, Staats, and Neubecker respectively.
Regarding claim 8, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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 method 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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, Staats, and Neubecker teaches the
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 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 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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, and Staats teaches the
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 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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, Staats, and Neubecker teaches the
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 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 Staats et al. (US2020/0070801A1) in view of Neubecker et al. (US2016/0305791A1) in further view of Jung et al. (US2020/0072627A1), hereinafter Lindemann, Graham, Staats, Neubecker, and Jung respectively.
Regarding claim 10, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, Staats, and Neubecker teaches the
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 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, (Currently Amended) the combination of Lindemann, Graham, Staats, and Neubecker teaches the
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 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.
Follen et al. (US2018/0222309A1) Discloses systems, apparatuses, and methods for receiving internal hybrid vehicle information, external static information, and external dynamic information; determining a propulsion power for the hybrid vehicle at a particular location at a particular time based on at least one of the internal hybrid vehicle information, the external static information, and the external dynamic information, and wherein in response to the determined potential propulsion power, predicting a shift event at the particular location at the particular time; determining a current state of charge of a battery, wherein the battery is operatively coupled to an electric motor in the hybrid vehicle; and managing the state of charge of the battery at the particular location at the particular time based on the current state of charge and the determined propulsion power to eliminate the need for the potential shift event at the particular location at the particular time.
Yang et al. (US2011/0066308A1) Discloses a method for controlling a vehicle having a hybrid powertrain including monitoring vehicle navigation and traffic patterns associated with a predicted travel path. It extends the powertrain instantaneous controller into a predictive control framework, and utilizes previewed traffic and geographic information based on on-board sensing and navigation information. An impending road load is predicted from which a fuel cost factor is optimized under a model predictive control framework. A state-of-charge trajectory is predicted from the impending road load and operation of the hybrid powertrain system is controlled in response thereto.
Zettel et al. (US2017/0120762A1) Discloses a vehicle including an energy storage device and a powertrain system configured to effect regenerative braking. A method for controlling the vehicle includes determining an expected increase in a state of charge of the energy storage device achieved through opportunity charging by employing regenerative braking during an anticipated next trip of the vehicle. A preferred setpoint for the state of charge of the energy storage device is determined based upon the expected increase in the state of charge achieved through opportunity charging, and charging of the energy storage device is controlled during a remote charging event based upon the preferred setpoint for the state of charge of the energy storage device.
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 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
Prosecution Insights