Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to an RCE filed on 3/09/2026. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-22 are pending in this application, wherein claims 1,8, 11. and 18 are amended.
RESPONSE
3. In this RCE, applicant adds a rejected claimed subject matter (was in claim 8) into independent claims 1, and 11; therefore, different grounds of rejections are applied (i.e., Packwood (WO 2015/032827 A2) discloses an ACC system that: prior to determining first and second speeds for a vehicle:
determine that a set speed for a cruise control feature has been defined: and
determine that the predetermined speed limit has changed since the set speed was defined.
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
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.
4. Claims 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De la Gaza (US Pub. 20210347360 A1 – hereafter “Gaza”), in view of Packwood-Ace (WO 2015032827 A2 – hereafter “Packwood’827”).
4A. Per claims 1-2, 11-12: Applicant claims a computing device of a vehicle including a processor 110 and a memory 150, wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the processor (see Gaza, FIG. 1) such that the computing device is ACC programmed to:
- receive a current speed limit for a roadway (signage) on which the vehicle is travelling (e.g., pre- planning a trip at home, see Gaza, FIG. 2, FIG. 4 ref. 402, 404, FIG. 5B, para. [0042]: using a camera/sensor system/via a network/GPS’s map)
- determine a first speed based upon the current speed limit (using cruise control taught by e.g., using ‘656 information on a vehicle, see Gaza, the abstract);
- receive current traffic data for the roadway on which the vehicle is travelling (e.g., receiving a current speed limit/(a current driving condition) on a particular route, (see Gaza, para. [0031]-[0033], [0041]);
- determine a second speed based upon the current traffic data (e.g., “a mapping can specify that a mismatch occurs where [the current speed is more than 7% over the current speed limit AND the current speed is at least 35 MPH] OR [the current speed is more than 5% over the current speed limit” see Gaza para. [0036], or “5 MPH over or under the speed limit, 10 MPH over or under the speed limit, and 15 MPH over or under the speed limit” see Gaza para. [0039] wherein “under the speed limit” this “under” indicates “an offset level of speed); and
- assign “a minimum” of the first and second speeds as an assigned set speed for a cruise control feature (e.g., an offset speed has been taken into account by citing “a minimum”, see Gaza, para. [0032]-[0033]).
Gaza does not expressly disclose about using an ACC system (see Gaza, para. [0039]); however, Packwood’827 suggests on pg. 2 last paragraph that a speed can be adjusted/set (using ACC: see Packwood’827 pg. 3, para.2-3) within a limit/legal range of speed.
Gaza and Packwool’827 suggest about a first speed; this is a predetermined speed that is predetermined based on a route’s speed limit (see Packwood’827 Fig. 5, and page 3, second para.).
Gaza and Packwood’827 suggest about “a second speed”; this is a new set speed by changing a predetermined speed (see Packwood’827 page 20, paragraphs 1-3),
Packwood’827 also suggests that above requirements are input into an ACC system to determine a speed control signal (see Packwood’827, pg. 3, 2nd para.).
It 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 to implement Gaza with Packwood’827 to select a minimum known ACC speed to apply according to a specific condition of the vehicle for a safety and effective traveling by setting a cruise control speed below an available minimum speed limit (see Packwood’827, FIG.5 “SPEED LIMIT” 273).
4B. Per independent claim 11: It is directed to a method, comprising similar limitations as in claim 1; therefore, claim 11 is rejected on the same rationales, and references set forth.
4E. Per dependent claims 8, and 18: Gaza fails to expressly disclose a current speed adjustment/change; however, Packwood’827 suggests that idea (e.g., Packwood-Ace para. [0097] discloses “a predetermined offset” as a degree of adjustment in “continual adjustment of the actual vehicle speed in order to maintain the Set-point vehicle cruise speed may involve a degree of acceleration or deceleration” [0097]).
Packwood’827 suggests a predetermined offset is a user- selected offset (see Packwood-Ace, para. [0040]-[0041],[0177]) or a learned offset based on user driving data (e.g., it is well-understood, routine, and conventional to setting a vehicle’s ACC lower than a number by using an off-set number: a speed limit or a traffic flow, e.g., ”a machine learning model trained to identify situations where heightened driver focus is required and/or reduced speeds are required.” see Gaza, para. [0014], [0033]).
It 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 to implement Gaza with Packwood’827 to adjust a lower increment/decrement to prevent any collision according to a predetermined offset because inputs from a machine learned model to an ACC are digitally controlled for fixed digital amounts.
4C. Per dependent claims 10, and 20: Gaza and Packwood’827 also suggest about actuating a component (e.g., receiving an environment data to controlling a motor) of the vehicle to control a vehicle’s speed based upon the assigned set speed (e.g., using a camera/motor - see Gaza para. [0041], and claim 11).
5. Claims 4, 6 , 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaza in view of Packwood’827, in view of Packwood-Ace, and in view of Rothoff et al. (US 20150253778 A1).
A. Per dependent claims 4, and 14: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Packwood’827 also discloses that current traffic data comprises data from other vehicles (V2V communication) on the roadway on which the vehicle is travelling (e.g., a target vehicle 120, see Packwood’827, the abstract, and Fig. 4).
Gaza and Packwood’827 fails to expressly disclose about receiving traffic data over vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle- to-infrastructure (V2X) communications; however, Rothoff suggests these claimed features (see Rothoff para.[0049]).
It 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 to implement Gaza, Packwood’827 and Packwood with Rothoff et al to receiving traffic data over vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication because these receiving are well-understood, routine and conventional exchanging communication among vehicles on the same travel routes.
B. Per dependent claims 6, and 16: Gaza also suggests about receiving current traffic data include instructions to receive exterior sensor data from the vehicle (e.g., receiving information/instruction from a vehicle’s camera/sensor, see Gaza, para. [0014],[0025], [0032]).
6. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaza in view of Packwood’827, and in view of Wang et al (US 11667285 B2).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Gaza does not expressly disclose about automatically receiving user inputs/(a new set speed) to override the assigned set speed; however, Wang suggests those claimed features by using inputs from a machine learning model to feed in an ACC system (e.g., “a system employing a machine learning model, such as a deep neural network,” as a different/new set speed to input, (see Wang, col. 9 lines 57-62, and col. 11 lines 40-41 to combine with Gaza, para. [0032]-[0033]).
It 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 to implement Gaza and Packwood’827 with Wang et al to automatically generate inputs to an ACC while travelling for controlling a vehicle’s speed automatically.
7 Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaza in view of Packwood’827, and in view of Rajvanshi et al (US Pub 20220119016 A1).
The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Per dependent “structure” claim 21: Gaza does not expressly disclose that the current traffic data includes data specifying a traffic density that is a number of vehicles per unit of distance; however, Rajvanshi et al suggest a traffic density of surround vehicles dependent on spacing/distance of those vehicles (see Rajvanshi et al para. [0006], [0021] & claim 1).
Per dependent “structure” claim 22: Gaza does not expressly disclose that current traffic data includes data specifying an average speed of the other vehicles; however, Rajvanshi et al suggest that current traffic data encompass “average” speed of surround vehicles (see Rajvanshi et al., para. [0020] & claim 1).
It 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 to implement Gaza, and Packwood’827 with Rajvanshi et al to define a traffic density relating to a host vehicle, and the traffic density is defined based on a distance/spacing of vehicle, or based on an average speed other surrounding vehicle since these definitions have been fundamental to derive a current traffic density of a road section at a particular time.
Conclusion
8. Pending claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-22 are rejected.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. 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 the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights