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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Applications KR10-2022-0101645, filed on 08/12/2022, and KR10-2023-0105701, filed on 08/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024, 10/31/2025, and 01/05/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 12/19/2024 are presently examined. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16, and 19-20 have been preliminarily amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Output device in claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 is described in the specification as [0056] “the output device 126 may include a display configured to output visual information. For example, the display may include one or more of a liquid crystal display … the output device 126 may further include a sound output device (e.g., speakers) configured to output”
“vehicle diagnostic device” in claims 6, 9, 10, 11, and 18 is described in the specification as [0047] “the vehicle diagnostic device 110 may include an on-board diagnostic (OBD) device. Such OBD devices might encompass various devices that output information about the vehicle's condition or driving to the outside (e.g., fuel efficiency analysis device 120), not restricted to OBD-I, OBD 1.5, and OBD-II.”
“electricity efficiency analysis device” is described in the specification as [0048] “the electricity efficiency analysis device 120 may include a portable communication device such as a smart phone, a computer device, a portable multimedia device, a wearable device, or a server such as a cloud server, and various embodiments are not limited to the examples” and [0094] “the electricity efficiency analysis device 120 (e.g., processor 128)”
The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9-12 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 112(b) because of lack of antecedent basis for “antagonistic device” in the limitation “an electricity efficiency analysis device capable of communicating with the vehicle antagonistic device.” Examiner will assume this is a typo, and Applicant meant to use “diagnostic device” instead of “antagonistic” device. Claims 10-12 are rejected as being dependent upon and failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-12 are directed to a device and system comprising a processor performing instructions, (i.e. a machine) and claims 13-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites similar limitations as independent claims 13 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 1 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
An electricity efficiency analysis device comprising:
an output device; and one or more processors electrically connected to the output device, the one or more processors configured to:
calculate an electricity efficiency gain-loss value indicating a gain or loss of current electricity efficiency compared to a standard electricity efficiency of a vehicle based on information collected during a predetermined monitoring section related to state and driving of the vehicle,
calculate a standard electricity efficiency contribution indicating the extent to which the state and driving of the vehicle during the predetermined monitoring section have influenced the gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency compared to the standard electricity efficiency based on a power consumption rate and the electricity efficiency gain-loss value during the predetermined monitoring section, and
output the standard electricity efficiency contribution through the output device
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally calculating a efficiency gain-loss value of current efficiency compared to a standard based on information collected related to the state and driving of the vehicle and further, a contribution indicating how much the state and driving of the vehicle in a section influenced the gain or loss of the current efficiency against the standard. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An electricity efficiency analysis device comprising:
an output device; and one or more processors electrically connected to the output device, the one or more processors configured to:
calculate an electricity efficiency gain-loss value indicating a gain or loss of current electricity efficiency compared to a standard electricity efficiency of a vehicle based on information collected during a predetermined monitoring section related to state and driving of the vehicle,
calculate a standard electricity efficiency contribution indicating the extent to which the state and driving of the vehicle during the predetermined monitoring section have influenced the gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency compared to the standard electricity efficiency based on a power consumption rate and the electricity efficiency gain-loss value during the predetermined monitoring section, and
output the standard electricity efficiency contribution through the output device
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform otherwise mental judgements is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The output device merely outputs the results of what were mental determinations onto generic display, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)(iii) iii. “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations 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, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 9 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
An electricity efficiency analysis system comprising:
a vehicle diagnostic device configured to acquire information related to the state and driving of a vehicle; and an electricity efficiency analysis device capable of communicating with the vehicle antagonistic device,
wherein the electricity efficiency analysis device is configured to acquire an electricity efficiency gain-loss value indicating a gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency of the vehicle compared to a standard electricity efficiency of the vehicle and a power consumption rate of the vehicle during a predetermined monitoring section based on the information acquired by the vehicle diagnostic device, and
calculate a standard electricity efficiency contribution indicating the extent to which the state and driving of the vehicle during the predetermined monitoring section have influenced the gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency compared to the standard electricity efficiency, based on the acquired electricity efficiency gain-loss value and power consumption rate
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally calculating a efficiency gain-loss value of current efficiency compared to a standard based on information collected related to the state and driving of the vehicle and further, a contribution indicating how much the state and driving of the vehicle in a section influenced the gain or loss of the current efficiency against the standard. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An electricity efficiency analysis system comprising:
a vehicle diagnostic device configured to acquire information related to the state and driving of a vehicle; and an electricity efficiency analysis device capable of communicating with the vehicle antagonistic device,
wherein the electricity efficiency analysis device is configured to acquire an electricity efficiency gain-loss value indicating a gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency of the vehicle compared to a standard electricity efficiency of the vehicle and a power consumption rate of the vehicle during a predetermined monitoring section based on the information acquired by the vehicle diagnostic device, and
calculate a standard electricity efficiency contribution indicating the extent to which the state and driving of the vehicle during the predetermined monitoring section have influenced the gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency compared to the standard electricity efficiency, based on the acquired electricity efficiency gain-loss value and power consumption rate
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform otherwise mental judgements is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations 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, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Poll et al. (US 11814032 B2), hereinafter referred to as Poll.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Poll discloses An electricity efficiency analysis device comprising:
an output device; and one or more processors electrically connected to the output device ([column 6, lines 49-51] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a computing platform 104 may include one or more processors 106 configured to execute instructions” [column 7, lines 47-49] “computing platform 104 may also drive or otherwise communicate with one or more displays 114 configured to provide visual output” output device being display 114.), the one or more processors configured to:
calculate an electricity efficiency gain-loss value indicating a gain or loss of current electricity efficiency compared to a standard electricity efficiency of a vehicle based on information collected during a predetermined monitoring section related to state and driving of the vehicle ([column 14, lines 55-61] “instead of predicting an overall energy consumption for the entire trip … provide the vehicle module an energy consumption prediction for each road segment of the route. The road segments are used to dynamically update DTE displayed in the vehicle as the trip progresses.” [FIG. 2] steps 246, 248, and 250. Comparing originally estimated DTE with current estimated along the route with a threshold. [column 16, lines 24-29] “if the battery drop along a segment is faster/slower than predicted, then there will be errors in the DTE result as previously described. One or more embodiments adjust the displayed DTE in response to the error exceeding a corresponding threshold, such as a DTE change of 25 miles”);
calculate a standard electricity efficiency contribution indicating the extent to which the state and driving of the vehicle during the predetermined monitoring section have influenced the gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency compared to the standard electricity efficiency based on a power consumption rate and the electricity efficiency gain-loss value during the predetermined monitoring section ([column 13 line 67 though column 4 line 4] “The overall average efficiency may be learned from historical data.” [column 11, lines 54-66] “Because the energy consumption predictions are based on characteristics of the known route (speed, grade, temperature), predictions can be generalized to any route.” [column 12, lines 15-17] “The energy for driving is based on the predicted speed/road grade of the road link, and the learned energy consumption for driving on road links at the respective speed/grade class.”); and
output the standard electricity efficiency contribution through the output device ([column 14, lines 60-61] “The road segments are used to dynamically update DTE displayed in the vehicle as the trip progresses.” [FIG. 1] display 114 [FIG. 2] step 250 displaying DTE).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Poll discloses The electricity efficiency analysis device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured divide the predetermined monitoring section into a plurality of speed sections satisfying predetermined speed conditions based on the information and calculate speed section-specific standard electricity efficiency contributions ([column 12, lines 15-17] “The energy for driving is based on the predicted speed/road grade of the road link, and the learned energy consumption for driving on road links at the respective speed/grade class.” [FIG. 2] smaller road links are combined into larger segments along the route. Segments are monitoring sections, links are speed sections. Road segments are the monitoring sections while the road links are the speed sections making up each road segment.).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Poll discloses The electricity efficiency analysis device of claim 1, wherein the standard electricity efficiency contribution comprises at least one of a first standard electricity efficiency contribution related to a recent driving of the vehicle or a second standard electricity efficiency contribution related to a past driving history of the vehicle ([column 12, lines 4-18] “The external computing device estimates or predicts energy consumption for each road link based on previously stored data from multiple vehicles and may adjust for vehicle/trip specific data of a particular vehicle, such as temperatures, weather, etc. as indicated at 226. This energy consumption prediction may include various categories. In one embodiment, the energy consumption prediction includes energy for driving or propelling the vehicle, energy for operating the climate control system of the vehicle, energy for operating vehicle accessories, and energy for external losses as indicated at 228. The energy for driving is based on the predicted speed/road grade of the road link, and the learned energy consumption for driving on road links at the respective speed/grade class.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Poll discloses The electricity efficiency analysis device of claim 1, further comprising a communication circuitry configured to establishing communication with a vehicle diagnostic device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire the information related to the state and driving of the vehicle through the vehicle diagnostic device ([column 10, lines 9-19] “The BECM may also measure various battery parameters such as cell voltage, current, and or resistance to monitor battery operation and performance. The BECM 160 may be connected to the in-vehicle network 142 via a connecting port such as an OBD-II connector (not shown). Alternatively, the one or more ECUs 140, including BECM 160 may be integrated with the computing platform 104 and communicate with the in-vehicle network 142 directly. BECM 160 may communicate an SOC or other data to determine the currently available battery energy for use in determine a segment-based DTE as described herein.”).
Regarding claim 9, Poll discloses An electricity efficiency analysis system comprising:
a vehicle diagnostic device configured to acquire information related to the state and driving of a vehicle; and an electricity efficiency analysis device capable of communicating with the vehicle antagonistic device ([column 6, lines 49-51] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a computing platform 104 may include one or more processors” [column 14, lines 55-61] “instead of predicting an overall energy consumption for the entire trip … provide the vehicle module an energy consumption prediction for each road segment of the route. The road segments are used to dynamically update DTE displayed in the vehicle as the trip progresses.”),
wherein the electricity efficiency analysis device is configured to acquire an electricity efficiency gain-loss value indicating a gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency of the vehicle compared to a standard electricity efficiency of the vehicle and a power consumption rate of the vehicle during a predetermined monitoring section based on the information acquired by the vehicle diagnostic device ([column 14, lines 55-61] “instead of predicting an overall energy consumption for the entire trip … provide the vehicle module an energy consumption prediction for each road segment of the route. The road segments are used to dynamically update DTE displayed in the vehicle as the trip progresses.” [FIG. 2] steps 246, 248, and 250. Comparing originally estimated DTE with current estimated along the route with a threshold. [column 16, lines 24-29] “if the battery drop along a segment is faster/slower than predicted, then there will be errors in the DTE result as previously described. One or more embodiments adjust the displayed DTE in response to the error exceeding a corresponding threshold, such as a DTE change of 25 miles”), and
calculate a standard electricity efficiency contribution indicating the extent to which the state and driving of the vehicle during the predetermined monitoring section have influenced the gain or loss of the current electricity efficiency compared to the standard electricity efficiency, based on the acquired electricity efficiency gain-loss value and power consumption rate ([column 13 line 67 though column 4 line 4] “The overall average efficiency may be learned from historical data.” [column 11, lines 54-66] “Because the energy consumption predictions are based on characteristics of the known route (speed, grade, temperature), predictions can be generalized to any route.” [column 12, lines 15-17] “The energy for driving is based on the predicted speed/road grade of the road link, and the learned energy consumption for driving on road links at the respective speed/grade class.”).
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Poll discloses The electricity efficiency analysis system of claim 9, wherein the electricity efficiency analysis device is configured to acquire the electricity efficiency gain-loss value and the power consumption rate calculated by the vehicle diagnostic device (the efficiency device disclosed by Poll acquires/calculates current power consumption rate and compares it to the average or historical standard to determine whether the current DTE is accurate to the average/historical standard.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll as applied to claim 2 and 14 above, and further in view of Woo et al. (US 9694687 B2), hereinafter referred to as Woo.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Poll fails to explicitly disclose The electricity efficiency analysis device of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to divide each speed section into a plurality of speed variation sections satisfying predetermined speed variation conditions and calculate speed variation section-specific standard electricity efficiency contributions
However, Woo teaches divide each speed section into a plurality of speed variation sections satisfying predetermined speed variation conditions and calculate speed variation section-specific standard electricity efficiency contributions ([column 2, lines 2-24] “displaying a fuel efficiency increasing rate during eco-coasting for an electric vehicle … accumulating energy consumption in each eco-coasting performance section in which the driver performs the eco-coasting guide function while driving to calculate a total energy consumption in all eco-coasting performance sections … compared to when the eco-coasting guide function is not performed, in each of the eco-coasting performance sections, simultaneously with calculating the total energy consumption; calculating the fuel efficiency increasing rate when the eco-coasting guide function is performed, compared to when the eco-coasting is not performed, while the driving ends; and displaying the calculated fuel efficiency increasing rate.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Poll with Woo’s teaching of displaying, during specific speed varying sections of a route, when the driving behavior increases or decreases energy efficiency from the average. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success to include display in order to allow a driver to see when their driving behavior leads to improved efficiency (Woo [abstract] “a driver may confirm the fuel efficiency increasing rate depending on the eco-coasting performance after driving ends to lead a driver to use an eco-coasting guide function and perform fuel efficiency driving.”)
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Yamasaki (US 20140172284 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yamazki.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Poll fails to explicitly disclose The electricity efficiency analysis device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate a gain-loss cost incurred based on the standard electricity efficiency contribution and output information on the gain-loss cost through the output device.
However, Yamasaki teaches the one or more processors are configured to calculate a gain-loss cost incurred based on the standard electricity efficiency contribution and output information on the gain-loss cost through the output device ([0022] “The fuel economy difference calculation unit 32 calculates a fuel economy difference Df at every predetermined calculation timing based on the average fuel economy Fa and the instantaneous fuel economy Fb.” [0025] “where the instantaneous fuel economy Fb falls below the average fuel economy Fa, that is, the average fuel economy Fa decreases, the needle 34 indicates a position on the negative side of the scale, that is, a position between the middle position Ma and the other end of the scale.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Poll with Yamasaki’s teaching of a displayed gauge showing when the current energy economy (cost) is above or below (gain/loss) the average (standard) efficiency. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success to include this gauge in order to encourage better fuel economy (Yamazaki [0005] “In order to prompt a driving operation which improves fuel economy”).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Lindelof (US 20180286145 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lindelof.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Poll fails to explicitly disclose The electricity efficiency analysis device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the power consumption rate as a ratio of power consumed during the predetermined monitoring section to a total power consumption ([column 15, lines 18-20] “The trip data including segment lengths and corresponding predicted segment energy consumption are determined”).
However, Lindelof teaches the one or more processors are configured to calculate the power consumption rate as a ratio of power consumed during the predetermined monitoring section to a total power consumption ([0081] “Then, for each such collected previous-trip data set for sail previous trip, a corresponding basic group is identified, and the relative instantaneous energy consumption value for the data set in question is calculated, for instance by dividing the instantaneous energy consumption value for the data set in question with the total energy consumption for the entire previous trip in question.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Poll’s energy consumption modeling for sections along a route with Lindelof’s teaching of determining a relative consumption rate based on the ratio of instantaneous energy consumption to total energy consumption required. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use this ratio in order to improve driver performance in regards to efficiency ([0003] “fuel consumption … used for feedback purposes, in order to improve performance over time for individual drivers as well as on an aggregate level.”).
Claims 8, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poll as applied to claim 1, 9, and 13 above, in view of Meyer et al. (US 20160061610 A1), hereinafter referred to as Meyer.
Regarding claims 8, 12, and 20, Poll discloses The electricity efficiency analysis device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate the standard electricity efficiency contribution using a product of the power consumption rate and the electricity efficiency gain-loss value.
However, Meyer teaches calculate the standard electricity efficiency contribution using a product of the power consumption rate and the electricity efficiency gain-loss value ([0109] “A difference is calculated between a current energy consumption rate and the estimated energy consumption rate for the current route segment, as illustrated at block 70. A correction factor is calculated based on the difference” [0110] “The correction factor may be calculated as a feedback corrector” alpha value is multiplied against the difference (gain-loss value) and current consumption rate [See also FIG. 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Poll with Meyer’s teaching of a contribution (positive or negative) to the typical consumption rate using the product of the difference between current and estimated energy consumption rate and an alpha feedback corrector value. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success to include this method of calculating the contribution value toward the average consumption rate in order to update the global energy consumption rate for future use (Meyer [[0112] “The correction factor is learned based on the difference between the estimated and observed values using a first order filter, and the global energy consumption rate learns the correction factor at the same rate.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights