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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0016329.
Priority
The priority date for this application is 05/02/2023.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims recite “determine…a driving profile…”, “determine an adjusted vehicle speed for each segment…”, “estimate the driving range…”. These limitations represent an abstract idea as they can be performed solely within the human mind. A step-by-step analysis of independent Claim 1 is provided below:
Step 1: Is the Claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards a control system (machine).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon? Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas as previously discussed.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the additional elements recited in the claim represent mere extra-solution activity (i.e. “receive route information…”, and “output a signal indicative of the estimated driving range”) or generic computing components performing routine, well-understood, functions (i.e. controllers).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the additional elements recited refer only to insignificant extra-solution activity or generic computing components and therefore are insufficient to cause the claim as-a-whole to be directed away from the abstract idea and thus not to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2019/0016329.
As per Claim 1:
Park teaches the following limitations:
“A control system for estimating a driving range for an electric vehicle, the control system comprising one or more controller, the control system configured to: receive route information concerning a journey planned to be undertaken by the vehicle; determine, from the route information, a driving profile for the journey, the driving profile comprising an expected vehicle speed for each of a plurality of segments of the journey; determine an adjusted vehicle speed for each segment in dependence on an adjustment factor, the adjustment factor being based on historical driving data for the vehicle; estimate the driving range for the vehicle based on the adjusted vehicle speeds for each segment of the journey; and output a signal indicative of the estimated driving range.”
Park Paragraph [0032] teaches identifying expected speeds for road segments along a route. Paragraph [0034] teaches predicting the remaining range based off prediction factors for road segments. Paragraphs [0042]-[0043] teach adjusting predictions based on adjusted live speed values for road segments.
With regards to Claim 2, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to: monitor a driven speed of the vehicle for a journey segment; compare the driven speed of the vehicle with an expected vehicle speed for that journey segment; and determine the adjustment factor based on a difference between the driven speed and the expected speed.”
Park Paragraphs [0042]-[0043] teach adjusting an energy prediction based on comparing live speed to predicted speeds.
With regards to Claim 3, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to compare the driven speed of the vehicle with an expected vehicle speed for each of a plurality of speed ranges, and to determine an adjustment factor for each speed range.”
Park Paragraphs [0042]-[0043] teach adjusting an energy prediction based on comparing live speed to predicted speeds. The speed ranges are arbitrary as they refer to the current speed of the vehicle and therefore this reference teaches adjusting energy predictions based on any speed range.
With regards to Claim 4, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to monitor the driven speed of the vehicle, compare the driven speed of the vehicle with an expected vehicle speed, and determine the adjustment factor based on the difference, during the planned journey, and to use the newly determined adjustment factor to refine the driving range estimate.”
Park Paragraphs [0042]-[0043] teach adjusting an energy prediction based on comparing live speed to predicted speeds.
With regards to Claim 5, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to estimate the driving range by predicting an energy consumption for each of the plurality of journey segments, each journey segment representing a constant expected vehicle speed and road gradient.”
Park Paragraphs [0032]-[0034] teaches identifying elevation and speed data for route segments and using that to predict energy consumption for various route segments.
With regards to Claim 6, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to estimate the driving range by aggregating segments by vehicle speed and road gradient, and determining an energy consumption for each aggregated group of segments.”
Park Paragraphs [0032]-[0034] teaches identifying elevation and speed data for route segments and using that to predict energy consumption for various route segments and combining them into a route energy prediction.
With regards to Claim 7, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to estimate the driving range substantially immediately upon selection of the planned journey.”
Park Paragraphs [0032]-[0034] teaches identifying elevation and speed data for route segments and using that to predict energy consumption for various route segments and combining them into a route energy prediction. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that this procedure is done during selection of the route as it would be less useful if done at any other point.
With regards to Claim 8, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to select an adjustment factor for determining the adjusted vehicle speed in dependence on the expected vehicle speed for a segment of the journey.”
Park Paragraphs [0042]-[0043] teach adjusting an energy prediction based on comparing live speed to predicted speeds.
With regards to Claim 9, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the expected speed is based on an aggregated data set for multiple drivers.”
Park Paragraph [0036] teaches identifying predicted speeds based on traffic speeds, which represent an aggregated data set for multiple drivers, and historic data, which also represent aggregated data for multiple drivers.
With regards to Claim 10, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein if an amount of data collected and generated by the monitoring and comparing steps is less than a threshold amount for a given expected vehicle speed or speed range, the control system is further configured to estimate the driving range using the expected vehicle speed rather than an adjusted vehicle speed for that expected vehicle speed or speed range.”
Park Paragraph [0042] teaches adjusting speed predictions based on driving data, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such an adjustment cannot occur without the necessary amount of adjustment data being present. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to not perform a function of the invention in the absence of data required to perform said function.
With regards to Claim 11, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to determine a driving style based on the historical driving data, and to set the adjustment factor based on the determined driving style.”
Park Paragraph [0042] teaches adjusting prediction data based on driver technique data.
With regards to Claim 12, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to use an adjustment factor determined based on driven speeds for a speed range corresponding to the current segment if available, and to use an adjustment factor based on determined driving style otherwise”
Park Paragraph [0042] teaches adjusting prediction data based on driver technique data. The reference cites several parameters for adjustment and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use available data for one of the parameters when data for another parameters is not available.
With regards to Claim 13, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to receive a signal indicative of the identity of a driver of the vehicle, and to select the adjustment factor in dependence on the identified driver”
Park Paragraph [0041] teaches identifying profiles for specific drivers.
With regards to Claim 14, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to determine the adjustment factor in relation to the identified driver based on historical driving data associated with the identified driver”
Park Paragraph [0041] teaches identifying profiles for specific drivers including the driver's history.
With regards to Claim 15, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“further configured to display the driving range estimate indicated by the outputted signal on a user interface of the vehicle”
Park Paragraph [0003] teaches displaying route energy predictions.
With regards to Claim 16, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations:
“A vehicle comprising the control system of Claim 1”
Park [Abstract] teaches a vehicle with the system of the reference.
As per Claim 17: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 18, Park teaches all of the limitations of Claim 17 and further teaches the following limitations:
“Computer readable instructions which, when executed by a computer, are arranged to perform the method according to claim 17”
Park [Abstract] teaches a computer system with the system of the reference.
Related References
Poechmueller (US 2014/0005879)
Related to range estimation of a vehicle.
Loftus (US 2015/0066258)
Related to electric vehicle management.
McGee (US 2015/0276420)
Related to crowd-source energy estimation.
Jeon (US 2016/0176309)
Related to estimation of charge state in a 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
