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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-17 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 5-6 have been presently amended. Claims 2 and 14 were previously cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/12/2026.
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 Yamashita et al. (US 20180093677 A1), McDaniel et al. (US 5343780 A), and D'Amato et al. (US 20160096526 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 acting as a minimum speed floor ([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. It is recognized that the lower limit of this range acts as a minimum speed floor where a speed below said floor results in the cruise control not being activated)
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]), and controlling the “constant” speed of the vehicle based on the maximum allowable speed ([0004] and [0007]).
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.
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, thus allowing the vehicle’s target speed to automatically be in line with a changing limit speed as taught by Yamashita ([0022]). 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. Additionally, 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 is recognized that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to limit the maximum value of the range r to be at or less than the speed limit for the motivation of ensuring that the cruise control is not activated for or set to speeds above the speed limit.
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, the prior combination 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, and setting the cruise control to this average speed.
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), and setting the speed to this determined average speed (Col. 4, lines 48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination 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, as using the average of a variable rather than the instantaneous value of said variable is well known to better account for outliers. Rather than activating the cruise control to an instantaneous speed value, 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 as negatively described by McDaniel (Col. 1, lines 66-68), activating to an average speed ensures that the vehicle advantageously operates in line with the driver’s expectations.
Although Gyulai of the prior combination does teach recognizing a steady cruising intent ([0007], “when it is appropriate to activate cruise control”), it does this when the vehicle’s speed has maintained within the allowable range r for all speed measurements over a time period t1 ([0037]). The prior combination does not teach establishing a steady cruising intent based off the speed of the vehicle deviating less than an allowable deviation from the last calculated average speed, wherein the automatic activation is inhibited if the steady cruising intent is below said value V1.
In the same field of endeavor, D’Amato discloses a vehicle speed control system that calculates an average vehicle speed over a time period ([0016]), and further teaches establishing a steady cruising intent based off the speed of the vehicle deviating less than an allowable deviation from the last calculated average speed ([0016], [0046], and [0050], where a cluster velocity, i.e. last calculated average speed, is determined, and if the driver operates the vehicle by providing input “in a manner to greatly increase or reduce vehicle 101 speed” to a value, “e.g., more than three standard deviations from a cluster velocity,” then a driver is determined to be providing “severe” input and vehicle speed filters, i.e. vehicle speed control, are removed or turned off. If the driver’s inputted vehicle speed is not considered severe, then the filters are instead adjusted or enabled as the driver’s intent is deemed “satisfied” with the steady speed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate the prior combination with the teachings of D’Amato regarding the determination of severe changes in current vehicle speed. As the Gyulai teaches that the cruise control is only activated if the vehicle speed is maintained within the range r over the time period ([0037]), it is recognized that the automatic activation would be inhibited if the steady cruising intent is below said value V1 when combined with D’Amato as the vehicle speed would need to be below the value V1 in order for the steady cruising intent to be below V1, which means that the speed would not be maintained within the range r over the time period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with the teachings of D’Amato based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by D’Amato, of removing/not allowing vehicle speed assistance when "driver input is severe" ([0050]) so as to "improve fuel economy and passenger comfort" ([0001] and [0010]) that would otherwise be negatively impacted. This would allow a driver’s intent to change the vehicle speed to prevent cruise control actuation even if the speed is changed such that it remains within the range r.
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, McDaniel, and D’Amato 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 an independent secondary activation condition 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 is recognized that 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 is recognized 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 priorly 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. 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 06/10/2026 have been fully considered
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 of the presently amended claim 1, applicant argues that the prior combination of Gyulai in view of Yamashita and McDaniel does not teach the “two distinct historical checks that are tied to two different reference values” as this is a “dual-condition logic” in which “Gyulai's range-based stability determination does not teach this independent eligibility floor” as “the V1 threshold and the allowable-deviation-from-average condition are separate requirements based on different reference values,” and further states that “the rejection therefore either uses a single range to perform incompatible roles or supplies the missing dual-condition logic from Applicant's disclosure.” These arguments are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of D’Amato as it discloses an independent determination of a driver’s steady vehicle speed intent, wherein this determination does not rely upon or modify the determination made based on the range r of Gyulai. Therefore, the presently amended claim 1 is now rejected over Gyulai in view of Yamashita, McDaniel, and D’Amato as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant further argues that “Yamashita's disclosure of a speed limit does not teach using a maximum- allowable-speed-based value V1 as an independent floor that inhibits automatic activation.” This argument is unpersuasive. Gyulai teaches that the vehicle speed must be “maintain[ed] within the predetermined range for the above-mentioned first period of time t1” in order for cruise control to be automatically activate ([0037]). Gyulai also suggests that “any other scheme for determining the range of speed may be also possible” ([0039]). Thus, as stated in the rejection above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able and motivated to modify Gyulai to use the maximum allowable speed of the road, as determined by Yamashita, as a scheme upon which the range of speed may be determined. When combined in this manner, the low value V1 of the range r is recognized as “a maximum- allowable-speed-based value [that functions] as an independent floor that inhibits automatic activation” because, regardless of any other determinations or factors, a vehicle speed below the value V1 means that the vehicle speed is not “maintain[ed] within the predetermined range for the above-mentioned first period of time t1” as is stated by Gyulai as requirement for automatic actuation ([0037]).
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.
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.
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 10AM-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 R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights