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 1-20 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lane (US 2023/0168696).
Priority
The priority date for this application is 12/02/2024.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A step-by-step analysis of the independent claims is provided below:
Step 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes, Claim 1 refers to a method (process), Claim 12 refers to an apparatus (machine), Claim 20 refers to a system (machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: is the claim directed towards a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? Yes, the independent claims recite “determining a charging plan…”, “generating a charging plan…”. These limitations represent an abstract idea as they can all be performed solely within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application? No, the independent claims only contain additional elements that represent either generic computing components performing routine, well-understood, functions (such as a “processor”) or insignificant extra-solution activity (such as data collection or data output to a display).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, as previously discussed the additional elements represent only generic computing components or insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore do not cause the claim as-a-whole to be directed away from the abstract idea and leading to a claim that represents significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lane.
As per Claim 1:
Lane discloses the following limitations:
“A method for providing vehicle information, performed by a computing device including a processor and a storage medium storing instructions executable by the processor, the method comprising: receiving destination information of a vehicle and target state of charge (SoC) information of a battery included in the vehicle at a destination”
Lane Paragraph [0098] discloses identifying a destination and a target SoC with which to arrive at said destination.
“collecting travel environment information on a travel route determined based on the destination information”
Lane Paragraphs [0041]-[0042] discloses obtaining environmental information of route segments.
“determining a charging plan establishment condition, based on the target SoC information and the travel environment information”
Lane Paragraph [0038] discloses determining a charging plan for a vehicle along a route.
“and generating charging plan information for the travel route based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied.”
Lane [Abstract] discloses planning a route involving charging for a vehicle to a destination such that the vehicle satisfies a target SoC at the destination.
With regards to Claim 2, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining the charging plan establishment condition includes: determining a first sub-condition based on a total required amount of charging for traveling on the travel route; determining a second sub-condition based on minimum SoC information of the battery; and determining a third sub-condition based on the target SoC information, wherein the charging plan establishment condition is determined as being satisfied, based on the first sub- condition, the second sub-condition, and the third sub- condition being satisfied.”
Lane [Abstract] discloses identifying energy consumption along a route representing a first condition and a target SoC representing a second condition leading to a third condition of ensuring that a vehicle satisfies the target SoC upon arrival to a destination.
With regards to Claim 3, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“determining the total required amount of charging, wherein determining the first sub-condition includes determining that the first sub-condition is satisfied based on the total required amount of charging being a positive value.”
Lane [Abstract] discloses identifying that a vehicle will require energy consumption to pursue a route and therefore positive charging would be required so that the vehicle will be able to navigate said route.
With regards to Claim 4, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining the total required amount of charging includes: determining one or more estimated amounts of SoC consumption of one or more unit sections included in the travel route; and determining the total required amount of charging, based on the target SoC information, a sum of the one or more estimated amounts of SoC consumption of the one or more unit sections, and initial SoC information of the battery.”
Lane Paragraph [0043] discloses identifying the energy consumption requirement of individual route segments and adding them to arrive at the total energy consumption.
With regards to Claim 5, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“ determining first estimated SoC information of the battery based on the vehicle traveling through a section between a departure point and a nearest charging station from the departure point, among one or more charging stations located on the travel route, wherein determining the second sub-condition includes determining that the second sub-condition is satisfied based on the first estimated SoC information having a value greater than a value of the minimum SoC information of the battery.”
Lane [Abstract] discloses identifying routes that arbitrarily pass through route segments containing charging stations and considers a route valid if the vehicle will arrive with a target SoC or not.
With regards to Claim 6, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“ determining a first estimated amount of SoC consumption required for the vehicle to travel through a section between a nearest charging station from a destination, among one or more charging stations located on the travel route, and the destination; and determining second estimated SoC information, based on a difference between maximum SoC information of the battery and the first estimated amount of SoC consumption, wherein determining the third sub-condition includes determining that the third sub-condition is satisfied, based on the target SoC information having a value greater than a value of the second estimated SoC information.”
Lane [Abstract] discloses identifying a charging plan that determines what is required to ensure that a vehicle arrives at a destination with at least a target SoC and will visit any arbitrary number of stations to ensure this condition.
With regards to Claim 7, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein generating the charging plan information includes determining a required number of times of charging, based on a capacity of the battery and the total required amount of charging, and generating the charging plan information further includes: generating the charging plan information based on a first rule, based on the required number of times of charging being once; or generating the charging plan information based on a second rule different from the first rule, based on the required number of times of charging being two or more.”
Lane [Abstract] discloses ensuring that a vehicle arrives at a destination with a target SoC and will therefore ensure that a vehicle will charge any arbitrary number of times this is required to ensure such arrival condition. Every routing plan that includes different numbers of charging stops would necessarily be different from each other.
With regards to Claim 8, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein generating the charging plan information based on the first rule includes determining a charging station at which charging is to be performed, among one or more charging stations located on the travel route, based on the total required amount of charging and the minimum SoC information of the battery.”
Lane [Abstract] discloses ensuring that a vehicle arrives at a destination with a target SoC including charging stops if required.
With regards to Claim 9, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein generating the charging plan information based on the second rule includes: determining a first amount of charging to be performed at a nearest charging station from a destination, among one or more charging stations located on the travel route; determining a first required amount of charging, based on a difference between the total required amount of charging and the first amount of charging; and determining a charging station at which charging is to be performed, among the one or more charging stations located on the travel route, and a second amount of charging, based on the first required amount of charging and the minimum SoC information of the battery.”
Lane [ Abstract] discloses ensuring that a vehicle arrives at a destination with a target SoC and will therefore plan any arbitrary number of stops, and the necessary amount of charging of said stops, in order to accomplish this condition.
With regards to Claim 10, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein generating the charging plan information based on the second rule includes: determining a second required amount of charging, based on a difference between the first required amount of charging and the second amount of charging; and determining a charging station at which charging is to be performed, among the one or more charging stations located on the travel route, and a third amount of charging, based on the second required amount of charging and the minimum SoC information of the battery, based on the second required amount of charging having a positive value.”
Lane [Abstract] discloses ensuring that a vehicle arrives at a destination with a target SoC and will therefore plan any arbitrary number of stops, and the necessary amount of charging of said stops, in order to accomplish this condition. The charging required at any arbitrary stop necessarily depends on the charging performed at any previous stop and the predicted energy expenditure of the vehicle along the route. A charging amount required will always be positive as a vehicle is travelling along a route or otherwise expending energy in any way.
With regards to Claim 11, Lane discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the charging plan information includes a charging station at which charging is to be performed, among one or more charging stations located on the travel route, an amount of charging, and a period of time required for charging.”
Lane Paragraph [0038] discloses identifying charging stations along a roue and charging for the requisite amount necessary to arrive within the target SoC condition.
As per Claim 12: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 13, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 20: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Related References
Hershkovitz (US 2010/0094496)
Related to route planning for an electric vehicle.
Sakai (US 2010/0131139)
Related to charge planning along a route.
Segawa (US 2014/0046595)
Related to route planning.
Payne (US 2017/0088000)
Related to reducing the cost of vehicle charging based on route prediction.
Choi (US 2017/0299401)
Related to charging station guiding.
Cho (US 2020/0047629)
Related to optimizing traveling of an electric vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights