DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed March 11th, 2025. Claims 1-22 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 11th, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 5 is a series of unlabeled rectangular boxes. These boxes should contain descriptive text. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: line 14 of the claim randomly starts with a “-” despite no other claim limitation having this. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1:
The claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of system.
Step 2a Prong 1:
The system of claim 1 is performing a mental process. The mental process of claim 1 merely consists of determine a start position and an end position for operating a vehicle along an upcoming road path, estimate, for a prime mover of the vehicle, a first energy consumption for each one of a plurality of vehicle speed trajectories from the start position to the end position, estimate a time period for operating the vehicle during at least a portion of the upcoming road path between the start position and the end position for each one of the plurality of vehicle speed trajectories, estimate a second energy consumption for a vehicle speed independent power consumer of the vehicle for each one of the estimated time periods, -determine a third energy consumption for operating the vehicle from the start position to the end position for each one of the plurality of vehicle speed trajectories, the third energy consumption being a sum of the first and second energy consumptions, determine at least one constraint criterion for the vehicle between the start position and the end position, and set a vehicle speed trajectory for controlling the vehicle speed between the start position and the end position in response to the third energy consumption for the plurality of vehicle speed trajectories and the at least one constraint criterion which under its BRI consists of determining an energy efficient route and speed for a vehicle based on the fuel consumed by driving and the fuel consumed by keeping other system turned on like the A/C of the vehicle. For example, a truck driver needs to be aware of how much fuel they will consume when planning out a route to transport their cargo.
Step 2a Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional element of [a] computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the steps of the mental process which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely generically linking the mental process to a technological environment. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely generically linking the mental process to a computer system with processing circuitry.
Step 2b:
The additional element of [a] computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the steps of the mental process, which was considered mere indication of the technological environment of the invention in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is merely linking the identified mental process to the technological environment of computers. For example, the MPEP provides that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Claims 2-21 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim(s) 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of the at least one constraint criterion comprises a time of arrival at the end position which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of defining a variable that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(i) “Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937”.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the same mental process of claim 2 but with the additional element of the time of arrival is a latest acceptable time of arrival at the end position which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of defining a variable that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(i) “Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937”.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the same mental process of claim 2 but with the additional element of the at least one constraint criterion comprises vehicle speed limitation which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of defining a variable that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(i) “Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937”.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the same mental process of claim 4 but with the additional element of the vehicle speed limitation is at least one legislative vehicle speed limitation along the upcoming road path between the start position and the end position which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of defining a variable that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(i) “Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937”.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but further defines the mental process to include set the vehicle speed trajectory to the vehicle speed trajectory generating the third energy consumption with the lowest energy consumption which under its BRI consists of deciding the route to use that has the lowest fuel usage. For example, delivery drivers will sometime choose to make 3 right turns and loop a block rather than wait at a traffic light for it to allow a left turn as the left turn can consume more fuel as the engine remains idle for an extended period of time as opposed to performing the 3 right turns.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of the at least one constraint criterion comprises a minimum charge level of an energy storage system at the end position which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of defining a variable that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(i) “Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937”.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of the vehicle speed independent power consumer is different from the prime mover which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity which defines the source of the second energy consumption that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(ii) “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of the second energy consumption for the vehicle speed independent power consumer is dependent on a time period of usage which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of defining a variable that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(i) “Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937”.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of a cruise control system configured to control vehicle speed, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: instruct the cruise control system to control the vehicle speed to follow the set vehicle speed trajectory which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is mere instructions to apply the mental process with a cruise control system performing its ordinary operations without reciting anything more than an idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)(i) “Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017)”.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of the processing circuitry is further configured to: transmit data to a human machine interface for informing about the set vehicle speed trajectory to an operator of the vehicle which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is a well-understood, routine, and convention activity of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of the vehicle speed independent power consumer comprises a power take off unit which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity which defines the source of the second energy consumption that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(ii) “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the same mental process of claim 12 but with the additional element of the power take off unit is connected to at least one of a refrigerator body, a concrete mixer and a heated bed for tarmac which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity which defines the source of the second energy consumption that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(ii) “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the same mental process of claim 12 but with the additional element of the power take off unit is connected to, and receives energy from, the prime mover and/or an energy storage system of the vehicle which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity which defines the source of the second energy consumption that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(ii) “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of the vehicle speed independent power consumer comprises at least one electrically consuming auxiliary load which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity which defines the source of the second energy consumption that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(ii) “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the same mental process of claim 15 but with the additional element of the at least one electrically consuming auxiliary load comprises a vehicle thermal system which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity which defines the source of the second energy consumption that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(ii) “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the same mental process of claim 16 but with the additional element of the vehicle thermal system is configured to control a temperature level inside a vehicle cab which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely indicating a field of use of the vehicle thermal system without actively controlling the vehicle cab’s temperature level. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(ix) “Specifying that the abstract idea of using advertising as currency is used on the Internet, because this narrowing limitation is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of the prime mover is at least one of an electric traction motor and an internal combustion engine which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity which defines the source of the second energy consumption that is being calculated. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(ii) “Taking food orders from only table-based customers or drive-through customers, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-43, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but it is in the statutory category of method.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of [a] vehicle comprising the computer system according to claim 1 which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely indicating the technological environment of the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the same mental process of claim 19 but with the additional element of [a] computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 19 which does not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely indicating the technological environment of the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program product.
Given the above analysis, examiner has determined that claims 1-21 are not eligible subject matter under 101 and are thus rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hedge et al. (US Pub. No. 20230304816 A1), herein after Hedge.
Regarding claim 1, Hedge teaches [a] computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to (Hedge: Para. 0150, teaching a system and method that executes computer programs to control a vehicle): determine a start position and an end position for operating a vehicle along an upcoming road path (Hedge: Para. 0051, teaching determining a route between a starting location and a destination), estimate, for a prime mover of the vehicle, a first energy consumption for each one of a plurality of vehicle speed trajectories from the start position to the end position (Hedge: Para. 0059 and 0060, teaching determining the amount of energy for a vehicle to travel from a first location to a second location), estimate a time period for operating the vehicle during at least a portion of the upcoming road path between the start position and the end position for each one of the plurality of vehicle speed trajectories (Hedge: Para. 0093, teaching that the invention segments the route into time periods and performs the energy determination of the route for each time period), estimate a second energy consumption for a vehicle speed independent power consumer of the vehicle for each one of the estimated time periods (Hedge: Para. 0059, teaching determining the predicted energy consumption performed by the HVAC system during the route and estimated consumption of the HVAC system caused by solar energy heating the vehicle), -determine a third energy consumption for operating the vehicle from the start position to the end position for each one of the plurality of vehicle speed trajectories, the third energy consumption being a sum of the first and second energy consumptions (Hedge: Para. 0107, teaching determining the total energy consumption of the vehicle over the route including the energy consumption from the HVAC system), determine at least one constraint criterion for the vehicle between the start position and the end position (Hedge: Para. 0121, teaching maintaining constraints which the route must adhere to when planning energy efficient routes), and set a vehicle speed trajectory for controlling the vehicle speed between the start position and the end position in response to the third energy consumption for the plurality of vehicle speed trajectories and the at least one constraint criterion (Hedge: Para. 0109, teaching informing a user of the vehicle of multiple energy efficient routes which the user may select; and Para. 0110, teaching performing autonomous operation of the vehicle based on the user's selection).
Regarding claim 2, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one constraint criterion comprises a time of arrival at the end position (Hedge: Para. 0121, teaching maintaining constraints which the route must adhere to when planning energy efficient routes; and Para. 0125, teaching that the constraint can be a time constraint that must be adhered to for the vehicle to arrive at when routing).
Regarding claim 3, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 2 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 2, wherein the time of arrival is a latest acceptable time of arrival at the end position (Hedge: Para. 0121, teaching maintaining constraints which the route must adhere to when planning energy efficient routes; and Para. 0125, teaching that the constraint can be a time constraint that must be adhered to for the vehicle to arrive at when routing).
Regarding claim 4, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 2 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 2, wherein the at least one constraint criterion comprises vehicle speed limitation (Hedge: Para. 0121, teaching maintaining constraints which the route must adhere to when planning energy efficient routes including speed limits of the route).
Regarding claim 5, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 4 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 4, wherein the vehicle speed limitation is at least one legislative vehicle speed limitation along the upcoming road path between the start position and the end position (Hedge: Para. 0121, teaching maintaining constraints which the route must adhere to when planning energy efficient routes including speed limits of the route).
Regarding claim 6, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set the vehicle speed trajectory to the vehicle speed trajectory generating the third energy consumption with the lowest energy consumption (Hedge: Para. 0121, teaching that the energy efficient route is generated with the best metrics when accounting for the energy consumed due to solar loading).
Regarding claim 8, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle speed independent power consumer is different from the prime mover (Hedge: Para. 0059, teaching determining the predicted energy consumption performed by the HVAC system during the route and estimated consumption of the HVAC system caused by solar energy heating the vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the second energy consumption for the vehicle speed independent power consumer is dependent on a time period of usage (Hedge: Para. 0093, teaching that the invention segments the route into time periods and performs the energy determination of the route for each time period).
Regarding claim 11, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: transmit data to a human machine interface for informing about the set vehicle speed trajectory to an operator of the vehicle (Hedge: Para. 0109, teaching informing a user of the vehicle of multiple energy efficient routes which the user may select).
Regarding claim 15, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle speed independent power consumer comprises at least one electrically consuming auxiliary load (examiner interprets that the auxiliary load can include a vehicle's HVAC system for the vehicle's cabin) (Hedge: Para. 0059, teaching determining the predicted energy consumption performed by the HVAC system during the route and estimated consumption of the HVAC system caused by solar energy heating the vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 15 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 15, wherein the at least one electrically consuming auxiliary load comprises a vehicle thermal system (Hedge: Para. 0059, teaching determining the predicted energy consumption performed by the HVAC system during the route and estimated consumption of the HVAC system caused by solar energy heating the vehicle).
Regarding claim 17, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 16 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 16, wherein the vehicle thermal system is configured to control a temperature level inside a vehicle cab (Hedge: Para. 0059, teaching determining the predicted energy consumption performed by the HVAC system during the route and estimated consumption of the HVAC system caused by solar energy heating the vehicle).
Regarding claim 18, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the prime mover is at least one of an electric traction motor and an internal combustion engine (Hedge: Para. 0003, teaching that the vehicle can include an internal combustion engine).
Regarding claim 20, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [a] vehicle comprising the computer system according to claim 1 (Hedge: Para. 0043, teaching that the invention is for controlling operation of a vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Hedge teaches [a] computer-implemented method, comprising (Hedge: Para. 0150, teaching a system and method that executes computer programs to control a vehicle): determining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a start position and an end position for operating a vehicle along an upcoming road path (Hedge: Para. 0051, teaching determining a route between a starting location and a destination), estimating, by the processing circuitry and for a prime mover of the vehicle, a first energy consumption for each one of a plurality of vehicle speed trajectories from the start position to the end position (Hedge: Para. 0059 and 0060, teaching determining the amount of energy for a vehicle to travel from a first location to a second location), estimating, by the processing circuitry, a time period for operating the vehicle during at least a portion of the upcoming road path between the start position and the end position for each one of the plurality of vehicle speed trajectories (Hedge: Para. 0093, teaching that the invention segments the route into time periods and performs the energy determination of the route for each time period), estimating, by the processing circuitry, a second energy consumption for a vehicle speed independent power consumer of the vehicle for each one of the estimated time periods (Hedge: Para. 0059, teaching determining the predicted energy consumption performed by the HVAC system during the route and estimated consumption of the HVAC system caused by solar energy heating the vehicle), determining, by the processing circuitry, a third energy consumption for operating the vehicle from the start position to the end position for each one of the plurality of vehicle speed trajectories, the third energy consumption being a sum of the first and second energy consumptions (Hedge: Para. 0107, teaching determining the total energy consumption of the vehicle over the route including the energy consumption from the HVAC system), determining, by the processing circuitry, at least one constraint criterion for the vehicle between the start position and the end position (Hedge: Para. 0121, teaching maintaining constraints which the route must adhere to when planning energy efficient routes), and setting, by the processing circuitry, a vehicle speed trajectory for controlling the vehicle speed between the start position and the end position in response to the third energy consumption and the at least one constraint criterion (Hedge: Para. 0109, teaching informing a user of the vehicle of multiple energy efficient routes which the user may select; and Para. 0110, teaching performing autonomous operation of the vehicle based on the user's selection).
Regarding claim 21, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 19 and goes on to further teach [a] computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 19 (Hedge: Para. 0150, teaching a system and method that executes computer programs to control a vehicle).
Regarding claim 22, Hedge remains as applied as in claim 19 and goes on to further teach [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 19 (Hedge: Para. 0149, teaching a non-transitory computer readable medium programmed to perform the steps of the invention).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Telford; David (US Pub. No. 20250115168 A1), herein after Telford.
Regarding claim 7, Hedge remain as applied as in claim 1, however Hedge is silent to [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one constraint criterion comprises a minimum charge level of an energy storage system at the end position.
In a similar field, Telford teaches [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the at least one constraint criterion comprises a minimum charge level of an energy storage system at the end position (Telford: Para. 0098, teaching determining a target state of charge at an end of a route segment) for the benefit of ensuring the vehicle has sufficient charge for later driving maneuvers.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the weighing metrics for selecting an energy efficient route from Hedge to consider a desired state-of-charge at the end of the route, as taught by Telford, for the benefit of ensuring the vehicle has sufficient charge for later driving maneuvers.
Regarding claim 12, Hedge remain as applied as in claim 1, however Hedge is silent to [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle speed independent power consumer comprises a power take off unit.
In a similar field, Telford teaches [t]he computer system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle speed independent power consumer comprises a power take off unit (Telford: Para. 0128, teaching determining the energy consumption of a vehicle based on the energy of the vehicle to travel a distance and the energy consumed by the vehicle cab's AC and the thermal system of the load of the vehicle; and Para. 0097, teaching that the power consumption of the vehicle as drawn from the fuel cells and electric power train of the vehicle is determined for environmental controls, power take-off, cooling and other parasitic loads (non-motive power energy demands)) for the benefit of improving the energy efficiency of a cargo vehicle over a route.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ego-routing based on distance traveled and solar loading from Hedge to also factor in the energy requirement of units connected to a power take-off devices, as taught by Telford, for the benefit of improving the energy efficiency of a cargo vehicle over a route.
Regarding claim 13, Hedge and Telford remain as applied as in claim 12, and Telford goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 12, wherein the power take off unit is connected to at least one of a refrigerator body, a concrete mixer and a heated bed for tarmac (Telford: Para. 0128, teaching determining the energy consumption of a vehicle based on the energy of the vehicle to travel a distance and the energy consumed by the vehicle cab's AC and the thermal system of the load of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Hedge and Telford remain as applied as in claim 12, and Telford goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 12, wherein the power take off unit is connected to, and receives energy from, the prime mover and/or an energy storage system of the vehicle (Telford: Para. 0128, teaching determining the energy consumption of a vehicle based on the energy of the vehicle to travel a distance and the energy consumed by the vehicle cab's AC and the thermal system of the load of the vehicle; and Para. 0097, teaching that the power consumption of the vehicle as drawn from the fuel cells and electric power train of the vehicle is determined for environmental controls, power take-off, cooling and other parasitic loads (non-motive power energy demands)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soliman; Ihab (US Pub. No. 20190004526 A1), herein after Soliman.
Regarding claim 10, Hedge remain as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he computer system of claim 1, the computer system further comprising a… control system configured to control vehicle speed, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: instruct the… control system to control the vehicle speed to follow the set vehicle speed trajectory (Hedge: Para. 0109, teaching informing a user of the vehicle of multiple energy efficient routes which the user may select; and Para. 0110, teaching performing autonomous operation of the vehicle based on the user's selection using a vehicle control module).
Hedge is silent to the control system being a cruise control system.
In a similar field, Soliman teaches [t]he computer system of claim 1, the computer system further comprising a cruise control system configured to control vehicle speed, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: instruct the cruise control system to control the vehicle speed to follow the set vehicle speed trajectory (Soliman: Para. 0003, teaching an autonomous control of a vehicle to follow energy efficient routes using a cruise control system) for the benefit of improving the energy efficiency of a vehicle driving on a route.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the vehicle control module from Hedge be a cruise control system, as taught by Soliman, for the benefit of improving the energy efficiency of a vehicle driving on a route.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wenger et al. (US Pub. No. 20200207326 A1) discloses a system which calculates the expected energy consumption of a vehicle over a route based on the amount of energy needed to drive it and the energy consumed by the vehicle’s subsystems such as the A/C and controls the vehicle’s subsystems based on a comparison to the energy consumed and the energy stored in the vehicle.
Fujimura et al. (US Pub. No. 20180347997 A1) discloses generating candidate routes that balance the fuel consumption by a vehicle traveling the route and the fuel consumption caused by the vehicle’s subsystems.
Sobue et al. (US Pub. No. 20110202221 A1) discloses generating optimal routes for a vehicle based on the projected power that is consumed when traveling the route and the power consumed by the vehicle’s subsystems like the air conditioning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights