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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim of priority for foreign application KR10-2023-0184456, filed 12/18/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0012] recites “Which is performed by a computing system”, which appears to be an incomplete sentence.
[0020] recites “the operation…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error.
[0045] recites “…perform communicate…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[0097] recites “…33,”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error.
[0103] recites “some embodiments…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 9 recite “…of other section…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Claims 4 and 15 recites “…when driving in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method for energy-saving driving of a mobility device (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the 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) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method of a navigation device for energy-saving driving of a mobility device, the method comprising:
receiving a guide request of a first route to a first destination;
comparing an amount of power required for driving of the first route with a battery charge amount of the mobility device; and
determining a portion of the first route as an energy-saving mode driving section when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison,
wherein the determining the portion of the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section includes: determining a traffic congestion section included in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section; and
determining at least a portion of other section excluding the traffic congestion section from a remaining section of the first route to the first destination as an additional energy-saving mode driving section.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “receiving a guide request of a first route to a first destination” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally receiving (i.e., viewing) a guide request. The limitation “comparing an amount of power required for driving of the first route with a battery charge amount of the mobility device” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally comparing different amounts. The limitations “determining a portion of the first route as an energy-saving mode driving section when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison”, “wherein the determining the portion of the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section includes: determining a traffic congestion section included in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section”, and “determining at least a portion of other section excluding the traffic congestion section from a remaining section of the first route to the first destination as an additional energy-saving mode driving section” in the context of this claim encompass mentally selecting or categorizing different sections in a route.
Step 2A Prong 2: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of a navigation device for energy-saving driving of a mobility device, the method comprising:
receiving a guide request of a first route to a first destination;
comparing an amount of power required for driving of the first route with a battery charge amount of the mobility device; and
determining a portion of the first route as an energy-saving mode driving section when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison,
wherein the determining the portion of the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section includes: determining a traffic congestion section included in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section; and
determining at least a portion of other section excluding the traffic congestion section from a remaining section of the first route to the first destination as an additional energy-saving mode driving section.
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.
The additional limitation of “a navigation device for energy-saving driving of a mobility device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a navigation device for energy-saving driving of a mobility device” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Regarding Independent Claim 9:
Step 1: Claim 9 is directed to a navigation system of a mobility device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
A navigation system of a mobility device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing a set of instructions, wherein the at least one processor, by executing the set of instructions, performs:
an operation of receiving a guide request of a first route to a first destination;
an operation of comparing an amount of power required for driving of the first route with a battery charge amount of the mobility device; and
an operation of determining a portion of the first route as an energy-saving mode driving section when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison,
wherein the operation of determining the portion of the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section includes: an operation of determining a traffic congestion section included in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section; and
an operation of determining at least a portion of other section excluding the traffic congestion section from a remaining section of the first route to the first destination as an additional energy-saving mode driving section.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “receiving a guide request of a first route to a first destination” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally receiving (i.e., viewing) a guide request. The limitation “comparing an amount of power required for driving of the first route with a battery charge amount of the mobility device” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally comparing different amounts. The limitations “determining a portion of the first route as an energy-saving mode driving section when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison”, “wherein the determining the portion of the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section includes: determining a traffic congestion section included in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section”, and “determining at least a portion of other section excluding the traffic congestion section from a remaining section of the first route to the first destination as an additional energy-saving mode driving section” in the context of this claim encompass mentally selecting or categorizing different sections in a route.
Step 2A Prong 2: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A navigation system of a mobility device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing a set of instructions, wherein the at least one processor, by executing the set of instructions, performs:
an operation of receiving a guide request of a first route to a first destination;
an operation of comparing an amount of power required for driving of the first route with a battery charge amount of the mobility device; and
an operation of determining a portion of the first route as an energy-saving mode driving section when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison,
wherein the operation of determining the portion of the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section includes: an operation of determining a traffic congestion section included in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section; and
an operation of determining at least a portion of other section excluding the traffic congestion section from a remaining section of the first route to the first destination as an additional energy-saving mode driving section.
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.
The additional limitations “mobility device”, “processor”, and “memory” merely integrate the abstract ideas into a technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “mobility device”, “processor”, and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components.
Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Dependent claims 2 and 10 are directed to transmitting a control request, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data transmission), and dependent claims 3 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea of “changing” a route. Dependent claims 4 and 15 are further directed to the abstract idea of determining a section in a route, and dependent claims 5-8, 12-14, and 16 are directed to displaying information, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying). Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-16 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa of US 20150241234 A1, filed 01/15/2015, hereinafter “Ogawa”.
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa discloses:
A method of a navigation device for energy-saving driving of a mobility device, the method comprising: (See at least Abstract: “A travel support device includes a mode planner. The mode planner selects one of a first mode, in which the state of charge of a battery is not maintained, and a second mode, in which the state of charge of the battery is maintained, based on a road load in each section on a travel route, thereby planning a travel mode…”)
receiving a guide request of a first route to a first destination; (See at least [0034]: “…when a destination is set by the driver, the navigation controller 121 identifies the latitude and longitude of the destination. Next, the navigation controller 121 searches a travel route from the current location of the vehicle 100 to the destination by referring to the map information database 122…”)
comparing an amount of power required for driving of the first route with a battery charge amount of the mobility device; and (See at least Fig. 2 & [0058]: “…the driving support 111 determines whether the sum E'' of consumption energy of sections from the section 1 to the section n is greater than the remaining charge of the battery 113 (Step S31)…”)
determining a portion of the first route as an energy-saving mode driving section when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison, (See at least Fig. 2, [0042]: “In general, efficiency tends to be better by adapting the traveling by the electric motor 114 to a section smaller in road load…Thus, the hybrid controller 110 is to assign the EV mode to a section smaller in road load…” & [0059]: “…if the driving support 111 determines that the sum E'' of consumption energy of the sections from the section 1 to the section n is greater than the remaining charge of the battery 113 (Step S31: YES), it sets the sections from the first section to the n.sup.th section arranged in order as the EV mode (Step S32)…”)
wherein the determining the portion of the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section includes: determining a traffic congestion section included in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section; and (See at least [0070]: “(4) When the travel route includes a traffic congestion section, a section which has traffic congestion is selected as the EV priority section. That is, a section that has traffic congestion and is lower in road load than at the time of normal traveling is selected as the EV priority section. Therefore, it is possible to increase the travel distance in the EV mode.”)
determining at least a portion of other section excluding the traffic congestion section from a remaining section of the first route to the first destination as an additional energy-saving mode driving section. (See at least [0069]: “(3) When the travel route includes both an ordinary road and an expressway, a section that includes the ordinary road is selected as the EV priority section. Therefore, it is possible to avoid an expressway that is high in road load and also secure the travel distance in the EV mode to a maximum extent.”)
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ogawa additionally discloses:
further comprising transmitting a control request for any one of actuators included in the mobility device to an electronic control unit (ECU) of the mobility device in accordance with a determination that the mobility device has entered the energy-saving mode driving section. (See at least [0028-0029]: “On the basis of the driving force distribution at the selected EV mode or HV mode, the hybrid controller 110 generates control commands of the battery actuator 112 about discharge and the like of the battery 113 and information on a control amount of the internal combustion engine 115 to be calculated by the engine controller 130…the hybrid controller 110 has functions to automatically switch a travel mode between the EV mode and the HV mode, thereby controlling the switching of the travel mode between the EV mode and the HV mode based on information on a road load necessary for traveling at each sections on a travel route of the vehicle 100 input from the navigation controller 121…”)
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ogawa additionally discloses:
further comprising determining a section from a first point included in the first route to the first destination where the battery charge amount of the mobility device is equal to or less than a reference value when driving in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section. (See at least [0065]: “…the travel mode may be replanned if it is determined that the vehicle 100 is traveling in the EV mode not only in a section other than the EV priority section, but also in the EV priory section when the remaining charge of the battery 113 is less than a necessary remaining charge of the battery. In this way, it is also possible to facilitate correct planning of the travel mode in each section of the travel route.”)
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa discloses:
A navigation system of a mobility device, comprising: (See at least Abstract: “A travel support device includes a mode planner. The mode planner selects one of a first mode, in which the state of charge of a battery is not maintained, and a second mode, in which the state of charge of the battery is maintained, based on a road load in each section on a travel route, thereby planning a travel mode…”)
at least one processor; and a memory storing a set of instructions, wherein the at least one processor, by executing the set of instructions, performs: (See at least [0017]: “…the navigation controller 121 and the engine controller 130 is a so-called electronic control unit (ECU) and includes a small computer having an arithmetic device and a storage device (memory)…”)
an operation of receiving a guide request of a first route to a first destination; (See at least [0034]: “…when a destination is set by the driver, the navigation controller 121 identifies the latitude and longitude of the destination. Next, the navigation controller 121 searches a travel route from the current location of the vehicle 100 to the destination by referring to the map information database 122…”)
an operation of comparing an amount of power required for driving of the first route with a battery charge amount of the mobility device; and (See at least Fig. 2 & [0058]: “…the driving support 111 determines whether the sum E'' of consumption energy of sections from the section 1 to the section n is greater than the remaining charge of the battery 113 (Step S31)…”)
an operation of determining a portion of the first route as an energy-saving mode driving section when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison, (See at least Fig. 2, [0042]: “In general, efficiency tends to be better by adapting the traveling by the electric motor 114 to a section smaller in road load…Thus, the hybrid controller 110 is to assign the EV mode to a section smaller in road load…” & [0059]: “…if the driving support 111 determines that the sum E'' of consumption energy of the sections from the section 1 to the section n is greater than the remaining charge of the battery 113 (Step S31: YES), it sets the sections from the first section to the n.sup.th section arranged in order as the EV mode (Step S32)…”)
wherein the operation of determining the portion of the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section includes: an operation of determining a traffic congestion section included in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section; and (See at least [0070]: “(4) When the travel route includes a traffic congestion section, a section which has traffic congestion is selected as the EV priority section. That is, a section that has traffic congestion and is lower in road load than at the time of normal traveling is selected as the EV priority section. Therefore, it is possible to increase the travel distance in the EV mode.”)
an operation of determining at least a portion of other section excluding the traffic congestion section from a remaining section of the first route to the first destination as an additional energy-saving mode driving section. (See at least [0069]: “(3) When the travel route includes both an ordinary road and an expressway, a section that includes the ordinary road is selected as the EV priority section. Therefore, it is possible to avoid an expressway that is high in road load and also secure the travel distance in the EV mode to a maximum extent.”)
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Ogawa additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of transmitting a control request for any one of actuators included in the mobility device to an electronic control unit (ECU) of the mobility device in accordance with a determination that the mobility device has entered the energy-saving mode driving section. (See at least [0028-0029]: “On the basis of the driving force distribution at the selected EV mode or HV mode, the hybrid controller 110 generates control commands of the battery actuator 112 about discharge and the like of the battery 113 and information on a control amount of the internal combustion engine 115 to be calculated by the engine controller 130…the hybrid controller 110 has functions to automatically switch a travel mode between the EV mode and the HV mode, thereby controlling the switching of the travel mode between the EV mode and the HV mode based on information on a road load necessary for traveling at each sections on a travel route of the vehicle 100 input from the navigation controller 121…”)
Regarding claim 15, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Ogawa additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of determining a section from a first point included in the first route to the first destination where the battery charge amount of the mobility device is equal to or less than a reference value when driving in the first route as the energy-saving mode driving section. (See at least [0065]: “…the travel mode may be replanned if it is determined that the vehicle 100 is traveling in the EV mode not only in a section other than the EV priority section, but also in the EV priory section when the remaining charge of the battery 113 is less than a necessary remaining charge of the battery. In this way, it is also possible to facilitate correct planning of the travel mode in each section of the travel route.”)
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Melatti of US 20190219412 A1, filed 01/16/2018, hereinafter “Melatti”.
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach:
further comprising changing the first route to a route passing through a charging station when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison.
Melatti teaches:
further comprising changing the first route to a route passing through a charging station when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison. (See at least [0091]: “…the locations of charging stations along the routes could be relayed to the user. If the routes to the destination require more miles than the available range of the vehicle, the control module can plan breaks along the route that have charge port accessibility…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa’s method with Melatti’s technique of changing the first route to a route passing through a charging station when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison. Doing so would be obvious “for longer trips where recharging would be needed along with rest stops” (See [0091] of Melatti).
Regarding claim 11, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of changing the first route to a route passing through a charging station when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison.
Melatti teaches:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of changing the first route to a route passing through a charging station when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison. (See at least [0091]: “…the locations of charging stations along the routes could be relayed to the user. If the routes to the destination require more miles than the available range of the vehicle, the control module can plan breaks along the route that have charge port accessibility…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa’s method with Melatti’s technique of changing the first route to a route passing through a charging station when it is determined that the battery charge amount of the mobility device for reaching the first destination is insufficient as a result of the comparison. Doing so would be obvious “for longer trips where recharging would be needed along with rest stops” (See [0091] of Melatti).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Bonne of US 20100087977 A1, filed 01/23/2008, hereinafter “Bonne”.
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: displaying a first map including the first route; and
displaying the first map by overlaying the energy-saving mode driving section on the first route displayed on the first map.
Bonne teaches:
further comprising: displaying a first map including the first route; and (See at least Figs. 1-2 & [0027]: “A schematic representation of a traveled route is recognizable in FIG. 1, freeways and state roads being noted by their particular numbers and locations being noted by their names…”)
displaying the first map by overlaying the energy-saving mode driving section on the first route displayed on the first map. (See at least Figs. 1-2 & [0028]: “The height profile of a traveled route shown in FIG. 2, for example, from Schutzenhof to Wollhovel here, can be obtained by changing over the display mode of the navigation system. There was a high power consumption in particular during the "ascent to Kermeter", because a motor vehicle naturally consumes more power uphill. This is shown by a dark color, for example, red on a display. In contrast, during the steep hill descent to Staumauer, a particularly energy-saving mode of driving was implemented, as illustrated by the light line having dark spots, which can be shown green on a display…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa’s method with Bonne’s technique of displaying a first map including the first route by overlaying the energy-saving mode driving section on the first route displayed on the first map. Doing so would be obvious so that “the driver can establish on which route sections he drove ecologically advantageously. Of course, such a representation can also be selected for route sections still to be traveled, if a hilly travel route having increased power consumption is to be expected, for example” (See [0027] of Bonne).
Regarding claim 12, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of displaying a first map including the first route; and
displaying the first map by overlaying the energy-saving mode driving section on the first route displayed on the first map.
Bonne teaches:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of displaying a first map including the first route; and (See at least Figs. 1-2 & [0027]: “A schematic representation of a traveled route is recognizable in FIG. 1, freeways and state roads being noted by their particular numbers and locations being noted by their names…”)
displaying the first map by overlaying the energy-saving mode driving section on the first route displayed on the first map. (See at least Figs. 1-2 & [0028]: “The height profile of a traveled route shown in FIG. 2, for example, from Schutzenhof to Wollhovel here, can be obtained by changing over the display mode of the navigation system. There was a high power consumption in particular during the "ascent to Kermeter", because a motor vehicle naturally consumes more power uphill. This is shown by a dark color, for example, red on a display. In contrast, during the steep hill descent to Staumauer, a particularly energy-saving mode of driving was implemented, as illustrated by the light line having dark spots, which can be shown green on a display…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa’s method with Bonne’s technique of displaying a first map including the first route by overlaying the energy-saving mode driving section on the first route displayed on the first map. Doing so would be obvious so that “the driver can establish on which route sections he drove ecologically advantageously. Of course, such a representation can also be selected for route sections still to be traveled, if a hilly travel route having increased power consumption is to be expected, for example” (See [0027] of Bonne).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Bonne and further in view of Wu and Melatti.
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa and Bonne in combination teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Bonne additionally teaches:
wherein the displaying the first map including the first route comprises displaying information on an energy-saving running time, (See at least Fig. 2 & [0028]: “…during the steep hill descent to Staumauer, a particularly energy-saving mode of driving was implemented, as illustrated by the light line having dark spots, which can be shown green on a display…”)
a reason for activating the energy-saving mode in each energy-saving mode driving section. (See at least Fig. 2 & [0028]: “The height profile of a traveled route shown in FIG. 2, for example, from Schutzenhof to Wollhovel here, can be obtained by changing over the display mode of the navigation system…during the steep hill descent to Staumauer, a particularly energy-saving mode of driving was implemented, as illustrated by the light line having dark spots, which can be shown green on a display…”)
Ogawa and Bonne in combination do not explicitly teach:
an amount of power saved by an energy-saving mode,
Wu teaches:
an amount of power saved by an energy-saving mode, (See at least Fig. 10 & [0174]: “…the driving planning module may further calculate, based on the selected target driving path and the target driving configuration information, energy that can be saved by energy consumed when the vehicle arrives at the destination from the departure place through the target driving path compared with energy consumed on a driving path with maximum energy consumption in other driving paths determined by the navigation module for the vehicle from the departure place to the destination, and display calculated saved energy in the user interface shown in FIG. 10…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa and Bonne’s method with Wu’s technique of displaying an amount of energy saved. Doing so would be obvious “to better provide user experience for the user and meet a user requirement” (See [0011] of Wu).
Ogawa, Bonne, and Wu in combination do not explicitly teach:
an additional available driving distance due to the energy-saving mode, and
Melatti teaches:
an additional available driving distance due to the energy-saving mode, and (See at least [0074]: “The control module 70 next identifies at least one of the potential routes as being an optimal route, and can show an energy savings associated with one or more of the routes. The routes could each be displayed with an associated message, for example. Example messages could include “ROUTE 1 SAVES 20 MILES IN RANGE,”…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa, Bonne, and Wu’s method with Melatti’s technique of displaying an additional available driving distance due to the energy-saving mode. Doing so would be obvious “to reveal alternative, energy efficient routes to the user” (See [0069] of Melatti).
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach:
further comprising displaying information on a distance driven in the energy-saving mode,
Bonne teaches:
further comprising displaying information on a distance driven in the energy-saving mode, (See at least Figs. 1-2 & [0028]: “…during the steep hill descent to Staumauer, a particularly energy-saving mode of driving was implemented, as illustrated by the light line having dark spots, which can be shown green on a display…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa’s method with Bonne’s technique of displaying information on a distance driven in the energy-saving mode. Doing so would be obvious so that “the driver can establish on which route sections he drove ecologically advantageously. Of course, such a representation can also be selected for route sections still to be traveled, if a hilly travel route having increased power consumption is to be expected, for example” (See [0027] of Bonne).
Ogawa and Bonne in combination do not explicitly teach:
an amount of power saved by driving in the energy-saving mode and
Wu teaches:
an amount of power saved by driving in the energy-saving mode and (See at least Fig. 10 & [0174]: “…the driving planning module may further calculate, based on the selected target driving path and the target driving configuration information, energy that can be saved by energy consumed when the vehicle arrives at the destination from the departure place through the target driving path compared with energy consumed on a driving path with maximum energy consumption in other driving paths determined by the navigation module for the vehicle from the departure place to the destination, and display calculated saved energy in the user interface shown in FIG. 10…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa and Bonne’s method with Wu’s technique of displaying an amount of energy saved. Doing so would be obvious “to better provide user experience for the user and meet a user requirement” (See [0011] of Wu).
Ogawa, Bonne, and Wu in combination do not explicitly teach:
an additional available driving distance caused by driving in the energy-saving mode in accordance with a determination that the mobility device has reached the first destination.
Melatti teaches:
an additional available driving distance caused by driving in the energy-saving mode in accordance with a determination that the mobility device has reached the first destination. (See at least [0074]: “The control module 70 next identifies at least one of the potential routes as being an optimal route, and can show an energy savings associated with one or more of the routes. The routes could each be displayed with an associated message, for example. Example messages could include “ROUTE 1 SAVES 20 MILES IN RANGE,”…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa, Bonne, and Wu’s method with Melatti’s technique of displaying an additional available driving distance caused by driving in the energy-saving mode in accordance with a determination that the mobility device has reached the first destination. Doing so would be obvious so that “the operating range and the possibility of return to the destination point can be seen by the driver without the driver having to perform an elaborate route guidance in a navigation device” (See [0044] of Melatti).
Regarding claim 13, Ogawa and Bonne in combination teach all the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Bonne additionally teaches:
wherein the operation of displaying the first map including the first route comprises an operation of displaying information on an energy-saving running time, (See at least Fig. 2 & [0028]: “…during the steep hill descent to Staumauer, a particularly energy-saving mode of driving was implemented, as illustrated by the light line having dark spots, which can be shown green on a display…”)
a reason for activating the energy-saving mode in each energy-saving mode driving section. (See at least Fig. 2 & [0028]: “The height profile of a traveled route shown in FIG. 2, for example, from Schutzenhof to Wollhovel here, can be obtained by changing over the display mode of the navigation system…during the steep hill descent to Staumauer, a particularly energy-saving mode of driving was implemented, as illustrated by the light line having dark spots, which can be shown green on a display…”)
Ogawa and Bonne in combination do not explicitly teach:
an amount of power saved by an energy-saving mode,
Wu teaches:
an amount of power saved by an energy-saving mode, (See at least Fig. 10 & [0174]: “…the driving planning module may further calculate, based on the selected target driving path and the target driving configuration information, energy that can be saved by energy consumed when the vehicle arrives at the destination from the departure place through the target driving path compared with energy consumed on a driving path with maximum energy consumption in other driving paths determined by the navigation module for the vehicle from the departure place to the destination, and display calculated saved energy in the user interface shown in FIG. 10…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa and Bonne’s method with Wu’s technique of displaying an amount of energy saved. Doing so would be obvious “to better provide user experience for the user and meet a user requirement” (See [0011] of Wu).
Ogawa, Bonne, and Wu in combination do not explicitly teach:
an additional available driving distance due to the energy-saving mode, and
Melatti teaches:
an additional available driving distance due to the energy-saving mode, and (See at least [0074]: “The control module 70 next identifies at least one of the potential routes as being an optimal route, and can show an energy savings associated with one or more of the routes. The routes could each be displayed with an associated message, for example. Example messages could include “ROUTE 1 SAVES 20 MILES IN RANGE,”…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa, Bonne, and Wu’s method with Melatti’s technique of displaying an additional available driving distance due to the energy-saving mode. Doing so would be obvious “to reveal alternative, energy efficient routes to the user” (See [0069] of Melatti).
Regarding claim 16, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of displaying information on a distance driven in an energy-saving mode,
Bonne teaches:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of displaying information on a distance driven in an energy-saving mode, (See at least Figs. 1-2 & [0028]: “…during the steep hill descent to Staumauer, a particularly energy-saving mode of driving was implemented, as illustrated by the light line having dark spots, which can be shown green on a display…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa’s method with Bonne’s technique of displaying information on a distance driven in the energy-saving mode. Doing so would be obvious so that “the driver can establish on which route sections he drove ecologically advantageously. Of course, such a representation can also be selected for route sections still to be traveled, if a hilly travel route having increased power consumption is to be expected, for example” (See [0027] of Bonne).
Ogawa and Bonne in combination do not explicitly teach:
an amount of power saved by driving in the energy-saving mode and
Wu teaches:
an amount of power saved by driving in the energy-saving mode and (See at least Fig. 10 & [0174]: “…the driving planning module may further calculate, based on the selected target driving path and the target driving configuration information, energy that can be saved by energy consumed when the vehicle arrives at the destination from the departure place through the target driving path compared with energy consumed on a driving path with maximum energy consumption in other driving paths determined by the navigation module for the vehicle from the departure place to the destination, and display calculated saved energy in the user interface shown in FIG. 10…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa and Bonne’s method with Wu’s technique of displaying an amount of energy saved. Doing so would be obvious “to better provide user experience for the user and meet a user requirement” (See [0011] of Wu).
Ogawa, Bonne, and Wu in combination do not explicitly teach:
an additional available driving distance caused by driving in the energy-saving mode in accordance with a determination that the mobility device has reached the first destination.
Melatti teaches:
an additional available driving distance caused by driving in the energy-saving mode in accordance with a determination that the mobility device has reached the first destination. (See at least [0074]: “The control module 70 next identifies at least one of the potential routes as being an optimal route, and can show an energy savings associated with one or more of the routes. The routes could each be displayed with an associated message, for example. Example messages could include “ROUTE 1 SAVES 20 MILES IN RANGE,”…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa, Bonne, and Wu’s method with Melatti’s technique of displaying an additional available driving distance caused by driving in the energy-saving mode in accordance with a determination that the mobility device has reached the first destination. Doing so would be obvious so that “the operating range and the possibility of return to the destination point can be seen by the driver without the driver having to perform an elaborate route guidance in a navigation device” (See [0044] of Melatti).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Bonne and further in view of Melatti.
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach:
further comprising displaying an information on a second route to the first destination while the mobility device is driven through the first route to the first destination,
wherein the information on the second route includes an information on an amount of power saved due to driving of the second route compared to driving of the first route and an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) information changed by the driving of the second route.
Melatti teaches:
further comprising displaying an information on a second route to the first destination while the mobility device is driven through the first route to the first destination, (See at least [0065]: “…the preferred route is provided to the user by initiating a display of the preferred route on the display 78 within the electrified vehicle 60…” & [0069]: “…the method 200 continually calculates routes to the destination. New routes can be identified based on roads opening or closing, traffic problems clearing, etc….”)
wherein the information on the second route includes an information on an amount of power saved due to driving of the second route compared to driving of the first route and (See at least [0069-0070]: “…At a step 220, the method 200 determines whether any of the routes to the destination provide an energy savings. That is, step 220 assesses whether there is a reduction in energy consumption associated with traveling along an alternate route. If there is an energy savings associated with an alternate route, the method 200 displays the alternate route to the user at a step 230 as a new preferred route…”)
an Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) information changed by the driving of the second route. (See at least [0090]: “An example warning can include a message on the display 78 stating “SEVERE BLIZZARD DETECTED IN 1.5 HOURS. ALTERNATE ROUTE ADDS 2 HOURS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO STOP, CONTINUE, OR USE ALTERNATE ROUTE?” The message can thus prompt the user to transition to the alternative route and indicate how much time will be added to the journey if the user takes the alternative route.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa’s method with Melatti’s technique of displaying information on a second route to the first destination including an amount of power saved due to driving the second route compared to the first route, and an ETA changed by the driving of the second route. Doing so would be obvious “to reveal alternative, energy efficient routes to the user” (See [0069] of Melatti).
Regarding claim 14, Ogawa discloses all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of displaying an information on a second route to the first destination while the mobility device is driven through the first route to the first destination, and
the information on the second route includes information on an amount of power saved due to driving of the second route compared to driving of the first route and
an ETA information changed by the driving of the second route.
Melatti teaches:
wherein the at least one processor further performs an operation of displaying an information on a second route to the first destination while the mobility device is driven through the first route to the first destination, and (See at least [0065]: “…the preferred route is provided to the user by initiating a display of the preferred route on the display 78 within the electrified vehicle 60…” & [0069]: “…the method 200 continually calculates routes to the destination. New routes can be identified based on roads opening or closing, traffic problems clearing, etc….”)
the information on the second route includes information on an amount of power saved due to driving of the second route compared to driving of the first route and (See at least [0069-0070]: “…At a step 220, the method 200 determines whether any of the routes to the destination provide an energy savings. That is, step 220 assesses whether there is a reduction in energy consumption associated with traveling along an alternate route. If there is an energy savings associated with an alternate route, the method 200 displays the alternate route to the user at a step 230 as a new preferred route…”)
an ETA information changed by the driving of the second route. (See at least [0090]: “An example warning can include a message on the display 78 stating “SEVERE BLIZZARD DETECTED IN 1.5 HOURS. ALTERNATE ROUTE ADDS 2 HOURS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO STOP, CONTINUE, OR USE ALTERNATE ROUTE?” The message can thus prompt the user to transition to the alternative route and indicate how much time will be added to the journey if the user takes the alternative route.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ogawa’s method with Melatti’s technique of displaying information on a second route to the first destination including an amount of power saved due to driving the second route compared to the first route, and an ETA changed by the driving of the second route. Doing so would be obvious “to reveal alternative, energy efficient routes to the user” (See [0069] of Melatti).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220146274 A1 is directed to navigation device that searches for a traveling route based on a predicted energy remaining amount of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikki Molina whose telephone number is (571) 272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT. 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, Aniss Chad, can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662