DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 of US Application No. 19/097,412, filed on 01 April 2025, are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the United Kingdom 13 June 2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 1908502.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the PRIORITY DOCUMENT EXCHANGE FAILURE STATUS REPORT mailed on 28 April 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 introduces “one or more server devices” in line 8 but subsequently recites “one or more servers” in line 27. Claims 4 and 16 depend from claim 1 and recite “one or more servers”. All instances of “one or more servers” should be – one or more server devices – to be consistent with claim 1.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-17 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claims 1 and 17 are directed toward a machine or manufacture, which fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “calculate a real-time energy budget for the vehicle based on the energy data transmitted from the electronic device” and “dynamically calculate, using at least the obtained location of interest and the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle, real-time boundary data indicative of a dynamic boundary enclosing a portion of the geographic area that is currently reachable by the vehicle by traversing the navigable network, from the location of interest, within the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle; wherein the dynamic boundary is calculated by exploring segments of an electronic map representative of navigable elements of the navigable network, from a position on a segment representative of the location of interest in respect of the vehicle, using a search algorithm having an associated cost function including cost values associated with the segments, wherein an applicable cost value indicative of an amount of energy required to traverse a segment is used for each segment that is explored”. Calculating an energy budget and a dynamic boundary are performing mathematical calculations.
Independent claim 17 recites similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Claim 17 also recites “use the obtained data indicative of jobs assigned to the vehicles in determining a location of interest associated with the vehicle”, which may be performed mentally. For example, a person having job data indicative of multiple jobs, each job having a location for performing each job, can mentally determine a job route and starting location for the job route.
Therefore, claims 1 and 17 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1 and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “an electronic device provided in each vehicle within the fleet of vehicles, each electronic device configured to transmit energy data indicative of an actual or estimated energy level of the vehicle” “each electronic device further comprising a position sensor configured to determine the location of the vehicle in the geographic area”, “one or more server devices configured, for each one of a plurality of vehicles within the fleet of vehicles, to: obtain a location of interest associated with the vehicle via any one or more of a determined location of the vehicle via the position sensor, an input via a dispatcher device functionally linked to the one or more server devices, and receipt of data corresponding to a new job to be assigned to a vehicle”, and “wherein the dispatcher device further comprises a display, and wherein the one or more servers are configured to generate and send information to the dispatcher device for graphically displaying, for each one of the plurality of vehicles within the fleet of vehicles, i) the respective calculated dynamic boundary, and ii) the location of interest upon which the boundary is based, on a representation of at least a portion of the navigable network by displaying and dynamically updating the same electronic map for the plurality of vehicles, such that a dispatcher can see in real-time which vehicle of the plurality of vehicles may reach a location associated with a trip within the calculated real-time energy budget by observing whether the location associated with the trip is within that vehicle’s displayed boundary as compared to other vehicles in the plurality of vehicles”.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The “one or more server devices”, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using the server devices to calculate the energy budget and boundary data is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Using the electronic device to transmit energy data is data outputting. Using a position sensor of the electronic device to determine location of the vehicle is data gathering. Using the server devices to obtain a location of interest is also data gathering. Using the server devices to generate and send information to the dispatcher device is data outputting. Using a display of the dispatching device to display the dynamic boundary and location of interest is outputting data. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Claim 17 also recites the additional elements “obtain existing job data indicative of jobs assigned to respective vehicles in the fleet of vehicles; wherein the existing job data comprises, for each vehicle having a job assigned thereto, data indicative of the or each job assigned to the vehicle and comprising at least the location of the job; and . . . wherein the assigned job data further comprises a duration of the or each job; and wherein, where multiple jobs are assigned to a vehicle, the assigned job data comprises an ordered list of jobs”.
As noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Using the electronic device to transmit energy data is data outputting. Using a position sensor of the electronic device to determine location of the vehicle is data gathering. Using the server devices to obtain a location of interest is also data gathering. Using the server devices to obtain existing job data is data gathering. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1 and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1 and 17 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1 and 17 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Transmitting energy data using an electronic device is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Using a position sensor to determine the location of the vehicle in a geographic area is disclosed in the art. See rejections below. Obtaining a location of interest using the server devices is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Providing a dispatcher device with a display for displaying the dynamic boundary and location of interest is disclosed in the art. See rejections below. Obtaining job data using the server devices is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. These additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 17 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2 recites the additional element “wherein the one or more server devices are further configured, for each one of the plurality of vehicles of the fleet of vehicles, to generate and send respective information to a device associated with the vehicle, the respective information comprising at least navigation instructions corresponding to a trip assigned to the vehicle based at least in part on the calculated dynamic boundary for the vehicle”. Using the server devices to generate and send information to a device associated with the vehicle is extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting. Further, using the server devices to generate and send information to a device associated with the vehicle is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the additional element “a navigation device associated with each vehicle within the fleet of vehicles, configured to receive the respective information from the one or more server devices, and configured to display navigation instructions corresponding to a trip assigned to the vehicle”. Using the navigation device to receive respective information from the server devices is data gathering, while using the navigation device to display navigation instructions is data outputting. Further, using the navigation device to receive information from the server devices is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Displaying navigation instructions on a display is disclosed in the art. See rejections below. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the additional element “wherein the one or more servers are configured to receive data from the dispatcher device selecting the trips to be assigned to the plurality of vehicles and comprising at least a location associated with each trip”. Using the server devices to receive data from the dispatcher device is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering. Further, using the server devices to receive data from the dispatcher device is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further accounting for one or more predetermined margins for error as respective proportions of the calculated real-time energy budget to define dynamic boundaries corresponding to each of the one or more margins for error using at least the obtained location of interest and the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle”, which is a mathematical calculation. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further based on the obtained vehicle profile data”, which is a mathematical calculation. Claim 6 also recites the additional element “wherein the one or more server devices are further configured, for the each one of the plurality of vehicles of the fleet of vehicles, to: obtain vehicle profile data indicative of at least one property of the vehicle”. Using the server devices to obtain vehicle profile data is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering. Further, using the server devices to receive vehicle profile data is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., obtain vehicle profile data Even as further defined, obtaining vehicle profile data is still data gathering and still using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more server devices are configured to use the vehicle profile to identify one or more segments of the electronic map representative of navigable elements that should not and/or could not be traversed by the vehicle”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 8 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 9 recites “dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further based on the obtained data indicative of the live conditions”, which is a mathematical calculation. Claim 9 also recites the additional element “wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: obtain data indicative of live conditions on the navigable network”. Using the server devices to obtain data is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering. Further, using the server devices to receive obtain data is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., obtain data Even as further defined, obtaining data is still data gathering and still using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 11 recites “dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further based on the obtained historical data”, which is a mathematical calculation. Claim 11 also recites the additional element “wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: obtain historical data indicative of historical traversal times for various segments of the navigable network”. Using the server devices to obtain data is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering. Further, using the server devices to receive obtain data is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites “dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further based on the obtained real-time data indicative of the driving behaviour”, which is a mathematical calculation. Claim 12 also recites the additional element “wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: obtain real-time data indicative of a driving behaviour of the one or more drivers associated with the vehicle”. Using the server devices to obtain data is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering. Further, using the server devices to receive obtain data is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites “identify a subset of the fleet of vehicles which are available to perform the new job, based at least in part on a respective temporal and/or spatial proximity for each of the subset of the fleet of vehicles relative to a location of the new job”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 13 also recites the additional element “wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: receive job data indicative of one or more parameters for a new job”. Using the server devices to obtain data is extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering. Further, using the server devices to receive obtain data is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: for each of the plurality of vehicles, dynamically calculate, using at least the obtained location of interest and the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle, real-time boundary data indicative of a dynamic boundary enclosing a portion of the geographic area that is currently reachable by the vehicle by traversing the navigable network, from the location of interest, within a proportion of the calculated real-time energy budget which is less than 100%”, which is a mathematical calculation. Claim 14 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: dynamically calculate boundary data indicative of a set of a plurality of further boundaries, each enclosing a portion of the geographic area representing an area that is reachable by the vehicle by traversing the navigable network from the location of interest within respective progressively smaller proportions of the calculated real-time energy budget”, which is a mathematical calculation. Claim 15 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the additional element “wherein the one or more servers are configured to generate information to the dispatcher device for graphically displaying, for each one of the plurality of vehicles within the fleet of vehicles, multiple boundaries simultaneously, the multiple boundaries defining areas reachable using different proportions of the calculated real-time energy budget”. Using the server devices to generate information to the dispatcher device is extra-solution activity, i.e., data outputting. Further, using the server devices to generate information to the dispatcher device is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving/transmitting data over a network. Displaying boundaries defining reachable areas is data outputting and is disclosed in the art. See rejections below. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittell et al. (US 6,625,539 B1, “Kittell”) in view of Vicharelli et al. (US 2014/0107913 A1, “Vicharelli”).
Regarding claim 1, Kittell discloses range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles and teaches:
an electronic device provided in each vehicle within the fleet of vehicles, each electronic device configured to transmit energy data indicative of an actual or estimated energy level of the vehicle, and each electronic device further comprising a position sensor configured to determine the location of the vehicle in the geographic area (telematics circuit board 23 configured to output data, e.g., power pack parameters, such as remaining charge, via antenna 19 – see at least Fig. 1 and 3:29-64; circuit board 23 includes GPS module that receive GPS data, where the GPS data is reported to data module 47 – see at least Fig. 2 and 5:1-11);
one or more server devices (base station 41 – see at least Fig. 1 and 3:29-43) configured, for each one of a plurality of vehicles within the fleet of vehicles, to:
obtain a location of interest associated with the vehicle via any one or more of a determined location of the vehicle via the position sensor, an input via a dispatcher device functionally linked to the one or more server devices, and receipt of data corresponding to a new job to be assigned to a vehicle (GPS data is reported at 73 to data module 47 of base station 41 – see at least Fig. 2 and 5:1-11);
calculate a real-time energy budget for the vehicle based on the energy data transmitted from the electronic device (computer may predict remaining range based upon remaining stored energy by comparison to the calibration data for each vehicle – see at least 2:28-65; at 67, incoming data is applied to the database and compared with prior data to derive remaining range based upon existing power pack parameters – see at least Fig. 2 and 4:30-57);
[ ];
[ ];
wherein the dispatcher device further comprises a display, and wherein the one or more servers are configured to generate and send information to the dispatcher device for graphically displaying, for each one of the plurality of vehicles within the fleet of vehicles, i) the respective calculated dynamic boundary, and ii) the location of interest upon which the boundary is based, on a representation of at least a portion of the navigable network by displaying and dynamically updating the same electronic map for the plurality of vehicles, such that a dispatcher can see in real-time which vehicle of the plurality of vehicles may reach a location associated with a trip within the calculated real-time energy budget by observing whether the location associated with the trip is within that vehicle’s displayed boundary as compared to other vehicles in the plurality of vehicles (present position and remaining range may be displayed to a dispatcher on a map for new job assignments – see at least 2:28-65).
Kittell fails to teach but Vicharelli discloses vehicle range analysis using driving environment information and teaches:
dynamically calculate, using at least the obtained location of interest and the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle, real-time boundary data indicative of a dynamic boundary enclosing a portion of the geographic area that is currently reachable by the vehicle by traversing the navigable network, from the location of interest, within the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle (maximum range contour – see at least 2:19-31; range contour is created using maximum range Dmax and drive routes that take account of roads involved in the route – see at least Fig. 8 and 6:18-44);
wherein the dynamic boundary is calculated by exploring segments of an electronic map representative of navigable elements of the navigable network, from a position on a segment representative of the location of interest in respect of the vehicle, using a search algorithm having an associated cost function including cost values associated with the segments, wherein an applicable cost value indicative of an amount of energy required to traverse a segment is used for each segment that is explored (see Fig. 11 and 12:14-48).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell to provide for calculating real-time boundary data, as taught by Vicharelli, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would more provide a more accurate map display of range via a maximum range contour (Vicharelli at 2:19-31).
Regarding claim 6, Kittell further teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are further configured, for the each one of the plurality of vehicles of the fleet of vehicles, to: obtain vehicle profile data indicative of at least one property of the vehicle (efficiency as monitored on the vehicle – see at least 5:42-67); and dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further based on the obtained vehicle profile data (mileage efficiency is used to select the appropriate energy remaining versus range table in the database – see at least 5:42-67).
Regarding claim 7, Kittell further teaches:
wherein the at least one property is selected from a group consisting of: a vehicle type; at least one dimension of the vehicle; at least one weight of the vehicle; emissions information for the vehicle; and information identifying any hazardous materials carried by the vehicle (vehicles in database are identified as N1, N2, etc., and each vehicle is known as a certain type of vehicle, such as a golf cart, van, or truck – see at least Fig. 4 and 6:12-40).
Regarding claim 9, Vicharelli further teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: obtain data indicative of live conditions on the navigable network; and dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further based on the obtained data indicative of the live conditions (effects due to changing driving conditions that impact rolling resistance and terrain effects are considered in determining drivable range – see at least 2:33-55).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for obtaining and using data indicative of live conditions on the navigable network, as further taught by Vicharelli, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would more provide a more accurate map display of range via a maximum range contour (Vicharelli at 2:19-31).
Regarding claim 10, Vicharelli further teaches:
wherein the live conditions comprise live traffic conditions and/or live road conditions (effects due to changing driving conditions that impact rolling resistance and terrain effects are considered in determining drivable range – see at least 2:33-55).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for obtaining and using data indicative of live conditions on the navigable network, as further taught by Vicharelli, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would more provide a more accurate map display of range via a maximum range contour (Vicharelli at 2:19-31).
Claims 2-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittell in view of Vicharelli, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Metcalfe (US 2016/0350882 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kittell and Vicharelli fail to teach but Metcalfe discloses a system for receiving requests for transport services and teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are further configured, for each one of the plurality of vehicles of the fleet of vehicles, to generate and send respective information to a device associated with the vehicle, the respective information comprising at least navigation instructions corresponding to a trip assigned to the vehicle based at least in part on the calculated dynamic boundary for the vehicle (dispatch 110 can relay destination location information and turn-by-turn instructions for the driver – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for generating and sending navigation instructions, as taught by Metcalfe, with a reasonable expectation of success, because providing the navigation instructions to the driver can accommodate a driver having a particular physical characteristic (Metcalfe at ¶ [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Metcalfe further teaches:
a navigation device associated with each vehicle within the fleet of vehicles, configured to receive the respective information from the one or more server devices, and configured to display navigation instructions corresponding to a trip assigned to the vehicle (a communication that is transmitted to that driver's system 150 can be displayed on a user interface along with one or more audible sounds – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0033].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell, Vicharelli, and Metcalfe to provide a navigation device configured to receive information, as further taught by Metcalfe, with a reasonable expectation of success, because providing the navigation instructions to the driver can accommodate a driver having a particular physical characteristic (Metcalfe at ¶ [0011]).
Regarding claim 4, Kittell and Vicharelli fail to teach but Metcalfe discloses a system for receiving requests for transport services and teaches:
wherein the one or more servers are configured to receive data from the dispatcher device selecting the trips to be assigned to the plurality of vehicles and comprising at least a location associated with each trip (computing system can arrange the transport service by selecting the driver form a set of available drivers and transmitting an invitation message to the driver application – see at least ¶ [0013], [0027]; transmit an invitation message – see at least Fig. 2B and ¶ [0053]; request management component 112 can provide pickup/dropoff locations to the driver select component 114 – see at least ¶ [0028], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for receiving data from the dispatcher device, as taught by Metcalfe, with a reasonable expectation of success, because providing the data may be used to arrange the transport to be provided by a driver for the rider (Metcalfe at abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Kittell further teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: receive job data indicative of one or more parameters for a new job (at 87, job requests are transmitted to the display and dispatch block 85 – see at least Fig. 2 and 5:12-41).
Kittell and Vicharelli fail to teach but Metcalfe discloses a system for receiving requests for transport services and teaches:
identify a subset of the fleet of vehicles which are available to perform the new job, based at least in part on a respective temporal and/or spatial proximity for each of the subset of the fleet of vehicles relative to a location of the new job (system 100 can select a driver from a set of candidate drivers that are available or capable of providing the transport service for the rider based on, for example, the pickup location and the current location of each of the candidate drivers – see at least ¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for identifying a subset of fleet vehicles available to perform the new job, as taught by Metcalfe, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the it may identify drivers having the shortest distance or travel time to the pickup location (Metcalfe at ¶ [0029]).
Claims 5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittell in view of Vicharelli, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Profous et al. (US 2015/0149078 A1, “Profous”).
Regarding claim 5, Kittell and Vicharelli fail to teach but Profous discloses an apparatus and method for route searching and teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are configured to dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further accounting for one or more predetermined margins for error as respective proportions of the calculated real-time energy budget to define dynamic boundaries corresponding to each of the one or more margins for error using at least the obtained location of interest and the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle (first reachable area 1010 having a first safety margin applied and second reachable area 1020 having a second safety margin applied – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0123], [0129]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for calculating boundary data accounting for safety margins for error, as taught by Profous, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the different safety margins may be used to indicate an area that is considered to definitely be reachable given the current fuel load (Profous at ¶ [0129]).
Regarding claim 14, Kittell and Vicharelli fail to teach but Profous discloses an apparatus and method for route searching and teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: for each of the plurality of vehicles, dynamically calculate, using at least the obtained location of interest and the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle, real-time boundary data indicative of a dynamic boundary enclosing a portion of the geographic area that is currently reachable by the vehicle by traversing the navigable network, from the location of interest, within a proportion of the calculated real-time energy budget which is less than 100% (first reachable area 1010 having a first safety margin applied and second reachable area 1020 having a second safety margin applied – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0123], [0129]; e.g., safety margin percentages for each reachable area – see at least ¶ [0123]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for calculating boundary data within a proportion of the energy budget which is less than 100%, as taught by Profous, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the different safety margins may be used to indicate an area that is considered to definitely be reachable given the current fuel load (Profous at ¶ [0129]).
Regarding claim 15, Profous further teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: dynamically calculate boundary data indicative of a set of a plurality of further boundaries, each enclosing a portion of the geographic area representing an area that is reachable by the vehicle by traversing the navigable network from the location of interest within respective progressively smaller proportions of the calculated real-time energy budget (first reachable area 1010 having a first safety margin applied and second reachable area 1020 having a second safety margin applied – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0123], [0129]; e.g., safety margin percentages for each reachable area – see at least ¶ [0123]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell, Vicharelli, and Profous to provide for calculating boundary data indicative of a set of further boundaries, as further taught by Profous, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the different safety margins may be used to indicate an area that is considered to definitely be reachable given the current fuel load (Profous at ¶ [0129]).
Regarding claim 16, Profous further teaches:
wherein the one or more servers are configured to generate information to the dispatcher device for graphically displaying, for each one of the plurality of vehicles within the fleet of vehicles, multiple boundaries simultaneously, the multiple boundaries defining areas reachable using different proportions of the calculated real-time energy budget (display of multiple reachable areas simultaneously – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0129]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell, Vicharelli, and Profous to provide for displaying multiple boundaries, as further taught by Profous, with a reasonable expectation of success, because displaying multiple boundaries may indicate an area that is considered to definitely be reachable given the current fuel load (Profous at ¶ [0129]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittell in view of Vicharelli, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Thai et al. (US 9,726,509 B1, “Thai”).
Regarding claim 8, Kittell and Vicharelli fail to teach but Thai discloses profile aware navigation and teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are configured to use the vehicle profile to identify one or more segments of the electronic map representative of navigable elements that should not and/or could not be traversed by the vehicle (a vehicle profile 210 is provided to the route planning module 202 to assist in determining an appropriate route for the vehicle – see at least 4:36-67; e.g., routes with prohibitions based on vehicle profile – see at least 5:17-64).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for using vehicle profiles to identify route segments, as taught by Thai, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the route profile may be taken into account for route planning along authorized routes (Thai at 1:5-9,24-37).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittell in view of Vicharelli, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasushi et al. (US 2013/0179062 A1, “Yasushi”).
Regarding claim 11, Kittell and Vicharelli fail to teach but Yasushi discloses a travel distance estimating apparatus and teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: obtain historical data indicative of historical traversal times for various segments of the navigable network; and dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further based on the obtained historical data (at S408, energy consumption in a travel interval may be estimated using energy consumption per unit time in the travel interval by the past traveling time – see at least ¶ [0126]-[0127]; remaining energy is determined at S409 based on energy consumption in the travel interval – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0128]; at S410, travelable distance is determined based on remaining energy – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0128]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for obtaining historical data and calculating boundary data based on the historical data, as taught by Yasushi, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for determining estimated travelable range based on fuel consumption that reflects actual travel and road conditions (Yasushi at ¶ [0009]-[0010]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittell in view of Vicharelli, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoesterei (US 2015/0127204 A1, “Hoesterei”).
Regarding claim 12, Kittell and Vicharelli fail to teach but Hoesterei discloses a navigation device having a range indicator and teaches:
wherein the one or more server devices are further configured to: obtain real-time data indicative of a driving behaviour of the one or more drivers associated with the vehicle; and dynamically calculate the real-time boundary data further based on the obtained real-time data indicative of the driving behaviour (evaluation device determines maximum range using a prediction for energy consumption, which is predicted as a function of observed driving behavior – see at least ¶ [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell and Vicharelli to provide for obtaining data indicative of driving behavior and calculating boundary data based on the driving behavior, as taught by Hoesterei, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would notify the driver of range limitations based on the driver’s behavior (Hoesterei at ¶ [0003]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittell in view of Vicharelli, and Nimchuk et al. (US 2018/0081374 A1, “Nimchuk”).
Regarding claim 17, Kittell discloses range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles and teaches:
an electronic device provided in each vehicle within the fleet of vehicles, each electronic device configured to transmit energy data indicative of an actual or estimated energy level of the vehicle, and each electronic device further comprising a position sensor configured to determine the location of the vehicle in the geographic area (telematics circuit board 23 configured to output data, e.g., power pack parameters, such as remaining charge, via antenna 19 – see at least Fig. 1 and 3:29-64; circuit board 23 includes GPS module that receive GPS data, where the GPS data is reported to data module 47 – see at least Fig. 2 and 5:1-11);
one or more server devices (base station 41 – see at least Fig. 1 and 3:29-43) configured, for each one of one or more vehicles of the fleet of vehicles, to:
[ ];
[ ]; and
[ ] determining a location of interest associated with the vehicle (GPS data is reported at 73 to data module 47 of base station 41 – see at least Fig. 2 and 5:1-11);
[ ]; and
[ ];
calculate a real-time energy budget for the vehicle based on the energy data transmitted from the electronic device (computer may predict remaining range based upon remaining stored energy by comparison to the calibration data for each vehicle – see at least 2:28-65; at 67, incoming data is applied to the database and compared with prior data to derive remaining range based upon existing power pack parameters – see at least Fig. 2 and 4:30-57);
[ ];
[ ].
Kittell fails to teach but Vicharelli discloses vehicle range analysis using driving environment information and teaches:
dynamically calculate, using at least the obtained location of interest and the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle, real-time boundary data indicative of a dynamic boundary enclosing a portion of the geographic area that is currently reachable by the vehicle by traversing the navigable network, from the location of interest, within the calculated real-time energy budget for the vehicle (maximum range contour – see at least 2:19-31; range contour is created using maximum range Dmax and drive routes that take account of roads involved in the route – see at least Fig. 8 and 6:18-44);
wherein the dynamic boundary is calculated by exploring segments of an electronic map representative of navigable elements of the navigable network, from a position on a segment representative of the location of interest in respect of the vehicle, using a search algorithm having an associated cost function including cost values associated with the segments, wherein an applicable cost value indicative of an amount of energy required to traverse a segment is used for each segment that is explored (see Fig. 11 and 12:14-48).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell to provide for calculating real-time boundary data, as taught by Vicharelli, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would more provide a more accurate map display of range via a maximum range contour (Vicharelli at 2:19-31).
Kittell also fails to teach but Nimchuk discloses a transportation management system and teaches:
obtain existing job data indicative of jobs assigned to respective vehicles in the fleet of vehicles (at 208, a set of work steps for a present trip are selected – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0045]);
wherein the existing job data comprises, for each vehicle having a job assigned thereto, data indicative of the or each job assigned to the vehicle and comprising at least the location of the job (work stop information includes a stop list order and planned stop locations – see at least ¶ [0046]); and
use the obtained data indicative of jobs assigned to the vehicles in determining a location of interest associated with the vehicle (at 220, a base route is determined for the work stops – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0046]-[0047]; i.e., base route includes the planned stop location for the first stop on the stop list order, i.e., a location of interest);
wherein the assigned job data further comprises a duration of the or each job (ETA is calculated for each stop in the base route – see at least ¶ [0047]); and
wherein, where multiple jobs are assigned to a vehicle, the assigned job data comprises an ordered list of jobs (work stop information includes a stop list order and planned stop locations – see at least ¶ [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for range prediction in fleet management of electric and fuel-cell vehicles of Kittell to provide for obtaining job data and using the job data to obtain a location of interest, as taught by Nimchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would be useful for dispatchers to effectively utilize available resources (Nimchuk at ¶ [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights