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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-5 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 6/5/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: acquisition unit, determination unit, and proposal unit in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see computer system including a processor in P [0010] for the acquisition, determination, and proposal units.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al., hereinafter Ito (Document ID: WO2011114443A1) in view of Maruno (Document ID: US 20220215399 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire driving information of a vehicle (see at least Page 12 which details the sensors including “engine speed sensor 36… output speed sensor 38… wheel speed sensors… accelerator opening sensor 42”. These exemplary sensor and signal systems are monitored by the ECU to acquire driving information of a vehicle);
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not eco-driving is being performed on the vehicle on the basis of the driving information acquired by the acquisition unit (see at least Page 13 wherein as part of the acquisition unit “an eco mode switch signal SW_ON, which indicates that the eco mode switch 50, which is a driving mode selection switch for switching the driving mode to eco mode, has been switched on by the driver, allowing the driver to select a driving mode.”); and
Ito further teaches on page 13 that “the electronic control unit 110 outputs hybrid control
command signals”, and upon the determination unit determining that eco-driving is being performed on the vehicle, performing battery degradation reduction control that reduces degradation of a battery mounted on the vehicle on at least Page 30 by tethering reduced battery temperature in the eco mode to improved “battery life and fuel efficiency”.
However, Ito does not explicitly teach a proposal unit configured to output information for proposing, to a user of the vehicle, battery degradation reduction control that reduces degradation of a battery.
Instead, Maruno, whose invention pertains to analyzing battery state and deterioration, teaches in at least P [0084] the ability to provide an “advice information display region A32” for “advising the user on the usage method for limiting deterioration”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the eco driving mode switch and battery life improvement methods of Ito with the battery degradation reduction advice of Maruno in order to promote a battery usage that extends a battery's longevity. The invention of Ito is directed towards cooling a battery and providing different modes of operation based on the battery performance. Modification with Maruno would help preserve the value of a battery, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement a recommendation system for minimizing battery degradation in order to boost resale value of a battery as in P [0084] of Maruno.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ito teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Ito further teaches that
the battery degradation reduction control is battery temperature adjustment control that adjusts a temperature of the battery (see at least Page 31 “when the eco mode is selected, battery cooling is prioritized over improving NV performance, and the battery temperature TH BAT is further reduced, which increases the amount of power that can be stored in the battery pack 28, such as regenerative energy from the electric motor M, thereby improving practical fuel efficiency”. This also has the effective of reducing degradation by improving battery life).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Maruno, and further in view of Inoue et al., hereinafter Inoue (Document ID: JP 2013175012 A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ito teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Ito further teaches that
the driving information includes acceleration/deceleration operation information indicating a condition of operation of acceleration/deceleration by the user of the vehicle (see at least page 12 “amount of operation of the accelerator pedal 44 as the driver's acceleration request detected by the accelerator opening sensor 42”), and
Ito further teaches that the determination unit estimates an orientation of the user toward a driving method on the basis of the acceleration/deceleration operation information included in the driving information acquired by the acquisition unit on at least Page 16 wherein “when Eco Mode is selected, the electronic control unit 110 controls the generation of driving force in response to the accelerator opening Acc to be gentler compared to, for example, Normal Mode”. FIG. 2 also illustrates “the relationship between accelerator pedal position (Acc) and user power request (Puser*)” The orientation of the user can also be determined over time based on use in normal mode compared to use in eco mode.
But Ito and Maruno do not explicitly teach determining whether or not eco-driving is being performed on the vehicle in accordance with a result of the estimation.
Instead, Inoue, whose invention pertains to a driving support device capable of giving advice on eco-driving, teaches in at least P [0041] an estimation of whether “driving conditions over time can be considered un-eco-friendly” or if they are on the “eco side”, based on accelerator operation and a driver’s sensation, or orientation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acceleration use and mode control of Ito and Maruno with the eco driving estimation of Inoue in order to provide suggestions to a driver based on eco mode evaluation, such as in P [0051] wherein the operator is encouraged to slow down accelerator pedal usage.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Maruno, and further in view of Ropel et al., hereinafter Ropel (Document ID: US 20240140260 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ito teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Ito further teaches that
the driving information includes air-conditioning usage information indicating usage conditions of an air-conditioning device mounted on the vehicle (see at least Page 16 “when Eco Mode is selected, the electronic control unit 110… controls the operation of the air conditioner to prioritize fuel efficiency”, indicating tracking of air conditioning usage),
But Ito and Maruno do not explicitly teach that
the determination unit estimates an orientation of the user toward an air-conditioning use method on the basis of the air-conditioning usage information included in the driving information acquired by the acquisition unit, and determines whether or not eco-driving is being performed on the vehicle in accordance with a result of the estimation.
Instead, Ropel, whose invention pertains to minimizing degradation of an EV battery pack, teaches in at least P [0198] monitoring “current operation of an EV”, which includes driving style and air conditioner usage. In P [0199] a determination is made “the operation of the EV is causing unnecessary degradation in the operating condition of at least one module in a group of modules combined to form a battery pack”. P [0208] shows automatic control of the air conditioner when a driver is not performing eco driving and fails to perform any corrective actions for minimizing battery degradation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air conditioner monitoring and control of Ito and Maruno with the battery degradation minimization and air conditioner control and monitoring of Ropel in order to monitor a user's driving habits and responsiveness to the need for mitigating battery degradation, and make a control decision to change operation settings in the event that a user fails to intervene.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Maruno, and further in view of Cha et al., hereinafter Cha (Document ID: US2017282739A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ito teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Ito further teaches monitoring the charge capacity of the battery pack on Page 13. But Ito does not explicitly teach that
the driving information includes charge history information indicating a charge history of the battery, and
Instead, Maruno teaches in P [0076] that the display region provides “collected data corresponding to the vehicle 100”, including “battery information, an SOC [%], the remaining capacity [kWh], a full charge capacity [kWh], the number of times of charging [times], a use start date”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charge capacity monitoring of Ito with the detailed battery data of Maruno in order to execute a design choice to collect known quantities of vehicle battery data.
Ito and Maruno do not then explicitly teach that
the determination unit estimates an orientation of the user toward a charging method on the basis of the charge history information included in the driving information acquired by the acquisition unit, and determines whether or not eco-driving is being performed on the vehicle in accordance with a result of the estimation.
Instead, Cha, whose invention pertains to monitoring battery display status, teaches in at least P [0041] the ability to determine charge history information and determine a driver’s habits and preferences in relation to the mode of charging and operation. As in P [0040], this data helps determine whether the “vehicle driver usually drives a short distance or drives in Eco mode”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detailed battery data and collection of charge data of Ito and Maruno with the tracking of charge history information and driving habits of a user of Cha in order to display driving data and emphasize different recommendations based on driver preferences and habits as in P [0060] of Cha. Depending on the "grade" of the driver, the system makes certain display decisions to protect the battery from degradation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20190176802 A1
Invention pertains to automatically selecting or recommending various driving modes to a driver.
Document ID: US 20230124291 A1
Invention pertains to outputting recommendations for energy efficient operation of a vehicle.
Document ID: US 20230234418 A1
Invention pertains to an electric vehicle thermal management system.
Document ID: US 20200335836 A1
Invention pertains to a system for managing a battery for an eco-friendly vehicle.
Document ID: US 20170103327 A1
Invention pertains to receiving driving data from individual user accounts.
Document ID: US 20230398895 A1
Invention pertains to determining required battery charge and managing usage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights