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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed on November 12th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-15, and 17 are currently pending in the Application. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-11,13, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140163837, to Um et al. (hereinafter Um), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160334798, to Foster et al (hereinafter Foster), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080015743, to Haug et al (hereinafter Haug), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130116874, to Ichinose et al (hereinafter Ichinose).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claims 10, and 11, Um discloses, A method of controlling a smart cruise control function, comprising: (See at least paragraph [0027] “smart cruise control system”.). determining, by a first controller, a target speed of a vehicle that is traveling when a road surface deceleration factor in front of the vehicle is detected; (See at least paragraph [0013] “the present invention provides a method of automatically controlling speed of a vehicle in a vicinity of a speed bump, including a) receiving, in a control unit coupled to a cruise control system of a vehicle, information about a speed bump from a navigation device”). Um further discloses, (See at least paragraph [0016] “setting a maximum acceleration value for the vehicle to a predetermined value and controlling the speed of the vehicle through acceleration or deceleration at no more than the set maximum acceleration value.”).
entering the road surface deceleration factor, by a second controller, (See at least paragraph [0029] “vehicle speed control unit 40 is configured to, if it is determined that the vehicle is entering or has entered the speed bump area”). while traveling at a constant speed corresponding to the determined target speed; (See at least paragraph [0014] “determining that the corresponding vehicle is currently crossing the speed bump and controlling the speed of the vehicle so that the speed is maintained at a constant speed”).
Um fails to explicitly teach, However Foster teaches, before entering the road surface deceleration factor; (See at least paragraph [0076] “If the vehicle 16 is approaching an identified bump on the map, then the controller 59 is configured to reduce the velocity of the vehicle based on the proximity to the bump, current velocity of the vehicle 16, and/or severity of the bump (process block 144). For example, the closer the vehicle 16 gets to the bump on the map, the slower the vehicle's velocity may be set. That is, the vehicle's velocity may be reduced (e.g., to a first target velocity) when the vehicle initially enters the area surrounding the actual bump, and then reduced further down to a set minimum velocity (e.g., a lower second target velocity) as the vehicle nears the bump.”)
and performing, by the second controller, pitch reduction control based on a motor torque control upon entering the road surface deceleration factor. (See at least paragraph [0062] “the controller 59 is configured to determine a route and/or a target velocity of the vehicle based at least in part on the determined proximity to bumps and/or other obstacles on the visualizations, the determined current velocity of the vehicle 16, and/or the severity of the approaching bumps in the area.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0062] “The transceiver 56 may receive the signals and send the signals to the controller 55, which may instruct the automated steering control system 64 and/or the automated speed control system 66 to direct the vehicle 16 along the route using the steering instructions and/or target velocity..”).
Further Haug discloses, and traveling, by the second controller, at a constant speed corresponding to the target speed again after passing over the road surface deceleration factor. (See at least paragraph [0015] “It is furthermore advantageous in particular if the drive and/or the active chassis of the vehicle is controlled in such a way that after passing a detected road bump the vehicle is accelerated again and/or the active chassis of the vehicle is set again to a road bump-free stretch, the operating parameters which existed before the detection of the road bump being preferably set again. For example, the vehicle is preferably accelerated to the speed at which it was driven immediately before automatic braking was initiated. An automatic pre-tensioning of an active chassis for driving over a detected road bump may be canceled after passing over the road bump so that travel may be resumed under the previous conditions. The operating parameters may also be advantageously reset automatically after passing over a road bump depending on the driver previously entering an appropriate release signal, which may take place by actuating a button and/or by actuating the gas pedal.”).
Further, Ichinose teaches, further comprising stopping, by the second controller, a pitch rate determination, (See at least paragraph [0157] “Under a situation that requires an emergency stop, however, the correction of the braking/driving torque may be canceled with priority assigned to a reliable vehicle stop over the suppression of vibration, in order to avoid the emergency stop.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0159] “In a case that the amounts and rates of pedal operations exceed their presettings and abrupt braking is detected, the correction of the braking/driving torque is canceled since the driver is determined to have taken an emergency avoidance action.”). Still further, (See at least paragraph [0161] “If an obstacle is detected in the forward direction of the vehicle, the control device determines emergency braking to be necessary and cancels the correction of the braking/driving torque.”).
and performing additional deceleration (See at least paragraph [0161-0162] “If an obstacle is detected in the forward direction of the vehicle, the control device determines emergency braking to be necessary and cancels the correction of the braking/driving torque. This maximizes the braking torque for shorter braking distance, suppressing an influence of control upon the emergency braking action, and improving safety of the control device.”).
if a prohibition condition is additionally satisfied (See at least paragraph [0157] “Under a situation that requires an emergency stop, however, the correction of the braking/driving torque may be canceled with priority assigned to a reliable vehicle stop over the suppression of vibration, in order to avoid the emergency stop.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0159] “In a case that the amounts and rates of pedal operations exceed their presettings and abrupt braking is detected, the correction of the braking/driving torque is canceled since the driver is determined to have taken an emergency avoidance action.”). Still further, (See at least paragraph [0161] “If an obstacle is detected in the forward direction of the vehicle, the control device determines emergency braking to be necessary and cancels the correction of the braking/driving torque.”).
when pitch reduction control is performed. (See at least paragraph [0157] “Under a situation that requires an emergency stop, however, the correction of the braking/driving torque may be canceled with priority assigned to a reliable vehicle stop over the suppression of vibration, in order to avoid the emergency stop.”).
Um as modified by Foster, Haug, and Ichinose, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor cruise control systems. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cruise control system as disclosed by Um by including determining the target speed prior to the speed bump of Foster, and Haug, and the calculating the rate of change of pitch of Ichinose with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cruise control system determines what speed is required prior to approaching the speed bump and resuming to normal speed for traffic safety purposes to avoid collisions while the motor vehicle has passed a speed bump. Further, putting a end to a control system inherently motivates stopping the continuous background determination of the pitch rate.
Regarding claim 2, Um as modified by Foster, Haug, and Ichinose, disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Um further disclose, wherein the road surface deceleration factor is detected through at least one of a navigation system, lidar, radar, ultrasonic waves, or a camera. (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “Information about a speed bump is received from a navigation device”).
Regarding claim 4, Um as modified by Foster, Haug, and Ichinos, disclose the claimed features of claim 3 and Um further disclose, further comprising performing, by the second controller, the smart cruise control function at a set target speed before a road surface deceleration factor is detected (See at least paragraph [0041-0042] “The maximum acceleration value can be set as an acceleration value of 10 m/s.sup.2 or to another appropriate acceleration value. The vehicle can generally travel while the speed of the vehicle is automatically controlled through acceleration or deceleration at no more than the maximum acceleration value. Furthermore, as part of the vehicle speed control step, if it is determined that the vehicle is entering or has entered the speed bump area”). after traveling at the constant speed again. (See at least paragraph [0032] “The vehicle speed control unit 40 is configured to, if it is determined that the corresponding vehicle is entering or has entered the speed bump area, compute the speed difference between the safe speed bump crossing speed set to allow the vehicle to safely and comfortably cross the speed bump and the actual/current speed of the vehicle. Further, the vehicle speed control unit 40 calculates the required acceleration or deceleration value based on the calculated distance to the speed bump and the computed speed difference, so as to control the speed of the vehicle using the required acceleration or deceleration value”).
Regarding claim 8, and commensurate claim 17, Um as modified by Foster, Haug, and Ichinose, disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Um further disclose, further comprising: determining, by the first controller, a distance to the road surface deceleration factor; (See at least paragraph [0029] “the speed bump information calculation unit 20 is configured to receive information about each speed bump from the navigation device 10 and to calculate a distance between the vehicle and the speed bump”). and performing speed control to the target speed based on the determined distance such that the vehicle is able to travel at a constant speed corresponding to the target speed for a predetermined time before entering the road surface deceleration factor. (See at least paragraph [0029] “if the calculated distance between the vehicle and the speed bump is less than a preset reference distance, determine that the vehicle is entering or has entered the area of the speed bump. The vehicle speed control unit 40 is configured to, if it is determined that the vehicle is entering or has entered the speed bump area, compute a speed difference between a safe speed bump crossing speed set to allow the vehicle to safely and comfortably cross the speed bump and the actual/current speed of the vehicle. The vehicle speed control unit 40 is further configured to calculate a resulting required acceleration or deceleration value based on the calculated distance to the speed bump and the computed speed difference, which can be used to control the speed of the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 9, Um as modified by Foster, Haug, and Ichinose, disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Um further disclose, wherein the road surface deceleration factor comprises at least one of a speed bump or a pothole. (See at least paragraph [0026] “automatically controlling speed in a speed bump area”).
Regarding claim 13, Um as modified by Foster, Haug, and Ichinose, disclose the claimed features of claim 12 and Um further disclose, wherein the first controller comprises a smart cruise controller, and the second controller is configured to switch control of the smart cruise control function to the first controller when a set target speed is reached before a road surface deceleration factor is detected after the traveling at the constant speed. (See at least paragraph [0013] “the present invention provides a method of automatically controlling speed of a vehicle in a vicinity of a speed bump, including a) receiving, in a control unit coupled to a cruise control system of a vehicle, information about a speed bump from a navigation device”). Um Further discloses, (See at least paragraph [0016] “setting a maximum acceleration value for the vehicle to a predetermined value and controlling the speed of the vehicle through acceleration or deceleration at no more than the set maximum acceleration value”).
Claims 5-6, and 14-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140163837, to Um et al. (hereinafter Um), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160334798, to Foster et al (hereinafter Foster), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080015743, to Haug et al (hereinafter Haug), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130116874, to Ichinose et al (hereinafter Ichinose), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220324421, to Giovanardi et al (hereinafter Giovanardi).
Regarding claim 5, and commensurate claim 14, Um as modified by Foster, Haug, and Ichinose, disclose the claimed features of claim 1, Um fails to explicitly teach, However Giovanardi discloses, wherein the performing pitch reduction control comprises: determining a pitch rate according to the road surface deceleration factor; (See at least paragraph [0155] “A recommended driving speed may be determined in multiple ways. First, a physical model may be used, the physical model being based on road event information contained in road data in a database that may be locally stored on the vehicle or may be retrieved from the cloud at appropriate intervals. The road event information may include an event type (e.g., pothole, speed bump, frost heave, etc.), an event size (e.g., a large event, a medium event, a small event, etc.), an event length, (e.g., a length of a pothole, a length of a speed bump), an event height (e.g., a height of a speed bump, a depth of a pothole, etc.), etc.”).
and performing pitch reduction control through the motor torque control (See at least paragraph [0155] “A recommended driving speed may be determined in multiple ways”). based on the determined pitch rate. (See at least paragraph [0155] “The road event information may include an event type (e.g., pothole, speed bump, frost heave, etc.), an event size (e.g., a large event, a medium event, a small event, etc.), an event length, (e.g., a length of a pothole, a length of a speed bump), an event height (e.g., a height of a speed bump, a depth of a pothole, etc.”).
Um as modified by Giovanardi, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor cruise control. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cruise control system as disclosed by Um as modified by Foster, and Haug by adding the a length of a speed bump calculation (See paragraph [0155]) as taught by Giovanardi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the cruise control system determines how steep the speed bump is in order to reduce speed of the vehicle in order to improve comfortability for the user and vehicle’s lifespan.
Regarding claim 6, and commensurate claim 15, Um as modified by Foster, Haug, Ichinose, and Giovanardi disclose the claimed features of claim 5, Um fails to explicitly teach, However Giovanardi discloses, wherein pitch reduction control is performed when preset control entry conditions are satisfied. (See at least paragraph [0155] “A recommended driving speed may be determined in multiple ways. First, a physical model may be used, the physical model being based on road event information contained in road data in a database that may be locally stored on the vehicle or may be retrieved from the cloud at appropriate intervals. The road event information may include an event type (e.g., pothole, speed bump, frost heave, etc.), an event size (e.g., a large event, a medium event, a small event, etc.), an event length, (e.g., a length of a pothole, a length of a speed bump), an event height (e.g., a height of a speed bump, a depth of a pothole, etc.), etc.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cruise control system as disclosed by Um by modifying with the teachings of Giovanardi with a reasonable expectation of success for the same motivation reasons in claim 1 motivation analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666