DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/976,495 filed on 12/11/2024.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made NON-FINAL.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/976,495 filed on 12/11/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The abstract has more than 150 words. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following: Claim 11 is directed towards a server but it is dependent on claim 1 which is directed towards a computer system. Therefore, claim 11 appears to be directed towards two separate (but not distinct) inventions. It is recommended that the claim 11 should be re-write so that it is in independent form and includes all the limitations from claim 1.
Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following: Claims 19-20 are directed towards a computer program and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, but they are dependent on claim 12 which is directed towards a method. Therefore, claims 19-20 appear to be directed towards two separate (but not distinct) inventions. It is recommended that the claims 19-20 should be re-write so that it is in independent form and includes all the limitations from claim 12.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 is rejected because the claim limitations reciting “and calculate a maximum load data for the vehicle for the additional route based on an updated present energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs, and if the weight of the additional cargo exceeds the maximum load data, calculate a new route with minimum number of charging stops for the vehicle to reach the destination of the additional route with the additional cargo and, provide an output indicating the new route”. It is unclear how recalculating a route with a minimum number of charging stops resolves an issue of the cargo weight exceeds the maximum load limit. Technically, more cargo weights mean less driving range of EV, therefore requesting more frequently charging stops. The claim does not explain how a routing adjustment address an apparent vehicle load limitation. Appropriate clarification/correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the Office will interpret the limitation as any teaching regarding determining a route disclosed by the references.
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, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 12 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a machine, claim 12 is directed towards a method.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claims 1, 12 recite estimating, based on the load data and the topology for the planned routes, the power and energy demand for the planned routes; and calculating, based on the estimated power and energy demand for the planned routes and the obtained energy status data and health data, a distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet such that the number of electrical energy storage packs utilized by the fleet for completing the planned routes is minimized and a state of health parameter of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet fulfills at least one predetermined criterion. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a computer system”. This limitation, as drafted, is a mathematical relation and mental process. That is, other than reciting “a computer system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “a computer system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at the collected planned routes data, energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet, load data for cargo and performing a simple calculation of a distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet. The mere nominal recitation of “a computer system” does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical relation and mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical relation and mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim 1 recites additional elements of obtaining data of a set of planned routes for a vehicle fleet comprising at least partly electrified vehicles each having an electrical energy storage system comprising at least one electrical energy storage pack, the data including at least topology data for the planned routes, obtain energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet, acquire load data for cargo to be transported along at least some of the planned routes. The acquiring steps from the one or more of the mobilities and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of “provide output data indicating the distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet.” is a form of insignificant post-solution activity. The “computer system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose computer. The computer 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. 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 acquiring steps were considered to be 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 specification does not provide any indication that the computer system is anything other than a conventional computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim 2-11, 13-20 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-20 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1 and 12.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed towards a “computer program product.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase includes transitory media such as signals and carrier waves which are transitory and, therefore, non-statutory. The Office recommends amending the preamble of these claims so that the term “non-transitory” is recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde (US9079505B1) in view of Masquelier (US20230237855A1), further in view of Shumway (US 20250187491 A1) and Aykol (US 20200269722 A1).
Regarding claims 1, and 11-12, 19-20:
Hyde teaches:
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain data of a set of planned routes for a vehicle fleet comprising at least partly electrified vehicles each having an electrical energy storage system comprising at least one electrical energy storage pack, the data including at least topology data for the planned routes, (Hyde, Col.8, lines 38-40, “a computer-based system for managing (e.g. controlling, monitoring, coordinating, etc.) operation of the vehicle and vehicle systems”, Col.20, lines 1-3, “obtaining data relating to the vehicle in data categories from data sources, determining a route and duty for the vehicle”, Col.45, lines 18-21, “the fleet management system identifies options (among other considerations) for configuration of vehicles and vehicle systems and for routes/duties for vehicles in the fleet”, Col.24, lines 58, “route topography and grade,”, abstract, “The energy storage system may comprise a battery system for a vehicle such as an electric vehicle or hybrid-electric vehicle. Vehicles may be in a group or fleet”)
obtain energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet, (Hyde, Col.23, lines 33-35, “state of health for the battery module, state of charge for the battery module”, abstract, “Vehicles may be in a group or fleet”)
acquire load data for cargo to be transported along at least some of the planned routes; (Hyde, Col.24, lines 49-50, “other programming or user input information (e.g. as to preferences, usage, duty/load, etc.)”)
estimate, based on the load data and the topology for the planned routes, the power and energy demand for the planned routes; (Hyde teaches a fleet of vehicles equipped with modular battery packs and disclose that data including load data and the topology for the planned routes may be calculated or estimated for use by a management system, see Col.22, lines 26-27, ”Items of data may be measured or calculated (or estimated)”, , Col.24, lines 55-60, “The predicted conditions may comprise operating conditions of the vehicle expected in the duty, such as… route topography and grade,”, Col.24, lines 49-50, “other … information (e.g. … duty/load)”, Furthermore, Hyde discloses that these data are evaluated to predict the power and energy demand of the battery packs for the planned routes and operate the battery system accordingly see Col.25, lines 18-20, “battery system…in advance of anticipated increased demand such as on uphill grades or entering an expressway from an on-ramp” .”)
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Masquelier teaches:
and calculate, based on the estimated power and energy demand for the planned routes and the obtained energy status data and health data, (Masquelier, claim 1, “determining, based on the degree of battery pack wear and the current status of the one or more battery packs, a battery pack distribution schedule for the fleet of electric vehicles”, para[02], “ensures each vehicle has a sufficient charge to complete an assigned transit route ”)
a distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet (Masquelier, para[06], “ enable operators of a fleet of electric vehicles to distribute battery packs among vehicles”)
and provide output data … (Masquelier, para[32], “a data output device (e.g., visual display, audio speakers)”
indicating the distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet. (Masquelier, para[74], “the battery pack distribution schedule comprises an indication of two battery packs that are to be swapped.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Masquelier in order to include estimate, based on the load data and the topology for the planned routes, the power and energy demand for the planned routes; and calculate, based on the estimated power and energy demand for the planned routes and the obtained energy status data and health data, a distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet such that the number of electrical energy storage packs utilized by the fleet for completing the planned routes, and provide output data indicating the distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet.. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Shumway teaches:
such that the number of electrical energy storage packs utilized by the fleet for completing the planned routes is minimized (Shumway, para[90], “will permit the owner or operator of the commercial vehicle to minimize the number of battery packs required ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Shumway in order to include a distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet such that the number of electrical energy storage packs utilized by the fleet for completing the planned routes is minimized. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Aykol teaches:
and a state of health parameter of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet fulfills at least one predetermined criterion (Aykol, para[74], “the state of health of the battery pack 200 corresponds to a particular threshold”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Aykol in order to include a state of health parameter of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet fulfills at least one predetermined criterion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde (US9079505B1) in view of Masquelier (US20230237855A1), further in view of Shumway (US 20250187491 A1), Aykol (US 20200269722 A1) and Luo (US 20230211701 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Hyde in view of Masquelier, Shumway, Aykol, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Luo teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined criterion includes that the spread in state of the health’s of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet is less than a predetermined spread threshold. (Luo, claim 16, “state of health being less than or equal to a first threshold”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Luo in order to include wherein the predetermined criterion includes that the spread in state of the health’s of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet is less than a predetermined spread threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Regarding claim 3:
Hyde in view of Masquelier, Shumway, Aykol, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Luo teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one predetermined criterion includes maintaining a uniform wear of the electrical energy storage packs within the fleet in terms of both capacity fade and power fade according to respective predetermined spread thresholds. (Luo, para[159], “The secondary battery was subjected to a cyclic charge-discharge test by the above approach, a discharging capacity after each cycle was denoted until a discharging capacity fade of the secondary battery was 80% of the first cycle discharging capacity, ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Luo in order to include w wherein the at least one predetermined criterion includes maintaining a uniform wear of the electrical energy storage packs within the fleet in terms of both capacity fade and power fade according to respective predetermined spread thresholds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Claim(s) 4-5, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde (US9079505B1) in view of Shumway (US 20250187491 A1), further in view of Aykol (US 20200269722 A1) and Jasud (US 20240408956 A1)
Regarding claims 4, and 13:
Hyde in view of Masquelier, Shumway, Aykol, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 12. Hyde teaches:
and the topology of the route for the at least one vehicle(Hyde, Col.24, lines 58, “route topography and grade,”)
provide an output that indicates a deviation from the prior load data of the cargo assigned to the at least one vehicle. (Hyde,Col.25, lines 43-46, ” the management system will provide a communication to the operator (and others), will adjust the …duty ”)
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Jasud teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire torque demand data from at least one of the vehicles when on a planned route to complete a mission; (Jasud, para[24], “torque … demands of a particular vehicle”)
estimate a new load weight of the at least one vehicle based on the torque demand data; (Jasud, para[106], “the vehicle load may be determined based on torque demands of the first electric motor and the second electric motor.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Jasud in order to include wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire torque demand data from at least one of the vehicles when on a planned route to complete a mission, estimate a new load weight of the at least one vehicle based on the torque demand data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Regarding claims 5, and 14:
Hyde in view of Masquelier, Shumway, Aykol, Jasud, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4 and 13. Hyde teaches:
The computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: replan the route for the vehicle based on …and the energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage system of the vehicle, and provide an output of the replanned route. (Hyde,Col.25, lines 34-46, ” if any battery module monitored is determined to be exhibiting a problem or potential malfunction, the management system can be con figured to adapt to the condition… the management system will provide a communication to the operator (and others), will adjust the program/routine for the route or duty ”)
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Jasud teaches:
…the estimated new load weight(Jasud, para[106], “the vehicle load may be determined based on torque demands of the first electric motor and the second electric motor.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Jasud in order to include replan the route for the vehicle based on the estimated new load weight and the energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage system of the vehicle, and provide an output of the replanned route. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Claim(s) 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde (US9079505B1) in view of Masquelier (US20230237855A1), , further in view of Shumway (US 20250187491 A1), Aykol (US 20200269722 A1), Jasud (US 20240408956 A1) and Gerrese (US 12128921 B2).
Regarding claims 6, and 15:
Hyde in view of Masquelier, Shumway, Aykol, Jasud, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4 and 13. Hyde teaches:
The computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: evaluate the replanned route in view of the energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage system of the vehicle, (Hyde, Col.17, lines 33-36, “evaluating of system/vehicle/component performance…routine development and modification,”)
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Gerrese teaches:
and add stops to the replanned route for electrical charging of the electrical energy storage system based on the outcome of the evaluation.( Gerrese, claim 17, “wherein adjusting the autonomous vehicle route includes adding an intermediate stop based on a gameplay choice.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Gerrese in order to include add stops to the replanned route for electrical charging of the electrical energy storage system based on the outcome of the evaluation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Claim(s) 7-10, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde (US9079505B1) in view of Masquelier (US20230237855A1), further in view of Shumway (US 20250187491 A1), Aykol (US 20200269722 A1), Murray (US20210192452A1).
Regarding claims 7, and 16:
Hyde in view of Masquelier, Shumway, Aykol, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 12. Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Masquelier teaches:
wherein, calculating the distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet is further based on the maximum load data for each of the vehicles. (Masquelier, para[51], “optimize distribution of battery packs among vehicles”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Masquelier in order to include calculating the distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet is further based on the maximum load data for each of the vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Murray teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: calculate a maximum load data for each of the vehicles for at least some of the planned routes based on the present energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs, (Murray, para [103], “weight sensor 16 may detect that the total weight of cargo already in the loadspace meets (or exceeds a threshold percentage of) a weight limit of the vehicle”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Murray in order to include wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: calculate a maximum load data for each of the vehicles for at least some of the planned routes based on the present energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Regarding claims 8, and 17:
Hyde in view of Shumway, Aykol, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 12. Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Murray teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a message indicating a request for additional cargo for one of the vehicles of the fleet and an additional route for the vehicle, (Murray, claim 2, “receive a new delivery or pick-up request comprising new cargo data and new location data;”, claim 6 “determine a set of feasible routes between the first dispatched vehicle and the new location;”)
and calculate a maximum load data for the vehicle for the additional routes based on an updated present energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs, (Murray, para [103], “weight sensor 16 may detect that the total weight of cargo already in the loadspace meets (or exceeds a threshold percentage of) a weight limit of the vehicle”, para [101], “the calculation of effective vehicle range based on the data from the battery charge sensor”)
and if the weight of the additional cargo exceeds the maximum load data, provide an output message indicating to redistribute the cargo to another vehicle of the fleet. (Murray, claim 2, “identify a first dispatched vehicle containing the new cargo for delivery or having sufficient spare loadspace capacity for pick-up of the new cargo”, and para[109], “The fleet manager system 24 … determines that…the first vehicle 30 is unable to fulfil the new delivery request”, and para [104], “The controller 12 sends the consolidated logistics data to the fleet manager system 24 through a two-way communication channel”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Murray in order to include receive a message indicating a request for additional cargo for one of the vehicles of the fleet and an additional route for the vehicle, and calculate a maximum load data for the vehicle for the additional routes based on an updated present energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs, and if the weight of the additional cargo exceeds the maximum load data, provide an output message indicating to redistribute the cargo to another vehicle of the fleet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Regarding claim 9:
Hyde in view of Masquelier, Shumway, Aykol, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 12. Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Murray teaches:
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a message indicating a request for additional cargo for one of the vehicles of the fleet and an additional route for the vehicle, (Murray, claim 2, “receive a new delivery or pick-up request comprising new cargo data and new location data;”, claim 6 “determine a set of feasible routes between the first dispatched vehicle and the new location”)
and calculate a maximum load data for the vehicle for the additional route based on an updated present energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs, (Murray, para [103], “weight sensor 16 may detect that the total weight of cargo already in the loadspace meets (or exceeds a threshold percentage of) a weight limit of the vehicle”, para [101], “the calculation of effective vehicle range based on the data from the battery charge sensor”)
and if the weight of the additional cargo exceeds the maximum load data, calculate a new route with minimum number of charging stops for the vehicle to reach the destination of the additional route with the additional cargo and, provide an output indicating the new route. (Murray, claim 14, “determining a set of feasible routes between the first dispatched vehicle and the new location”, and para [104], “The controller 12 sends the consolidated logistics data to the fleet manager system 24 through a two-way communication channel”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Murray in order to include receive a message indicating a request for additional cargo for one of the vehicles of the fleet and an additional route for the vehicle, and calculate a maximum load data for the vehicle for the additional route based on an updated present energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs, and if the weight of the additional cargo exceeds the maximum load data, calculate a new route with minimum number of charging stops for the vehicle to reach the destination of the additional route with the additional cargo and, provide an output indicating the new route. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Regarding claims 10, and 18:
Hyde in view of Masquelier, Shumway, Aykol, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 12. Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Murray teaches:
A computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: calculate a maximum load data for each vehicle for each route and topology based on the energy status data and health data of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet, (Murray, para [103], “weight sensor 16 may detect that the total weight of cargo already in the loadspace meets (or exceeds a threshold percentage of) a weight limit of the vehicle”, para [101], “the calculation of effective vehicle range based on the data from the battery charge sensor”)
distribute a first set of cargo among a set of vehicles, and, calculate, based on the estimated power and energy demand for the planned routes and the obtained energy status data and health data, (Murray, claim 2, “identify a first dispatched vehicle containing the new cargo for delivery”, para [101], “the calculation of effective vehicle range based on the data from the battery charge sensor”)
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Shumway teaches:
a distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the remaining vehicles of the fleet such that the number of electrical energy storage packs utilized by the fleet for completing the planned routes of the remaining cargo is minimized (Shumway, para[90], “will permit the owner or operator of the commercial vehicle to minimize the number of battery packs required ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Shumway in order to include a distribution of the electrical energy storage packs among the vehicles of the fleet such that the number of electrical energy storage packs utilized by the fleet for completing the planned routes is minimized. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Hyde does not explicitly teach, but Aykol teaches:
and a state of health parameter of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet fulfills at least one predetermined criterion (Aykol, para[74], “the state of health of the battery pack 200 corresponds to a particular threshold”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to modify System and method for management of a fleet of vehicles from Hyde to include these above teachings from Aykol in order to include a state of health parameter of the electrical energy storage packs of the fleet fulfills at least one predetermined criterion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so the fleet could operate efficiently.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Graham (US20150345962A1) teaches a method of incorporating a schedule into a driving route used with an on-board navigation system integrated into a vehicle.
Kentley (US20170123421A1) teaches methods are configured to manage a fleet of autonomous vehicles. In particular, a method may include determining destination locations for autonomous vehicles, calculating, at an autonomous vehicle service platform, delivery locations to which the autonomous vehicles are directed, identifying data to implement a delivery location associated with an autonomous vehicle, and transmitting data representing a command to the autonomous vehicle.
Seto (US20240257003A1) teaches a transportation schedule generation system and method and is suitable for application to a transportation schedule generation apparatus that generates a transportation schedule in a transportation service transporting loads by motor vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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 on (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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664