DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-14 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 10/27/2025.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 10/27/2025. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
To begin, Applicant argues that Samsioe does not disclose “predicting a plurality of minimum distances” because Samsioe uses a single minimum distance, dmin, to determine when the foundation brakes are activated.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds the rejection is not relying solely on dmin as a static brake-activation point. On the contrary, Samsioe discloses calculating the required braking power, application time, and brake strength so that the vehicle can travel for a period of time without re-application of the foundation brakes before the minimum distance and/or maximum speed is re-reached. Moreover, Samsioe discloses that said calculation takes into account road slope, road conditions, vehicle speed, vehicle weight, payload, braking power, and inter-vehicle conditions, including inter-vehicle speed. (Samsioe ¶ 0014).
Samsioe also discloses the claimed downhill-following scenario (i.e., a plurality of minimum distances). In particular, Samsioe discloses an ego vehicle following a target vehicle down a long descent, detecting the speed and distance of the target vehicle, and maintaining the ego vehicle at a desired distance behind the target vehicle. Samsioe further explains that, because the ego vehicle may be heavier than the target vehicle, the required brake power for the ego vehicle is higher and the auxiliary brakes may be insufficient to keep a constant distance to the vehicle in front. (Samsioe ¶ 0033).
Further, Samsioe discloses that the system calculates required distances, application times, release times, and braking power, and performs a forward simulation to estimate the time it would take the following vehicle to re-reach dmin after the foundation brakes are released. The estimated distance, dest(t), is expressly calculated as part of this forward simulation. Thus, Samsioe teaches or at least suggests predicting resulting distances associated with different braking-power/application decisions, as claimed. (Samsioe ¶¶ 0048-0049, 0057-0059, 0062, 0071).
Applicant also argues that Samsioe does not disclose applying brake power such that at least a predetermined minimum distance is maintained because Samsioe allows the ego vehicle to roll up to dmin before applying the foundation brakes. The Examiner find this argument not persuasive. Samsioe discloses that, once the minimum distance is reached, the foundation brakes are applied with reasonable braking power, whereby the distance to the target vehicle is increased significantly. Samsioe further discloses that the turning point occurs well before the brake warning point, so that the distance to the vehicle in front begins increasing before the brake warning point is reached. Accordingly, Samsioe teaches applying braking power so that at least a predetermined minimum distance to the target vehicle is maintained when travelling the downhill road section. (Samsioe ¶ 0048).
Moreover, claim 1 does not require the predetermined minimum distance to be the same value as Samsioe’s dmin. Samsioe discloses a desired distance, a minimum distance, and a brake warning point. Therefore, even if the ego vehicle is permitted to roll up to dmin, Samsioe still teaches applying braking power before the brake warning point is reached and in a manner that maintains at least a predetermined minimum distance to the target vehicle. (Samsioe ¶¶ 0033, 0047-0048).
Accordingly, Samsioe teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-10 are not allowable merely by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 11 are likewise not persuasive for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, to the extent claim 11 recites similar limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samsioe et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2010/0280729A1 (hereinafter, Samsioe).
Regarding Claim 1, Samsioe describes a method performed by a control arrangement for controlling a speed of a first vehicle, the first vehicle comprising a plurality of brake systems configured to provide brake power for braking the vehicle, the method comprising, when a downhill road section is to be travelled, and when a second vehicle is travelling in front of the first vehicle (vehicle system comprising a braking apparatus for providing stopping power to the vehicle when the vehicle is traveling downhill, this can include when another vehicle is ahead of the first vehicle, Samsioe, Paragraph 0033):
-predicting a plurality of minimum distances (Dmin1, Dmnin2, Dmin_n) corresponding to different brake powers (Pbrake1, Pbrake2, Pbrake_n) to be applied by at least one of the plurality of brake systems when approaching and/or travelling the downhill road section, each minimum distance constituting a resulting minimum distance to the second vehicle (vehicle system can determine or predict the minimum distances corresponding to the different braking powers to be applied to the vehicle when traveling downhill, Samsioe, Paragraphs 0014 and 0048-0072), and
-applying, by at least one of the plurality of brake systems, a brake power corresponding to the brake power to be applied to obtain a minimum distance of the plurality of minimum distances (Dmin_,Dmin_2, Dmin_n) such that at least a predetermined minimum distance (Dpred_min) to the second vehicle is maintained when approaching and/or travelling the downhill road section (vehicle system applies braking power to the first vehicle so that the first vehicle maintains a minimum distance from the other vehicle when traveling downhill, moreover the vehicle system applies the braking power based on the determined braking power needed, Samsioe, Paragraphs 0033 and 0014).
Regarding Claim 2, Samsioe describes the method (200) according to claim 1, wherein the applied brake power corresponds to the brake power to be applied to obtain the minimum distance exceeding the predetermined minimum distance (Dpred_min) (braking power is the power applied to manage the vehicle to ensure minimum distance with the vehicle in front is properly kept, moreover vehicle can invoke braking such that the distance from the vehicle exceeds the minimum distance to help save overuse of the braking system, Samsioe, Paragraphs 0033 and 0014).
Regarding Claim 3, Samsioe describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the applied brake power corresponds to the brake power to be applied to obtain the minimum distance being within a predetermined distance interval (ID), the predetermined distance interval (ID) being a distance interval of distances exceeding the predetermined minimum distance (Dpred_min) (braking power is the power applied to manage the vehicle to ensure minimum distance with the vehicle in front is properly kept, moreover vehicle can invoke braking such that the distance from the vehicle exceeds the minimum distance to help save overuse of the braking system, this is the predetermined distance interval which is a predetermined threshold, Samsioe, Paragraphs 0033 and 0014-0015).
Regarding Claim 4, Samsioe describes the method according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined distance interval (ID) is selected by an operator of the first vehicle (driver can select the predetermined distance interval, Samsioe, Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 5, Samsioe describes the method according to claim 1, wherein each minimum distance (Dmin_1,Dmin_22 Dmin_n) corresponds to a brake power to be applied when approaching and/or travelling the downhill road section by one or more auxiliary brake systems (each minimum distance desired corresponds to a braking power that needs to be applied based on the vehicle current position, moreover the brake power can be from a variety of braking systems, such as auxiliary braking system, Samsioe, Paragraphs 0031-0043).
Regarding Claim 6, Samsioe describes the method according to claim 5, wherein the one or more auxiliary brake systems are capable of applying a brake power at a plurality of brake power levels and wherein the one or more auxiliary brake systems being utilized to apply the brake power are applied at one of a plurality of brake power levels (auxiliary braking system capable of applying braking power at different levels and can be more than one braking system being applied at one time, Samsioe, Paragraph 0031-0043).
Regarding Claim 7, Samsioe describes the method according to claim 5, further comprising, when none of the plurality of minimum distances (Dmin_1,Dmin_2,.,Dmin_n) equals or exceeds the predetermined minimum distance (Dpred_min) applying, by the one or more auxiliary brake systems, a brake power corresponding to the highest brake power (auxiliary braking system capable of applying braking power at different levels and can be more than one braking system being applied at one time, Samsioe, Paragraph 0031-0043).
Regarding Claim 8, Samsioe describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the brake power being applied is selected at least partly based on at least one of:
-a predetermined priority of the plurality of brake systems,
-a magnitude of a brake power required for braking the first vehicle when approaching and/or travelling the downhill road section (braking power and brakes selected based on the determined stopping power needed, Samsioe, Paragraphs 0045-0046 and 0014),
-a duration of application of at least one of the plurality of brake systems to be engaged when approaching and/or travelling the downhill road section to produce the brake power required for braking the first vehicle,
-a power level of at least one of the plurality of brake systems to be engaged when approaching and/or travelling the downhill road section to produce the brake power required for braking the first vehicle (vehicle system comprising a braking apparatus for providing stopping power to the vehicle when the vehicle is traveling downhill, this can include when another vehicle is ahead of the first vehicle, Samsioe, Paragraph 0033), and/or
-an efficiency of at least one of the plurality of brake systems to be engaged when approaching and/or travelling the downhill road section to produce the brake power required for braking the first vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9, Samsioe describes the method according to claim 1, further comprising repeatedly predicting the plurality of minimum distances (Dmin1, Dmin2, Dmin) when approaching and/or travelling the downhill road section, each prediction resulting in a plurality of updated minimum distances, and based on the repeated predictions, adjusting the applied brake power to correspond to the brake power to be applied to obtain the updated minimum distance of the plurality of updated minimum distances (determining the distances and braking power needed in real-time, Samsioe, Paragraph 0052 and 0014).
Regarding Claim 10, Samsioe describes the method according to claim 1, further comprising when the first vehicle approaches an end of the downhill road section (310): reducing the applied brake power to reduce the distance to the second vehicle to a reduced distance, the reduced distance at least corresponding to the predetermined minimum distance (Dpred_min) (changing of the distance based on factors such as slope road and braking power needed, Samsioe, Paragraphs 0042-0045).
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights