DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claims 18 to 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the first line of each of claims 18 to 20, “computer program code instructions configured to” should apparently read, “computer program code instructions are configured to”, for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s)1, or by what steps or procedure, he determined a route that satisfies any or all electric vehicle charging constraints of the one or more vehicles and any or all navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles, as are covered and encompassed by the claims. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced possession of the full scope2 of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
For example, if the vehicle owner has $10 to spend on charging and it is below freezing outside, and the driver wishes (for religious reasons) to be off the road by sundown and/or not traverse any work zones, then by what algorithm(s) or by what steps/procedure was the route that satisfied the charging constraints and at least one of the one or more navigation constraints determined, from the teachings of the specification?
Or, taking an example from the specification, if the navigation constraint was a preference to maintain a certain proximity to another vehicle (e.g., perhaps any vehicle or a particular vehicle?) while travelling along the route, then by what algorithm(s) or by what steps/procedure was the route itself determined that satisfied this constraint, from the teachings of the specification? Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result
Regarding claims 7 and 15, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, he based determining the route based on an optimization of one or more of an arrival time at a destination and maintaining a predetermined proximity between the one or more vehicles. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
In this respect, published paragraph [0055] of the specification indicates:
[0055] In one example, determining the route is based on an optimization of one or more of an arrival time at a destination and maintaining a predetermined proximity between the one or more vehicles. For example, the processing module 206 of FIG. 2. may be configured to calculate a route that enables both electric vehicles to charge at different types of chargers along the route. In this example, the processing module 206 may be configured to analyze the various electric vehicle charging constraints of each electric vehicle to ensure that both electric vehicles arrive at a destination by a certain time and maintain a predetermined proximity while traveling along the route.
However, other than stating a desired result of the analyzing (e.g., that both of the vehicles are/should be ensured of arriving at the destination by a certain time and that both of the vehicles will/should maintain a certain proximity while traveling on the rule, no algorithm(s) or steps/procedure are apparently described, in sufficient detail, for achieving the desired result, and no algorithm’s that would lead to any “optimization” are apparently described. For example, if the route had traffic lights or stop signs at four-way stops, by what algorithm(s) was it ensured that the vehicles would remain within a predetermined proximity, when the traffic light might be “red” for the following vehicle, or it might be another car’s turn (e.g., following FIFO courtesy rules) to advance through the intersection after the leading car advances through the intersection? And by what algorithm(s) was the arrival time at the destination and/or the maintaining of the predetermined proximity ensured? Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
In this respect, see e.g., MPEP 2161.01, I., which indicates, “[O]riginal claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”
See also e.g., MPEP 2163, I., A. which indicates, “However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. . . . An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function.”
See also MPEP 2163.03, V. which indicates, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”
Claims 1 to 20 are 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.
In claim 1, line 2, in claim 9, line 4, and in claim 17, line 4, “vehicle charging constraints of one or more vehicles” are indefinite and unclear, not being reasonably certain in scope from the teachings of the specification, and with indeterminate metes and bounds.3 For example, is the price (e.g., per kilowatt hour, etc.) of electric charge a charging constraint, if the vehicle owner is on a fixed income, is the temperature or age or state-of-health of the battery a vehicle charging constraint, if they might possibly (?) constrain vehicle charging, are electric grid limitations or charging regulations or ambient conditions or the number of available chargers at a charging facility vehicle charging constraints, if they might (?) affect in some possible way the manner in which the vehicle (or vehicles) can be charged, are the hours of operation of or even the time of day or day of the week be a “vehicle charging constraint”, if the vehicle cannot be charged when the charging station/charging stations is/are closed? Why or why not? And when and/or under what conditions might the real-time updates (e.g., “charge levels” in paragraph [0052]) of other (e.g., “or more” in published paragraph [0052]) vehicles possibly be/affect a vehicle charging constraint of “one” vehicle, from the teachings of the specification?
In this respect, published paragraph [0052] of the specification indicates:
[0052] . . . In one embodiment, the electric vehicle charging constraints include the type of charger that the electric vehicle is capable of utilizing. In another embodiment, the electric vehicle charging constraints may include the charging profile associated with the electric vehicle. For example, the charging profile of an electric vehicle may include information that indicates the differences in required charging time based on the level charger (e.g., Level 1 EV charger, Level 2 EV charger, etc.) utilized. In another example, the charging profiles of the one or more electric vehicles include a set of instructions that an electric vehicle charger follows for optimal charging of the one or more batteries of a vehicle. In another example, the charging profiles may also include an electric vehicle charge start time, an initial battery state-of-charge (SOC), and a total charging time. In another example, the electric vehicle charging constraints include a real-time update of current charge levels associated with the one or more electric vehicles.
Moreover, published paragraph [0059] indicates:
[0059] . . . In one example, the new route according to the designation of the given vehicle as the lead vehicle may be based on analysis of electric vehicle charging constraints associated with the lead vehicle. For example, if the lead vehicle has a battery charge level of less than 30%, then the determined new route may include a stop at the nearest electric vehicle charge point that can accommodate the lead vehicle. . . .
However, this does not clarify, with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds or any or all phenomena or conditions or limiting factors that might be considered to be a “vehicle charging constraint”, from the teachings of the specification, by one having ordinary skill in the art.
In claim 1, lines 5ff, in claim 9, lines 7ff, and in claim 17, lines 7ff, “determin[ing] a route that satisfies the electric vehicle charging constraints . . . and at least one of the one or more navigation constraints” is indefinite in the claim context and from the teachings of the specification, because i) the specification teaches that the vehicle charging constrains may “include a real-time update of current charge levels associated with the one or more electric vehicles”, and ii) the specification teaches that navigation constraints may include a preference to “maintain a certain proximity to another vehicle while travelling along the route”. Particularly how would a route itself/could a route itself be said to “satisfy” a real-time update of current charge levels associated with the one or more electric vehicles, or a “preference to maintain a certain proximity to another vehicle while travelling along the route”, from the teachings of the specification?
In claim 1, lines 3ff, in claim 9, lines 5ff, and in claim 17, lines 5ff, “one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles” is indefinite and unclear, not being reasonably certain in scope from the teachings of the specification, and with indeterminate metes and bounds. In this respect, published paragraph [0023] indicates that the navigation constraints might be “associated with the passengers of the one or more vehicles”, and published paragraph [0053] of the specification indicates:
[0053] . . . In one example, the input/output module 202 of FIG. 2 is configured to receive information corresponding to one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles. In one embodiment, the one or more navigation constraints may include the addresses of one or more destinations. In one scenario, a passenger of a vehicle may input the addresses via a user interface associated with the vehicle. By way of example, this may occur through a device coupled to the video or user equipment (e.g., mobile phone) that is in communication with the vehicle. In another embodiment, the one or more navigation constraints may include preferences related to the operation of the vehicle. For example, the one or more navigation constraints may include a preference of utilizing a freeway as opposed to a tollway. In another example, a user may request to not travel above or below a certain speed. In another embodiment, the one or more navigation constraints may include preferences related to another vehicle. For example, the one or more navigation constraints may include a preference to maintain a certain proximity to another vehicle while travelling along the route. In another embodiment, the one or more navigation constraints my include one or more points of interest that a user is interested in viewing along the route.
However, this does not clarify, with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds or any or all phenomena or conditions or limiting factors that might be considered to be a “navigation constraint” that are somehow “associated with the . . . vehicle[s]”, from the teachings of the specification, by one having ordinary skill in the art. For example, is a traffic light or a stop/yield sign on the route a “navigation constraint associated with the . . . vehicle[s]”, if the vehicle must obey the traffic signal/sign? Is a two-lane road or are city limits navigation constraint(s)? Is a bridge closure or a work zone on the route a navigation constraint? Is the time of day, or current or historical traffic, or the availability of insurance-on-demand a navigation constraint? Is a desired E.T.A. (estimated time of arrival) a navigation constraint? Why or why not?:
In claim 2, line 2, in claim 10, line 3, and in claim 18, line 3, “aspects affecting the electric vehicle charging constraints” is fully indefinite and unclear, not being reasonably certain in scope from the teachings of the specification, with indeterminate metes and bounds (e.g., might Daylight Savings Time or a foreign war near the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea/Suez Canal or DOT grants for a National Charging Network or tax credits for electric vehicles be “aspects affecting the electric vehicle charging constraints”? Why or why not?), with both “aspects” and “affecting” being vague, indefinite, and facially subjective (e.g., “aspects” of what particularly defined and delimited particularly how, and “affecting” in what way particularly?) In this respect and additionally, “affecting” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification. For example, if the “aspect” is a concert, a sporting event, or weather (as the examples of “aspects” provided at published paragraph [0057]), then how would that exemplary aspect possibly “affect” e.g., the type of charger the electric vehicle is capable of using, the charging profile associated with the vehicle, the electric vehicle charge time, the initial battery state-of-charge (SOC), the total charging time, of the updated current charge levels associated with the one or more electric vehicles, which are the examples given for the electric vehicle charging constraints at published paragraph [0052], from the teachings of the specification?
In claim 4, lines 2ff, and in claim 12, lines 3ff, “a given vehicle of the one or more vehicles as a lead vehicle” is indefinite and unclear, e.g., a lead vehicle leading what when there is only “one” vehicle as the claim encompasses and allows, why is that one vehicle given three names in the claim, e.g., the “one” vehicle, the “given vehicle”, and the “lead vehicle”, and “given” by whom or what in the claim?)
In claim 5, lines 2ff, and in claim 13, lines 4ff, “one or more operating parameters in the lead vehicle” is indefinite and unclear, with the “operating parameters” having indeterminate metes and bounds. (See e.g., published paragraphs [0027] and [0060] of the specification.)
In claim 5, line 4, and in claim 13, line 6, “the other one or more vehicles” is indefinite and unclear, with insufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 6, a transitional phrased between the preamble and body of the claim is missing, rendering the claim unclear.
In claim 6, line 9, in claim 14, line 10, and in claim 20, line 10, “the new route” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear (e.g., in this referring back to the “modified route”? If so, why is it being called “new”, and “new” relative to what or in what respect, rather than “modified”, as logic might dictate?)
In claim 7, line 1, and in claim 15, line 2, “an optimization” is indefinite and unclear from the teachings of the specification, being facially subjective with no objective standard provided in the specification for ascertaining the scope of the term. See MPEP 2173.05(b), IV. See e.g., published paragraph [0055].
In claim 7, lines 2ff, and in claim 15, line 3, “a predetermined proximity between the one or more vehicles” is indefinite in scope (e.g., how can proximity be determined between “one” vehicle?)
In claim 13, lines 4ff, “the lead vehicle” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim(s) 1 to 20, while (each) reciting a statutory category of invention defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), is/are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, the recited abstract idea being that of receiving electric vehicle charging constraints of one or more vehicles, receiving information corresponding to one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles, and determining a route that satisfies the electric vehicle charging constraints of the one or more vehicles and at least one of the one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles; as well as the determining, adjusting, generating, and monitoring steps/functions of the dependent claims, e.g., by receiving electric vehicle charging constraints of one or more vehicles, receiving information corresponding to one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles, determining a route that satisfies the electric vehicle charging constraints of the one or more vehicles and at least one of the one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles, and providing the route to the one or more vehicles; and further comprising: determining one or more aspects affecting the electric vehicle charging constraints; adjusting the determined route based on the one or more aspects; and providing the adjusted determined route to the one or more vehicles; further comprising: receiving an input from the one or more vehicles, wherein the input is a change to the route; determining a new route based on the received input; and providing the new route to the one or more vehicles; further comprising: receiving a request to designate a given vehicle of the one or more vehicles as a lead vehicle along the route; determining a new route based on the designation of the given vehicle as the lead vehicle; and providing the new route to the one or more vehicles; further comprising: generating one or more alerts based on one or more operating parameters in the lead vehicle; and providing the one or more alerts to the other one or more vehicles; monitoring electric charge consumption in the one or more vehicles; determining electric charge in at least one of the one or more vehicles has satisfied a charging threshold; determining one or more electric vehicle charge points for charging the at least one of the one or more vehicles; determining a modified route to include a stop at the one or more electric vehicle charge points; and providing the new route to the one or more vehicles; wherein determining the route is based on an optimization of one or more of an arrival time at a destination and maintaining a predetermined proximity between the one or more vehicles; further comprising: determining a first route and a second route for the one or more vehicles, wherein the first route and the second route converge into a merged route of the first route and the second route; providing the first route to a first vehicle of the one or more vehicles; and providing the second route to a second vehicle of the one or more vehicles.
This abstract idea falls within the grouping(s) of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, distilled from case law, because it could be practically performed in the human mind as a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B:
Additionally, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the abstract idea is not integrated (e.g., at Step 2A, Prong II) by the recitation of additional elements/limitations into a practical application (using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)-(h)) because merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or adding the words "apply it" is not integrating the idea into a practical application of the idea, and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., "implementation via computers", Alice) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., providing routes to one or more vehicles), is recited in or encompassed by the claims. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into a practical application and is thus "directed to" the exception.
Moreover, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/limitations/steps (e.g., at Step 2B) that are, individually or in ordered combination, sufficient to amount to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements/limitations/steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., receiving constraints, monitoring electrical charge consumption, providing routes to vehicles, adjusting routes, the system, etc.) so as to not favor eligibility (MPEP § 2106.05(d)) and/or are used e.g., for data/information gathering only (e.g., receiving, monitoring) or for other activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the industry, for example as indicated in applicant's specification at published paragraph [0002] and as indicated in literature cited with the examiner’s Office action(s), and moreover, the generically recited computer elements (e.g., one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium, a system, etc.; see e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 USPQ2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024); see also the 2019 PEG Advanced Module at pages 89, 145, etc.) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea.
Moreover, limiting or linking the use of the idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., a system or method that provides route(s) to one or more vehicles) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook[4]) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad.
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.
Claims 1 to 7, 9 to 15, and 17 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato5 (2024/0203253) in view of Sim et al. (2024/0125607)..
Kato (‘253) reveals:
per claim 1, a method comprising:
receiving electric vehicle charging constraints of one or more vehicles [e.g., the “cruising distance” calculated by the cruising distance calculator 120 of the vehicle, based on the remaining charge amount of the storage battery of the electric vehicle 100, which is transmitted to (received by) the server 200, and the remaining charge amount of the own electric vehicle; e.g., see paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0063], etc.; the “charging priority of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group” which is calculated based on current cruising distance received from each of the electric vehicles 100 (paragraph [0056]); and the current usage status of the charging facility 300 (e.g., the number of available chargers), etc.];
receiving information corresponding to one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles [e.g., a destination of a traveling route inputted by an occupant and transmitted to the server 200 including the group traveling manager 220; e.g., paragraph [0033]; see also paragraph [0036], “For example, the transceiver 210 may be coupled to the electric vehicles 100 managed by the later-described group traveling manager 220, and transmit and receive the data on the traveling route when the electric vehicles 100 travel in a group”; see e.g., paragraph [0038]];
determining a route [e.g., by the route calculator 230 of the server 200, with the route being a route for each vehicle to travel together to the same destination (e.g., paragraph [0037]), including data on the traveling route and data on the respective stopover points/charging facilities (paragraph [0050]); e.g., at Step S120 in FIG. 4, see also paragraphs [0063], [0069], [0079], etc.] that satisfies the electric vehicle charging constraints of the one or more vehicles and at least one of the one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0048], “For example, the route calculator 230 may compare the cruising distance with the traveling distance from the current position to the destination that are received from each of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group. When any of the electric vehicles 100 is detected that is unable to or difficult to reach the destination unless the charging is performed, the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point.”]; and
providing the route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0031], “For example, the navigator 130 may provide the guidance on the traveling route from the electric vehicle 100 to the charging facility 300 and the destination, based on a traveling route, received from the server 200, along which the charging facility 300 is set as a stopover point.”];
While the claim is apparently indefinite, it may be alleged that Kato (‘253) does not reveal the reception of the “vehicle charging constraints” of the one or more vehicles, although the examiner believes that the reception of cruising distances of the vehicles, the charging priority of the vehicles, and/or the current number of available chargers of the charging facility are all vehicle charging constraints that satisfy the claim language.
However, in the context/field of an improved battery charge management server, Sim et al. (‘607) teaches e.g., at paragraphs [0054], [0055], and [0058] to [0064] that a processor 130 of a server 100 may select an electric vehicle battery charging station 270 matched to the charging information of the electric vehicle (which charging information includes information regarding a type of transportation electric vehicle 210, a type of charging terminal, and a charging rate and a charging time set by the driver) that was obviously provided to and received by the processor for use in the selecting, thereby relieving anxiety about battery charging. Moreover, Sim et al. (607) teaches at paragraphs [0012], [0020], etc. that information on the electric vehicle battery (including at least one of a real-time remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery, consumption rate, a charging time, and a distance to empty) is received by a communication unit 120 of the server 100 and is used by the processor to predict (e.g., based on traffic, accident information, etc. at paragraphs [0005], [0042], etc.) a remaining battery capacity of an electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination, and that when the remaining battery capacity is predicted to be less than the preset remaining battery capacity limit, for example, 30% (paragraph [0060]), the processor 130 selects an electric vehicle charging station to be used with the route, thereby increasing convenience for electric vehicle users (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Kato (‘253) vehicle management system so that the route calculator (230) would have calculated the routes so that the charging facilities set as stopover points thereon would have been matched, as taught by Sim et al. (‘607), to the information regarding a type of transportation electric vehicle 210, a type of charging terminal, and a charging rate and a charging time set by the driver of the vehicle (in the group of vehicles) obviously received as charging information of the electric vehicle by the server 200, as taught by Sim et al (‘607), in order to facilitate matched charging of the vehicle at the charging station and relieve anxiety about battery charging, as taught by Sim et al. (‘607), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Moreover, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Kato (‘253) vehicle management system so that, for detecting that it difficult for any electric vehicle of the group in Kato (‘253) to reach the destination, as desired by Kato (‘253) at paragraph [0048], information on the electric vehicle battery (including at least one of a real-time remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery, consumption rate, a charging time, and a distance to empty) would have been obviously received by the server 200, in the manner taught by Sim et al. (‘607), and would have been used to predict (e.g., in accordance with traffic and accident information, etc. as taught at paragraphs [0032] and [0042] of Sim et al. (‘607)) a remaining battery capacity of an electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination, as taught by Sim et al. (‘607), and that when the remaining battery capacity was predicted to be less than the preset remaining battery capacity limit, the difficulty would have been detected in Kato (‘253) at paragraph [0048], and the server 200 would have set as a stopover point the matched charging facility (300) for the vehicle, in order to eliminate the difficulty and increase convenience for electric vehicle users, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Kato (’253) vehicle management system would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a method comprising:
receiving electric vehicle charging constraints of one or more vehicles [e.g., in Sim et al. (‘607), the charging information of the electric vehicle and the information on the electric vehicle battery (e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0015], etc.), and the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination that is predicted in real time as electric vehicle charging constraints obviously received e.g., by the communication unit 120 and/or the processor 130 of the server, e.g., for processing; and in Kato (‘253), the “cruising distance” calculated by the cruising distance calculator 120 of the vehicle, based on the remaining charge amount of the storage battery of the electric vehicle 100, which is transmitted to (received by) the server 200, and the remaining charge amount of the own electric vehicle; e.g., see paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0063], etc.; also, the “charging priority of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group” which is calculated based on current cruising distance received from each of the electric vehicles 100 (paragraph [0056]); also, the electric vehicle to be guided to the charging facility at S140 in FIG. 4 which is determined based on the charging priority, etc., and any unguided electric vehicle determined at S150; and also, the current usage status of the charging facility 300 (e.g., the number of available chargers), etc.];
receiving information corresponding to one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), a destination of a traveling route inputted by an occupant and transmitted to the server 200 including the group traveling manager 220; e.g., paragraph [0033]; see also paragraph [0036], “For example, the transceiver 210 may be coupled to the electric vehicles 100 managed by the later-described group traveling manager 220, and transmit and receive the data on the traveling route when the electric vehicles 100 travel in a group”; see e.g., paragraph [0038]; and the destination received at S520 in FIG. 5 of Sim et al. (607)];
determining a route [e.g., in Kato (‘253), by the route calculator 230 of the server 200, with the route being a route for each vehicle to travel together to the same destination (e.g., paragraph [0037]), including data on the traveling route and data on the respective stopover points/charging facilities (paragraph [0050]); e.g., at Step S120 in FIG. 4, see also paragraphs [0063], [0069], [0079], etc.; with the matched electric vehicle battery charging station(s) as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) set e.g., for the group travel at paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253) based on the charging information of the electric vehicle, etc.] that satisfies the electric vehicle charging constraints of the one or more vehicles and at least one of the one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), paragraph [0048], “For example, the route calculator 230 may compare the cruising distance with the traveling distance from the current position to the destination that are received from each of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group. When any of the electric vehicles 100 is detected that is unable to or difficult to reach the destination unless the charging is performed, the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point”; with the matched electric vehicle battery charging station(s) as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) set e.g., for the group travel at paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253) based on the charging information of the electric vehicle, etc.]; and
providing the route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), paragraph [0031], “For example, the navigator 130 may provide the guidance on the traveling route from the electric vehicle 100 to the charging facility 300 and the destination, based on a traveling route, received from the server 200, along which the charging facility 300 is set as a stopover point”; and as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) in conjunction with FIGS. 2A to 3];
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
determining one or more aspects affecting the electric vehicle charging constraints [e.g., in Sim et al. (‘607) the traffic and/or accident information that affects the remaining battery capacity of an electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination (e.g., paragraphs [0005], [0042]) which is obviously used to determine that it is difficult to reach the destination at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253); and in Kato (‘253), that a vehicle is (due to charging priority between the vehicles and/or the usage status/charging spaces of the charging facility) not (to be) guided to the charging facility at S150];
adjusting the determined route based on the one or more aspects [e.g., either to set the charging facility on the route as the stopover point when the difficulty is determined at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), when the cruising distance of the vehicle has obviously become smaller relative to the distance to the destination (e.g., due to traffic or accident information); or by transmitting at S160 in Kato (‘253) the new route (to the new charging facility) when the vehicle is determined to be unguided to the charging facility set in the initial traveling route (cf. paragraph [0063])]; and
providing the adjusted determined route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., the (new) route in Kato (‘253) with the charging facility (obviously included/added) as the stopover point (see e.g., FIG. 4), when it was determined (based on the cruising distance that would have obviously been changed by [e.g., real-time] traffic or accident information in Sim et al. (‘607)), that the destination was difficult to reach at paragraph [0048]];
per claim 3, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an input from the one or more vehicles, wherein the input is a change to the route [e.g., when a new destination (rather than a previous destination obviously used on a previous day) is obviously set at S110 in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253) by the leader of the group (paragraph [0067])];
determining a new route based on the received input [e.g., at S120 (or S160) in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253), e.g., on a new day]; and
providing the new route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0069] in Kato (‘253), “If the navigator 130 determines that the leader of the group traveling has set the destination (“YES” in step S110), the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point[6], and transmit the calculated traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that travel in the group (step S120).”];
per claim 4, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a request to designate a given vehicle of the one or more vehicles as a lead vehicle along the route [e.g., paragraph [0041] in Kato (‘253), “0041] When starting the group traveling, the leader who organizes the group traveling may input data such as a group ID of a traveling group by using, for example, the navigator 130, to register a group.”];
determining a new route based on the designation of the given vehicle as the lead vehicle [e.g., at S120 in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253), obviously on a new day]; and
providing the new route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0069] in Kato (‘253), “If the navigator 130 determines that the leader of the group traveling has set the destination (“YES” in step S110), the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point[7], and transmit the calculated traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that travel in the group (step S120).”];
per claim 5, depending from claim 4, further comprising:
generating one or more alerts [e.g., the transmitted traveling route, the transmitted new traveling route, the transmitted data on the traveling route, etc. in Kato (‘253)] based on one or more operating parameters in the lead vehicle [e.g., whether the leader of the group has set the destination at paragraph [0067] in Kato (‘253), at S110 in FIG. 4]; and
providing the one or more alerts to the other one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0069] in Kato, “If the navigator 130 determines that the leader of the group traveling has set the destination (“YES” in step S110), the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point, and transmit the calculated traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that travel in the group (step S120)”; see also paragraph [0065], “In order to allow data to be shared between the occupants of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group, the charging processor 240 may transmits data on the new traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that perform the charging at the charging facility 300. Non-limiting examples of the data on the new traveling route may include data on the electric vehicles 100 unable to be charged, data on the new charging facility, data on the new traveling route, the current position of each of the electric vehicles 100, and the cruising distance of each of the electric vehicles 100”, with the non-limiting examples of data being “alerts” and being generated based in the destination being set by the lead vehicle at S110, YES];
per claim 6, depending from claim 2,
monitoring electric charge consumption in the one or more vehicles [e.g., in paragraph [0028] in Kato (‘253), “an actual value of an AC power consumption rate” used with the remaining charge amount of the storage battery of the electric vehicle in order to determine cruising distance (paragraph [0028]); and in Sim et al. (‘607), the “consumption rate” at paragraphs [0036], etc.];
determining electric charge in at least one of the one or more vehicles has satisfied a charging threshold [e.g., when, at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), the remaining charge amount of the vehicle storage battery has a value that results through calculation (at paragraph [0028]) in a cruising distance that, through comparison with the traveling distance from the current position to the destination, indicates that the vehicle (in the group) will be unable to or have difficulty in reaching the destination, as obviously being a (need for) charging threshold value];
determining one or more electric vehicle charge points for charging the at least one of the one or more vehicles [e.g., the charging facility 300 set as a stopover point in the calculated traveling route, at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), when the vehicle is unable to or difficult to reach the destination; and as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) in conjunction with FIGS. 2A to 3];
determining a modified route to include a stop at the one or more electric vehicle charge points [e.g., the traveling route including the set (charging facility) stopover point in paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253), obviously calculated at transmitted on a new day; and/or the new traveling route transmitted at S160 in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253); and/or the new route (230, 240) provided in FIG. 2A of Sim et al. (‘607), see also FIGS. 2B and 3 of Sim et al. (‘607) that show “new route(s)” with added charging station(s) 270, 360]; and
providing the new route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., to the vehicles in the group, as taught by Kato (‘253) at paragraphs [0069], etc. obviously ion a new day, at step S160 in FIG. 4, etc.];
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, wherein determining the route is based on an optimization of one or more of an arrival time at a destination [e.g., paragraph [0082] in Kato (‘253), “This eliminates an useless waiting time for charging, which helps to allow all vehicles, e.g., the electric vehicles, traveling in a group to efficiently arrive at a destination.”] and maintaining a predetermined proximity [e.g., the proximity which the system in Kato (‘253) will implicitly/inherently produce, by group travel] between the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0082] in Kato (‘253), “This eliminates an useless waiting time for charging, which helps to allow all vehicles, e.g., the electric vehicles, traveling in a group to efficiently arrive at a destination.”];
per claim 9, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [e.g., paragraph [0087] in Kato (‘253)] carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to perform the following steps:
receiving electric vehicle charging constraints of one or more vehicles [e.g., in Sim et al. (‘607), the charging information of the electric vehicle and the information on the electric vehicle battery (e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0015], etc.), and the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination that is predicted in real time as electric vehicle charging constraints obviously received e.g., by the communication unit 120 and/or the processor 130 of the server, e.g., for processing; and in Kato (‘253), the “cruising distance” calculated by the cruising distance calculator 120 of the vehicle, based on the remaining charge amount of the storage battery of the electric vehicle 100, which is transmitted to (received by) the server 200, and the remaining charge amount of the own electric vehicle; e.g., see paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0063], etc.; also, the “charging priority of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group” which is calculated based on current cruising distance received from each of the electric vehicles 100 (paragraph [0056]); also, the electric vehicle to be guided to the charging facility at S140 in FIG. 4 which is determined based on the charging priority, etc., and any unguided electric vehicle determined at S150; and also, the current usage status of the charging facility 300 (e.g., the number of available chargers), etc.];
receiving information corresponding to one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), a destination of a traveling route inputted by an occupant and transmitted to the server 200 including the group traveling manager 220; e.g., paragraph [0033]; see also paragraph [0036], “For example, the transceiver 210 may be coupled to the electric vehicles 100 managed by the later-described group traveling manager 220, and transmit and receive the data on the traveling route when the electric vehicles 100 travel in a group”; see e.g., paragraph [0038]; and the destination received at S520 in FIG. 5 of Sim et al. (607)];
determining a route [e.g., in Kato (‘253), by the route calculator 230 of the server 200, with the route being a route for each vehicle to travel together to the same destination (e.g., paragraph [0037]), including data on the traveling route and data on the respective stopover points/charging facilities (paragraph [0050]); e.g., at Step S120 in FIG. 4, see also paragraphs [0063], [0069], [0079], etc.; with the matched electric vehicle battery charging station(s) as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) set e.g., for the group travel at paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253) based on the charging information of the electric vehicle, etc.] that satisfies the electric vehicle charging constraints of the one or more vehicles and at least one of the one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), paragraph [0048], “For example, the route calculator 230 may compare the cruising distance with the traveling distance from the current position to the destination that are received from each of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group. When any of the electric vehicles 100 is detected that is unable to or difficult to reach the destination unless the charging is performed, the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point”; with the matched electric vehicle battery charging station(s) as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) set e.g., for the group travel at paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253) based on the charging information of the electric vehicle, etc.]; and
providing the route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), paragraph [0031], “For example, the navigator 130 may provide the guidance on the traveling route from the electric vehicle 100 to the charging facility 300 and the destination, based on a traveling route, received from the server 200, along which the charging facility 300 is set as a stopover point”; and as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) in conjunction with FIGS. 2A to 3];
per claim 10, depending from claim 9, wherein providing the route to the one or more vehicles further includes:
determining one or more aspects affecting the electric vehicle charging constraints e.g., in Sim et al. (‘607) the traffic and/or accident information that affects the remaining battery capacity of an electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination (e.g., paragraphs [0005], [0042]) which is obviously used to determine that it is difficult to reach the destination at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253); and in Kato (‘253), that a vehicle is (due to charging priority between the vehicles and/or the usage status/charging spaces of the charging facility) not (to be) guided to the charging facility at S150];
adjusting the determined route based on the one or more aspects [e.g., either to set the charging facility on the route as the stopover point when the difficulty is determined at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), when the cruising distance of the vehicle has obviously become smaller relative to the distance to the destination (e.g., due to traffic or accident information); or by transmitting at S160 in Kato (‘253) the new route (to the new charging facility) when the vehicle is determined to be unguided to the charging facility set in the initial traveling route (cf. paragraph [0063])]; and
providing the adjusted determined route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., the (new) route in Kato (‘253) with the charging facility (obviously included/added) as the stopover point, when it was determined (based on the cruising distance that would have obviously been changed by [e.g., real-time] traffic or accident information, in Sim et al. (‘607)) the destination was difficult to reach at paragraph [0048]];
per claim 11, depending from claim 9, wherein providing the route to the one or more vehicles further includes:
receiving an input from the one or more vehicles, wherein the input is a change to the route [e.g., when a new destination (rather than a previous destination obviously used on a previous day) is obviously set at S110 in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253) by the leader of the group (paragraph [0067])];
determining a new route based on the received input [e.g., at S120 (or S160) in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253), e.g., on a new day]; and
providing the new route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0069] in Kato (‘253), “If the navigator 130 determines that the leader of the group traveling has set the destination (“YES” in step S110), the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point[8], and transmit the calculated traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that travel in the group (step S120).”];
per claim 12, depending from claim 9, wherein providing the route to the one or more vehicles further includes:
receiving a request to designate a given vehicle of the one or more vehicles as a lead vehicle along the route [e.g., paragraph [0041] in Kato (‘253), “0041] When starting the group traveling, the leader who organizes the group traveling may input data such as a group ID of a traveling group by using, for example, the navigator 130, to register a group.”];
determining a new route based on the designation of the given vehicle as the lead vehicle [e.g., at S120 in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253), e.g., obviously on a new day]; and
providing the new route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0069] in Kato (‘253), “If the navigator 130 determines that the leader of the group traveling has set the destination (“YES” in step S110), the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point[9], and transmit the calculated traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that travel in the group (step S120).”];
per claim 13, depending from claim 9, wherein the one or more sequences of the one or more instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform the following steps:
generating one or more alerts [e.g., the transmitted traveling route, the transmitted new traveling route, the transmitted data on the traveling route, etc. in Kato (‘253)] based on one or more operating parameters in the lead vehicle [e.g., whether the leader of the group has set the destination at paragraph [0067] in Kato (‘253), at S110 in FIG. 4]; and
providing the one or more alerts to the other one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0069] in Kato, “If the navigator 130 determines that the leader of the group traveling has set the destination (“YES” in step S110), the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point, and transmit the calculated traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that travel in the group (step S120)”; see also paragraph [0065], “In order to allow data to be shared between the occupants of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group, the charging processor 240 may transmits data on the new traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that perform the charging at the charging facility 300. Non-limiting examples of the data on the new traveling route may include data on the electric vehicles 100 unable to be charged, data on the new charging facility, data on the new traveling route, the current position of each of the electric vehicles 100, and the cruising distance of each of the electric vehicles 100”, with the non-limiting examples of data being “alerts” and being generated based in the destination being set by the lead vehicle at S110, YES];
per claim 14, depending from claim 10, wherein providing the route to the one or more vehicles further includes further includes:
monitoring electric charge consumption in the one or more vehicles [e.g., in paragraph [0028] in Kato (‘253), “an actual value of an AC power consumption rate” used with the remaining charge amount of the storage battery of the electric vehicle in order to determine cruising distance (paragraph [0028]); and in Sim et al. (‘607), the “consumption rate” at paragraphs [0036], etc.];
determining electric charge in at least one of the one or more vehicles has satisfied a charging threshold [e.g., when, at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), the remaining charge amount of the vehicle storage battery has a value that results through calculation (at paragraph [0028]) in a cruising distance that, through comparison with the traveling distance from the current position to the destination, indicates that the vehicle (in the group) will be unable to or have difficulty in reaching the destination, as obviously being a (need for) charging threshold value];
determining one or more electric vehicle charge points for charging the at least one of the one or more vehicles [e.g., the charging facility 300 set as a stopover point in the calculated traveling route, at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), when the vehicle is unable to or difficult to reach the destination; and as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) in conjunction with FIGS. 2A to 3];
determining a modified route to include a stop at the one or more electric vehicle charge points [e.g., the traveling route including the set (charging facility) stopover point in paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253); and/or the new traveling route transmitted at S160 in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253)]; and
providing the new route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., to the vehicles in the group, as taught by Kato (‘253) at paragraphs [0069], etc. obviously ion a new day, at step S160 in FIG. 4, etc.];
per claim 15, depending from claim 9, wherein determining the route is based on an optimization of one or more of an arrival time at a destination [e.g., paragraph [0082] in Kato (‘253), “This eliminates an useless waiting time for charging, which helps to allow all vehicles, e.g., the electric vehicles, traveling in a group to efficiently arrive at a destination.”] and maintaining a predetermined proximity [e.g., the proximity which the system in Kato (‘253) will implicitly/inherently produce, by group travel] between the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0082] in Kato (‘253), “This eliminates an useless waiting time for charging, which helps to allow all vehicles, e.g., the electric vehicles, traveling in a group to efficiently arrive at a destination.”];
per claim 17, a system [e.g., paragraph [0087] and claim 1 in Kato (‘253)] comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer program code instructions, the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the system to:
receive electric vehicle charging constraints of one or more vehicles [e.g., in Sim et al. (‘607), the charging information of the electric vehicle and the information on the electric vehicle battery (e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0015], etc.), and the remaining battery capacity of the electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination that is predicted in real time as electric vehicle charging constraints obviously received e.g., by the communication unit 120 and/or the processor 130 of the server, e.g., for processing; and in Kato (‘253), the “cruising distance” calculated by the cruising distance calculator 120 of the vehicle, based on the remaining charge amount of the storage battery of the electric vehicle 100, which is transmitted to (received by) the server 200, and the remaining charge amount of the own electric vehicle; e.g., see paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0063], etc.; also, the “charging priority of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group” which is calculated based on current cruising distance received from each of the electric vehicles 100 (paragraph [0056]); also, the electric vehicle to be guided to the charging facility at S140 in FIG. 4 which is determined based on the charging priority, etc., and any unguided electric vehicle determined at S150; and also, the current usage status of the charging facility 300 (e.g., the number of available chargers), etc.];
receive information corresponding to one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), a destination of a traveling route inputted by an occupant and transmitted to the server 200 including the group traveling manager 220; e.g., paragraph [0033]; see also paragraph [0036], “For example, the transceiver 210 may be coupled to the electric vehicles 100 managed by the later-described group traveling manager 220, and transmit and receive the data on the traveling route when the electric vehicles 100 travel in a group”; see e.g., paragraph [0038]; and the destination received at S520 in FIG. 5 of Sim et al. (607)];
determine a route [e.g., in Kato (‘253), by the route calculator 230 of the server 200, with the route being a route for each vehicle to travel together to the same destination (e.g., paragraph [0037]), including data on the traveling route and data on the respective stopover points/charging facilities (paragraph [0050]); e.g., at Step S120 in FIG. 4, see also paragraphs [0063], [0069], [0079], etc.; with the matched electric vehicle battery charging station(s) as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) set e.g., for the group travel at paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253) based on the charging information of the electric vehicle, etc.] that satisfies the electric vehicle charging constraints of the one or more vehicles and at least one of the one or more navigation constraints associated with the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), paragraph [0048], “For example, the route calculator 230 may compare the cruising distance with the traveling distance from the current position to the destination that are received from each of the electric vehicles 100 traveling in the group. When any of the electric vehicles 100 is detected that is unable to or difficult to reach the destination unless the charging is performed, the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point”; with the matched electric vehicle battery charging station(s) as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) set e.g., for the group travel at paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253) based on the charging information of the electric vehicle, etc.]; and
provide the route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., in Kato (‘253), paragraph [0031], “For example, the navigator 130 may provide the guidance on the traveling route from the electric vehicle 100 to the charging facility 300 and the destination, based on a traveling route, received from the server 200, along which the charging facility 300 is set as a stopover point”; and as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) in conjunction with FIGS. 2A to 3];
per claim 18, depending from claim 17, wherein the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the system to:
determine one or more aspects affecting the electric vehicle charging constraints e.g., in Sim et al. (‘607) the traffic and/or accident information that affects the remaining battery capacity of an electric vehicle battery after reaching the destination (e.g., paragraphs [0005], [0042]) which is obviously used to determine that it is difficult to reach the destination at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253); and in Kato (‘253), that a vehicle is (due to charging priority between the vehicles and/or the usage status/charging spaces of the charging facility) not (to be) guided to the charging facility at S150];
adjust the determined route based on the one or more aspects [e.g., either to set the charging facility on the route as the stopover point when the difficulty is determined at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), when the cruising distance of the vehicle has obviously become smaller relative to the distance to the destination (e.g., due to traffic or accident information); or by transmitting at S160 in Kato (‘253) the new route (to the new charging facility) when the vehicle is determined to be unguided to the charging facility set in the initial traveling route (cf. paragraph [0063])]; and
provide the adjusted determined route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., the (new) route in Kato (‘253) with the charging facility (obviously included/added) as the stopover point, when it was determined (based on the cruising distance that would have obviously been changed by [e.g., real-time] traffic or accident information, in Sim et al. (‘607)) the destination was difficult to reach at paragraph [0048]];
per claim 19, depending from claim 17, wherein the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the system to:
receive an input from the one or more vehicles, wherein the input is a change to the route [e.g., when a new destination (rather than a previous destination obviously used on a previous day) is obviously set at S110 in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253) by the leader of the group (paragraph [0067])];
determine a new route based on the received input [e.g., at S120 (or S160) in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253), e.g., on a new day]; and
provide the new route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., paragraph [0069] in Kato (‘253), “If the navigator 130 determines that the leader of the group traveling has set the destination (“YES” in step S110), the route calculator 230 may calculate the traveling route along which the charging facility 300 is set as the stopover point[10], and transmit the calculated traveling route to the electric vehicles 100 that travel in the group (step S120).”];
per claim 20, depending from claim 17, wherein the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed, cause the system to:
monitor electric charge consumption in the one or more vehicles [e.g., in paragraph [0028] in Kato (‘253), “an actual value of an AC power consumption rate” used with the remaining charge amount of the storage battery of the electric vehicle in order to determine cruising distance (paragraph [0028]); and in Sim et al. (‘607), the “consumption rate” at paragraphs [0036], etc.];
determine electric charge in at least one of the one or more vehicles has satisfied a charging threshold [e.g., when, at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), the remaining charge amount of the vehicle storage battery has a value that results through calculation (at paragraph [0028]) in a cruising distance that, through comparison with the traveling distance from the current position to the destination, indicates that the vehicle (in the group) will be unable to or have difficulty in reaching the destination, as obviously being a (need for) charging threshold value];
determine one or more electric vehicle charge points for charging the at least one of the one or more vehicles [e.g., the charging facility 300 set as a stopover point in the calculated traveling route, at paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253), when the vehicle is unable to or difficult to reach the destination; and as taught by Sim et al. (‘607) in conjunction with FIGS. 2A to 3];
determine a modified route to include a stop at the one or more electric vehicle charge points [e.g., the traveling route including the set (charging facility) stopover point in paragraph [0048] of Kato (‘253); and/or the new traveling route transmitted at S160 in FIG. 4 of Kato (‘253)]; and
provide the new route to the one or more vehicles [e.g., to the vehicles in the group, as taught by Kato (‘253) at paragraphs [0069], etc. obviously ion a new day, at step S160 in FIG. 4, etc.];
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (2024/0203253) in view of Sim et al. (2024/0125607) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Deselaers et al. (2021/0333115).
Kato (‘253) as implemented or modified in view of Sim et al. (‘607) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Kato (‘253) vehicle management system may not expressly reveal that two routes of the group of vehicles “converge into a merged route”, although the examiner understands this to be implicit in Kato (‘253) since “the multiple electric vehicles 100 travel together toward the same destination” (paragraph [0037], obviously on the same path, and obviously starting at different positions (e.g., since two vehicles cannot occupy the same position at the same time), with the calculated traveling route being transmitted to the electric vehicles of the group at paragraph [0069].
However, in the context field of an improved navigation service for allowing first and second users in arriving at a shared destination (710 in FIG. 7) after traveling (on a shared route 724) in a multi-car navigation group, Deselaers et al. (‘115) teaches that, when the vehicles of client devices depart from different starting locations, the navigation service/server 102 identifies the shared portion of a route (724), monitors distances between vehicles in the multi-car navigation group, identifies and suggests locations where the drivers can meet, etc., and displays (as shown in FIG. 7) an overview of the respective navigation routes (720, 722, 724) between the current location of the client devices and the shared destination
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Kato (‘253) vehicle management system so that, when the vehicles in the group obviously initially departed from different starting locations (such as their homes, places of work, etc.) as taught by Deselaers et al. (‘115), navigation routes, including the shared portion of the navigation route to the destination, would have been provided as guidance (e.g., as taught in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115)) to each of the vehicles in the group for display on a user interface (paragraph [0057]), in order to facilitate multi-car navigation by showing the current positions (and routes) of other cars in group, to identify suitable locations on the shared portion of the route (such as a gas station, a rest area) for waiting/stopping and meeting, etc., with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Kato (’253) vehicle management system would have rendered obvious:
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, further comprising:
determining a first route [e.g., 720, 724 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115)] and a second route [e.g., 722, 724 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115)] for the one or more vehicles, wherein the first route and the second route converge into a merged route [e.g., 724 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115)] of the first route and the second route;
providing the first route [e.g., 720, 724, as part of the digital map 700 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115) provided to the first vehicle user interface 124] to a first vehicle of the one or more vehicles; and
providing the second route [e.g., 722, 724, as part of the digital map 700 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115) provided to the second vehicle user interface 124] to a second vehicle of the one or more vehicles;
per claim 16, depending from claim 9, wherein providing the route to the one or more vehicles further includes:
determining a first route [e.g., 720, 724 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115)] and a second route [e.g., 722, 724 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115)] for the one or more vehicles, wherein the first route and the second route converge into a merged route [e.g., 724 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115)] of the first route and the second route;
providing the first route [e.g., 720, 724, as part of the digital map 700 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115) provided to the first vehicle user interface 124] to a first vehicle of the one or more vehicles; and
providing the second route [e.g., 722, 724, as part of the digital map 700 in FIG. 7 of Deselaers et al. (‘115) provided to the second vehicle user interface 124] to a second vehicle of the one or more vehicles;
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited literature shows that which is well-understood, routine, conventional in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
2 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]"). See also MPEP 2163.02.
3 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
4 See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.")
5 Now US Patent 12,682,755 B2.
6 See paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253).
7 See paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253).
8 See paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253).
9 See paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253).
10 See paragraph [0048] in Kato (‘253).
Prosecution Insights