DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 received on 05/07/2025 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 8-11 and 16-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/200,190 (hereinafter ‘190) in view of QIU (US20200333148A1). Table has been created to compare claims 1, 8-9 and 17 of the instant application and claims 1-2, 12 and 20 of Application No. 19/200,190 side-by-side.
Instant Application (App. No. 19/201,197)
Copending Application No. 19/200,190
1. A method of providing information for a vehicle, 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 the vehicle and target State Of Charge (SoC) information of a battery of the vehicle at a destination;
collecting driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information;
determining a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data; and
generating charging plan information using a charging plan model based on an objective function based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied.
1. 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;
collecting travel environment information on a travel route determined based on the destination information;
determining a charging plan establishment condition, based on the target SoC information and the travel environment information; and
generating charging plan information for the travel route based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the charging plan establishment condition includes:
determining a first sub-condition based on a total required charging amount for driving the driving 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, based on the first sub-condition, the second sub-condition, and the third sub-condition being satisfied, the charging plan establishment condition is determined as being satisfied.
2. The method for claim 1, 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 det ermined as being satisfied, based on the first sub-condition, the second sub-condition, and the third sub-condition being satisfied.
9. An apparatus for providing information for a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a storage medium storing instructions executable by the processor,
wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is configured to
receive destination information of the vehicle and target State Of Charge (SoC) information of a battery of the vehicle at a destination,
collect driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information,
determine a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data, and
generate charging plan information using a charging plan model based on an objective function based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied.
12. An apparatus for providing vehicle information, the apparatus comprising:
a processor; and
a storage medium storing instructions executable by the processor,
wherein the processor, by executing the instructions, is configured to:
receive destination information of a vehicle and target state of charge (SoC) information of a battery included in the vehicle at a destination;
collect travel environment information on a travel route determined based on the destination information;
determine a charging plan establishment condition, based on the target SoC information and the travel environment information; and
generate charging plan information for the travel route based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied.
17. A vehicle system comprising:
a battery;
a display;
an input module; and
a processor configured to
cause the display to display a user interface for receiving destination information of a vehicle and target State Of Charge (SoC) information of the battery at a destination,
collect driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information,
determine a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data,
generate charging plan information using a charging plan model based on an objective function based on the charging plan establishment conditions being satisfied, and
cause the display to display the charging plan information.
20. A vehicle system comprising:
a battery;
a display;
an input module; and
a processor configured to:
cause the display to display a user interface receiving destination information of a vehicle and target state of charge (SoC) information of the battery at a destination;
collect travel environment information on a travel route determined based on the destination information;
determine a charging plan establishment condition, based on the target SoC information and the travel environment information;
generate charging plan information for the travel route based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied; and
cause the display to display the charging plan information.
As illustrated in the table above, all matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim limitations are not bolded.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, ‘190 teaches most of the claim limitations, but fails to specifically teach teaches a charging plan model based on an objective function.
QIU teaches a charging plan model based on an objective function based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied (FIG. 5A-6B; FIG. 7 725[Wingdings font/0xE0]765; para. [0018]: “The navigation system may develop a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs”; para. [0003]: “the first and second number of charging stops are selected to minimize combined charging time of the at least one charging stop”; para. [0036]-[0039]: “comparing the routes to one another, the amount of energy acquired during the charging segments may be approximately the same sum total for each route”; para. [0061]: “update the route 200 with various charging locations to allow the vehicle to recharge and optimize the charging time”, wherein optimization indicates objective function).
QIU is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of route planning for electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘190 to incorporate the teachings of QIU by developing a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs. Doing so would take into account the charging speeds, detour times required to reach a charging station, required energy for the trip, and current vehicle energy, and thus develop a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs (QIU, para. [0018).
Regarding claim 2, ‘190 in view of QIU teaches the method of claim 1. QIU further teaches wherein the driving environment data includes data on one or more charging stations located on the driving route (FIG. 2; FIG. 7 735: “Identify charge locations”; para. [0018]: “The navigation system takes into account the charging speeds, detour times required to reach a charging station, required energy for the trip, and current vehicle energy”; para. [0053]: “at block 735, the processor 106 may identify one or more charge points 210 along the route 200 as possible locations of recharge of the battery 170), and
wherein generating the charging plan information includes determining the objective function of the charging plan model based on the data on the one or more charging stations located on the driving route (FIG. 5A-6B; para. [0027]: “Thus, the charging time for the first charge point 210 a may be: charging time=charging segment+2(detour segment)=charging segment+2t x”; para. [0036]-[0037]: “Thus, for the first route plan 502, the charging time may be t1=ta+tb. […] For the second route plan 522, the charging time may be t2=tc. The navigation system 172 may then compare t1 and t2 to determine which of the two route plans have the shortest charging time”).
Regarding claim 3, ‘190 in view of QIU teaches the method of claim 2. QIU further teaches wherein the charging plan information includes a charging station to perform charging among the one or more charging stations located on the driving route, a charging amount, and a charging time (FIG. 2; FIG. 5A-6B; FIG. 4; para. [0060]: “At block 765, the processor 106 may update the default route 200 to include the one or more charging stations 212 as indicated by the selected route plan as waypoints”; para. [0034]: “The route plan 502 may also include charging segments 512. The route plan 502 may include charging segments of varying durations. A first charging segment 512 a may be considered a “fast charging time” where the vehicle battery 170 charges quickly, but likely does not complete charging of the battery 170. The first charging segment 512 a may correspond to a first time ta. A second charging segment 512 b may be similar. The second charging segment 512 b may be associated with a second time tb.”; para. [0027]: “the charging time for the first charge point 210 a may be: charging time=charging segment+2(detour segment)=charging segment+2t x”).
Regarding claim 10, it recites an apparatus claim with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an apparatus claim with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, it recites an apparatus claim with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, it recites a vehicle system with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a vehicle system with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, ‘190 in view of QIU teaches the vehicle system of claim 17. QIU further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to,
determine the objective function based on a total charging time and a total number of charging times for driving on the driving route (FIG. 5A-6B; para. [0036]: “For example, the charging time for the first route plan 502 may include the charging segments 512 and detour segments 510. Thus, for the first route plan 502, the charging time may be t1=ta+tb”),
determine a smallest value solution of the objective function using the charging plan model (para. [0032]: “charging stops are selected to minimize combined charging time of the at least one charging stop”; para. [0059]: “Then at block 760, the processor 106 may select the route plan with the shortest charging time.”), and
generate the charging plan information based on the smallest value solution of the objective function (para. [0032]: “charging stops are selected to minimize combined charging time of the at least one charging stop”; para. [0021]: “The display 138 may also be configured to display route information including a destination location, charge points, etc.”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method.
Claim 9-20 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of providing information for a vehicle, 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 the vehicle and target State Of Charge (SoC) information of a battery of the vehicle at a destination;
collecting driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information;
determining a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data; and
generating charging plan information using a charging plan model based on an objective function based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim limitations of “determining a charging plan establishment condition” and “generating charging plan information using a charging plan model” are equivalent to a mental process of judgement based on observation.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A method of providing information for a vehicle, 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 the vehicle and target State Of Charge (SoC) information of a battery of the vehicle at a destination;
collecting driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information;
determining a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data; and
generating charging plan information using a charging plan model based on an objective function based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving destination information” and “collecting driving environment data” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically mere data gathering, that merely use a “processor” to perform the processes. In particular, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates claimed functions, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to determining a charging plan establishment condition and generating charging plan information amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving…” and “collecting …”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
In contrast to claim 1 which generally recites “providing information”, claim 17 recites “cause the display to display the charging plan information”, thus applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application as supported by para. [0007]-[0008] of the specification reproduced below.
[0007] An aspect of the present disclosure is to provide a method and apparatus for providing information for a vehicle, and a vehicle system including the apparatus or performing the method, which may generate and provide optimized charging plan information using an objective function-based charging plan model to improve user convenience and energy consumption efficiency.
[0008] An aspect of the present disclosure is to provide a method and apparatus for providing information for a vehicle, and a vehicle system including the apparatus or performing
the method, which may shorten the charging time and driving time and improve the usability and management efficiency of a battery by generating and providing optimized charging plan information using an objective function-based charging plan model to a user.
Therefore, claims 1-16 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3, 8-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erozlu (US20230038012A1), in view of QIU (US20200333148A1).
Regarding claim 1, Erozlu teaches a method of providing information for a vehicle, performed by a computing device including a processor and a storage medium storing instructions executable by the processor (para. [0024]: “processing circuitry 102, which may comprise processor 104 and memory 106 […] executed by processor 104, cause processor 104 to operate electric vehicle 101 in accordance with embodiments described above and below”), the method comprising:
receiving destination information of the vehicle and target State Of Charge (SoC) information of a battery of the vehicle at a destination (FIG. 4 402: “Determine navigation destination of electric vehicle”; para. [0048]: “At 402, processing circuitry 102 may determine a navigation destination. For example, input circuitry 116 may receive a user input or selection of a destination”; para. [0044]: “advantageous for electric vehicle 101 to arrive at destination 208 with around 25% of the total capacity of electric battery 110 (e.g., to provide sufficient range at the desired destination). In some embodiments, the arrival SOC may be adjusted based on user preferences”);
collecting driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information (FIG. 4 406: “Retrieve route information along the initial route”; para. [0050]: “At 406, processing circuitry 102 may retrieve route information along the initial route. In some embodiments, processing circuitry 102 may retrieve route details from one or more servers 140. The route information may include weather information, elevation information, speed limit information, traffic information, or any other suitable information about factors that may affect the range of electric vehicle 101.”);
determining a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data (FIG. 4 412: “Is navigation destination within the partial range?”; FIG. 6 602; para. [0053]: “determine if electric vehicle 101 can travel to the destination using only the predetermined percentage of the current SOC of electric battery 110. […] determine if the destination is within the partial range by determining if the current energy of electric battery 110 is a predetermined percentage more (e.g., 15%) than the energy required to reach the destination.”; para. [0075]: “determine if electric battery 110 contains at least a predetermined percentage more than the energy required to reach the destination.”; para. [0040]: “[…] determine if destination 208 is within the partial range. […] processing circuitry 102 determines that electric vehicle 101 is not expected to reach destination 208 using 80% or less of the current SOC, processing circuitry 102 identifies a charging station to add as a waypoint to the initial route (e.g., by adjusting the initial route to stop at the charging station). For example, as shown, processing circuitry 102 may compare the determined partial range of 132 miles with the distance to destination 208 (400 miles) to determine that electric vehicle 101 will need to stop at least once to recharge en route to destination 208”); and
generating charging plan information using a charging plan model based on an (FIG. 4 416-428; FIG. 6; para. [0055]: “add a charging station based on a location corresponding to the partial range.”), but fails to specifically teach an objective function.
However, QIU teaches collecting driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information (FIG. 7; para. [0049]: “At block 715, the processor 106 may calculate the required energy needed for the trip. This may take into consideration the power needed to drive along the route 200 and may take into consideration a driver's driving style, expected delays due to traffic or weather, topographical and incline data along the route, predicted cabin climate, etc”);
determining a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data (FIG. 7; para. [0051]-[0052]: “At block 725, the processor 106 may determine whether the current vehicle energy is less than the required energy […] At block 730, the processor 106 may calculate the energy gap between the required energy and current vehicle energy”); and
generating charging plan information using a charging plan model based on an objective function based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied (FIG. 5A-6B; FIG. 7 725[Wingdings font/0xE0]765; para. [0018]: “The navigation system may develop a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs”; para. [0003]: “the first and second number of charging stops are selected to minimize combined charging time of the at least one charging stop”; para. [0036]-[0039]: “comparing the routes to one another, the amount of energy acquired during the charging segments may be approximately the same sum total for each route”; para. [0061]: “update the route 200 with various charging locations to allow the vehicle to recharge and optimize the charging time”, wherein optimization indicates objective function).
Erozlu and QIU are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of route planning for electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Erozlu to incorporate the teachings of QIU by developing a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs. Doing so would take into account the charging speeds, detour times required to reach a charging station, required energy for the trip, and current vehicle energy, and thus develop a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs (QIU, para. [0018).
Regarding claim 2, Erozlu in view of QIU teaches the method of claim 1. QIU further teaches wherein the driving environment data includes data on one or more charging stations located on the driving route (FIG. 2; FIG. 7 735: “Identify charge locations”; para. [0018]: “The navigation system takes into account the charging speeds, detour times required to reach a charging station, required energy for the trip, and current vehicle energy”; para. [0053]: “at block 735, the processor 106 may identify one or more charge points 210 along the route 200 as possible locations of recharge of the battery 170), and
wherein generating the charging plan information includes determining the objective function of the charging plan model based on the data on the one or more charging stations located on the driving route (FIG. 5A-6B; para. [0027]: “Thus, the charging time for the first charge point 210 a may be: charging time=charging segment+2(detour segment)=charging segment+2t x”; para. [0036]-[0037]: “Thus, for the first route plan 502, the charging time may be t1=ta+tb. […] For the second route plan 522, the charging time may be t2=tc. The navigation system 172 may then compare t1 and t2 to determine which of the two route plans have the shortest charging time”).
Regarding claim 3, Erozlu in view of QIU teaches the method of claim 2. QIU further teaches wherein the charging plan information includes a charging station to perform charging among the one or more charging stations located on the driving route, a charging amount, and a charging time (FIG. 2; FIG. 5A-6B; FIG. 4; para. [0060]: “At block 765, the processor 106 may update the default route 200 to include the one or more charging stations 212 as indicated by the selected route plan as waypoints”; para. [0034]: “The route plan 502 may also include charging segments 512. The route plan 502 may include charging segments of varying durations. A first charging segment 512 a may be considered a “fast charging time” where the vehicle battery 170 charges quickly, but likely does not complete charging of the battery 170. The first charging segment 512 a may correspond to a first time ta. A second charging segment 512 b may be similar. The second charging segment 512 b may be associated with a second time tb.”; para. [0027]: “the charging time for the first charge point 210 a may be: charging time=charging segment+2(detour segment)=charging segment+2t x”).
Regarding claim 8, Erozlu in view of QIU teaches the method of claim 1. Erozlu in view of QIU further teaches wherein determining the charging plan establishment condition includes:
determining a first sub-condition based on a total required charging amount for driving the driving route (Erozlu FIG. 4 412: “Is navigation destination within the partial range?”; QIU FIG. 7; QIU para. [0052]: “the processor 106 may calculate the energy gap between the required energy and current vehicle energy”);
determining a second sub-condition based on minimum SoC information of the battery (Erozlu para. [0003]: “charging stations may be suggested when a state of charge (SOC) of the electric battery of the electric vehicle drops or is projected to drop below some minimum value (e.g., 10% of the total capacity of the electric battery)”); and
determining a third sub-condition based on the target SoC information (Erozlu para. [0044]: “for electric vehicle 101 to arrive at destination 208 with around 25% of the total capacity of electric battery 110 (e.g., to provide sufficient range at the desired destination). In some embodiments, the arrival SOC may be adjusted based on user preferences or the availability of chargers at a destination. For example, if charging stations are available at the destination, the arrival SOC may be adjusted to 15%”; Erozlu para. [0071]: “At 518, processing circuitry 102 may determine that the arrival SOC is above the recommended destination arrival range”),
wherein, based on the first sub-condition, the second sub-condition, and the third sub-condition being satisfied, the charging plan establishment condition is determined as being satisfied (Erozlu FIGs. 4-5; para. [0069]: “At 514, in response to determining that the charging station is the last charging station before the navigation destination, processing circuitry 102 may determine if the arrival SOC of electric battery 110 of electric vehicle 101 is projected to be within a recommended destination arrival range.”).
Regarding claim 9, it recites an apparatus for providing information for a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a processor; and a storage medium storing instructions executable by the processor,
wherein the processor, by executing the instructions (Erozlu para. [0024]: “processing circuitry 102, which may comprise processor 104 and memory 106 […] executed by processor 104, cause processor 104 to operate electric vehicle 101 in accordance with embodiments described above and below”), is configured to perform claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, it recites an apparatus claim with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, it recites an apparatus claim with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, it recites an apparatus claim with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Erozlu teaches a vehicle system (FIG. 1) comprising:
a battery (para. [0025]: “battery system 108, which may be configured to provide power to one or more of the components of electric vehicle 101 during operation”);
a display (para. [0008]: “generate for display, at the display, the suggested charging station with the destination recharge time”);
an input module (para. [0028]: “Processing circuitry 102 may be communicatively connected to input interface 122 (e.g., a steering wheel, a touch screen display, buttons, knobs, a microphone or other audio capture device, etc.) via input circuitry 116. In some embodiments, a driver of electric vehicle 101 may be permitted to select certain settings in connection with the operation of electric vehicle 101 (e.g., input a range selection, etc.). In”); and
a processor (para. [0024]: “processing circuitry 102, which may comprise processor 104 and memory 106 […] executed by processor 104, cause processor 104 to operate electric vehicle 101 in accordance with embodiments described above and below”) configured to
cause the display to display a user interface for receiving destination information of a vehicle and target State Of Charge (SoC) information of the battery at a destination (FIG. 3; para. [0046]: “navigation interface 300 may display icons for starting SOC 306, recharge SOCs 314, 322, and arrival SOCs 308, 316, and 324. Additionally, navigation interface 300 may display icons 312, 320 in association with first and second charging stations 311, 319. Icons 312, 320 may include the recommended recharge time to recharge electric battery 110 at each of first and second charging stations 311, 319”),
collect driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information (FIG. 4 406: “Retrieve route information along the initial route”; para. [0050]: “At 406, processing circuitry 102 may retrieve route information along the initial route. In some embodiments, processing circuitry 102 may retrieve route details from one or more servers 140. The route information may include weather information, elevation information, speed limit information, traffic information, or any other suitable information about factors that may affect the range of electric vehicle 101.”),
determine a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data (FIG. 4 412: “Is navigation destination within the partial range?”; FIG. 6 602; para. [0053]: “determine if electric vehicle 101 can travel to the destination using only the predetermined percentage of the current SOC of electric battery 110. […] determine if the destination is within the partial range by determining if the current energy of electric battery 110 is a predetermined percentage more (e.g., 15%) than the energy required to reach the destination.”; para. [0075]: “determine if electric battery 110 contains at least a predetermined percentage more than the energy required to reach the destination.”; para. [0040]: “[…] determine if destination 208 is within the partial range. […] processing circuitry 102 determines that electric vehicle 101 is not expected to reach destination 208 using 80% or less of the current SOC, processing circuitry 102 identifies a charging station to add as a waypoint to the initial route (e.g., by adjusting the initial route to stop at the charging station). For example, as shown, processing circuitry 102 may compare the determined partial range of 132 miles with the distance to destination 208 (400 miles) to determine that electric vehicle 101 will need to stop at least once to recharge en route to destination 208”),
generate charging plan information using a charging plan model based on (FIG. 4 416-428; FIG. 6; para. [0055]: “add a charging station based on a location corresponding to the partial range.”), and
cause the display to display the charging plan information (FIG. 3; FIG. 4; FIG. 6; para. [0061]: “At 428, processing circuitry 102 may generate for presentation the updated route to the destination with the added charging stations and the determined charge time (e.g., on navigation interface 300). Navigation interface 300 (or any of the other interfaces described above) may be displayed at display 130 of electric vehicle 101 and/or at user device 138.”), but fails to specifically teach an objective function.
However, QIU teaches collecting driving environment data on a driving route determined based on the destination information (FIG. 7; para. [0049]: “At block 715, the processor 106 may calculate the required energy needed for the trip. This may take into consideration the power needed to drive along the route 200 and may take into consideration a driver's driving style, expected delays due to traffic or weather, topographical and incline data along the route, predicted cabin climate, etc”);
determining a charging plan establishment condition based on the target SoC information and the driving environment data (FIG. 7; para. [0051]-[0052]: “At block 725, the processor 106 may determine whether the current vehicle energy is less than the required energy […] At block 730, the processor 106 may calculate the energy gap between the required energy and current vehicle energy”); and
generating charging plan information using a charging plan model based on an objective function based on the charging plan establishment condition being satisfied (FIG. 5A-6B; FIG. 7 725[Wingdings font/0xE0]765; para. [0018]: “The navigation system may develop a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs”; para. [0003]: “the first and second number of charging stops are selected to minimize combined charging time of the at least one charging stop”; para. [0036]-[0039]: “comparing the routes to one another, the amount of energy acquired during the charging segments may be approximately the same sum total for each route”; para. [0061]: “update the route 200 with various charging locations to allow the vehicle to recharge and optimize the charging time”, wherein optimization indicates objective function).
Erozlu and QIU are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of route planning for electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Erozlu to incorporate the teachings of QIU by developing a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs. Doing so would take into account the charging speeds, detour times required to reach a charging station, required energy for the trip, and current vehicle energy, and thus develop a route plan that optimizes the charging time and overall trip time, while meeting all required energy needs (QIU, para. [0018).
Regarding claim 18, it recites a vehicle system with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a vehicle system with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Erozlu in view of QIU teaches the vehicle system of claim 17. QIU further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to,
determine the objective function based on a total charging time and a total number of charging times for driving on the driving route (FIG. 5A-6B; para. [0036]: “For example, the charging time for the first route plan 502 may include the charging segments 512 and detour segments 510. Thus, for the first route plan 502, the charging time may be t1=ta+tb”),
determine a smallest value solution of the objective function using the charging plan model (para. [0032]: “charging stops are selected to minimize combined charging time of the at least one charging stop”; para. [0059]: “Then at block 760, the processor 106 may select the route plan with the shortest charging time.”), and
generate the charging plan information based on the smallest value solution of the objective function (para. [0032]: “charging stops are selected to minimize combined charging time of the at least one charging stop”; para. [0021]: “The display 138 may also be configured to display route information including a destination location, charge points, etc.”).
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erozlu, in view of QIU and further in view of STEVEN (DE 102021004110 A).
The Espacenet English translation of STEVEN cited by the Examiner is attached.
Regarding claim 4, Erozlu in view of QIU teaches the method of claim 2. QIU further teaches wherein the objective function is determined based on a total charging time and (para. [0003]: “stops are selected to minimize combined charging time of the at least one charging stop”; ), and
wherein generating the charging plan information includes determining a lowest value solution of the objective function using the charging plan model, and generating the charging plan information based on the lowest value solution of the objective function (para. [0028]: “The long-range navigation system 172 may take into consideration the time at each possible charge station and the charging speed at various states of charge. The charging rate of the two shorter segments may be much faster than the average charging rate of the longer segment”; para. [0043]: “may then compare t3 and t4 to determine which of the two route plans have the shortest charging time.”), but fails to specifically teach objective function is determined based on a total charging time and a total number of charging times for driving the driving route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, STEVEN teaches objective function is determined based on a total charging time and a total number of charging times for driving the driving route (para. [0014]: “According to an alternative interpretation, a cost function underlying the determination of the ideal speed of travel can also consist of operating the vehicle at the ideal speed of travel in order to reach the navigation destination as quickly as possible, while simultaneously adhering to the constraint that no refueling stop and/or charging stop to recharge a traction battery should be carried out, or, in the case of a particularly long journey, that the number of refueling stops and/or charging stops to be carried out is minimized.
The time required for refueling or charging can also be taken into account and, if necessary, reduced by only partially filling the vehicle's energy storage system, thus minimizing the overall travel time.”).
STEVEN is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of route planning for electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Erozlu in view of QIU to incorporate the teachings of STEVEN by incorporating both number of charging stops and charging time into a cost function. Doing so would of providing an improved method for operating a vehicle which enables a vehicle user to arrive at a desired destination as energy-efficiently and quickly as possible (STEVEN, para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Erozlu in view of QIU and further in view of STEVEN teaches the method of claim 4. QIU further teaches wherein the total charging time is determined as a sum of at least one charging time at the one or more charging stations located on the driving route (QIU para. [0036]: “the first route plan 502, the charging time may be t1=ta+tb.”), and
wherein the at least one charging time at the one or more charging stations located on the driving route is determined based on a temperature, a charging amount, and a charging current of the battery (FIG 3; FIG. 4; para. [0030]: “FIG. 4 illustrates an example graph showing current (A) and SOC (%) versus time (minutes) for an example charging strategy of one example vehicle.”; para. [0049]: “At block 715, the processor 106 may calculate the required energy needed for the trip. This may take into consideration the power needed to drive along the route 200 and may take into consideration a driver's driving style, expected delays due to traffic or weather” ).
Regarding claim 12, it recites an apparatus claim with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, it recites an apparatus claim with claim limitations similar to those of the method of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LANE (US20230168696A1) teaches dynamically adjust the route, charges of the battery, and/or machine operations performed along the route, during travel to cause the SoC of the battery to satisfy the target SoC when the machine arrives at the maintenance station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights