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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024 have been fully considered by the examiner.
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:
A battery management unit in claim 10
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. After further review of the specifications, it appears that the battery management unit is not described in the specifications in a way that recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim limitation is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation “battery management unit” of claim 10, which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonable convey to one skilled in the art that one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. For example, the battery management unit is configured to provide information related to a remaining power amount of a battery of the electric vehicle, but it is unclear to the examiner how the battery management unit performs this limitation since the unit does not recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. The claim limitation “battery management unit” was not described in the specifications in such a way as to reasonable convey to one skilled in the art that one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim limitation is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for being dependent on rejected independent claim 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above.
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 10-18 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.
With respect to claim 10, the claim limitation “battery management unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. It is not clear to the examiner if said claim limitations are geared towards hardware structures or if they are geared towards software codes or blocks. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitations are vague and ill-defined which renders the claims indefinite. Furthermore, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for being dependent on rejected independent claim 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies as recited above.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-18 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1-18 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
A drivable distance guiding method of an electric vehicle, comprising:
obtaining information of one or more factors related to a drivable distance;
obtaining current state information of each of the one or more factors;
and calculating an influence degree of each of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation “calculating an influence degree of each of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors” in the context of the claim encompasses a user making a calculation based on received information (i.e. factors related to a drivable distance and current state information of each of the factors). This calculation can be done on a piece of paper and calculating an influence degree using received information is a process that can be done in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 5:
wherein displaying the influence degrees of the one or more factors comprises: setting a maximum value and a minimum value for each of the one or more factors; and displaying current state information or a calculated influence degree for each of the one or more factors, in a range between the maximum value and the minimum value.
Regarding claim 5, the bolded limitation of setting a value for each of the one or more factors, in the context of the claim, is a step that can be done via a piece of paper and a pen, wherein setting a value can be done by designating a minimum and maximum value for a factor. Since this limitation can be done via a piece of paper and a pen, and also in the human mind, then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 14.
Claim 7:
based on the real-time influence degree of a factor exceeding a specified reference compared to the initial influence degree of the factor, displaying an instruction to adjust the factor; adjusting a function of the factor selected by a user; and displaying a drivable distance changed by the adjustment of the factor.
Regarding claim 7, the bolded limitation of adjusting a function of the factor selected by a user in the context of the claim, is a step that can be done by a user via a piece of paper and a pen, and also in the human mind, because adjusting a value can be done mentally. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 16.
Claim 8:
wherein adjusting the function of the factor comprises: based on an automatic control function being selected, adjusting each of the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance.
Claim 9:
wherein adjusting each of the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance comprises limiting a maximum vehicle speed to adjust an average vehicle speed factor, turning off an air conditioning device to adjust an air conditioning factor, re-searching for a path including a road of a preset gradient to adjust a gradient factor, or canceling a battery conditioning function to adjust a battery conditioning factor.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the bolded limitation of adjusting one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance in the context of the claim encompasses the user changing a value, which is a step that can be done via a piece of paper and pen, and in the human mind, because adjusting a value can be done mentally. Therefore, these limitations recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 17-18.
Claim 10
A drivable distance guiding system of an electric vehicle, comprising: a battery management unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to provide information related to a remaining power amount of a battery of the electric vehicle; at least two device units using power of the battery;
and a controller configured to: calculate and display a drivable distance based on the information related to the remaining power amount of the battery,
obtain current state information of one or more factors related to the drivable distance among functions performed by the at least two device units,
and calculate an influence degree of each of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation of calculating a drivable distance based on received information and calculating an influence degree of each of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors in the context of the claim encompasses a user making a calculation based on received information (i.e. factors related to a drivable distance and current state information of each of the factors). This calculation can be done on a piece of paper and calculating an influence degree using received information is a process that can be done in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
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 idea 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”):
Claim 1:
A drivable distance guiding method of an electric vehicle, comprising:
obtaining information of one or more factors related to a drivable distance;
obtaining current state information of each of the one or more factors;
and calculating an influence degree of each of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors.
Claim 2:
further comprising: displaying the influence degrees of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance.
Claim 3:
wherein obtaining the information of the one or more factors comprises: obtaining information of at least two factors with highest power usage among functions utilizing remaining battery power of the electric vehicle.
Claim 4:
wherein obtaining the information of the one or more factors comprises: obtaining information of at least two of an average vehicle speed factor, an air conditioning factor related to power consumption of an air conditioning device, a gradient factor related to a gradient of a road on which the electric vehicle is traveling, or a battery conditioning factor related to power consumption for battery conditioning.
Claim 5:
wherein displaying the influence degrees of the one or more factors comprises: setting a maximum value and a minimum value for each of the one or more factors; and displaying current state information or a calculated influence degree for each of the one or more factors, in a range between the maximum value and the minimum value.
Claim 6:
wherein displaying of the influence degrees of the one or more factors comprises: displaying, based on a determination a destination has been set, an initial influence degree of each of the one or more factors according to the current state information of each of the one or more factors; and displaying a real-time influence degree of each of the one or more factors based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors, while the vehicle is traveling.
Claim 7:
further comprising: based on the real-time influence degree of a factor exceeding a specified reference compared to the initial influence degree of the factor, displaying an instruction to adjust the factor; adjusting a function of the factor selected by a user; and displaying a drivable distance changed by the adjustment of the factor.
Claim 10:
A drivable distance guiding system of an electric vehicle, comprising: a battery management unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to provide information related to a remaining power amount of a battery of the electric vehicle; at least two device units using power of the battery;
and a controller configured to: calculate and display a drivable distance based on the information related to the remaining power amount of the battery,
obtain current state information of one or more factors related to the drivable distance among functions performed by the at least two device units,
and calculate an influence degree of each of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of obtaining information, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process of obtaining data and displaying data. In particular, the obtaining steps and the displaying steps by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data and displaying data), and amounts to mere data gathering and data displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating steps. The same rational applies to claims 11-16.
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 claims 1,8, and 15 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 element of using a processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “obtaining… “, and “displaying…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtaining…” and “displaying…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor for obtaining data, and that the display is anything other than a conventional display for displaying data. The step of “obtaining” data is taught in the primary reference Yang et al. US20140074329A1, see at least Para. 0037. Accordingly, the step of obtaining data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Further, the step of displaying data is taught in the primary reference Yang et al. US20140074329A1, see at least Fig. 5. The step of displaying data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. US20140074329A1 (henceforth Yang).
Regarding claim 1,
Yang discloses:
A drivable distance guiding method of an electric vehicle, comprising: obtaining information of one or more factors related to a drivable distance; (See at least Fig. 5 and Para. 0037, “As shown in FIG. 5, the drivable electric drive range estimation 308 is shown with electric drive range impact factors 502. The electric drive range impact factors 502 may also be referred to as electric coaching factors. In FIG. 5, the interface 500 uses values assigned to the electric drive range impact factors 502 showing either an increase or decrease in the drivable electric drive range based on the impact of each particular factor to the electric drive range. For example, electric drive range impact factors 502 may include A/C 504, heating 510, driving 506, route 508, weight 512, ecological mode 514, or other factors.” Information comprising factors related to a drivable distance is obtained, in order to determine the impact of each particular factor to the electric drive range.)
obtaining current state information of each of the one or more factors; and calculating an influence degree of each of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors. (See at least Fig. 5 and Para. 0037, “ In FIG. 5, the interface 500 uses values assigned to the electric drive range impact factors 502 showing either an increase or decrease in the drivable electric drive range based on the impact of each particular factor to the electric drive range. For example, electric drive range impact factors 502 may include A/C 504, heating 510, driving 506, route 508, weight 512, ecological mode 514, or other factors. Any names describing these factors may be used in the user interface 500. For example, ecological mode 514 may also be called "Eco" or "Eco Mode." The A/C factor 504 and heating factors 510 represent the air conditioning system and heating system of the vehicle, respectively, where a plus or minus range of the vehicle will be displayed based on how the electric drive range will be affected, decrease or increase, respectively when the air conditioning is on or off, or the heating system is on or off.“ An influence degree of each of the factors related to the drivable distance is calculated and shown as illustrated in Fig. 5 (i.e. electric drive range impact factors). It is shown how much the factors influence the drive range of the electric vehicle.)
Regarding claim 2,
Yang discloses:
further comprising: displaying the influence degrees of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance. (See at least Fig. 5, which is displayed on the display 210 (see Para. 0037). Fig. 5 shows the electric drive range impact factors 502, which is displayed to a driver.)
Regarding claim 3,
Yang discloses:
wherein obtaining the information of the one or more factors comprises: obtaining information of at least two factors with highest power usage among functions utilizing remaining battery power of the electric vehicle.
(Fig. 5 shows at least two factors with highest power usage among functions utilization the remaining battery power of the electric vehicle)
Regarding claim 4,
Yang discloses:
wherein obtaining the information of the one or more factors comprises: obtaining information of at least two of an average vehicle speed factor, an air conditioning factor related to power consumption of an air conditioning device, a gradient factor related to a gradient of a road on which the electric vehicle is traveling, or a battery conditioning factor related to power consumption for battery conditioning. (See at least Fig. 5, wherein the factor includes an air conditioning factor and the average speed. See Para. 0037, “The driving factor 506 represents how electric drive range is altered by the driving style or driving behavior of the driver of the vehicle and takes into account factors affecting level of propulsion power demands such as aggressiveness level of acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle and the average speed”. Therefore, the information obtained includes at least two of the listed factors.)
Regarding claim 5,
Yang discloses:
wherein displaying the influence degrees of the one or more factors comprises: setting a maximum value and a minimum value for each of the one or more factors; and displaying current state information or a calculated influence degree for each of the one or more factors, in a range between the maximum value and the minimum value. (See at least Fig. 5 and the electric drive range impact factors 502, and Para. 0039, “the numbers displayed for the electric drive range impact factors 502 may represent a scale, such as from 0 to 10. In a 0 to 10 scale of integer values (for example 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) where "10" may represent maximum energy savings, and "0" may represent minimum or no energy savings.” Each factor comprises setting a minimum value and a maximum value, wherein the calculated influence degree for each of the factors are shown, which is a range between the maximum value (i.e. 10) and the minimum value (i.e. 0).)
Regarding claim 10,
Yang discloses:
A drivable distance guiding system of an electric vehicle, comprising: a battery management unit, implemented using one or more computing devices, configured to provide information related to a remaining power amount of a battery of the electric vehicle; (See at least Para. 0001, “The present disclosure relates to a vehicle electric drive range display and, more specifically, to an electric drive range display of a battery electric vehicle (BEV), range extended electric vehicle (EREV), hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)” and Para. 0010, “the estimated instance drivable electric drive range, maximum drivable electric drive range and minimum drivable electric drive range are displayed in an image”.)
at least two device units using power of the battery; (See the electric drive range impact factors 502 in Fig. 5, which includes A/C and Heating, which are at least two devices using power of the battery.)
and a controller configured to: calculate and display a drivable distance based on the information related to the remaining power amount of the battery,
(See at least Fig. 5 and Para. 0010.)
obtain current state information of one or more factors related to the drivable distance among functions performed by the at least two device units, and calculate an influence degree of each of the one or more factors related to the drivable distance based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors. (See at least Fig. 5 and Para. 0037, “ In FIG. 5, the interface 500 uses values assigned to the electric drive range impact factors 502 showing either an increase or decrease in the drivable electric drive range based on the impact of each particular factor to the electric drive range. For example, electric drive range impact factors 502 may include A/C 504, heating 510, driving 506, route 508, weight 512, ecological mode 514, or other factors. Any names describing these factors may be used in the user interface 500. For example, ecological mode 514 may also be called "Eco" or "Eco Mode." The A/C factor 504 and heating factors 510 represent the air conditioning system and heating system of the vehicle, respectively, where a plus or minus range of the vehicle will be displayed based on how the electric drive range will be affected, decrease or increase, respectively when the air conditioning is on or off, or the heating system is on or off.“ An influence degree of each of the factors related to the drivable distance is calculated and shown as illustrated in Fig. 5 (i.e. electric drive range impact factors). It is shown how much the factors influence the drive range of the electric vehicle.)
Regarding claim 11,
Yang discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 12,
Yang discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 13,
Yang discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 14,
Yang discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
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 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Gilman et al. US20130173101A1 (henceforth Gilman).
Regarding claim 6,
Yang discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 2 above.
Yang further discloses:
wherein displaying of the influence degrees of the one or more factors comprises: displaying an initial influence degree of each of the one or more factors according to the current state information of each of the one or more factors; and displaying a real-time influence degree of each of the one or more factors based on the current state information of each of the one or more factors, while the vehicle is traveling. (See at least Fig. 5 and Para. 0037, wherein an initial influence degree of each of the one or more factors according to the current state information of each of the one or more factors are displayed, and wherein a real-time influence degree of each of the one or more factors are displayed while the vehicle is traveling.)
Yang does not specifically state the limitation “displaying, based on a determination a destination has been set, an initial influence degree of each of the one or more factors according to the current state information of each of the one or more factors.”
However, Gilman teaches:
displaying, based on a determination a destination has been set, an initial influence degree of each of the one or more factors according to the current state information of each of the one or more factors.
(See at least Para. 0026, “FIG. 2 is a simplified, functional block diagram of a control system 60 for the vehicle in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present application. The control system 60 may include the vehicle controller 32 and the user interface 58 that are in communication with each other. The vehicle controller 32 may receive input signals 62 indicative of vehicle and/or environmental conditions and may output one or more message signals 64 in response to the input signals 62. The vehicle controller 32 may transmit the message signals 64 to the user interface 58, which may in turn convey a climate advisory message corresponding to the message signal 64 to the driver. The vehicle controller 32 may output the message signal 64 based on whether the input signals 62 indicate that certain conditions are met. According to one or more embodiments, the input signals 62 may be indicative of an estimated travel distance, climate control system usage, and a distance surplus.” Further see Para. 0028, “The distance surplus (DistSurp) may correspond to additional energy available in the main battery 26 over the amount of energy necessary to reach a target destination”. An initial influence degree is displayed according to the current state of the climate control usage factor based on a destination being set.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Gilman to include “displaying, based on a determination a destination has been set, an initial influence degree of each of the one or more factors according to the current state information of each of the one or more factors” in order to “to convey information that will help them optimize vehicle performance, enhance their driving experience, and safely reach their destination” (Para. 0004, Gilman). This would create a more robust electric vehicle, and enhance the driving experience of electric vehicle drivers. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Yang and Gilman. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7,
Yang discloses:
adjusting a function of the factor selected by a user; and displaying a drivable distance changed by the adjustment of the factor.
(See at least Fig. 5, and Para. 0041.)
Yang does not specifically state the limitation “ based on the real-time influence degree of a factor exceeding a specified reference compared to the initial influence degree of the factor, displaying an instruction to adjust the factor.” However, Gilman teaches:
based on the real-time influence degree of a factor exceeding a specified reference compared to the initial influence degree of the factor, displaying an instruction to adjust the factor;
(See at least Figs. 3-4 and Para. 0006, “The controller may be further configured to calculate a distance surplus based upon the difference between the estimated travel distance and the charge point distance. Moreover, the controller may output the message signal when the estimated travel distance is below an estimated travel distance threshold, the climate control system usage is above a climate control system usage threshold, and the distance surplus is below a distance surplus threshold. The climate advisory message may advise a vehicle operator to reduce usage of a climate control system in order to increase vehicle range. The user interface may include a display for displaying the climate advisory message”. The display displays an instruction to adjust the factor (i.e. reduce climate use) when it is determined that the climate control system usage is above a usage threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Gilman to include “based on the real-time influence degree of a factor exceeding a specified reference compared to the initial influence degree of the factor, displaying an instruction to adjust the factor” in order to “to convey information that will help them optimize vehicle performance, enhance their driving experience, and safely reach their destination” (Para. 0004, Gilman). This would create a more robust electric vehicle, and enhance the driving experience of electric vehicle drivers. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Yang and Gilman. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15,
Yang and Gilman discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Regarding claim 16,
Yang and Gilman discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 7 above and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Gilman further in view of Bryan et al. US20180257666A1 (henceforth Bryan).
Regarding claim 8,
Yang discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 2 above. Yang and Gilman discloses the limitations as recited in claims 6 and 7 above.
Yang does not specifically state “wherein adjusting the function of the factor comprises: based on an automatic control function being selected, adjusting each of the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance.”
However, Bryan teaches:
wherein adjusting the function of the factor comprises: based on an automatic control function being selected, adjusting each of the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance. (See at least Fig. 9 blocks 914 and 918, Para. 0039, “In operation 912, the controller outputs a change in operational characteristic as described in the figures above such as heating, cooling, acceleration, top speed, etc. as selected by the user interface or recommended by the controller” and Para. 0040, “If the changes are accepted either expressly or automatically, the controller will branch to operation 918 and configure the vehicle systems to operate to the increase range target.” Based on an automatic control function being selected, each of the one or more factors are adjusted to maximize the drivable distance.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Gilman to incorporate the teachings of Bryan to include “wherein adjusting the function of the factor comprises: based on an automatic control function being selected, adjusting each of the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance” in order to “allocate available energy between the climate system and propulsion system according to an allocation table indicative of a user preference to increase the range above the predetermined threshold” (Para. 0005, Bryan). This would create a more robust system for automatically adjusting the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance. This would further create a more robust electric vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Yang, Gilman, and Bryan. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9,
Yang does not specifically state the limitation “wherein adjusting each of the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance comprises limiting a maximum vehicle speed to adjust an average vehicle speed factor, turning off an air conditioning device to adjust an air conditioning factor, re-searching for a path including a road of a preset gradient to adjust a gradient factor, or canceling a battery conditioning function to adjust a battery conditioning factor.”
However, Bryan teaches:
wherein adjusting each of the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance comprises limiting a maximum vehicle speed to adjust an average vehicle speed factor, turning off an air conditioning device to adjust an air conditioning factor, re-searching for a path including a road of a preset gradient to adjust a gradient factor, or canceling a battery conditioning function to adjust a battery conditioning factor. (See at least Para. 0039, “In operation 912, the controller outputs a change in operational characteristic as described in the figures above such as heating, cooling, acceleration, top speed, etc. as selected by the user interface or recommended by the controller”.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Gilman to incorporate the teachings of Bryan to include “wherein adjusting each of the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance comprises limiting a maximum vehicle speed to adjust an average vehicle speed factor, turning off an air conditioning device to adjust an air conditioning factor, re-searching for a path including a road of a preset gradient to adjust a gradient factor, or canceling a battery conditioning function to adjust a battery conditioning factor” in order to “allocate available energy between the climate system and propulsion system according to an allocation table indicative of a user preference to increase the range above the predetermined threshold” (Para. 0005, Bryan). This would create a more robust system for automatically adjusting the one or more factors to maximize the drivable distance. This would further create a more robust electric vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Yang, Gilman, and Bryan. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 17,
Yang, Gilman, and Bryan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 8 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Regarding claim 18,
Yang, Gilman, and Bryan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 9 above, and therefore the same rejection and obviousness rational applies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhambare et al. US20240027212A1 discloses “ to determine an expected battery range of a vehicle for a route to a destination, receive status information associated with environmental conditions along the route, determine a change from the expected battery range based on the status information, and facilitate modification of an operating characteristic of one or more electrical components of a vehicle system to compensate for the change.” (See abstract).
Liu US20160375786A1 discloses “a method is provided that aids the driver of an electric vehicle (EV) in optimizing their car's driving range by allowing the driver to request range optimization help from the EV's control system. In response to the request, the system provides the driver with one or more recommendations as to how to increase vehicle range, recommendations such as lowering top speed, altering the temperature settings of the car's HVAC system, etc. Additionally, the system provides the driver with real time driving range feedback, thereby helping the driver to evaluate the various recommendations and determine which approach is best suited to the current conditions.” (See abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669