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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 2 June 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 13, 15, 17, 24 have been amended.
Claim 16 has been cancelled.
Claim 25 has been added.
All rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 13-15, 17-25 are pending. Claims 13 and 24 are independent claims.
Specification
The amendment to the specification/abstract filed on 6/2/26 has been accepted and entered.
However, the abstract remains objected for the following reasons: The abstract involves language that is not particularly in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim(s) 13-14, 18, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visconti et al (US20100164703, 2010)(Disclosed in IDS filed on 9/5/23) in further view of Ezoe et al (US20080269997, 2008) in further view of Dufford (US20170058734, 2017). Wippler (US20180299008, 2018), is cited as evidence regarding downshifting is a form of engine braking.
As independent claim 13, Visconti et al discloses a method assisting a driver of a motor vehicle in driving on a predetermined racetrack (Abstract; 0018-0019: loop circuit for performance driving) comprising:
a sensing system for detecting a current position of the motor vehicle on the racetrack, (0016; 0021: provide the instantaneous position of car)
an engine electronic control unit for regulating an actuating system of an engine of the motor vehicle, (0014: ECU controls engine; thus, considered an engine ECU)
wherein predetermined braking-point positions on the racetrack have been stored in the engine electronic control unit, (0020-0021: route comprises optimum points for braking which ECU identifies. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that any data received/identified is stored in at least a form of memory within ECU)
the method comprising:
continuously detecting the current position of the motor vehicle on the racetrack; (0021: detecting position at high frequency)
ascertaining a respective remaining driving time from the current position to a respective braking-point position on the racetrack by using the engine electronic control unit, (0021: determines time from current position to optimum point to brake)
wherein corresponding limiting values for the respective remaining driving time are stored in the engine electronic control unit, (0021; FIG 2A: values calculated. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that any data received/identified is stored in at least a form of memory within ECU)
the engine is an internal combustion engine or an electric motor (0014)
Furthermore, Visconti et al discloses warning the driver in various ways of acoustically and/or optically informing the driver of the optimal braking time point before a bend when driving on a racetrack (Abstract, 0018, 0021, 0030-0031) Thus, Visconti et al discloses in response to a corresponding limiting value not being reached the engine electronic control unit issuing warnings. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose an engine signal. In other words, Visconti fails to disclose …regulates the actuating system of the engine such the engine generates a signal configured to communicate to the driver. However, Ezoe et al discloses when the automatic braking of the vehicle has been initiated/actuated, by the brake ECU, in response to an estimated value of time elapsed, the driver hears sound emitting from the engine because the engine revolution number is reduced and can feel the deceleration. (0009-0010, 0020, 0098)
The motivation to combine the cited art, Ezoe et al, with Visconti would be because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art of electronic control units in vehicles (e.g. engine ECU) would have found it obvious to combine Visconti et al with Ezoe et al to update by using changing/adjusting the dynamic functionalities of the engine ECU of the vehicle/machine to emit sounds and reduce the current engine revolution number (e.g. RPM) in in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaptation, such that it prevents sudden braking from being applied, and to keep the safety of the vehicle.
In conjunction, the cited combination of Ezoe et al with Visconti would have taught in response to a corresponding limiting value not being reached the engine electronic control unit regulates the actuating system of the engine such that the engine generates a signal configured to communicate to the driver.
Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 13 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Ezoe et al discloses the generated signal regulates the actuating system such that an acoustic response of the engine is changed, (0020, 0098: sound of engine emitted). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose engine electronic control unit regulates the actuating system such that an acoustic response of the engine is changed. However, Dufford discloses the vehicle comprises an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the engine and control actuators within the engine (0024); thus, the ECU of Dufford is a form of an engine ECU. Dufford discloses during the deceleration of a vehicle, the ECU cause the transmission (coupled the engine) to downshift to a lower gear and higher gear ratio in order to increase the angular velocity of the output power. (0026. 0033) As a result, the angular velocity of the engine 104 increases, thus increasing the volume of the engine noise. The Examiner provides Wippler, entered as extrinsic evidence, that states downshifting acts like engine braking; thus, of downshift is a form engine braking that slows the vehicle. (0013) Furthermore, 0036 discloses the ECU 106 can cause the volume of the engine noise to increase by a first amount as the transmission 102 increases in gear ratio (lowering the gear) at a relatively slow rate and to cause the volume of the engine noise to increase by a second amount that is greater than the first amount as the transmission 102 increases in gear ratio (lowering the gear) at a relatively fast rate. Thus, when the vehicle is downshifting (to a lower gear/increasing gear ratio), the ECU is actually regulating the engine (form of actuating the system of the engine) by changing it acoustic response (engine noise) to different volume levels. Thus, Dufford teaches the engine electronic control unit regulates the actuating system such that an acoustic response of the engine is changed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Dufford since it would have provided the benefit of appeasing drivers who focus on the engine noise during a driving experience (0018)
As per dependent claim 14, Visconti et al discloses:
predetermined advance-warning braking-point positions on the racetrack have been stored in the engine electronic control unit, (0021, 0026-0027: determined in advanced/ identified on the racetrack. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that any data received/identified is stored in at least a form of memory within ECU) and the method further comprises:
ascertaining a respective advance-warning remaining driving time from the current position to a respective advance-warning braking-point position on the racetrack by the engine electronic control unit (0021: determine warning based on estimated time)
corresponding advance-warning limiting values for the respective advance- warning remaining driving time are stored in the engine electronic control unit, (0021; FIG 2A: values calculated for warning purposes One of a skilled artisan would have realized that any data received/identified is stored in at least a form of memory within ECU)
Furthermore, Visconti et al discloses warning the driver in various ways of acoustically and/or optically informing the driver of the optimal braking time point before a bend when driving on a racetrack (Abstract, 0018, 0021, 0030-0031) Thus, Visconti et al discloses disclose in response to a corresponding advance-warning limiting value not being reached not being reached the engine electronic control unit issuing warnings. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose an engine signal. In other words, Visconti fails to disclose …regulates the actuating system of the engine such the engine generates a warning signal for communication to the driver. However, based on the rejection of Claim 13 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated wherein the ECU of Ezoe was modified to be an engine ECU as previously explained, Ezoe et al discloses when the automatic braking of the vehicle has been initiated/actuated in response to an estimated value of time elapsed, the driver hears sound emitting from the engine because the engine revolution number is reduced and can feel the deceleration. (form of a warning signal) (0009-0010, 0020, 0098) Thus, in conjunction with the cited art, the cited combination teaches in response to a corresponding advance-warning limiting value not being reached, the engine electronic control unit regulates the actuating system of the engine such that the engine generates a warning signal for communication to the driver.
As per dependent claim 18, Visconti et al discloses wherein the sensing system ascertains the current position of the motor vehicle on the racetrack using: satellite data, an odometer, and/or a detection of predetermined reference points on the racetrack (0016: satellite; 0020-0021: detection of points)
As per dependent claim 21, Visconti et al discloses continuously ascertaining, by the sensing system, a current velocity of the motor vehicle, ascertaining, by the engine electronic control unit, the respective remaining driving time as a function of the current velocity of the motor vehicle, and adapting the predetermined braking-point positions and the corresponding limiting values, by the engine electronic control unit, as a function of the current velocity of the motor vehicle. (0021, 0025; Claim 8: determines speed (velocity) of the vehicle; determines an estimated time to the point to brake using the determined speed; and defines the braking time points as a function of the speed)
As per dependent claim 22, Visconti et al discloses continuously ascertaining, by the sensing system, a current velocity of the motor vehicle, ascertaining, by the engine electronic control unit, the respective advance-warning remaining driving time as a function of the current velocity of the motor vehicle, and adapting, by the engine electronic control unit, the predetermined advance-warning braking- point positions and the corresponding advance-warning limiting values as a function of the current velocity of the motor vehicle. (0021, 0025-0026; Claim 8: determines speed (velocity) of the vehicle; determines an estimated time to the point to brake using the determined speed; and defines the warning time point as a function of the current speed)
As per dependent claim 23, Visconti et al discloses the engine electronic control unit generates, in addition to the signal, a further signal and outputs the signal via a warning light, a display, or a head-up display of the motor vehicle (0017, 0031)
As per independent claim 24, Claim 24 recites similar limitations as in Claim 13 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Visconti et al discloses a two track and one track vehicle (0031: motorcycle, car).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visconti et al in further view of Ezoe et al in further view of Dufford in further view of Takahashi et al (US 20190071083, 2019). Virginia Tire & Auto, “What is Engine Braking & Why Should You Use It?”, 2/9/2021, 6 pages, is cited as evidence regarding the engine braking results in a tractive force of the engine being interrupted.
As per dependent claim 15, as explained in the rejection of Claim 13, Visconti discloses the point of when a vehicle should brake and Ezoe discloses applying control to slow down the vehicle. However, the cited art does not include a signal to cause the engine itself to trigger the slowing down the vehicle (engine braking). In other words, Visconti and Ezoe fail to explicitly disclose wherein the signal is configured to regulate the actuating system such that a tractive force of the engine is interrupted.
However, Takahashi et al discloses wherein the signal is configured to regulate the actuating system such that a tractive force of the engine is interrupted. (0061: discloses in response to a value not being reached, the engine ECU actuates the he engine brake, so that the engine brake is actuated. When the engine brake is actuated, engine brake system performs braking when the target. The Examiner provides Virginia Tire & Auto, entered as extrinsic evidence, that states “engine braking works by limiting airflow to the engine, causing decelerative forces in the engine to decrease the speed at which the wheels are rotating. When you take your foot off the accelerator/gas pedal, the throttle body valve closes suddenly. The engine will continue to try to suck in air, but since the throttle body valve is closed, only a small amount of air will reach the engine.
This causes a high manifold vacuum that the cylinders have to work against. Due to the vacuum, the energy in the engine lowers, which causes the engine to drop in power and slows the wheels.” (pg 2-3) Thus, actuating the engine brake causes decelerative forces in the engine to occur and the throttle body valve to close. Thus, Takahashi et al discloses the actuating of an engine brake which is analogous to the tractive force of the engine is interrupted since the engine brake is actuated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Takahashi et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of harmless vehicle method that reduces the wear and tear on the vehicle's friction/wheel brakes and increases fuel economy of the vehicle .
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visconti et al in further view of Ezoe et al in further view of Dufford in further view of Plant (US 7353795, 2008)
As per dependent claim 17, the cited art fails to specifically discloses the generated signal regulates the actuating system by: a change in an ignition angle of the engine, a change in an injection of a quantity of a fuel of the engine, a change in an activation of a throttle valve of the engine, a change in the injection of the fuel into one or more cylinders of the engine, and/or a change in a position of an exhaust flap of the engine. However, Plant discloses a change in the injection of the fuel into one or more cylinders of the engine, and/or a change in a position of an exhaust flap of the engine (Col 1, line 42-56: discloses the use of an engine brake that results fuel is shut off to the cylinder. In addition, an exhaust value is opened (changed position) to increase the brake effect.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Plant et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of reducing the wear and tear on the vehicle's friction/wheel brakes, which can become hot and less effective from heavy usage.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visconti et al in further view of Ezoe et al in further view of Dufford in further view of Tapping et al (US6012002, 2000)(Disclosed in IDS filed on 9/5/2023)
As per dependent claim 19, Visconti et al discloses wherein the satellite data comprises one or more of: position, distance traveled, and/or crossing of the start/finish line, (0016: position obtained by satellite) and the engine electronic control unit compares the respective ascertained remaining driving time with the satellite data (0016, 0021:timing using position data acquired by satellite) Furthermore, Visconti et al discloses the rotation speed of each rear drive wheel (0015); however, fails to specifically disclose wherein in response to a detection of the current position of the motor vehicle using an odometer: ascertaining, by the engine electronic control unit, a distance traveled by the motor vehicle using wheel speeds of one or more wheels of the motor vehicle, and resetting, by the engine electronic control unit, the distance traveled when a start/finish line on the racetrack is crossed. However, Tapping et al discloses in response to a detection of the current position of the motor vehicle using an odometer: (Col 3, ll 50-55; Claim 1, 3: discloses vehicle travel meter that collects information from sensors to calculate the correct position) ascertaining, by the engine electronic control unit, a distance traveled by the motor vehicle using wheel speeds of one or more wheels of the motor vehicle (Col 2, ll 16-24, 57-67: Calculating the distance traveled based on the rotation of tires. The rotations result in pulses which are used to calculate the distance traveled) and resetting, by the electronic control unit, the distance traveled when a start/finish line on the racetrack is crossed (Col 3, ll. 1-11: distance resets after each lap)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Tapping et al since provided vehicle travel meter would have provided the benefit of supplies information on how the vehicle is performing at a plurality of locations along a route and whether the vehicle is performing better or worse than on past journeys over the same route. (Col 1, ll 26-30)
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visconti et al in further view of Ezoe et al in further view of Dufford in further view of Hawkins et al (US 20180216943, 2018)
As per dependent claim 20, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the sensing system ascertains the current position by detecting the predetermined reference points on the racetrack: by using a camera-assisted image-acquisition system of the motor vehicle, and/or by driving over induction loops beneath a tarred surface of the racetrack. However, Hawkins et al discloses a camera of a vehicle captures images of the track wherein the position of the vehicle based on the captured image (0031)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Hawkins et al since it would have provided the benefit of determining the position of a vehicle on a track more accurately and at any given time (0003, 0005)
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visconti et al in further view of Ezoe et al in further view of Dufford in further view of Tapping et al in further view of Milnes et al (US 20030048218, 2003)
As per dependent claim 25, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the satellite data ascertains the distance traveled and detects the crossing of the start/finish line. (Note: the term “distance traveled” is not defined in the claim or in applicant’s specification. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied). However, Milnes et al disclose the satellite data ascertains the distance traveled (0192-0193: discloses determining the current lap count of the car which is the number of times a car has traveled around the track and how much of the current lap the car has traveled. A skilled artisan in the art would have realized that the number of laps traveled results in an amount of distance traveled. E.g. Each lap is a finite distance and each lap around is an iteration of the distance traveled) and detects the crossing of the start/finish line. (0046, 0194: using GPS position obtained from GPS satellites, the system the system can determine whether the car has crossed the finish line)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Milnes et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of allows drivers and teams to track component wear, optimize fuel strategy, and improve consistency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, in regards to Applicant’s arguments to the abstract/specification objection, the Examiner respectfully states the objection to the specification/abstract remains for the following reason(s): The Examiner respectfully states that the replacement/current abstract is not written in the narrative form since it similarly repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims. In other words, The Examiner respectfully states the current Abstract is merely a combination of a number of the limitations from the independent claims slightly reworded. The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant did not provide any explanation how the replacement Abstract is considered in narrative form and not a slight rewording of the claim limitations from the independent claims. As stated, the Examiner respectfully states the abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims and/or written like a claim. Therefore, the objection to the Abstract remains
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13-15, 17-24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
In an attempt to expedite prosecution and promote compact prosecution, Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to help further clarify Applicant’s claimed invention in view of the applied cited art.
The amendment to the independent claims changes the scope of the claims and the interpretation of the claimed invention when interpretated as a whole. . The changing of an “generating signal” that regulates the actuating system such that an acoustic response of the engine is changed to a “engine electronic control unit” redefines the metes and bounds of the “regulates… acoustic response of the engine is changed” step which was previously claimed. Therefore, the Examiner has updated the rejection to address Applicant’s amendment of an engine electronic control unit, not a generated signal, within the claim. Therefore, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights