DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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 Re 1,8, the claims require control of a vehicle control unit, however it is unclear, based on the claim and instant specification, how or what propels the vehicle. There is no prime mover claimed or disclosed, e.g. engine, motor, therefore the claimed “control unit” claim 1 l 10 can be taken as the unit that controls the vehicles propulsion. The control unit can also be taken as an electronic control unit or engine control unit controlling the powerplant of the vehicle. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and are therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examining the claimed control unit will be taken as a computer replete with non-transitory memory, central processing unit, and input output unit. Claims 2-7,9 rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
In Re 2,4, it is unclear how a notifier, such as a visual display or auditory signal, could “execute the power increase suppression control” last two lines of claims 2 and 4, especially as an electronic controller already executes control per last clause of claim 1. Dependent claims rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al US 8,155,868 in view of Tobiassen et al US 2021/0068312.
In Re 1, Xing teaches
A vehicle management device (100 fig 3) comprising:
an acquirer that acquires driver behavior information (502-536, especially 516 driver profile and 536 green light reaction time, braking speed accel decel, fig 5a) that indicates a driver behavior of a driver that is related to a driving operation of a vehicle and at least one of (markush) vehicle information that indicates a state of the vehicle (115 fig 3 vehicle state information) that the driver drives or surroundings information (110 vehicle environment information) regarding surroundings of the vehicle;
an identifier that identifies, based on the driver behavior information and the at least one of the vehicle information or the surroundings information, a scene (construed as segment col 22 ll 25-50 and or point in time including current abstract) in which a power consumption of a control unit provided in the vehicle that corresponds to the driver behavior information is predicted (Predictive model 340) to increase to be higher than an ideal power consumption (construed as more fuel efficient fig 7); and
a controller (fig 7) that executes power increase suppression control (at least 724 accelerating more fuel efficient no advise driver to decelerate step 740) for suppressing an increase in the power consumption of the control unit in the scene that is identified by the identifier and in which the power consumption of the control unit is predicted to increase to be higher than the ideal power consumption (at least all figs and cols).
Xing does not teach however Tobiassen teaches: thermal management (title cooling, para 127, “For example, a passenger within AV 100 may request that a temperature within the cabin area be increased by five degrees. However, in a case where a temperature of one or more of the electronic components is near an upper limit of its operating range, a processor responsible for operation of the environmental control system could predict that a full five degree increase in the cabin area would result in a situation in which the one or more electronic components would begin to operate outside its predetermined operating range and begin to overheat. The processor could be configured to approve less than the full amount of requested cabin area temperature change in such a situation”). Tobiassen further teaches targeted cooling para 2 and operating total system cooling parameters to prevent computer overheating, para 127. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Tobiassen’s thermal management to Xing’s controller to optimize fuel and cooling efficiency of vehicle computer(s).
In Re 2-3,5-7, Xing in view of Tobisassen, Xing further teaches:
[Claim 2] The vehicle thermal management device according to claim 1 further comprising:
a notifier (304 fig 3), wherein the power increase suppression control includes control that causes the notifier to notify the driver of a proposed improvement method (at least fig 8 830-832 advise driver) to improve the driver behavior in the scene that is identified by the identifier and in which the power consumption of the control unit is predicted to increase to be higher than the ideal power consumption, and the controller causes the notifier to execute the power increase suppression control.
[Claim 3] The vehicle thermal management device according to claim 1, wherein the power increase suppression control includes control that optimizes (abstract “optimized performance value”) the power consumption of the control unit in the scene identified by the identifier.
[Claim 5] The vehicle thermal management device according to claim 2, wherein the controller stores, in a storage, a behavior history (history col 20 ll 10-67 and “ historic vehicle state information (e.g. driving behaviors”), in which the driver behavior based on the driver behavior information by which the power consumption of the control unit has increased to be higher than the ideal power consumption, the proposed improvement method, and the driver behavior after the notifier has notified the driver of the proposed improvement method are associated with each other.
[Claim 6] The vehicle thermal management device according to 5, wherein the identifier identifies the scene in which the power consumption of the control unit is predicted to increase to be higher than the ideal power consumption by further taking the behavior history into consideration (inherent to col 20).
[Claim 7] The vehicle thermal management device according to claim 6, wherein the controller executes the power increase suppression control for suppressing an increase in the power consumption of the control unit by further taking the behavior history into consideration (inherent to col 20).
In Re 8-9, the method and non-transitory control computer readable medium rejected over in re 1 as taught by Xing in view of Tobiassen as described above, further see figs 5a-5b which are non-transitory.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al US 8,155,868 in view of Tobiassen et al US 2021/0068312 and Shams et al US 2010/0156620.
In Re 4, Xing teaches the scene identified by the identifier is a scene and a timing at which the controller causes the notifier to execute the power increase suppression control, see in re 1 above.
Xing does not teach however Shams teaches that requires a high driving load on the driver, the controller changes (para 4). Sham further teaches preventing overloading and distraction of driver para 4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Sham’s notification delay to Xing in view of Tobiassen to prevent overloading and distraction of driver.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The further prior art describes a vehicle thermal management system that tries to keep a vehicle’s control electronics from using more power than necessary. It watches how the driver behaves, such as accelerating, braking, steering, or changing lanes, and also looks at vehicle state and surroundings. From those inputs, it predicts scenes where the control unit is likely to consume more power than is ideal. When such a scene is detected, the system takes action to suppress that power increase. One action is to notify the driver with a suggested improvement, such as smoother acceleration or braking. Another action is to optimize the control unit’s own power use or cooling. The system can also delay notifications until a safer or more suitable time. It may learn from past driver behavior and store a history of what worked. The goal is to reduce wasted power while still keeping the control unit safely cooled. Overall, it is a driver-aware thermal and power management technique for vehicles. generated using USPTO Scout LLM. Scout LLM can make mistakes. model: gpt-5.4-mini.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights