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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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. More specifically, the phrase “selectively converts the low DTE value and high DTE value in a case.. current DTE value reaches the low DTE.. and display the result”. It is unclear what is meant by converts low DTE and high DTE. For example, is the conversion in terms of units or in terms of levels i.e. from flat road high acceleration to hilly road and low acceleration. Furthermore, the term “result” is unclear as to what value or parameters is being displayed.
Furthermore, claims 2-20 have similar as issue as claim 1. In addition, said claims recite first, second, third… driving levels”. It is unclear what is meant by those levels. For example, are these levels based on different scenarios i.e. environmental conditions and driver’s behavior.
Claims 2-11, 13-20 are rejected under 112(b) for being dependent on claims 1 and 12.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method for controlling a vehicle via a control system comprising:
receiving a plurality of measured values from a plurality of sensors located on the vehicle;
receiving, at a vehicle controller, road condition data from an external source;
evaluating, by the vehicle controller, the plurality of measured values and the road condition data to form a weather evaluation result; and
displaying the weather evaluation result on a driver display console.
Regarding claim 1, a vehicle Distance to Empty (DTE) information providing system comprising:
a display device that displays DTE information of a vehicle; and
a controller that is operatively connected to the display device and configured to control an operation of the display device, wherein the controller is configured to determine low fuel economies and high fuel economies for different current fuel economies to store a result in a fuel economy map, to determine a current DTE value, which is a real-time DTE based on a current fuel economy, based on a current battery SOC value, to determine a low DTE value and a high DTE value of the current DTE value using the fuel economy map, and to display the result on the display device, and selectively converts the low DTE value and the high DTE value in a case where the current DTE value reaches the low DTE value or the high DTE value, and displays the result.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites an apparatus including at least one limitaiton. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – mathematical conecpts. In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be
analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a mathematical formula or calculation that is used to calculate the DTE based on fuel and battery SOC.
That is, other than reciting “by a controller” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed mathematically. For example, but for the “by the controller” language, the claim encompasses a using the fuel information, environmental conditions collected by sensors and servers, and based on based on the information, the DTE is calculated and a lookup table is generated for each scenario i.e. flat road versus hill road, or high acceleration versus low acceleration.. Furthermore, the limitation “selectively convert the low DTE…” is also a mathematical concept since the conversion steps uses some formula or calculation to switch from low DTE to high DTE. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical concepts grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of storing.., displaying.., a controller, and a display... The storing steps is recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying results step on the driver display is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “vehicle control system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Similarly, claim 12 is rejected under USC 101 for the same reason as above.
Dependent claim 2-11, 13-19 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 [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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, 7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20180170354 A1) in view of Kim (US 20200216087 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a vehicle Distance to Empty (DTE) information providing system (FIG. 4, ¶0055, “an output unit on which the DTE of a vehicle is indicated or output”) comprising:
a display device that displays DTE information of a vehicle (FIG. 3, display 121, ¶0046, “display 121 may also be configured to display an amount of remaining energy of a battery of a power source, and the DTE of the vehicle 1”); and
a controller that is operatively connected to the display device and configured to control an operation of the display device (FIG. 6 shows controller connected to output unit 120, ¶0068, “The output unit 120 may be configured to receive a DTE of the vehicle 1 from the controller 100 to output the DTE of the vehicle 1.”, ¶0069, “The output unit 120 may be implemented in the form of a display,”),
wherein the controller is configured to determine low and high energy FIG. 8 shows high and low load energy which is interpreted by the examiner as high and low fuel economies,¶0081, “…information obtained by the sensor unit 110, communication unit 170, and image acquirer… and cumulative information regarding cumulative distances traveled corresponding to the past driving conditions of the vehicle stored in the storage 130”), to determine a current DTE value, which is a real-time DTE based on a current energy, based on a current battery SOC value (FIG. 9, shows the DTE estimate based on battery SOC), to determine a low DTE value and a high DTE value of the current DTE value using the energy table (FIG. 8 shows the DTE estimate based on various conditions such as low and high load energy), and to display the result on the display device (FIG. 4 displays DTE), and displays the result.
Lee does not explicitly disclose but, Kim teaches low fuel economies and high fuel economies for different current fuel economies to store a result in a fuel economy map (FIG. 3 shows economical levels and generating the economical levels map based on economical levels)
to determine a current DTE value, which is a real-time DTE based on a current fuel economy and battery level (¶0091, “Along with the information on fuel efficiency and the available energy of the battery, which are received from the vehicle, the economical level is used to calculate the distance to empty (DTE) for the vehicle.”)
to determine a low DTE value and a high DTE value of the current DTE value using the fuel economy map (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9, wherein FIG. 7 shows low DTE due to the setting being “feeling of acceleration”, fig. 6 shows high DTE due to the setting being “economical level” for )
selectively converts the low DTE value and the high DTE value in a case where the current DTE value reaches the low DTE value or the high DTE value (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show selecting different settings such as motor torque, feeling acceleration/deceleration, speed limit.., will provide a low to high DTE value).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the low fuel economy and the high fuel economy according to the current fuel economy based on first, second, third, fourth and fifth fuel economy driving levels sequentially arranged according to the current fuel economy, and to store the result in the fuel economy map (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show maximum output based on the settings i.e. different fuel economy levels).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform control for converting the third fuel economy driving level to the second fuel economy driving level, in a case where the current DTE value of the current fuel economy corresponding to the third fuel economy driving level reaches the high DTE value, and displaying the low DTE value and the high DTE value of the second fuel economy driving level on the display device (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show maximum output based on the settings i.e. different fuel economy levels).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform control for displaying information related to the a state of the conversion on the display device, in a case where the third fuel economy driving level is converted to the second fuel economy driving level (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show maximum output based on the settings i.e. different fuel economy levels).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Regarding claim 6, Kim further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform control for converting the third fuel economy driving level to the fourth fuel economy driving level, in a case where the current DTE value of the current fuel economy corresponding to the third fuel economy driving level reaches the low DTE value, and displaying the low DTE value and the high DTE value of the fourth fuel economy driving level on the display device (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show maximum output based on the settings i.e. different fuel economy levels).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Regarding claim 7, Kim further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform control for displaying information related to a state of the conversion on the display device, in a case where the third fuel economy driving level is converted to the fourth fuel economy driving level (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show maximum output based on the settings i.e. different fuel economy levels).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Regarding claim 9, Kim further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the display device to follow and display the current DTE value, in a case where the current DTE value of the current fuel economy corresponding to the first fuel economy driving level reaches the high DTE value (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show maximum output based on the settings i.e. different fuel economy levels).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Regarding claim 10, Kim further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the display device to follow and display the current DTE value, in a case where the currentDTE value of the current fuel economy corresponding to the fifth fuel economy driving level reaches the low DTE value (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show maximum output based on the settings i.e. different fuel economy levels).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Regarding claim 11, Kim further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the display device to display which fuel economy driving level among the first, second, third, fourth and fifth fuel economy driving levels the current DTE value of the current fuel economy corresponds to (FIG. 7 to FIG. 9 show maximum output based on the settings i.e. different fuel economy levels).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Li with the DTE map taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced traveling convenience by controlling traveling characteristics according to the driver’s desired traveling characteristic and increasing traveling satisfaction.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20180170354 A1) in view of Kim (US 20200216087 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sekine (US 20120008048 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee does not explicitly disclose but, Sekine teaches wherein the controller is further configured to perform control for displaying the information related to the state of the conversion using one or more display methods among a message, a display position of a graphic, a size of the graphic, and a color of the graphic (¶0410, “form an object of the acquired presentation information for generating the second display object 186 based on the conditions including at least one of the shape, color, size, and orientation of the generated first display object”, FIG. 21A, FIG. 21B).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Lee with the display configuration taught in Sekine with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in display information with a more reduced unpleasant sensation.
Regarding claim 8, Sekine further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to display the information related to the state of the conversion using one or more display methods among a message, a display position of a graphic, a size of the graphic, and a color of the graphic (¶0410, “form an object of the acquired presentation information for generating the second display object 186 based on the conditions including at least one of the shape, color, size, and orientation of the generated first display object”, FIG. 21A, FIG. 21B).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the DTE system disclosed in Lee with the display configuration taught in Sekine with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in display information with a more reduced unpleasant sensation.
Regarding claims 12-20, claims 12-20 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1-11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lu (US 10124675 B2) discloses The present invention relates to a method and device for on-line prediction of remaining driving mileage of an electric vehicle. The method comprises: acquiring in-transit data and driving environment data of the electric vehicle which is driving; calculating the power consumption per mileage of the electric vehicle in the current case by using the in-transit data and the driving environment data in combination with a power consumption rate data model; predicting the remaining driving mileage of the electric vehicle based on the power consumption per mileage. The device provided by the present invention is implemented on the basis of the method above. The prediction result of the present invention is more accurate, to avoid the problem that the power is exhausted due to exceeding the mileage expected by a user so that the electric vehicle cannot continue to drive, thereby improving the driving experience of the user (abstract) .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights