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 . Claims 1-18 and 21-22 were previously pending. Claims 1, 10, and 21-22 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-18 and 21-22 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 8/26/2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domprobst (WO 2019/122695 A1) [disclosed on IDS filed 05/11/2023] in view of Tulpule (US 2019/0299989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Domprobst discloses:
A method of operating an electronic control system to control operation of at least a first vehicle, the method comprising: (Domprobst - electronic control system -> Par. 62-69)
determining a first braking distance to achieve a first target speed of the first vehicle; receiving a second vehicle braking distance to achieve a second target speed of a second vehicle forward of the first vehicle; (Domprobst - minimum following distance in response to first and second braking distance to achieve target speed -> Par. 64, Par. 72-76, Par. 151-158)
determining a minimum following distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle in response to the first braking distance and the second braking distance; and (Domprobst - minimum following distance in response to first and second braking distance to achieve target speed -> Par. 64, Par. 72-76, Par. 151-158)
controlling operation of the first vehicle with an autonomous control system using the minimum following distance. (Domprobst - autonomous control system -> Par. 28-32).
Domprobst does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to the minimum following distance, adjusting one or more prime mover calibrations of the first vehicle, the one or more prime mover calibrations influencing fuel economy of the first vehicle, wherein the adjusting the one or more prime mover calibrations comprises adjusting a torque curve of a prime mover of the first vehicle; and controlling operation of the first vehicle using the adjusted one or more prime mover calibrations.
Tulpule (US 2019/0299989 A1), in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: in response to the minimum following distance, adjusting one or more prime mover calibrations of the first vehicle, the one or more prime mover calibrations influencing fuel economy of the first vehicle, wherein the adjusting the one or more prime mover calibrations comprises adjusting a torque curve of a prime mover of the first vehicle; and controlling operation of the first vehicle using the adjusted one or more prime mover calibrations (Tulpule – [0024, 0040] – At sufficiently closer distances aerodynamic losses may have a significant impact on a rearward vehicle due to its position relative to a forward vehicle. Vehicle performance may be tuned by dynamically changing engine torque curve limits and acceleration limits. A number of torque control or limiting features and/or acceleration control or limiting features may be modified to achieve desired platooning operation using dynamic control methods to achieve torque/power limiting… The modified first vehicle transient response capability may modify or tune one or more engine operating constraints, such as engine torque curve limits and acceleration limits, which may be increased to provide increased velocity or acceleration or to provide decreased velocity or negative acceleration as called for by different control scenarios. For example, engine torque limits may be increased for a following vehicle to provide the ability to achieve, or to more rapidly achieve, a modified vehicle following distance, engine torque limits may be decreased for a following vehicle to provide increased efficiency or decreased fuel consumption while still providing vehicle operation consistent with the capability of a forward vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Tulpule into the invention of Domprobst with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that by modifying or tuning the engine torque curve limits the rearward vehicle is able to follow at closer distances, having a significant impact on aerodynamic losses, thereby providing increased efficiency or decreased fuel consumption while still providing vehicle operation consistent with the capability of the forward vehicle (Tulpule – [0024, 0040]). It is known in the art that various operating parameters can be adjusted to maintain a minimum inter-vehicle distance. Tulpule demonstrates that a prime mover torque curve can be calibrated in order to maintain a desired distance between vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply Tulpule’s calibrated prime mover torque curve to Domprobst’s invention in response to the minimum following distance in a manner that would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein at least one of: the act of determining the first braking distance utilizes one or more tire parameters of the first vehicle, and the act of determining the second vehicle braking distance utilizes one or more tire parameters of the second vehicle. (Domprobst - tire parameters -> Par. 70-72)
Regarding claim 3, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 2 wherein at least one of: the one or more tire parameters of the first vehicle comprise one or more coefficients of friction, and the one or more tire parameters of the second vehicle comprise one or more coefficients of friction. (Domprobst - coefficients of friction -> Par. 70-74)
Regarding claim 4, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the act of determining the first braking distance utilizes at least one of an empirically determined model and a parameterized model. (Domprobst - empirically determined/parameterized model -> Par. 127, Par. 141, Par. 180)
Regarding claim 6, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the act of receiving a second vehicle braking distance comprises one or more of: receiving a vehicle to vehicle transmission from the second vehicle to the first vehicle, receiving a vehicle to infrastructure transmission from the second vehicle to a computing system remote from the second vehicle and the first vehicle, and receiving a vehicle to infrastructure transmission from the first vehicle to the second vehicle. (Domprobst - vehicle to vehicle transmission and vehicle to infrastructure transmission -> Par. 31-32, Par. 63-69)
Regarding claim 7, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the act of determining a minimum following distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle in response to the first braking distance and the second vehicle braking distance comprises comparing the first braking distance and the second vehicle braking distance. (Domprobst - comparison of braking distances of candidate vehicles -> Par. 145, Par. 151)
Regarding claim 8, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the act of controlling operation of the first vehicle with the autonomous control system using the minimum following distance comprises operating at least one of a predictive cruise control system, an adaptive cruise control system, a platoon control system, and a model predictive controller using the minimum following distance. (Domprobst - cruise control, platoon, model prediction -> Par. 26, Par. 32-33)
Regarding claim 9, Domprobst discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein one or both of: the first target speed of the first vehicle is a zero or stopped speed the first vehicle, and the second target speed of the second vehicle is a zero or stopped speed the second vehicle. (Domprobst - zero or stopped speed -> Par. 73-76)
Regarding claims 10-13 and 15-18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-4 and 6-9, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 10-13 and 15-18 do not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1-4 and 6-9; therefore, claims 10-13 and 15-18 are also rejected over the same rationale as the previous claims.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domprobst in view of Tulpule and in further view of Stein (US 2019/0337507 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Domprobst discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 4, but does not disclose:
The method of claim 4 wherein at least one of the empirically determined model and the parameterized model comprises a PMF model.
Stein teaches collision imminent steering control systems and methods, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The method of claim 4 wherein at least one of the empirically determined model and the parameterized model comprises a PMF model. (Stein - PMF model for braking distance -> Par. 10, Par. 42, Par. 47, Par. 76)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the model for determining braking distance to include a PMF model as taught by Stein.
One would be motivated to make this modification to ensure a safe braking distance (Stein – Par. 10). Furthermore, the application of Pacejka’s Magic Formula for vehicle dynamics simulations is well-known in the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Domprobst and Stein.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Domprobst and Stein from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domprobst in view of Tulpule and in further view of Ghoneim (US 2007/0032913 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Domprobst does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the adjusting the one or more prime mover calibrations comprise adjusting a transmission shift point.
Ghoneim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the adjusting the one or more prime mover calibrations comprise adjusting a transmission shift point (Ghoneim – [0027, 0030] – The comfort mode is referred to herein as a driving mode with the relevant vehicle subsystems calibrated to a predetermined setting to generally provide a more comfortable ride. Examples of some vehicle subsystem changes when selecting the comfort mode include, but are not necessarily limited to … optimizing shift points of the transmission controls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ghoneim into the invention of Domprobst with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of calibrating relevant vehicle subsystems to provide the desired ride during adaptive cruise control (Ghoneim – [0023, 0027]). It is known in the art that various operating parameters can be adjusted to maintain a minimum inter-vehicle distance. Ghoneim demonstrates that a transmission shift point can be adjusted during automatic cruise control. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply Ghoneim’s adjusted transmission shift point to Domprobst’s invention in a manner that would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Domprobst does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more prime mover calibrations adjusted by the electronic control system includes a transmission shift point.
Ghoneim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the one or more prime mover calibrations adjusted by the electronic control system includes a transmission shift point (Ghoneim – [0027, 0030] – The comfort mode is referred to herein as a driving mode with the relevant vehicle subsystems calibrated to a predetermined setting to generally provide a more comfortable ride. Examples of some vehicle subsystem changes when selecting the comfort mode include, but are not necessarily limited to … optimizing shift points of the transmission controls).
The motivation to combine Domprobst and Ghoneim is the same as in the rejection of claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAVID MEHDIZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7691. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, James Trammell can be reached on (571)-272-6712. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights