DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 13-31 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16, 19, and 28 are 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.
The term “not close” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination “not close to a home position of the vehicle” was interpreted as “not at a home position of the vehicle”.
Regarding claims 19 and 28, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-14, 21, 23-26, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenherr (US 20210284038 A1) in view of Glazberg et al. (US 20200378778 A1).
Regarding claim 13,
Schoenherr teaches:
A method for operating a sleep assistant during a charging process of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a predicted charging time;
(Schoenherr – [0030] “The at least one comfort function KF or the selection of the comfort functions KF is offered for activation, for example, depending on the expected necessary charging time ELZ, on a current time of day TZ, on a previous journey time BFZ, on an expected upcoming journey time VFZ, on an expected total journey time GFZ and/or on a vital condition of the at least one vehicle user.”)
adjusting the wake-up time if an extension of the predicted charging time is detected by the vehicle; and
(Schoenherr – [0032] “Thus, in the method, if the expected necessary charging time ELZ reaches or exceeds the predetermined limit, e.g., 30 minutes, and the at least one vehicle user might be tired, e.g., due to a previous journey time BFZ and a current time of day TZ, the short sleep program is, for example, offered for activation, i.e., a short sleep, also referred to as a power nap, is recommended to the at least one vehicle user, and this is supported by the short sleep program.”)
Schoenherr does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Glazberg teaches:
determining a preferred sleep duration of a vehicle occupant;
(Glazberg – [0101] “In some exemplary embodiments, sleeping cycles other than 70 minutes to 90 minutes may be used. The sleeping cycles may be 60 minutes long, 50 minutes long, or the like. The duration of the sleeping cycle may be determined based on the passenger age, the passenger gender, or the like. Additionally or alternatively, crowd sourcing may be utilized to determine expected duration of a sleeping cycle of a passenger based on data of similar passengers. Additionally or alternatively, past experience with the same passenger may be used to improve predictions of the duration of her sleeping cycles over time and as additional data is gathered about her.”)
determining a wake-up time of the vehicle occupant depending on at least one of the group consisting of the predicted charging time and the preferred sleep duration of the vehicle occupant;
(Glazberg – [0095] “A wakeup time for Passenger 120 may be determined. The wakeup time may be determined based on sleeping cycles. For example, the wakeup time may be estimated end of the current sleep cycle, the estimated end of the sleep cycle at which the passenger is expected to wake up, the estimated end of the sleep cycle that is at the closest time to the expected arrival time, the estimated end of the sleep cycle that is expected to end before the expected arrival time, or the like. Additionally or alternatively, the wake up time may be determined based on a desired minimal or maximal sleeping time duration, so as to allow the passenger to sleep enough time, to avoid over-sleeping, or the like.”)
providing a wake-up setting to the vehicle occupant depending on the wake-up time or the adjusted wake-up time.
(Glazberg – [0085] “The estimated driving time in Leg 152 and in Leg 154 may result in reaching Destination 170 for the second time at a time in which it is estimated Passenger 126 will wake up or at a time at which it may be deemed reasonable to wake him up, such as by using sounding an alarm, rocking the passenger, or the like.”)
Schoenherr and Glazberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of determining a wake-up time for a vehicle occupant. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schoenherr and Glazberg to include determining a preferred sleep duration and providing wake-up settings to the occupant in order to create a driving route that provides an optimal solution to the preferences of the passengers (Glazberg, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 14,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Schoenherr further teaches:
wherein determining the preferred sleep duration of the vehicle occupant includes:
providing a suggestion message to the vehicle occupant to activate the sleep assistant during the vehicle charging process.
(Schoenherr – [0025] “The at least one comfort function KF for activation is then displayed on a display unit of the central unit 4, for example, in the form of a so-called notification, i.e., a short message, wherein an activation element, for example a so-called “Play Button”, is displayed, by means of which the comfort function KF can be activated. For this purpose, the display unit is designed to be touch-sensitive, for example, such that it also serves as an input unit. Alternatively or additionally, there is the possibility of activation by voice input from the at least one vehicle user.”)
Regarding claim 21,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Glazberg further teaches:
further comprising:
recording a time when the vehicle occupant falls asleep by an interior camera of the vehicle; and
(Glazberg – [0036] “In some exemplary embodiments, the passengers of the vehicle may be monitored with a sensor such as but not limited to a camera, a motion sensor, a microphone, or the like. In some exemplary embodiments, an internal camera permanently or temporarily fixed to the vehicle may be used.” [0037] “In some exemplary embodiments, the activity of the passengers may change over time. In some exemplary embodiments, sensors may be used to continuously monitor the passengers, and based on the continuous monitoring, detect a change in the activity. For example, an awakeness status of a passenger may change over time from “awake and tired”, to “dozing off”, to “napping”, to “deep sleep” and to “waking up”.”)
wherein determining the wake-up time of the vehicle occupant further includes determining the wake-up time of the vehicle occupant depending on the time the vehicle occupant falls asleep.
(Glazberg – [0095] “In some exemplary embodiments, based on the data, it may be determined that Passenger 120 has fallen asleep. A wakeup time for Passenger 120 may be determined. The wakeup time may be determined based on sleeping cycles.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schoenherr and Glazberg to include determining a preferred sleep duration and providing wake-up settings to the occupant in order to create a driving route that provides an optimal solution to the preferences of the passengers (Glazberg, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 23,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Glazberg further teaches:
wherein the wake-up setting of the vehicle is an audiovisual wake-up setting.
(Glazberg – [0114] “As an example, a driving plan, intended to allow Passenger 120 to sleep while driving, may include a section in which there are actions that should be taken as Vehicle 110 is approaching Destination 170. Such actions may be play an alarm, turn on the internal lights in Vehicle 110, turn on a coffee machine and prepare coffee for Passenger 120, or the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schoenherr and Glazberg to include determining a preferred sleep duration and providing wake-up settings to the occupant in order to create a driving route that provides an optimal solution to the preferences of the passengers (Glazberg, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 24,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 23.
Glazberg further teaches:
wherein the wake-up setting of the determined wake-up time is different from the wake-up setting of the adjusted wake-up time.
(Glazberg – [0094] “In some exemplary embodiments, a sleep period may be divided to sleep cycles, of which comprises one or more time durations. A time duration may be a light sleep duration, a deep sleep duration, a Rapid Eye Movement (REM) duration, or the like. In some cases, the sleep cycle may have roughly known durations such as an overall duration of about one hour and a half. In some exemplary embodiments, it may be desired not to wake up a person while in the REM duration. Hence, the disclosed subject matter may be used in order to postpone the arrival time and/or the wakeup time until the REM period ends.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schoenherr and Glazberg to include determining a preferred sleep duration and providing wake-up settings to the occupant in order to create a driving route that provides an optimal solution to the preferences of the passengers (Glazberg, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 25,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Glazberg further teaches:
wherein the wake-up setting of the determined wake-up time is different from the wake-up setting of the adjusted wake-up time.
(Glazberg – [0094] “In some exemplary embodiments, a sleep period may be divided to sleep cycles, of which comprises one or more time durations. A time duration may be a light sleep duration, a deep sleep duration, a Rapid Eye Movement (REM) duration, or the like. In some cases, the sleep cycle may have roughly known durations such as an overall duration of about one hour and a half. In some exemplary embodiments, it may be desired not to wake up a person while in the REM duration. Hence, the disclosed subject matter may be used in order to postpone the arrival time and/or the wakeup time until the REM period ends.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schoenherr and Glazberg to include determining a preferred sleep duration and providing wake-up settings to the occupant in order to create a driving route that provides an optimal solution to the preferences of the passengers (Glazberg, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 26,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Glazberg further teaches:
further comprising:
recording of a wake-up time of the vehicle occupant by the interior camera of the vehicle; and
(Glazberg – [0036] “In some exemplary embodiments, the passengers of the vehicle may be monitored with a sensor such as but not limited to a camera, a motion sensor, a microphone, or the like. In some exemplary embodiments, an internal camera permanently or temporarily fixed to the vehicle may be used.” [0037] “In some exemplary embodiments, the activity of the passengers may change over time. In some exemplary embodiments, sensors may be used to continuously monitor the passengers, and based on the continuous monitoring, detect a change in the activity. For example, an awakeness status of a passenger may change over time from “awake and tired”, to “dozing off”, to “napping”, to “deep sleep” and to “waking up”.”)
providing the wake-up setting to the vehicle occupant depending on the recorded wake-up time of the vehicle occupant.
(Glazberg – [0100] “In some exemplary embodiments, data about Passenger 120 may be re-obtained periodically. Upon determining that the user is awake a new driving route may be set, going directly from the current location of Passenger 120 to the destination. Additionally or alternatively, the exact sleep duration may be identified periodically to allow for a better prediction of the end time of the current sleep cycle.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schoenherr and Glazberg to include determining a preferred sleep duration and providing wake-up settings to the occupant in order to create a driving route that provides an optimal solution to the preferences of the passengers (Glazberg, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 29,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Glazberg further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium for operating a sleep assistant during a vehicle charging process, wherein the computer-readable medium contains instructions which, when implemented on a computer or a control unit of the vehicle, carry out the method as claimed in claim 13.
(Glazberg – [0204] “The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computer program product. The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schoenherr and Glazberg to include determining a preferred sleep duration and providing wake-up settings to the occupant in order to create a driving route that provides an optimal solution to the preferences of the passengers (Glazberg, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 30,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Schoenherr further teaches:
A system for operating a sleep assistant during a charging process of a vehicle, wherein the system is designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 13.
(Schoenherr – [0023] “Such vehicles 2, or more precisely their energy storage units, must therefore be charged again and again, wherein longer charging times arise for this. By way of example, a quick charge or an incomplete, for example demand-oriented, charge takes at least 30 minutes. This time can be used by a vehicle user in a meaningful way, in particular for mental and/or physical recovery, vitalization, relaxation and/or refreshment of the at least one vehicle user, in particular for a subsequent journey section, and/or for the improvement of his/her health.”)
Regarding claim 31,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 30.
Schoenherr further teaches:
A vehicle containing the system for operating a sleep assistant during a charging process of a vehicle as claimed in claim 30.
(Schoenherr – [0022] “The vehicle 2 is in particular designed as an electric vehicle, hybrid vehicle or fuel cell vehicle. It has at least one energy storage device which can be charged in an electrical charging process by means of an external energy source, i.e., a publicly accessible or private charging station, for example, which is designed in particular as an electrochemical energy storage device.”)
Claims 15, 18-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenherr (US 20210284038 A1) in view of Glazberg et al. (US 20200378778 A1) and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20160046294 A1).
Regarding claim 15,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 14.
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Lee teaches:
wherein the suggestion message is provided responsive to a detection of an occupant on a seat of the vehicle during the charging process.
(Lee – [0131] “For example, if a user rides in a vehicle (e.g., a particular pre-specified vehicle that operates the DSM system) or if a seat occupied by the user is a driver's seat, the controller 180 determines that the user is driving a vehicle. Furthermore, in this state, the controller 180 may determine the user's drowsy driving state in various ways.”)
Lee is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of providing a resting suggestion. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Lee to include a message with a suggested rest duration in order to help a driver avoid dangerous situations by generating recommendations to rest based on the driver’s biological information and traffic conditions (Lee, para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 18,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 14.
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Lee teaches:
wherein the suggestion message includes one or more suggestions for a sleep duration.
(Lee – [0035] “For example, the system may initially suggest 15 minutes of rest, and based on improved traffic conditions, the system can change the recommendation and/or the alarm to add 5 more minutes of rest. As another example, after initially recommending 15 minutes of rest, the system may determine that the user has not achieved sufficient rest, and may change the recommendation and/or the alarm to add 5 more minutes of rest. As yet another example, after initially recommending 15 minutes of rest, the system may determine that the user has achieved sufficient rest and/or that traffic condition has gotten worse, and may change the recommendation and/or the alarm for 5 fewer minutes of rest.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Lee to include a message with a suggested rest duration in order to help a driver avoid dangerous situations by generating recommendations to rest based on the driver’s biological information and traffic conditions (Lee, para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 19,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Schoenherr further teaches:
wherein determining the preferred sleep duration of the vehicle occupant further includes:
receiving an operating input from the vehicle occupant in response to the suggestion message to activate the sleep assistant,
and activating the sleep assistant after receiving the operating input of the vehicle occupant.
(Schoenherr – [0025] “The at least one comfort function KF for activation is then displayed on a display unit of the central unit 4, for example, in the form of a so-called notification, i.e., a short message, wherein an activation element, for example a so-called “Play Button”, is displayed, by means of which the comfort function KF can be activated. For this purpose, the display unit is designed to be touch-sensitive, for example, such that it also serves as an input unit. Alternatively or additionally, there is the possibility of activation by voice input from the at least one vehicle user.”)
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Lee teaches:
wherein the operating input of the occupant preferably includes the preferred sleep duration of the vehicle occupant;
(Lee – [0035] “In some implementations, if the user accepts the recommendation to rest, the system may output an alarm to indicate that the user should finish resting and resume driving. For example, the system may monitor traffic conditions and also monitor the user's rest state and generate a time to output the alarm. In some implementations, the system can dynamically change the recommendation and/or the alarm, for example, based on the traffic condition getting better or worse, or based on the user's biological information indicating that the user has achieved sufficient or insufficient rest.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Lee to include a message with a suggested rest duration in order to help a driver avoid dangerous situations by generating recommendations to rest based on the driver’s biological information and traffic conditions (Lee, para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 20,
The combination of Schoenherr, Glazberg, and Lee teaches the limitations of claim 19.
Glazberg further teaches:
further comprising:
recording a time when the vehicle occupant falls asleep by an interior camera of the vehicle; and
(Glazberg – [0036] “In some exemplary embodiments, the passengers of the vehicle may be monitored with a sensor such as but not limited to a camera, a motion sensor, a microphone, or the like. In some exemplary embodiments, an internal camera permanently or temporarily fixed to the vehicle may be used.” [0037] “In some exemplary embodiments, the activity of the passengers may change over time. In some exemplary embodiments, sensors may be used to continuously monitor the passengers, and based on the continuous monitoring, detect a change in the activity. For example, an awakeness status of a passenger may change over time from “awake and tired”, to “dozing off”, to “napping”, to “deep sleep” and to “waking up”.”)
wherein determining the wake-up time of the vehicle occupant further includes determining the wake-up time of the vehicle occupant depending on the time the vehicle occupant falls asleep.
(Glazberg – [0095] “In some exemplary embodiments, based on the data, it may be determined that Passenger 120 has fallen asleep. A wakeup time for Passenger 120 may be determined. The wakeup time may be determined based on sleeping cycles. For example, the wakeup time may be estimated end of the current sleep cycle, the estimated end of the sleep cycle at which the passenger is expected to wake up, the estimated end of the sleep cycle that is at the closest time to the expected arrival time, the estimated end of the sleep cycle that is expected to end before the expected arrival time, or the like. Additionally or alternatively, the wake up time may be determined based on a desired minimal or maximal sleeping time duration, so as to allow the passenger to sleep enough time, to avoid over-sleeping, or the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schoenherr and Glazberg to include determining a preferred sleep duration and providing wake-up settings to the occupant in order to create a driving route that provides an optimal solution to the preferences of the passengers (Glazberg, para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 22,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Lee teaches:
further comprising:
receiving traffic-related delay information during the charging process of the vehicle;
(Lee – [0133] “The image information and/or audio information output in the step S402 may include data for recommending rest to the user. For example, the image information and/or audio information may include information on a current traffic condition collected by the controller 180. In other words, the image information and/or audio information may include information on a driving time to a preset destination and expected arrival time calculated based on the current traffic condition, and a time for driving to the destination and its resultant expected arrival time in a typical case.”)
and adjusting the wake-up time depending on the traffic-related delay information.
(Lee – [0157] “In some implementations, the controller 180 may adjust the alarm time based on the updated traffic condition alone. For example, if the controller 180 determines in step S502 that the traffic has become more (or less) congested, then the controller may move the alarm time to an earlier (or later) time, to help ensure that the driver reaches the destination on time while receiving sufficient rest. In some examples, other factors may be taken into consideration.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Lee to include a message with a suggested rest duration in order to help a driver avoid dangerous situations by generating recommendations to rest based on the driver’s biological information and traffic conditions (Lee, para. [0033]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenherr (US 20210284038 A1) in view of Glazberg et al. (US 20200378778 A1) and in further view of Saha et al. (US 20140211099 A1).
Regarding claim 16,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 14.
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Saha teaches:
wherein the suggestion message is provided if a position of the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is not close to a home position of the vehicle.
(Saha – [0046] “If, however, the logic determines that the source device has passed a perimeter into the outer distance region, the logic moves to block 148 where, responsive to the determination made at diamond 146, the logic may send a message to the same recipient CE device or appliance referenced above, and/or at least one other CE device or appliance at the home location indicating that, e.g., that a user of the source device is moving away from the home location, and/or indicating specifically that the source device is now within the outer region and moving away from the home location.”)
Saha is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of sending messages to a user. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Saha send a message to the user when the user is away from the home location in order to improve the use of devices networked with each other and with devices outside the home (Saha, para. [0080]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenherr (US 20210284038 A1) in view of Glazberg et al. (US 20200378778 A1) and in further view of Laitsaari et al. (US 20220266691 A1).
Regarding claim 17,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 14.
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Laitsaari teaches:
wherein the suggestion message is provided responsive to a determination of darkness.
(Laitsaari – [0106] “Thus, for example data on the well-being of the driver and data obtained from other sources is supplied as input to the algorithm providing artificial intelligence, and on the basis of this data, the artificial intelligence solution 101 determines the driver's driving behaviour in the respective weather conditions (for example, foggy, rainy, dark), with the driver's capacity at the time (good sleep quality, alert and active mind), and/or how a decrease in a physiological parameter will affect the capability to drive at the time.”)
Laitsaari is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining the sleeping state of a driver. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Laitsaari to include relating driver behavior with weather conditions in order to consider not only the condition during driving but also factors having a more general impact on the person’s driving performance (Laitsaari, para. [0004]).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenherr (US 20210284038 A1) in view of Glazberg et al. (US 20200378778 A1) and in further view of Rahbari Asr et al. (US 20190178678 A1).
Regarding claim 27,
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg teaches the limitations of claim 13.
The combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg does not teach the following limitation, however, Rahbari Asr teaches:
wherein the predicted charging time is dependent on a planned change of a state of charge of a current navigation route of the vehicle.
(Rahbari Asr – [0015] “Adjusting the travel route and/or charge waypoints and times is also accomplished in response to operating conditions generated periodically by the HEV controllers and/or at discrete time and/or distance internals, and communicated to the remote server. The operating conditions include one or more of travel route performance, and/or charge station, environment, and location data, vehicle performance data, and battery performance data and parameters, among other data and parameters.”)
Rahbari Asr is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining a route of an electric vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Rahbari Asr to include estimating a charge time based on a travel route and the battery data in order to improve a charging system for more accurately estimating optimized travel routes (Rahbari Asr, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 28,
The combination of Schoenherr, Glazberg, and Rahbari Asr teaches the limitations of claim 27.
Glazberg further teaches:
further comprising:
adjusting the current navigation route depending on the wake-up time
(Glazberg – [0114] “The driving plan may also include an extended driving route, allowing Passenger 120 a longer sleeping duration. The driving route may be a route driving through relatively quiet places, driving in the shadows, or in other conditions that would assist Passenger 120 to continue sleeping uninterrupted.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Lee to include a message with a suggested rest duration in order to help a driver avoid dangerous situations by generating recommendations to rest based on the driver’s biological information and traffic conditions (Lee, para. [0033]).
Rahbari Asr further teaches:
adjusting the current navigation route depending on
(Rahbari Asr – [0033] “Such controllers, including for example, those incorporated with power electronics 185 are configured to monitor battery sensors to detect voltage, current, state-of-charge (SoC), charge the battery(ies), to adjust and control a charge-rate and charge-time therefor, to monitor and estimate charge time, to monitor recharging, and to discharge and deliver power from the battery(ies), among other capabilities.” [0051] “In response to CHS 190, the controller(s) adjust a charge waypoint and time (CWT) 250 and a travel route (TR) 255 and waypoints thereof, according to a charge time estimate (CTE) 260 and an estimated optimal charge route (OCR) 265, which are both received from a remote, off-board global fleet server (RFS) that is external and remote to HEV 100.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the combination of Schoenherr and Glazberg with Rahbari Asr to include estimating a charge time based on a travel route and the battery data in order to improve a charging system for more accurately estimating optimized travel routes (Rahbari Asr, para. [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Imai (US 20200094698 A1) discloses a driver is allowed to rest while a vehicle is being charged. Since a charger for which the continuous driving time of the driver is below the reference time (120 minutes) is assigned a higher rank, by selecting a charger having a high rank, the driver is able to take a rest before the continuous driving time exceeds the reference time.
Bader (US 20200307647 A1) discloses if a vehicle is at a standstill to allow the occupant to sleep restfully in lighter sleep phases, a charging station at an electric filling station can be driven to, so that an electric transportation vehicle can be charged in the period of the standstill. A sleeping occupant can be woken on the basis of the estimated waking time or waking time window. As a result of waking at the estimated waking time or in an estimated waking window, the sleeping occupant finds waking particularly pleasant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668