DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 08/12/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is the third action on the merits.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of Applicant’s reply, filed 07/23/2025, with respect to the objection of claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of these claims has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of Applicant’s reply, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-14 of Applicant’s reply, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below) is made in view of Morissette (US 2017/0106863 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morissette (US 2017/0106863 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morissette discloses:
A system providing a passenger-initiated cruise control disable input, the system comprises: (Morissette - passenger-initiated disable input -> Par. 38; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
a cruise control subsystem within a vehicle; (Morissette - passenger-initiated disable input -> Par. 38; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
driver controls communicatively coupled to the cruise control subsystem; (Morissette - driver controls -> Par. 38; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
one or more passenger controls, separate from the driver controls, located within the vehicle reachable by each passenger in the vehicle and being communicatively coupled to the cruise control subsystem and generating a disable signal; (Morissette - passenger controls separate from driver controls generating a disable signal that brings vehicle to controlled stop and prevents driver control from initiating subsystem until default state -> Fig. 2, Fig. 3a-3d, Par. 38-39, Par. 42, Par. 45-46, claim 7; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
one or more sensors providing vehicle operating speed measurements are communicatively coupled to the cruise control subsystem; and (Morissette - sense speed of vehicle -> Par. 39, Par. 42-43)
a vehicle propelling motor communicatively coupled to the cruise control subsystem and to the driver controls; (Morissette - motor -> Par. 42, Par. 49)
wherein the passenger controls deactivate operation of the cruise control subsystem causing the vehicle to come to a controlled stop and prevent the driver controls from reactivating the cruise control subsystem while the disable signal is activated until the passenger controls are returned to a default state. (Morissette - passenger controls separate from driver controls generating a disable signal that brings vehicle to controlled stop and prevents driver control from initiating subsystem until default state -> Fig. 2, Fig. 3a-3d, Par. 38-39, Par. 42, Par. 45-46, claim 7; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
Regarding claim 2, Morissette discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the passenger controls transmits a disable signal to the cruise control subsystem to deactivate operation of the cruise control subsystem. (Morissette - passenger controls separate from driver controls generating a disable signal that brings vehicle to controlled stop and prevents driver control from initiating subsystem until default state -> Fig. 2, Fig. 3a-3d, Par. 38-39, Par. 42, Par. 45-46, claim 7; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
Regarding claim 3, Morissette discloses:
The system according to claim 2, wherein activation of the disable signal further prevents the driver controls from reactivating the cruise control subsystem from controlling the vehicle propelling motor until the passenger controls are returned to the default state. (Morissette - passenger controls separate from driver controls generating a disable signal that brings vehicle to controlled stop and prevents driver control from initiating subsystem until default state -> Fig. 2, Fig. 3a-3d, Par. 38-39, Par. 42, Par. 45-46, claim 7; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
Regarding claim 4, Morissette discloses:
The system according to claim 2, wherein activation of the disable signal further causes the vehicle to come to a complete stop. (Morissette - passenger controls separate from driver controls generating a disable signal that brings vehicle to controlled stop and prevents driver control from initiating subsystem until default state -> Fig. 2, Fig. 3a-3d, Par. 38-39, Par. 42, Par. 45-46, claim 7; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
Regarding claim 6, Morissette discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the passenger controls comprise a separate kill switch accessible to passengers seated in a front passenger seat and one or more rear passenger seats within the vehicle. (Morissette - passenger controls separate from driver controls generating a disable signal that brings vehicle to controlled stop and prevents driver control from initiating subsystem until default state -> Fig. 2, Fig. 3a-3d, Par. 38-39, Par. 42, Par. 45-46, claim 7; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
Regarding claim 7, Morissette discloses:
The system according to claim 4, wherein the system further comprises brakes communicatively coupled to the cruise control subsystem for causing the vehicle to come to a complete stop. (Morissette - brakes -> Par. 48-50)
Regarding claim 8, Morissette discloses:
The system according to claim 4, wherein the system further comprises four-way flashers coupled to the cruise control subsystem being activated when one of the passenger controls generates the disable signal. (Morissette - four-way flashers -> Par. 40)
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.
Claims 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morissette in view of Lotz (US 2020/0001869 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Morissette discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but does not disclose:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle propelling motor comprises an internal combustion engine and one or more electric motors.
Lotz teaches a cruise control interlock system, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle propelling motor comprises an internal combustion engine and one or more electric motors. (Lotz - combustion engine and electric motor -> Par. 54)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morissette to include having its capabilities apply to a vehicle having one or more electric motors as taught by Lotz.
One would be motivated to make this modification to allow cruise control disable by a passenger in desirable situations after a driver has initiated cruise control (Lotz - Par. 1, Par. 36-38, Par. 49). Furthermore, it would have obvious to apply the disable system to accommodate for the proliferation of variety in evolving drivetrain systems. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Morissette and Lotz.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of cruise control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Morissette and Lotz from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 9, Morissette discloses (Morissette does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
A method providing a passenger-initiated cruise control disable input, the method comprises: (Morissette - passenger-initiated disable input -> Par. 38; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
generating a disable signal by a passenger using passenger controls, separate from the driver controls, located within the vehicle reachable by each passenger in the vehicle and being communicatively coupled to the cruise control subsystem communicatively coupled to the cruise control subsystem for deactivating operation of the cruise control subsystem and for preventing the driver controls from reactivating the cruise control subsystem from controlling the vehicle propelling motor until the passenger controls are returned to a default state; and (Morissette - passenger controls separate from driver controls generating a disable signal that brings vehicle to controlled stop and prevents driver control from initiating subsystem until default state -> Fig. 2, Fig. 3a-3d, Par. 38-39, Par. 42, Par. 45-46, claim 7; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
causing the vehicle to a complete stop until the disable signal is deactivated. (Morissette - passenger controls separate from driver controls generating a disable signal that brings vehicle to controlled stop and prevents driver control from initiating subsystem until default state -> Fig. 2, Fig. 3a-3d, Par. 38-39, Par. 42, Par. 45-46, claim 7; cruise control subsystem -> Par. 47)
Lotz teaches a cruise control interlock system, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
activating a cruise control subsystem by a driver with a driver controls for controlling a vehicle propelling motor communicatively coupled to the cruise control subsystem and to driver controls; (Lotz - cruise control subsystem -> Fig. 1 (system 100), Par. 16-22; operator/driver control coupled to the cruise control subsystem -> Par. 16-26; vehicle propelling motor -> Par. 54)
setting a desired vehicle speed by the driver in the cruise control subsystem for use by the vehicle propelling motor; (Lotz - set desired vehicle speed -> Par. 3-5, Par. 36-38, Par. 49)
Regarding claim 10, Morissette and Lotz teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 9, and Morissette further discloses (Morissette does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
the vehicle further comprises four-way flashers coupled to the cruise control subsystem being activated when one of the passenger controls generates the disable signal. (Morissette - four-way flashers -> Par. 40)
Lotz teaches a cruise control interlock system, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The method according to claim 9, wherein the vehicle propelling motor comprises an internal combustion engine and one or more electric motors; (Lotz - combustion engine and electric motor -> Par. 54)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICAH C CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8983. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm ET.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/MICAH CHUEN-HIM CHENG/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669