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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-17 remain pending in the application. Claim 14 was previously cancelled, and claim 2 is newly canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 has been amended to include that “the cruise control is not activated based solely on an instantaneous speed measurement.” However, dependent claim 5 adds that “upon determination that the speed of the vehicle has reached said value V2, automatically activating the cruise control to operate the vehicle at said speed V2.” This is recognized as an activation of the cruise control based solely on an instantaneous speed measurement, this case, V2. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite as it is unclear how the operation performed is not solely based on an instantaneous speed measurement.
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 1, 3-4, 8-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gyulai et al. (US 20200130687 A1) in view of McDaniel et al. (US 5343780 A) and Yamashita et al. (US 20180093677 A1).
For claim 1, Gyulai teaches a method of activating cruise control for a vehicle in motion, comprising:
continuously acquiring measurements of the speed of the vehicle (Abstract, lines 2-3),
selecting a value V1 for a limit speed based on the current vehicle speed ([0039] and see Fig. 2, where lower limit of range r is set based on the current vehicle speed) … ,
selecting a time range of T units of time, such as T seconds, wherein the value of t is selected based on the current vehicle speed ([0021] and [0041], where periods of time may be defined for different ranges of speed of the vehicle),
and upon determination that the speed of the vehicle exceeds the value V1 ([0039] and see Fig 2, where the speed must be larger than the lower limit of the range, i.e. V1),
that the speed of the vehicle during said most recent T units of time has remained higher than or equal to said value V1 ([0037] and Fig. 2, where the speed must be “maintain[ed] within the predetermined range for the…period of time t1”, meaning it must be larger than the lower limit of the range, i.e. V1)
and that during the most recent T units of time the speed has deviated less than or equal to a predefined allowable deviation for all speed measurements within said most recent T units of time from the current speed ([0037-0040] and see Fig. 2, where the vehicle can speed deviate up to values so that its speed remains in the range r. “The range of speed is computed to a range having a specific deviation from this preset, fixed speed”),
automatically activating the cruise control to operate the vehicle at the current speed ([0037] and see Fig. 2, where allowable speed difference must keep in the speed threshold range r in order for the cruise control to be activated),
wherein the cruise control is not activated based solely on an instantaneous speed measurement ([0036-0040] and Fig 2, where the cruise control is not activated solely on the singular instantaneous speed measurement at the moment of activation between section II and section III being within the range r, but rather also requiring that the previous speed measurements within section II “maintain within the predetermined range…for the period of time t1”).
Gyulai does not teach determining a maximum allowable speed for the path currently travelled by the vehicle, and although it teaches that any scheme for determining the range of speed and range of time can be used ([0039-0040]), it does not explicitly teach that these ranges are selected based on the maximum allowable speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamashita teaches determining a maximum allowable speed for the path currently travelled by the vehicle ([0088]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to substitute the current speed of Gyulai being used to determine the ranges for the speed and time with this instead being the maximum allowable speed in the form of a speed limit. Doing so would allow both ends of the speed range r, including the lower end known as V1, and the period of time to be determined in proportion with the speed limit. Further, as a speed limit of the road is well understood in the art to be the highest speed a vehicle can safely travel on that road, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to limit the maximum value of the range r to be this value, thus ensuring that the cruise control is not activated for speeds above the speed limit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Gyulai to determine a maximum allowable speed and set the speed and time ranges based on this maximum allowable speed based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of reducing the frequency in which this speed range r and time period t need to be calculated, with these ranges only being calculated when a new speed limit is determined instead of whenever the speed of the vehicle changes. Further, as vehicles traditionally activate cruise control at speeds near the speed limit, this advantageously avoids the unharmonious activation of the cruise control at constant low speeds, such as in traffic, that could result in unsafe vehicle operation.
Although the speed of the vehicle in which the cruise control of Gyulai is activated to can be the average speed over the time period, such as when the vehicle is traveling at a constant speed, Gyulai does not explicitly teach continuously calculating the average speed of the vehicle, wherein said calculated average speed is based on the continuously acquired speed measurements for the most recent T units of time, nor using this average speed to check the speed deviation, nor explicitly setting the speed to the average speed upon activation.
In the same field of endeavor, McDaniel teaches continuously calculating the average speed of the vehicle, wherein said calculated average speed is, at any given moment, based on the continuously acquired speed measurements for the most recent T units of time (Col. 4, lines 44-47, average speed…over a most recent predetermined period of time). McDaniel also teaches checking the deviation of the vehicle speed compared to the calculated average speed over the most recent t units of time as a determination for possible operation (Col. 7, lines 2-11), and setting the speed to this determined average speed (Col. 4, lines 48-52).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify Gyulai to include a determination of the average speed and setting the cruise control to this average speed. Additionally, as per the prior combination, the allowed speed range r of Gyulai is now set based off the maximum speed. At these higher speeds, a vehicle can increase or decrease in speed rapidly, such as for passing other vehicles or slowing for traffic. It is advantageous to avoid the activation of a cruise control function in such scenarios to avoid the vehicle traveling at such a speed that is undesirable to the operator for the vehicle. As such, a skilled artisan would have been able and motivated to check deviations from the calculated average speed to ensure that the cruise control is not automatically activated even though it may remain in the activation range r of Gyulai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Gyulai by determining an average speed and setting the vehicle speed to this average speed upon activation based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the speed upon activation is less prone to outliers, which can otherwise cause the vehicle to activate to an unharmonious speed for the driver, such as a speed when the vehicle is traveling down a sloped surface.
With reference to claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Yamashita teaches when a section of the path travelled by the vehicle is reached where the maximum allowable speed is different from the previous maximum allowable speed, the method further comprises:
lowering the maximum speed value for said limit speed if the new maximum allowable speed is lower than the previous maximum allowable speed ([0118] and see Figs. 9B and 9C, where a lower speed limit is detected),
and raising the maximum speed value for said limit speed if the new maximum allowable speed is higher than the previous maximum allowable speed ([0118] and see Figs. 7B and 9C, where a higher speed limit is detected).
Note that as the maximum value of the speed range is changing, it would have been obvious that the minimum value of the speed range, i.e. V1, must also change to keep the set range as it would be nonfunctional if the value V1 of the speed range remained the same while the maximum value decreased to a value less than V1 as a result of a new detected speed limit.
With reference to claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Yamashita teaches when a section of the path travelled by the vehicle is reached where the maximum allowable speed is different from the previous maximum allowable speed, the method further comprises:
reducing the maximum speed value if the new maximum allowable speed is lower than the previous maximum allowable speed ([0118] and see Figs. 9B and 9C, where a lower speed limit is detected),
and increasing the maximum speed value if the new maximum allowable speed is higher than the previous maximum allowable speed ([0118] and see Figs. 7B and 9C, where a higher speed limit is detected).
Note that as T is set based off the detected maximum speed per the prior combination, T must also increase or decrease based on the detected maximum speed as it would be unharmonious if the time range T was being set based off a maximum speed but not changing if the maximum speed changes, and would lead to the unintentional activation of the cruise control in suboptimal conditions.
With reference to claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Gyulai teaches wherein said predefined allowable deviation is defined as a percentage of the average speed, average speed ±x%, where x is a positive number, 0 < x < 10.0 ([0039], where the range of speed may be set to a speed ±2%, where the speed is an average speed per the prior combination).
With reference to claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Gyulai teaches when the speed in which the cruise control is activated with is at least equal to V1:
receiving from an accelerator pedal sensor a propulsion signal representative of a request for 0-100% of full load ([0031] and [0044]).
Gyulai also teaches turning off the cruise control upon a reception of a signal from the accelerator pedal for a degree of the full load ([0044]; Fig. 4, cruise control deactivated at section IV). As the term “100% of the full load” under broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner is determined to be the full press of the accelerator pedal, it is a specific degree of activity of the accelerator pedal, and is thus assumed by Gyulai ([0031] and [0044]). In the same manner, Gyulai teaches that only specific requests are not ignored by the cruise control ([0044], where the cruise control is only deactivated “upon specific further user activity”). This teaching reduces the attention that the driver will have to give towards the operation of the cruise control, compared to the manual activation via UI that is otherwise known in the art, in accordance with the motivation for the invention in Gyulai ([0008] and [0010]). Additionally, if 100% of the full load is being requested, then the cruise control has no functionality as the throttle is already operating at maximum capacity. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that specifically sensing for 100% of the full load is ideal, as it avoids accidental deactivation of the cruise control by other operations of the accelerator pedal, and is only otherwise performed by the driver when the cruise control has no functionality.
With reference to claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1.Gyulai teaches that when the cruise control is activated: upon receipt of a driver-initiated request for changing the current cruise control speed to a requested cruise control speed which is equal to or below the maximum allowable speed, changing the current cruise control speed to said requested cruise control speed ([0118] and [0121]).
With reference to claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Gyulai teaches, in connection with said automatic activation of the cruise control: sending an alert signal to a user interface for notifying the driver that the cruise control has been activated ([0036], where a “signaling for indicating an automated activation of the cruise control may be provided”).
With reference to claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Gyulai teaches that said step of continuously acquiring measurements of the speed of the vehicle comprises receiving speed signals from a speed sensor of the vehicle ([0030], where the signals are obtained by means of a speed sensor).
With reference to claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Yamashita teaches that step of determining the maximum allowable speed comprises: receiving from a camera of the vehicle an image of a road sign, and determining the maximum allowable speed based on the received image ([0088]) and/or - receiving information of the maximum allowable speed from a navigation system of the vehicle.
With reference to claim 15, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Gyulai teaches a computer readable medium that contains computer code for performing the steps of the method according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1, where controller 20 runs computer code).
With reference to claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Gyulai teaches a control unit for controlling cruise control for a vehicle in motion, the control unit being configured to perform the steps of the method described according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1, where controller 20 and cruise control device 100 control cruise control).
With reference to claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 16. Gyulai teaches a vehicle comprising a control unit according to claim 16. ([0007]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gyulai in view of Yamashita and McDaniel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bharti (US 20210171031 A1).
With reference to claim 5, the prior art remains as applied to claim 1. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bharti teaches a speed lock system for a vehicle that controls the vehicle speed in a similar manner to a cruise control, wherein the method performed by said system includes:
selecting a value V2 for an automatic activation speed based on the determined maximum allowable speed, wherein the value V2 is higher than the value V1 but lower than or equal to the maximum allowable speed ([0016], where the soft lock is automatically set “to the current speed limit”)
and upon determination that the speed of the vehicle has reached said value V2, automatically activating the cruise control to operate the vehicle at said speed V2 ([0010] and [0016], where the soft lock is set to the speed limit, i.e. V2, when the vehicle speed exceeds the speed limit).
A skilled artisan would have been able to implement such a speed lock system in the prior combination. As the speed the soft lock is set to is the speed limit when the vehicle exceeds said speed limit, and as V1 is taught by the prior combination to be a predetermined value below the speed limit so as to create an allowable speed range, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the V2 value is higher than the value V1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include a soft lock system in the prior combination based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the vehicle speed to be locked without manual input. As a vehicle traveling at high speeds is safely done in passing operations, automatically locking the speed at a maximum allowable speed ensures that a soft lock can be automatically activated and never exceed said maximum allowable speed, which Bharti teaches is advantageous to reduce driver distraction and the number of systems/sensors required ([0018]).
With reference to claim 6, the prior art remains as applied to claim 1. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Bharti teaches a speed lock system for a vehicle that controls the vehicle speed in a similar manner to a cruise control, wherein the method performed by said system includes:
selecting a value V2 for an automatic activation speed based on the determined maximum allowable speed, wherein the value V2 is higher than the value V1 but lower than or equal to the maximum allowable speed ([0016], where the soft lock is automatically set “to the current speed limit” if the speed of the vehicle exceeds said speed limit)
and automatically activating the cruise control to operate the vehicle at said speed V2 ([0010] and [0016], where the soft lock speed, i.e. V2, is set to the speed limit when the vehicle speed exceeds the speed limit).
A skilled artisan would have been able to implement such a speed lock system in the prior combination. As V1 is taught by the prior combination to be a predetermined value below the speed limit so as to create an allowable speed range, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the V2 value is higher than the value V1 when the speed the soft lock is set to is the speed limit. Additionally, the soft lock speed of Bharti is not always set to be equal to the speed limit. This soft lock speed increases when the driver operates the vehicle so that the vehicle speed increases an increment over the soft lock speed ([0011]). As such, when it is set to a value smaller than the speed limit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the speed lock to the speed limit upon receipt of an acceleration request up to a speed above the value V2 but no higher than the maximum allowable speed. This would ensure that when the soft lock speed is set to increase by an increment that would exceed the speed limit, it is instead set to the speed limit. Doing so upon an acceleration request advantageously results in a faster update of the soft lock speed, and prevents the vehicle from having to go over said speed limit in order for the soft lock speed to be automatically updated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include a soft lock system in the prior combination based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the vehicle speed to be locked without manual input. As a vehicle traveling at high speeds is safely done in passing operations, automatically locking the speed at a maximum allowable speed ensures that a soft lock can be automatically activated and never exceed said maximum allowable speed, which Bharti teaches is advantageous to reduce driver distraction and the number of systems/sensors required ([0018]).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 5. Although Bharti of the prior combination teaches that the soft speed lock is set based off the maximum allowable speed, it does not teach that when a section of the path travelled by the vehicle is reached where the maximum allowable speed is different from the previous maximum allowable speed, the method further comprises: lowering the value V2 for said limit speed if the new maximum allowable speed is lower than the previous maximum allowable speed, and raising the value V2 for said limit speed if the new maximum allowable speed is higher than the previous maximum allowable speed.
Yamashita teaches when a section of the path travelled by the vehicle is reached where the maximum allowable speed is different from the previous maximum allowable speed, the method further comprises:
lowering the maximum speed value for said limit speed if the new maximum allowable speed is lower than the previous maximum allowable speed ([0118] and see Figs. 9B and 9C, where a lower speed limit is detected),
and raising the maximum speed value for said limit speed if the new maximum allowable speed is higher than the previous maximum allowable speed ([0118] and see Figs. 7B and 9C, where a higher speed limit is detected).
As the maximum value of the speed range is changing, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan have the soft lock speed, i.e. the value V2, change to match a new speed limit for the motivation of ensuring the vehicle’s safety when the soft lock speed is equal to the maximum allowable speed and said maximum allowable speed decreases, thus ensuring the vehicle is not traveling at speeds higher than the speed limit that would compromise vehicle safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant contends that the amended claim 1 is no longer taught by Gyulai in view of Yamashita and McDaniel as the limitations of the previous claim 2 have been amended into the language of claim 1, which now requires that “the speed of the vehicle during said most recent T units of time has remained higher than or equal to said value V1” before automatically activating the cruise control. This argument is unpersuasive. Gyulai teaches that the cruise control is automatically activated “upon the speed of the vehicle maintains within the predetermined range for the above-mentioned first time period t1” ([0037]), with the lower range of the speed being interpreted as V1, and the time period t1 being interpreted as the most recent T units of time. This additionally shown in Fig. 2, where the speed of the vehicle remains higher than the lower range r, i.e. v1, over the time period t1, i.e. most recent T units of time, and thus results in the activation of the cruise control.
Applicant further argues that “the activation logic in Gyulai is based on stability, not a minimum threshold history” as “in Gyulai, the range floats with current speed… because the range in Gyulai floats, if the speed dips, then the range dips with it.” This is not recognized by the examiner. Gyulai teaches a variety of schemes for determining the range of speed, including that “the predetermined range of the speed may be a fixed, predetermined range of speed. For example, a user may preset a desired speed, and the range of speed is computed to a range having a specific deviation from this preset, fixed speed.” ([0038]). Therefore, this range does not float, but instead is a specific deviation from this desired speed. Furthermore, as “any other scheme for determining the range of speed may also be possible” ([0039] of Gyulai), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Gyulai with the teachings of Yamashita to result in this desired speed being set based off the speed limit, meaning that the range would not be based off the current vehicle speed as argued by applicant, but instead based off the speed limit as required by the claims.
Applicant further argues that “this distinction is not arbitrary. It solves a specific technical problem described in the specification.” Such an argument is unpersuasive as the limitations as claimed are not distinct from the operations taught by Gyulai in view of Yamashita and McDaniel.
Applicant further argues that “the algorithm in Gyulai does not check if the history has stayed above that target; it only checks if the speed was stable within a range.” This is unpersuasive as applicant’s assertion that Gyulai only “checks if the speed was stable within a range” fails to demonstrate how Gyulai does not teach the limitations as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that checking whether a speed is stable within a time period in the manner taught by Gyulai is functionally equivalent to checking whether the speed over that time period has stayed above the lower threshold of the range. For example, referring to Fig. 2 of Gyulai, the speed falling below the lower threshold of the range r, i.e. V1, during the time period t1 would be recognized by both the invention as claimed and the invention of Gyulai as a condition upon which cruise control would not be activated. The same is true for the inverse; the speed remaining above the lower threshold of the range r, i.e. V1, during the time period t1 would be recognized by both the claimed invention and the invention of Gyulai as a condition upon which cruise control would be automatically activated.
Applicant is recommended to amend the claims to include how the operation of “check[ing] if the history has stayed above that target” is patentably distinct from Gyulai’s operation of “check[ing] if the speed was stable within a range” as interpreted by applicant.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant argues that “claim 1 now recites that the cruise control is not activated based solely on an instantaneous speed measurement. None of Gyulai, McDaniel, or Yamashita, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest this limitation”, contending that “Gyulai's activation logic is fundamentally dependent on instantaneous speed satisfaction, even if evaluated repeatedly.” This argument is unpersuasive.
As presently filed, the amended claim 1 merely requires that “the cruise control is not activated based solely on an instantaneous speed measurement”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this merely requires that the activation of the cruise control is not done solely based on a singular instantaneous speed measurement, and that some other measurement is required in order for the cruise control to be activated. Gyulai does not activate the cruise control solely based on an instantaneous speed measurement. Instead, it also relies on previous speed measurements being “maintain[ed] within the predetermined range for the…first period of time t1” ([0037]).
Referring to Fig 2, the invention of Gyulai does not activate the cruise control based solely on the instantaneous speed measurement at the instant between sections II and III. Instead, it also relies upon the previous speeds of the vehicle being within the range r over the time period t1. Additionally, per the combination with Yamashita, the activation of cruise control does not rely solely on a plurality of speed measurements, but also relies on a measurement of the speed limit to ensure that the speed of the vehicle is within a certain range in order for the cruise control to be activated. Further noting, McDaniel also teaches this limitation as an instantaneous speed is not solely relied upon for determining the activation of cruise control, but also a “learned speed” that is an average speed over a most recent predetermined period of time (Col. 4, lines 44-47).
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that “Gyulai does not teach excluding instantaneous speed as a sufficient basis for activation, nor does it require validation that instantaneous speed measurements are insufficient by themselves”, and that “additional temporal and statistical validation may be done prior to activation”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims do not include these alternate operations being performed on an instantaneous speed as a determination for activating the cruise control.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant argues that “the amended claim recites that, during the most recent T units of time, all continuously acquired speed measurements deviate less than or equal to a predefined allowable deviation from the calculated average speed. This element is neither taught nor suggested by the cited art. Gyulai does not disclose any deviation analysis across a plurality of speed measurements, let alone a requirement that every measurement within a defined time window satisfy a deviation constraint.” This is unpersuasive. Gyulai teaches that the range of speed, upon which the continuously acquired speed measurements are required to stay within in order to activate the cruise control, “is computed to a range having a specific deviation from a preset, [desired] speed” ([0038]). While Gyulai does not teach that this desired speed is the last calculated average speed, McDaniel teaches calculating a learned speed that is the average speed over a most recent predetermined period of time (Col. 4, lines 44-47), and determining whether a speed measurement is within a deviation from said learned speed (Col. 7, lines 2-11). Therefore, a combination in view of McDaniel is used to cure this deficiency in Gyulai as given in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Liu et al. (US 10166983 B2) discloses a method of checking whether the speed of a vehicle is within an allowable deviation, and setting the cruise control of the vehicle to the average speed if it is in the allowable range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz, can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663