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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “an iterative calculation including comprising;”, which likely should simply be “an iterative calculation comprising;”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 15 recites the limitation “a pulse power”. However, “a pulse power” and “the pulse power” is previously recited in claim 1. This renders the term with unclear antecedent basis and whether it should be considered the same as previously recited or not, and thus the term is indefinite. Claims 7 and 16 depend on claims 6 and 15 without rectifying the issue, and thus they are also indefinite. The examiner is interpreting them to be different quantities.
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 accomplishable by mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of mathematical calculations, which is analogous to mental work with the aid of generic computer equipment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to a system and method.
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of taking in data, performing calculations and data analysis, and outputting data; essentially mathematical calculations.
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to mathematical calculations. In addition, the remaining claim limitations either work to develop the abstract idea further (defining further mathematical steps and data analysis from sensor data), or to implement the idea onto generic computer components (generically recited computers).
Prong Two; Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited. In particular, additional elements include;
Computer system (generically recited, well known and routine in the art)
Speed adjusting device (generically recited until being defined as a fuel cell system, but does not control or integrate into the system, merely serves as a source of parameter information to analyze, additionally well known and routine in the art)
Auxiliary brake (generically recited, but does not control or integrate into the system, merely serves as a source of parameter information to analyze, and is well known and routine in the art)
Vehicle (generically recited, well known and routine in the art)
These elements are not recited such that they control any aspect of a vehicle/computer. They merely serve as sources of information or parameters to analyze mathematically, and only output a message containing the results of mathematical calculations and data analysis.
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a computer system). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the outputting step, and the additional vehicle, speed adjusting device, and auxiliary brake, were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The background recites that the invention is not restricted to any particular vehicle (paragraph 0001), and the specification does not provide any indication that the recited additional elements are anything other than a conventional computers or components within a well understood, routine vehicle.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (US20230398989A1).
Regarding claim 1, Held US20230398989A1 teaches;
A computer system comprising processing circuitry (taught as a control arrangement, comprising a computing unit, paragraph 0160) configured to:
acquire terrain data of an upcoming power event for a host vehicle (taught as determining a future power demand, including consideration of upcoming road topology, paragraph 0130),
calculate a total power required for traveling through the upcoming power event provided a target speed for the host vehicle (taught as calculating an anticipated load corresponding to a propulsion power needed to propel the vehicle according to a speed profile, paragraph 0131, and other parameters such as vehicle weight, speed, inclination of the road etc. paragraph 0132, 0153),
calculate, by adjusting a speed parameter for the host vehicle at the upcoming power event (taught as adjusting the speed associated with road sections, such as downhill road sections, for example, paragraph 0149), a pulse power [interpreted to essentially be a difference between power demand and power supply, e.g. paragraph 0010] and pulse time [interpreted to be segment length divided by vehicle speed, e.g. paragraph 0010] available in the electrical energy storage system of the host vehicle (taught as determining propulsion power needed [corresponding to pulse power], based on an anticipated load on the electrical machine system, to propel the vehicle according to a speed profile, paragraph 0131, including a predetermined time duration [corresponding to pulse time] where the vehicle travels according to a configured speed profile in the uphill section, paragraph 0152) to assist [examiner notes this feature is merely intended use; If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim] a speed adjusting device of the host vehicle during the upcoming power event to reach the total power (taught as, by taking into account the road section information, one can anticipate a load needed to propel the vehicle according to a speed profile, paragraph 0131),
calculate a recovery time window prior to the upcoming power event that allows the electrical energy storage system to provide the pulse power and pulse time at the upcoming power event (taught as determining a required increase of the travelling time in the downhill section based on the thermal model, the road inclination, weight of the vehicle, etc. for example, paragraph 0036, which is applied in the situation of a downhill section followed by an uphill section [and thus the travelling time in downhill is prior to the power consuming section uphill], paragraph 0072) with the constraint that a thermal limit of the electrical energy storage system at the end of the upcoming power event is not exceeded (taught as establishing a required temperature level, such that the electrical machine system does not exceed the temperature limit, for example, in the uphill road section, paragraph 0152).
While Held does not explicitly teach; “provide an output including the recovery time window, the pulse power, and the pulse time”, this would be implicit in the fact that the propelling/braking power is determined and implemented in the automatic control of the vehicle (e.g. paragraph 0072). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, by the act of controlling a vehicle based on the calculated parameters, one would in turn output that information to some part of the system [e.g. to another ECU, component controller that controls specific vehicle functions such as braking, acceleration].
Regarding claim 8, Held teaches;
The computer system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the target speed is the legal speed limit at the upcoming power event (taught as accounting for speed limitations due to legal speed limits on upcoming road sections, paragraph 0127).
Regarding claim 9, Held teaches;
A vehicle comprising the computer system (taught as a vehicle, element 100) of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claims 10, 17, and 19-20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1-9. Therefore, claims 10, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 8, wherein;
Claims 10 and 19-20 correspond to claim 1
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, Held teaches;
The method of claim 10 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the thermal limit is a temperature selected above which unwanted [examiner notes that this is intended use; If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim] that rapid degradation of the electrical energy storage system occurs (taught as a temperature limit, corresponding to reducing/preventing overheating of the electrical machine system, paragraph 0015).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (US20230398989A1) in view of Gogna (US20230264595A1).
Regarding claim 2, Held teaches;
The computer system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), the upcoming power event is an ascent event whereby the total power is the ascent power required to climb the ascent event (taught as a propulsion power needed to propel a vehicle according to a speed profile for an uphill section road section, paragraph 0131).
However, Held does not explicitly teach; wherein the speed adjusting device is a fuel cell system that provides propulsion power to the host vehicle.
Gogna teaches; wherein the speed adjusting device is a fuel cell system that provides propulsion power to the host vehicle (taught as a fuel cell powered vehicle, paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a fuel cell vehicle as in Gogna in the system executing the method of Held. It is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to use estimated thermal and power management systems, such as taught in Held, in a fuel cell vehicle as taught by Gogna with the predictable result of obtaining vehicle control over a fuel cell powered vehicle.
Regarding claims 11, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 2. Therefore, claims 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 2.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (US20230398989A1) as modified by Gogna (US20230264595A1), and further in view of Ingram (US20130261914).
Regarding claim 3, Held as modified by Gogna teaches;
The computer system of claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Held further teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
calculate the ascent power based on an inclination of the ascent event derived from the terrain data, a present vehicle weight, and the target speed (taught as calculating propelling power corresponding to laws of motion, including vehicle weight, speed, and inclination of the road, paragraph 0132),
wherein to calculate the pulse power and the pulse time includes an iterative calculation comprising:
a) calculate an updated ascent power based on the inclination of the ascent event, the present vehicle weight, and an ascent speed below the target speed (taught as calculating propelling power corresponding to laws of motion, including vehicle weight, speed, and inclination of the road, paragraph 0132, 0153; updating the speed would implicitly update the propelling power, and further suggested lowering of vehicle speed until reaching the end of the uphill road section indicates such consideration, paragraph 0141),
c) calculate the ascent time based on an ascent length derived from the terrain data and the updated ascent speed (taught as a predetermined time duration where the vehicle travels according to a configured speed profile in the uphill section, paragraph 0152; updating the speed profile would implicitly update the time duration),
However, Held does not explicitly teach; determine that the ascent power exceeds the accumulated available fuel cell system power and available continuous electrical energy storage system power,
b) calculate the pulse power as the difference between the updated ascent power and the available fuel cell system power,
d) compare a present available energy in the electrical energy storage system with the energy required to provide the pulse power for the duration of the ascent time,
e) repeat steps a-d with reduced updated ascent speed until the present available energy in the electrical energy storage system is equal to or exceeds the energy required to provide the pulse power for the duration of the ascent time, output the pulse power, and the ascent time as the pulse time.
Gogna teaches; determine that the ascent power exceeds the accumulated available fuel cell system power and available continuous electrical energy storage system power (taught as determining whether the fuel cell power alone is sufficient to navigate the hill, paragraph 0039, Fig 2 step 104),
b) calculate the pulse power as the difference between the updated ascent power and the available fuel cell system power (taught as determining whether the fuel cell power alone is sufficient to navigate the hill, paragraph 0039, Fig 2 step 104,; updating the power needed would implicitly affect this determination/comparison, and a comparison of a power requirement and available power using a difference is obvious, even if not explicit),
d) compare a present available energy in the electrical energy storage system with the energy required to provide the pulse power for the duration of the ascent time (taught as determining whether the combination of fuel cell power and battery power is sufficient to climb the grade, paragraph 0041; a comparison of a power requirement and available power using a difference is obvious, even if not explicit).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust vehicle parameters and check whether energy requirements are met as taught by Gogna in the system taught by Held in order to improve power management. Such systems allow for consideration of situations not adequately covered by the fuel cell alone, as suggested by Gogna (paragraph 0002), and further help ensure the ability of a vehicle to complete a trip (e.g. paragraph 0007).
However, Gogna does not explicitly teach;
e) repeat steps a-d with reduced updated ascent speed until the present available energy in the electrical energy storage system is equal to or exceeds the energy required to provide the pulse power for the duration of the ascent time, output the pulse power, and the ascent time as the pulse time.
Ingram teaches; e) repeat steps a-d with reduced updated ascent speed until the present available energy in the electrical energy storage system is equal to or exceeds the energy required to provide the pulse power for the duration of the ascent time, output the pulse power, and the ascent time as the pulse time (taught as determining whether there is adequate energy to reach the destination, and if so, ending the planner routine-otherwise, adjusting the settings/limits of the vehicle to reduce energy consumption, for example, paragraph 0148).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continue planning calculations until the energy parameters are met, as taught by Ingram, int eh system taught by Held, in order to ensure the vehicle can reach the destination. It would be obvious that not having enough energy to reach the destination is not optimal, as suggested by Ingram in explicitly optimizing for such features (paragraph 0149).
Regarding claim 4, Held as modified by Gogna and Ingram teaches;
The computer system of claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). However, Held does not explicitly teach; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
evaluate whether the ascent power exceeds the accumulated maximum available fuel cell system power and available continuous electrical energy storage system power, and
only perform the iterative calculation when the ascent power exceeds the accumulated available fuel cell system power and available continuous electrical energy storage system power.
Gogna teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: evaluate whether the ascent power exceeds the accumulated maximum available fuel cell system power and available continuous electrical energy storage system power taught as determining whether the fuel cell power alone is sufficient to navigate the hill, paragraph 0039, Fig 2 step 104), and
only perform the iterative calculation when the ascent power exceeds the accumulated available fuel cell system power and available continuous electrical energy storage system power (taught as determining whether the fuel cell power alone is sufficient to navigate the hill, paragraph 0039, Fig 2 step 104, and if not, whether to build up the battery state of charge to provide battery assist, Fig 2 step 108).
Regarding claims 12-13, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 3-4. Therefore, claims 12-13 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3-4.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (US20230398989A1) in view of Wessel (US11738750B2).
Regarding claim 5, Held teaches;
The computer system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), and the upcoming power event is a descent event whereby the total power is the vehicle brake power required to maintain the target speed during the upcoming descent (taught as calculating a brake power based on laws of motion, paragraph 0132, 0153).
However, Held does not explicitly teach; wherein the speed adjusting device is an auxiliary brake device that provides auxiliary brake capacity to the host vehicle.
Wessel teaches; wherein the speed adjusting device is an auxiliary brake device that provides auxiliary brake capacity to the host vehicle (taught as an auxiliary brake used to provide braking force, e.g. column 4 lines 32-37).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an auxiliary brake system as taught by Wessel in the system taught by Held to improve braking. Including both an auxiliary brake system with a main brake system with a control system, as taught by Wessel, can improve overall braking power, and further address the potential problem of requiring manual intervention in certain downhill slopes (column 1 lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 14, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Held (US20230398989A1) as modified by Wessel (US11738750B2) and further in view of Gogna (US20230264595A1).
Regarding claim 6, Held as modified by Wessel teaches;
The computer system of claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection). Held further teaches; wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
calculate the vehicle brake power based on an inclination of the descent event derived from the terrain data, a present vehicle weight, and the target speed (taught as calculating a brake power based on laws of motion and accounting for vehicle weight, road inclination, and vehicle speed, paragraph 0132, and load on the storage system, paragraph 0153),
and to calculate the pulse power and the pulse time includes an iterative calculation including comprising:
a) calculate a descent time based on the descent length and an updated descent speed below the target speed (taught as calculating a travelling time in the downhill road section, which is updated to different speed profiles based on parameters such as braking power, e.g. paragraph 0138).
While Held does not explicitly teach; “output the pulse power, and the descent time as the pulse time”, this would be implicit in the fact that the propelling/braking power is determined and implemented in the automatic control of the vehicle (e.g. paragraph 0072). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, by the act of controlling a vehicle based on the calculated parameters, one would in turn output that information to some part of the system [e.g. to another ECU, component controller that controls specific vehicle functions such as braking, acceleration].
However, Held does not explicitly teach; determine that the vehicle brake power exceeds a vehicle rated brake power, wherein the vehicle rated brake power is used as target brake power,
b) calculate a pulse power based on an estimated available energy difference in the electrical energy storage device between start of the descent and end of the descent, and the descent time,
c) calculate a needed auxiliary brake power based on a difference between the target brake power and the pulse power,
d) compare the calculated needed auxiliary brake power with the auxiliary brake capacity,
e) repeat steps a-d with reduced updated descent speed until the needed auxiliary brake power does not exceed the auxiliary brake capacity,
Wessel teaches; determine that the vehicle brake power exceeds a vehicle rated brake power, wherein the vehicle rated brake power is used as target brake power (taught as determining, based on road gradient data, mass of the motor vehicle and a speed restriction, a required value of braking power, column 4 lines 17-22), and to calculate the pulse power and the pulse time includes an iterative calculation including comprising:
c) calculate a needed auxiliary brake power based on a difference between the target brake power and the pulse power (taught as determining, based on road gradient data, mass of the motor vehicle and a speed restriction, a required value of braking power, column 4 lines 17-22, and relating it to the available auxiliary brake, column 4 lines 32-34),
d) compare the calculated needed auxiliary brake power with the auxiliary brake capacity (taught as determining the available braking power, column 4 lines 32-34, tested against the required value of braking power in a simulated requirement, column 4 lines 54-60).
While Wessel does not explicitly teach;
“e) repeat steps a-d with reduced updated descent speed until the needed auxiliary brake power does not exceed the auxiliary brake capacity”, the implication within the invention is that such modification of braking values is performed to optimize the situation; specifically, achieving braking that is as energy efficient as possible given the circumstances (column 5 lines 4-10), and thus would effectively achieve the optimization described.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to iterate braking power as taught by Wessel in the system taught by Held in order to improve braking efficiency. As suggested by Wessel, such behavior can improve overall braking power, and further address the potential problem of requiring manual intervention in certain downhill slopes (column 1 lines 56-62).
However, Wessel does not explicitly teach;
b) calculate a pulse power based on an estimated available energy difference in the electrical energy storage device between start of the descent and end of the descent, and the descent time,
Gogna teaches; b) calculate a pulse power based on an estimated available energy difference in the electrical energy storage device between start of the descent and end of the descent [interpreted to be a different quantity than defined in claim 1, as the definition differs], and the descent time (taught as modifying the braking behavior based on battery discharge/charging levels during a downhill road section to provide proactive charging, with a current battery state of charge level, and determining charging levels based on the available power in the battery and fuel cell, paragraph 0039).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify and factor in battery charge as taught by Gogna in the system taught by Held modified by Wessel in order to improve energy efficiency. Such behavior, as suggested by Gogna, allows for longer battery assists than before if a system naively keeps its performance at a lower charging level [not accounting for factors such as grade, current state of charge, fuel cell power etc.] (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Held as modified by Wessel and Gogna teaches;
The computer system of claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection),
Gogna teaches; wherein to calculate the needed auxiliary brake power further includes adding a fuel cell idle power presently available (taught as accounting for/checking current fuel cell power.in the decision tree of braking behavior in a downhill road section, paragraph 0039).
Regarding claims 15-16, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 15-16 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 6-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further modification of braking, speed modulation etc. in uphill/downhill scenarios; US11731516, US20230036318A1, WO2024083313A1 (see IDS)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights