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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on October 21, 2024, including the newly amended claims filed on February 4, 2026 prior to the start of this examination. Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-22 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 21, 2024 and January 6, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being 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 discloses 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 discloses 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:
“controller” in claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-22. A review of the specification shows that it is an ECU in [0059], embodies on a computer [0135], and includes one or more processors coupled with memory in [0143].
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, they 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 these limitations 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 § 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 1-4, 6-12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers, in view of Myers et al., US 2018/0334177 A1 (Hereinafter, “Myers”)(from IDS) in view of Kumar et al., US 2007/0142985 A1 (Hereinafter, “Kumar”)(from IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, 3, 10 and 17, Myers discloses a system to generate mechanical energy for vehicle propulsion See [0022], “mechanical-electric drive system 18 that includes one or more traction motors 28 drivingly coupled to wheels (shown in FIG. 3) for propelling the locomotive.”
comprising: an electrical port configured to receive electrical energy from a conductive element exterior to a vehicle, the conductive element disposed along a route for the vehicle; See Fig.1 and [0024], “hybrid power system 12 may further include a connection 34, such as an electrical bus (third rail, overhead power line, etc.), for being connected to an external power source, such as an external power line.”
an energy conversion device configured to receive a first fuel and a second fuel; See [0021], “The hybrid power system 12 also may optionally include at least one dual fuel engine 26 powered by both natural gas and diesel fuel (also referred to as a dual fuel engine(s) 26.”
A controller configured to: determine, based on an energy demand for the vehicle and the receipt of the electrical energy, a first consumption rate of the first fuel and a second consumption rate of the second fuel.” See [0027]-[0028], where Myers discloses determining the power levels for the hybrid and (if needed) natural gas engines to satisfy a power demand which when read in light of [0033] “ It is also understood that although the method 100 is shown with reference to the controller's operation of the natural gas powered engine(s) 14 and the diesel powered engine(s), that power from additional sources may be introduced into the method 100, as would be understood by those having skill in the art. For example, power from the battery 32 and/or external power source 34, which have essentially zero emissions, may be utilized as a source of power to propel the locomotive. The battery 32 and/or the external power source 34 may be utilized prior to utilizing the natural gas powered engine(s) 14, or may be utilized simultaneously with the natural gas powered engine(s) 14, or thereafter while utilizing the diesel powered engine(s) 16.” Here Myers discloses that first electrical energy/battery power is used (utilized prior) to the combustion (natural gas and diesel) engines being controlled to makeup the additional power demands thus the power demands which are satisfied from the combustion engines are based in part on the total power demand (to reach a needed speed/torque) and the currently received electrical engine power.)
Myers however does not explicitly disclose the reception and use of route segments (and the subsequent charging amount along a first segment being based on a second route segment. Instead the power demand and controls of Myers are based on the current location/speed demands (e.g. [0026]) Myers discloses a multi-fuel system to generate electrical power for vehicle propulsion, but does not explicitly disclose the consumption rate or receipt of preferred/stored energy for each section/segment.
However, Kumar teaches a train control system which includes:
a controller configured to: receive the route as comprising a plurality of route-segments cause the vehicle to receive from the electrical port, See [0017], “Another aspect of the invention relates to an energy management system for use in connection with a hybrid-energy off-highway vehicle that traverses a known course. The hybrid energy off-highway vehicle includes an engine. A power converter is driven by the engine and provides primary electric power. A traction motor system receives the primary electric power. The traction motor system selectively propels the off-highway vehicle in response to the received primary electric power.” The train of Kumar travels over a known course (route and route-segments);
a quantity of electrical energy along a first route-segment of the plurality of route-segments, the quantity of electrical energy based on a second route-segment of the plurality of route-segments”; See [0062] “ The energy management processor 506 preferably uses the present and/or upcoming track situation information, along with vehicle status information, to determine power storage and power transfer requirements. Energy management processor 506 also determines possible energy storage opportunities based on the present and future track situation information. For example, based on the track profile information, energy management processor 506 may determine that it is more efficient to completely use all of the stored energy, even though present demand is low, because a dynamic braking region is coming up (or because the train is behind schedule and is attempting to make up time). In this way, the energy management system 502 improves efficiency by accounting for the stored energy before the next charging region is encountered. As another example, energy management processor 506 may determine not to use stored energy, despite present demand, if a heavier demand is upcoming.” Here Kumar teaches a first received charge amount along the current segment (first segment) is based on a predicted/upcoming demand (i.e. the present power-transfer demand/charging is based on the upcoming (second segment) power demands) and [0095] planned energy storage amount/transfers are based in part on upcoming route segment).
determine, based on an energy demand for the vehicle and the receipt of the electrical energy, a first consumption rate of the first fuel and a second consumption rate of the second fuel. See [0142], “The energy management system 500' includes an energy management processor 506' to determine a power storage parameter (receipt of electrical energy), a power transfer parameter (energy demand), and an engine transfer parameter for each location along the track to minimize the total fuel consumed of each fuel type during the trip subject to at least one fuel parameter constraint. In an exemplary embodiment, the fuel parameter is fuel efficiency and the fuel parameter constraint is an emission output constraint.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Myer’s energy management device with the energy management improvements disclosed in Kumar with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by accounting for the stored energy before the next charging region is encountered, see Kumar [0062].
Regarding Claim 2, 11 and 19, Myers discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
a first emissions output for the first fuel; a second emissions output for the second fuel; and a third emissions output for the electrical energy. See at least [0052], “The at least one natural gas powered engine may have a NOx emission rate of less than 1.0 g/bhp-hr.” And [0059], “The at least one diesel and/or dual fuel powered engine may have a NOx emission rate of less than 2.0 g/bhp-hr.” Also [0033], “power from the battery 32 and/or external power source 34, which have essentially zero emissions, may be utilized as a source of power to propel the locomotive.”
Myers discloses a multi-fuel system to generate electrical power for vehicle propulsion, but does not explicitly disclose the fuel consumption rate. However, Kumar teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to determine the first consumption rate and the second consumption rate based on: an emissions target; See [0142], “The energy management system 500' includes … an engine transfer parameter for each location along the track to minimize the total fuel consumed of each fuel type during the trip subject to at least one … fuel parameter constraint is an emission output constraint.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Myer’s energy management device with the energy management improvements disclosed in Kumar with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by accounting for the stored energy before the next charging region is encountered, see Kumar [0062].
Regarding Claim 4 and 21, Myers discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the first consumption rate of the first fuel and the second consumption rate of the second fuel based on a source of the electrical energy received from the conductive element. See at least [0025], “controller 20 is configured to individually control power distribution from the respective engines (14, 16, and/or 24), the battery 32, and/or the external power source 34 to the drive system 18, and more particularly to the traction motors 28, for transmitting power to the wheels to propel the locomotive 10. The controller 20 also may be configured to control the distribution of power from the engines (14, 16, and/or 24) and/or the external power source 34 to the battery 32 for storage of energy.”
Regarding Claim 6, Myers as modified in claim 1 above, discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the controller is configured to: determine the quantity of electrical energy based on a speed of the vehicle navigating the first route-segment, the speed based on the second route-segment of the route. See [0027], “the controller 20 may utilize an algorithm to determine the power demand from each of the engines that is needed to attain a desired parameter, such as torque or speed at the engine or wheels, for example.” + Kumar [0062] “The energy management processor 506 preferably uses the present and/or upcoming track situation information, along with vehicle status information, to determine power storage and power transfer requirements. Energy management processor 506 also determines possible energy storage opportunities based on the present and future track situation information. “ Here Kumar teaches using power transfer requirement (electric quantity received) based on present status (locomotive speed) and upcoming track (second segment) information + Kumar [0162] teaches that operating parameters in the context of Kumar includes locomotive speed
Regarding Claim 7 and 22, Myers discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the controller is configured to: determine the quantity of electrical energy based on a portion of the quantity of electrical energy provided to an energy storage device, See at least [0025], “controller 20 is configured to individually control power distribution from the respective engines (14, 16, and/or 24), the battery 32, and/or the external power source 34 to the drive system 18, and more particularly to the traction motors 28, for transmitting power to the wheels to propel the locomotive 10. The controller 20 also may be configured to control the distribution of power from the engines (14, 16, and/or 24) and/or the external power source 34 to the battery 32 for storage of energy.”
the energy storage device configured to provide the electrical energy to a traction motor during the See [0032], “operator selecting a predefined power level (e.g., notch selection) as shown in FIGS. 5A-7B … controller 20 may proceed to supply power … according to predefined engine parameters (e.g., engine speed (rpm), torque, horsepower, etc.).” Also [0033], “method 100 is shown with … power from the battery 32 and/or external power source 34, which have essentially zero emissions, may be utilized as a source of power to propel the locomotive.“ Also [0072], “The system controller may be operatively coupled to battery to receive power, and the controller may be configured to charge or discharge the battery based upon the desired power demand.”
Myers discloses a multi-fuel system to generate electrical power for vehicle propulsion, but does not explicitly disclose the consumption rate or receipt of preferred/stored energy for each section/segment.
However, Kumar teaches in [0062] a train control system which includes “The energy management processor 506 preferably uses the present and/or upcoming track situation information, along with vehicle status information, to determine power storage and power transfer requirements. Energy management processor 506 also determines possible energy storage opportunities based on the present and future track situation information. For example, based on the track profile information, energy management processor 506 may determine that it is more efficient to completely use all of the stored energy, even though present demand is low, because a dynamic braking region is coming up (or because the train is behind schedule and is attempting to make up time). In this way, the energy management system 502 improves efficiency by accounting for the stored energy before the next charging region is encountered. As another example, energy management processor 506 may determine not to use stored energy, despite present demand, if a heavier demand is upcoming.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Myer’s energy management device with the energy management improvements disclosed in Kumar with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by accounting for the stored energy before the next charging region is encountered, see Kumar [0062].
Regarding Claim 8, Myers discloses a multi-fuel system to generate electrical power for vehicle propulsion, but does not explicitly disclose the regenerative storage of energy for each section/segment. However, Kumar teaches in Myers discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein: the vehicle comprises a traction motor to generate the electrical energy via regenerative braking while descending a grade of the second route-segment; and the controller (506) is configured to determine the quantity of electrical energy based on the regenerative braking for the grade. See [0061], “The energy management processor (controller) 506 determines present and anticipated train position information via … track grade.” And [0075], “Referring first to FIGS. 6A-D, these figures reflect an energy management system that stores energy at the maximum rate possible during dynamic braking … energy is transferred to the energy storage medium from excess prime mover power available during motoring.“ And [0079], “During a second time period (second route segment) B (from approximately 70-80 minutes), dynamic braking energy is transferred to the energy storage medium at the maximum rate (e.g., 500 units) until the storage is full.”
Regarding Claim 9, Myers discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein: the energy conversion device is configured to generate the electrical energy from a fuel source; and See [0023], ”The hybrid power system 12 may … be operatively coupled to the electrical generators of the traction control system 30 via the controller 20 for converting mechanical energy from the engines (14, 16, and/or 26) into electrical energy for charging the battery.”
the controller is configured to: receive an indication of an emissions target; See [0037], “the hybrid power system is configured to control the power output of the natural gas powered engine(s) and the diesel powered engine(s) (and/or the dual fuel engine(s)) for minimizing the combined average emissions rate, preferably below 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx.”
receive an indication of an emissions output corresponding to the fuel source and a quantity of electrical energy; and determine, based on the emissions target and the emissions output, the quantity of electrical energy. And [0038], “Referring particularly to FIG. 5A/5B, hybrid power system for a 1,270 horsepower (~1016 kw) switcher locomotive includes … natural gas powered engine … output of about 320 horsepower (~256 kw*) and an emissions rate of about 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx … diesel powered engine … output of about 950 horsepower (~760 kw*) and an emissions rate of about 1.3 g/bhp-hr NOx … hybrid power system configuration is shown to produce only 0.086 NOx as an average percentage of the duty cycle according to the notch schedule (column P, last row), which is below a threshold of 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx.”
* Electrical energy calculated based on generator output using 80% efficiency.
Regarding Claim 12, Myers discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 10:
further comprising: determining, by the controller, a source of the electrical energy; See [0033], “method 100 is shown with reference to the controller's operation … power from the battery 32 and/or external power source 34, which have essentially zero emissions, may be utilized as a source of power to propel the locomotive … or may be utilized simultaneously with the natural gas powered engine(s) 14, or thereafter while utilizing the diesel powered engine(s) 16.”
determining, by the controller, an emissions output associated with the electrical energy based on the source; and See [0033], “where one or more dual fuel engines 26 are provided (which may have emission rates between that of the natural gas engine 14 and the diesel engine 26), then these dual fuel engines 26 may be incorporated into the method 100 after utilizing the natural gas powered engine(s) 14, but before utilizing the diesel powered engine(s) 16, so as to supplement the cleaner burning natural gas power prior to bringing the diesel powered engine(s) 16 online.“
determining, by the controller, the See [0037], “the hybrid power system is configured to control the power output of the natural gas powered engine(s) and the diesel powered engine(s) (and/or the dual fuel engine(s)) for minimizing the combined average emissions rate, preferably below 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx.”
Myers discloses a multi-fuel system to generate electrical power for vehicle propulsion, but does not explicitly disclose the fuel consumption rate. However, Kumar teaches in [0142], “The energy management system 500' includes an energy management processor 506' to determine a power storage parameter, a power transfer parameter, and an engine transfer parameter for each location along the track to minimize the total fuel consumed of each fuel type during the trip subject to at least one fuel parameter constraint. In an exemplary embodiment, the fuel parameter is fuel efficiency and the fuel parameter constraint is an emission output constraint.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Myer’s energy management device with the energy management improvements disclosed in Kumar with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by accounting for the stored energy before the next charging region is encountered, see Kumar [0062].
Regarding Claim 15 and 16, Myers discloses a multi-fuel system to generate electrical power for vehicle propulsion, but does not explicitly disclose the speed of the vehicle. However, Kumar teaches:
further comprising: determining, by the controller, a speed/quantity of electrical energy for the vehicle based on the quantity of electrical energy/speed. See [0061], “energy management processor 506, a database 508, and a position identification system 510 … determines present and anticipated train position information via the position identification system 510. … other vehicle information such as … present and anticipated speed, present and anticipated electrical load, and so on may also be included in a database (or supplied in real or near real time) and used by energy management processor 506.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Myer’s energy management device with the energy management improvements disclosed in Kumar with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by accounting for the stored energy before the next charging region is encountered, see Kumar [0062].
Regarding Claim 18 and 20, Myers discloses a multi-fuel system to generate electrical power for vehicle propulsion, but does not explicitly disclose consumption rates. However, Kumar teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the first consumption rate of the first fuel based on a second consumption rate of a second fuel for the energy conversion device; and determine the first consumption rate and the second consumption rate based on an emissions target for the vehicle. See at least [0146], “The energy management processor 506' determines the engine transfer parameter and the power transfer parameter (via conversion device) for each location along the trip based upon at least one fuel parameter for each of the plurality of fuel types at each location along the trip. For example, the fuel efficiency (consumption rate) and emission output, among other fuel parameters of each of the plurality of fuel types is considered by the energy management processor 506' in determining an engine transfer parameter … emission restriction may prevent usage of fuel A, in which case the energy management processor 506' may determine an engine transfer parameter supplying the engine with fuel B.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Myer’s energy management device with the energy management improvements disclosed in Kumar with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by accounting for the stored energy before the next charging region is encountered, see Kumar [0062].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of Kumar et al., in further view of Fisher et al., US 2015/0300830 A1 (Hereinafter, “Fisher”)(from IDS).
Regarding Claim 14, Myers discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 10:
further comprising: allocating, by the controller, a first portion of an emissions target to the
See Fig.5A/5B and [0038], “the total NOx of the weighted usage of the natural gas engine and diesel engine is about 0.38 g/bhp-hr (first portion emissions target) … from notch 4 up to notch 8 (first route segment)
allocating, by the controller, a second portion of the emissions target to the
See Fig.5A/5B and [0038], “low power demands, such as at idle and notches 1-3 (second route segment) … low emissions natural gas powered engine is utilized (satisfies emissions target).”
and determining, by the controller, the quantity of the electrical energy to satisfy the emissions target, See Fig.5A/5B and [0037], “hybrid power systems are … configured to control power output from the respective natural gas powered engine(s) and/or the diesel powered engine(s) according to a predetermined notch schedule (column A), where each notch corresponds to a desired power level (column C).”
wherein: the first portion of the emissions target does not accord to the emissions target;
See Fig.5A/5B and [0038], “diesel powered engine … emissions rate of about 1.3 g/bhp-hr NOx (does not accord to emissions target).”
the second portion of the emissions target satisfies the emissions target;
See Fig.5A/5B and [0033], “natural gas powered engine … emissions rate of about 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx (satisfies emission target).”
and a combination of the first portion and the second portion satisfies the emissions target. See at least Fig.5A/5B and [0038], “hybrid power system configuration is shown to produce only 0.086 NOx (satisfies emission target) as an average percentage of the duty cycle (combined emissions) according to the notch schedule (column P, last row), which is below a threshold of 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx.”
Myers discloses a multi-fuel system to generate electrical power for vehicle propulsion, but does not explicitly disclose the emissions over a route segment . However, Fisher teaches notch schedules based on route segments for trip planning in [0045-0050] where “example scenario 300 depicted in FIG. 3, a vehicle 310 traverses a route 320 in a direction of travel 306. The route 320 includes a first portion (second route segment) 302 having a negative grade or slope along the direction of travel 306, and a second portion 304 (first route segment) having a positive grade or slope along the direction of travel 306.” And [0048], “a notch setting of 4 or 5 may be utilized to maintain the vehicle 310 at a desired speed over the second portion 304 (first route segment) when a notch setting of 2 or lower was used over the first portion 302 (second route segment).” And [0049], “trip planning module 122 may be configured to formulate a group of potential trip plans at least some of which have portions with higher notch settings (i.e. 4 through 8) than would be used to achieve other objectives, and to select a trip plan from among the group based on the resulting total combined fuel cost (optionally, with consideration to other resulting objectives (i.e. emission levels)).” And [0050], “using a model, the resulting total combined fuel cost … along with other results such as emission levels … may be determined for each potential trip plan, and a trip plan selected from the potential trip plans.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Myer’s energy management device with the trip planning in Fisher with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by using trip planning models, see Fisher [0050].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20190016329 A1 Park et al.
US Publication US 20210333118 A1 Oneill et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM 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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669