DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to application filed on 11/13/2024. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are pending.
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:
“water information acquisition unit” in claim(s) 1, described in Applicant’s specification as “The energy consumption estimation device 1 is configured as a computer including a communication unit 10, a storage unit 20, a computing unit 30” (pg. 8). “the communication unit 10 of the present embodiment, which acquires the weather information WI that is information related to the water-related substance, from the server SV, functions as a water information acquisition unit.”, (pg. 22).
“energy estimation unit” in claim(s) 1-7, described in Applicant’s specification as “The energy consumption estimation device 1 is configured as a computer including a communication unit 10, a storage unit 20, a computing unit 30” (pg. 8). “ed. The computing unit 30 of the present embodiment functions as an energy estimation unit.”, (pg. 9).
“vehicle information acquisition unit” in claim(s) 6, described in Applicant’s specification as “The energy consumption estimation device 1 is configured as a computer including a communication unit 10, a storage unit 20, a computing unit 30” (pg. 8). “The computing unit 30 of the present embodiment functions as a vehicle information acquisition unit”, (pg. 10).
“location information acquisition unit” in claim(s) 7, described in Applicant’s specification as “The energy consumption estimation device 1 is configured as a computer including a communication unit 10, a storage unit 20, a computing unit 30” (pg. 8). “The communication unit 10 of the present embodiment functions as a location information acquisition unit that acquires the travel route information DI corresponding to scheduled location information.” (pg. 11).
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 § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-7, the claims recite “An energy consumption estimation device” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
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 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
An energy consumption estimation device for estimating energy consumption of a vehicle that travels on a road surface, comprising:
a water information acquisition unit configured to acquire water-related information on a water-related substance on the road surface; and
an energy estimation unit configured to estimate the energy consumption of the vehicle that travels on the road surface based on the water-related information acquired by the water information acquisition unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “estimate...” in the contexts of this claim encompass evaluation an energy consumption based observed data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least abstract one idea(s).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of 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 indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the 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(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
An energy consumption estimation device for estimating energy consumption of a vehicle that travels on a road surface, comprising:
a water information acquisition unit configured to acquire water-related information on a water-related substance on the road surface; and
an energy estimation unit configured to estimate the energy consumption of the vehicle that travels on the road surface based on the water-related information acquired by the water information acquisition unit.
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 limitation(s) of “an energy estimation unit configured to”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “energy estimation unit” is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgement in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The component(s) merely automate(s) the “estimate…” step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I).
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a water information acquisition unit configured to acquire water-related information on a water-related substance on the road surface”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity[ies] that merely use a computer (“water information acquisition unit”) to perform a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. In particular, the “water information acquisition unit” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information for use in the “estimate...” step(s)), and amounts to mere data gathering for use in the claimed process, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additional elements that are considered extra-solution activities do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Moreover, limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., to control an aircraft engine), or as stated the preamble (“for estimating energy consumption of a vehicle that travels on a road surface”) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad. See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (“Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.”).
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, 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.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 limitation(s) of the “an energy estimation unit configured to” is/are merely means to apply the exception and does not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “for estimating energy consumption of a vehicle that travels on a road surface” is/are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to “significantly more”, as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (“simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use”), as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981), are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 limitation(s) of “a water information acquisition unit configured to acquire water-related information on a water-related substance on the road surface” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the acquiring of “water-related information” is anything other than obtaining data from a server (pg. 22). See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 8, the claim(s) recite(s) “An energy consumption estimation method” and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 8 rises and falls with independent with claim 1. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 9, the claim(s) recite(s) “A non-transitory computer readable medium” and thus, are a manufacture. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 9 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) 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.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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.
Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Otoofi et al. (US 20250115248 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 8, Otoofi teaches An energy consumption estimation device for estimating energy consumption of a vehicle that travels on a road surface, comprising:
a water information acquisition unit (“predictor (PD) 351”, Fig. 6 and [0153], see also “processing circuitry 151”, Fig. 5) configured to acquire water-related information on a water-related substance on the road surface (“the predictor 351 may be configured to receive further information from one or more other sources than the sensor arrangement 360, and to include such further information in the prediction of upcoming rolling resistance 353 and/or upcoming tire-road friction 352. In FIG. 6, the further information is exemplified by data from a climate system (CL SYS) 361, data from a wiper sensor (WS) 362, and weather data from a remote source (WEATH) 363.”, [0158], see also “the processing circuitry 151 may have access to remote source weather data (e.g., temperature, humidity, wet/snowy conditions) associated with current location of the vehicle and/or with anticipated route of the vehicle”, [0149]); and
an energy estimation unit (“vehicle motion management function (VMM) 380”, Fig. 6) configured to estimate the energy consumption of the vehicle that travels on the road surface based on the water-related information acquired by the water information acquisition unit (“The predicted upcoming rolling resistance 353 and/or upcoming tire-road friction 352 may be provided to a vehicle motion management function (VMM) 380, which is configured to use the predicted values as suitable (e.g., according to known approaches for using rolling resistance and/or tire-road friction to allocate forces and generate actuator instructions).”, [0159], “the predicted upcoming rolling resistance 353 may be used to dynamically determine (estimate) a remaining travelling range (RTR) 354 until energy replenishment of the vehicle is needed based on the predicted upcoming rolling resistance.”, [0160]).
Claim(s) 9 recite(s) similar limitation(s) to that of claims 1 and 8 and is/are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above. Additional limitations present in the claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 9, Otoofi teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform an energy consumption estimation method for estimating energy consumption of a vehicle that travels on a road surface (“FIG. 10 is a schematic diagram of a computer system 700 for implementing examples disclosed herein. The computer system 700 is adapted to execute instructions from a computer-readable medium to perform these and/or any of the functions or processing described herein.”, [0194], “Computer-code which is hard or soft coded may be provided in the form of one or more modules. The module(s) can be implemented as software and/or hard-coded in circuitry to implement the functionality described herein in whole or in part. The modules may be stored in the storage device 714 and/or in the volatile memory 710, which may include an operating system 716 and/or one or more program modules 718. All or a portion of the examples disclosed herein may be implemented as a computer program 720 stored on a transitory or non-transitory computer-usable or computer-readable storage medium (e.g., single medium or multiple media), such as the storage device 714, which includes complex programming instructions (e.g., complex computer-readable program code) to cause the processing circuitry 702 to carry out actions described herein.”, [0198]).
Regarding claim 2, Otoofi teaches The energy consumption estimation device according to claim 1, wherein
the energy estimation unit is configured to estimate a travel resistance based on the water-related information (“the predictor 351 may be configured to receive further information from one or more other sources than the sensor arrangement 360, and to include such further information in the prediction of upcoming rolling resistance 353 and/or upcoming tire-road friction 352.”, [0158]), the travel resistance being a resistance component when the vehicle travels on the road surface, and estimate the energy consumption based on the estimated travel resistance (“the predicted upcoming rolling resistance 353 may be used to dynamically determine (estimate) a remaining travelling range (RTR) 354 until energy replenishment of the vehicle is needed based on the predicted upcoming rolling resistance.”, [0160]).
Regarding claim 3, Otoofi teaches The energy consumption estimation device according to claim 2, wherein
the water-related information includes weather information on weather (see “data from a climate system (CL SYS) 361…and weather data from a remote source (WEATH) 363.”, [0158] citation below),
and the energy estimation unit is configured to estimate the travel resistance based on the weather information and estimate the energy consumption based on the estimated travel resistance (“the predictor 351 may be configured to receive further information from one or more other sources than the sensor arrangement 360, and to include such further information in the prediction of upcoming rolling resistance 353 and/or upcoming tire-road friction 352. In FIG. 6, the further information is exemplified by data from a climate system (CL SYS) 361…and weather data from a remote source (WEATH) 363.”, [0158]).
Regarding claim 4, Otoofi teaches The energy consumption estimation device according to claim 3, wherein
the weather information includes snow information that is information related to snow on the road surface (see “snowy conditions”, [0149] citation below), and
the energy estimation unit is configured to estimate the travel resistance based on the snow information and estimate the energy consumption based on the estimated travel resistance (“the processing circuitry 151 may have access to remote source weather data (e.g., temperature, humidity, wet/snowy conditions) associated with current location of the vehicle and/or with anticipated route of the vehicle”, [0149]).
Regarding claim 6, Otoofi teaches The energy consumption estimation device according to claim 2, further comprising
a vehicle information acquisition unit (“TPMS of the vehicle 111”, [0144]) configured to acquire vehicle characteristics information related to characteristics of the vehicle that cause the travel resistance to change, (see “data (indicative of—for example—one or more of: an inner temperature of the tire, a tire pressure, local acceleration, a tire contact patch)” [0144] citation below), wherein
the energy estimation unit is configured to estimate the energy consumption based on the vehicle characteristics information acquired by the vehicle information acquisition unit (“the processing circuitry 151 is configured to take also other information into account when predicting the upcoming rolling resistance and/or the upcoming tire-road friction.”, [0143], “a Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) of the vehicle 111 may provide data (indicative of—for example—one or more of: an inner temperature of the tire, a tire pressure, local acceleration, a tire contact patch) to the processing circuitry 151, and it may affect the prediction in a similar way as the outer surface tire temperature 121.”, [0144]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otoofi et al. (US 20250115248 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Otoofi teaches The energy consumption estimation device according to claim 1, further comprising
a location information acquisition unit configured to acquire scheduled location information on locations that the vehicle is scheduled to pass through (see “anticipated route” [0100, 0149] citations below, wherein
the energy estimation unit is configured to estimate the energy consumption of the vehicle scheduled to pass through the locations based on the scheduled location information acquired by the location information acquisition unit (“the processing circuitry 151 may have access to remote source weather data (e.g., temperature, humidity, wet/snowy conditions) associated with current location of the vehicle and/or with anticipated route of the vehicle, and that data may affect the prediction”, [0149], see also “the processing circuitry may be further configured to download further wheel operating conditions data from the wheel operating conditions database, wherein the further wheel operating conditions data is associated with one or more of: current location of the vehicle, anticipated route of the vehicle, and tire type. The processing circuitry may be configured to predict the upcoming rolling resistance and/or the upcoming tire-ground friction further based on the downloaded further wheel operating conditions data. A technical benefit may include that the knowledge of operating conditions along an upcoming (anticipated) route may be improved. For example, the accuracy of predicted parameter value(s) at the location of the vehicle can be improved by combining the measurements performed by the vehicle with information obtained from the wheel operating conditions database. Alternatively or additionally, the vehicle can obtain specific knowledge of operating conditions along the upcoming route ahead of its location (i.e., before it is possible to perform measurements by the vehicle).”, [0100])).
Otoofi does not explicitly teach the “a location information acquisition unit”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the “processing circuitry” [0100] separate components since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otoofi et al. (US 20250115248 A1) in view of Lacaze et al. (US 20210253097 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Otoofi teaches The energy consumption estimation device according to claim 4, wherein
Otoofi teaches “the processing circuitry 151 may have access to remote source weather data (e.g.,…wet/snowy conditions) associated with current location of the vehicle and/or with anticipated route of the vehicle, and that data may affect the prediction” [0149] and that “water/snow” generates low tire-road friction [0151].
Otoofi does not explicitly teach the “snowy conditions”, [0149] accessed for the travel resistance prediction comprises snow depth information…and snow density information as claimed, however, Lacaze teaches
the snow information includes snow depth information that is information on a depth of snow accumulated on the road surface, and snow density information that is information on a density of snow accumulated on the road surface (“In the case of the autonomous vehicle driving through fresh snow, there is an increased rolling resistance that occurs moderately to dramatically that depends on the depth/type of snow.”, [0111].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Otoofi with the teachings of Lacaze such that the energy estimation unit is configured to estimate the energy consumption based on the estimated travel resistance, as taught by Otoofii, based on the snow depth information and the snow density information, as suggested by Lacaze, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to use these well-know parameters to predict the travel resistance. It is common knowledge that snow depth and density is reported by remote weather sources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666