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 and Arguments
The amendment filed 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the §112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Bohrer does not disclose, teach, or suggest "...engaging the ACC at a desired set speed ... in response to a first driver input and/or a first sensor input from the plurality of vehicle sensors ... [and]... disengaging the ACC, via the controller, in response to receiving the second driver input and/or a second sensor input from the plurality of vehicle sensors...”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Turning to FIG. 3 of Bohrer the algorithm requires the release of the gas and brake pedals to engage the ACC at a desired set speed. The release of a gas or brake pedal still sends a signal that is input into the control loop of the algorithm described by FIG. 3. A driver input is interpreted as a signal output from an action from the driver on a brake pedal or gas pedal. In this instance the release of a pedal still causes a signal output into the control loop to cause the ACC to engage and thus discloses the first and second driver inputs. Requiring the depression of a gas/brake pedal to engage the ACC system, however, would not be taught by Bohrer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20200180623A1 Bohrer et al ("Bohrer").
As per claims 1, 12, and 17, Bohrer teaches the limitations of the method, system, and vehicle:
An adaptive cruise control (ACC) system for a vehicle equipped with ACC (Bohrer at least the abstract, [0008]), the ACC system comprising:
a controller in communication with the vehicle equipped with ACC and a plurality of vehicle sensors (Bohrer at least [0010-0014], [0002])
the controller configured to: receive driver input from a driver and sensor input from the plurality of vehicle sensors; engage the ACC system at a desired set speed (Bohrer at least FIG. 3, 324)
wherein the ACC is engaged in response to a first driver input and/or a first sensor input from the plurality of vehicle sensors; (Bohrer at least FIG. 3, 302, 326, 318)
receive a second driver input and/or a second sensor input from the plurality of vehicle sensors; disengage the ACC system in response to receiving the second driver input and/or the second sensor input from the plurality of vehicle sensors; (Bohrer at least FIG. 3)
and re-engage the ACC system to the desired set speed, wherein the ACC is re-engaged via the controller automatically. (Bohrer at least the abstract, FIG. 3, [0027])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer in view of US20110153178A1 Westendorf ("Westendorf").
As per claims 2, 13, and 18, Bohrer teaches the inventions as described above. Bohrer additionally teaches:
determine whether a lead vehicle is within a predefined area of view of the vehicle equipped with ACC; slow the vehicle equipped with ACC, wherein the vehicle equipped with ACC is slowed via the controller in response to the second driver input, and the second driver input includes a brake pedal apply; (Bohrer at least FIG. 3, 308, [0017]: “same lane”, [0019]: “engaged the vehicle brake pedal and released it…automatically determine that the operator would like a larger ACC gap”)
determine an actual following distance between the vehicle equipped with ACC and the lead vehicle; (Bohrer at least [0004-0005], [0019])
wait for the driver to release the brake pedal apply prior to re-engaging the ACC at the desired set speed; and wherein the ACC is re-engaged via the controller automatically when the brake pedal apply is released. (Bohrer at least FIG. 3, 316)
Bohrer does not disclose:
flash an ACC tell-tale to encourage the driver to release the brake pedal apply when the actual following distance reaches a predefined following distance;
However, Westendorf teaches the aforementioned limitation (Westendorf at least [0004-0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Westendorf with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve fuel economy (Westendorf [0002]).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer in view of US20240317227A1 Baum et al ("Baum").
As per claims 3, 14, 19, Bohrer teaches the inventions as described above. Bohrer additionally teaches:
determine whether a lead vehicle is within a predefined area of view of the vehicle equipped with ACC; (Bohrer at least [0017])
Bohrer does not disclose:
stop the vehicle equipped with ACC behind the lead vehicle, wherein the vehicle equipped with ACC is stopped via the controller in response to the second driver input, and the second driver input includes a brake pedal apply; and wherein the ACC is re-engaged via the controller automatically when the vehicle equipped with ACC is at a standstill.
However, Baum teaches the aforementioned limitation (Baum at least the abstract, [0021], claim 8: "stereo camera…distance measurement system").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Baum with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the ACC functioning in stop and go traffic (Baum [0012]).
As per claim 4, Bohrer teaches the invention as described above. Bohrer additionally teaches:
determining whether the vehicle equipped with ACC is approaching an intersection; (Bohrer at least [0021]: “navigation system…intersections…manage changes in speed”, [0025]: “stop sign”)
Bohrer does not disclose:
determining whether the vehicle equipped with ACC is stopped at the intersection; and wherein the ACC is re-engaged via the controller automatically when the vehicle is at a standstill.
However, Baum teaches the aforementioned limitation (Baum at least [0021-0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Baum with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 3.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer and Baum in view of US20090321229A1 Haug ("Haug").
As per claim 5, Bohrer in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Bohrer does not disclose:
determining whether a turn signal is active; and wherein re-engaging the ACC via the controller automatically is inhibited when it is determined that the turn signal is active
However, Haug teaches the aforementioned limitation (Haug at least [0018-0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Haug with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow a manual override of the ACC when the driver intends to change lanes (Haug [0007]).
As per claim 6, Bohrer in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Bohrer does not disclose:
re-engaging the ACC via the controller automatically includes re-engaging the ACC when it is determined that the vehicle is at a standstill.
However, Baum teaches the aforementioned limitation (Baum at least [0021-0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Baum with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 3.
Bohrer does not disclose:
determining whether a turn signal is active; and wherein re-engaging the ACC via the controller automatically includes re- engaging the ACC when it is determined that the turn signal is not active.
However, Haug teaches the aforementioned limitation (Haug at least [0018-0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Haug with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer and Baum in view of US6370471B1 Lohner et al ("Lohner").
As per claim 7, Bohrer in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Bohrer does not disclose:
evaluating alternate ACC re-engagement opportunities when it is determined that the vehicle equipped with ACC is not approaching the intersection.
However, Lohner teaches the aforementioned limitation (Lohner at least claim 1: "spacing and relative speed processor", col 7 lines 30-35: “recognition of a new leading vehicle”, col 3 lines 5-10: “release by the driver in order to start moving again after a stop”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lohner with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve the function of ACC in heavy traffic (Lohner abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer in view of US20200017121A1 Baier ("Baier").
As per claim 8, Bohrer teaches the invention as described above. Bohrer does not disclose:
the second driver input includes a pedal input, wherein the pedal input is classified as a soft pedal input that is indicative of a driver intervention, or a hard pedal input that is indicative of a driver override.
However, Baier teaches the aforementioned limitation (Baier at least [0043-0044]: "simple intent…kickdown").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Baier with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve drivability of a vehicle (Baier [0041]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer and Baier in view of DE102007031544A1 Huang et al ("Huang", English machine translation provided) and US20230227037A1 Zhao et al ("Zhao").
As per claim 9, Bohrer in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Bohrer does not disclose:
engaging the ACC at the desired set speed further includes setting the desired set speed to a new desired set speed when the pedal input is classified as a soft pedal input.
However, Baier teaches the aforementioned limitation (Baier at least [0043-0044]: "simple intent…kickdown").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Baier with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve drivability of a vehicle (Baier [0041]).
Bohrer does not disclose:
setting the desired set speed to the new desired set speed includes: learning a new desired set speed, wherein learning the new desired set speed includes: detecting a constant speed, wherein the constant speed is detected via at least one of the plurality of vehicle sensors; determining, via the controller, a steady vehicle dynamic intent at the constant speed; detecting a driver engagement level at the constant speed, wherein the driver engagement level is detected via at least another of the plurality of vehicle sensors; verifying, via the controller, at least one environmental condition at the constant speed; and associating the constant speed with the steady vehicle dynamic intent, the driver engagement level, and the at least one environmental condition, such that the constant speed corresponds with the steady vehicle dynamic intent, the driver engagement level, and the at least one environmental condition at the constant speed, wherein the constant speed is the new desired set speed; storing the constant speed as the new desired set speed; and setting the desired set speed to the new desired set speed once the vehicle equipped with ACC has maintained the new desired set speed for a predetermined period of time and when the steady vehicle dynamic intent detected, the driver engagement level detected, and the at least one environmental condition verified, each are respectively equal to the associated steady vehicle dynamic intent, the associated driver engagement level, and the at least one associated environmental condition that corresponds to the new desired set speed; and wherein re-engaging the ACC at the desired set speed further includes re- engaging the ACC at the new desired set speed, wherein the ACC is re-engaged to the new desired set speed via the controller automatically.
However, Huang teaches the aforementioned limitation (Huang at least [0014-0017]: "driver presses the accelerator pedal for a longer period of time…specified as a new target speed…depends on the current speed…driver wants to set a new target speed…adapted to the current…conditions…releases the accelerator pedal, he has reached the desired speed, which should be set as the new target speed "). *Examiner’s note: the environmental condition is the detection or non-detection of a preceding lead vehicle ahead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow a driver to easily change the target speed (Huang [0010]).
Bohrer does not disclose:
storing the associated steady vehicle dynamic intent, the associated driver engagement level, and the at least one associated environmental condition that correspond to the new desired set speed into the controller;
However, Zhao teaches the aforementioned limitation (Zhao at least the abstract, [0005], [0035], [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve accuracy of a driver’s true intent and preferences (Zhao [0039]).
As per claim 10, Bohrer in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Bohrer additionally teaches:
the pedal input includes an accelerator pedal apply and/or a brake pedal apply. (Bohrer at least [0019])
Claim(s) 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer in view of Huang and Zhao.
As per claims 15 and 20, Bohrer teaches the inventions as described above. Bohrer does not disclose:
setting the desired set speed to the new desired set speed includes: learning the new desired set speed, wherein learning the new desired set speed includes: detecting a constant speed, wherein the constant speed is detected via at least one of the plurality of vehicle sensors; determining, via the controller, a steady vehicle dynamic intent at the constant speed; detecting a driver engagement level at the constant speed, wherein the driver engagement level is detected via at least another of the plurality of vehicle sensors; verifying, via the controller, at least one environmental condition at the constant speed; and associating the constant speed with the steady vehicle dynamic intent, the driver engagement level, and the at least one environmental condition, such that the constant speed corresponds with the steady vehicle dynamic intent, the driver engagement level, and the at least one environmental condition at the constant speed, wherein the constant speed is the new desired set speed; storing the constant speed as the new desired set speed; and setting the desired set speed to the new desired set speed once the vehicle equipped with ACC has maintained the new desired set speed for a predetermined period of time and when the steady vehicle dynamic intent detected, the driver engagement level detected, and the at least one environmental condition verified, each are respectively equal to the associated steady vehicle dynamic intent, the associated driver engagement level, and the at least one associated environmental condition that corresponds to the new desired set speed; and wherein re-engaging the ACC at the desired set speed further includes re- engaging the ACC at the new desired set speed, wherein the ACC is re-engaged to the new desired set speed via the controller automatically.
However, Huang teaches the aforementioned limitation (Huang at least [0014-0017]: "driver presses the accelerator pedal for a longer period of time…specified as a new target speed…depends on the current speed…driver wants to set a new target speed…adapted to the current…conditions…releases the accelerator pedal, he has reached the desired speed, which should be set as the new target speed "). *Examiner’s note: the environmental condition is the detection or non-detection of a preceding lead vehicle ahead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow a driver to easily change the target speed (Huang [0010]).
Bohrer does not disclose:
storing the associated steady vehicle dynamic intent, the associated driver engagement level, and the at least one associated environmental condition that correspond to the new desired set speed into the controller;
However, Zhao teaches the aforementioned limitation (Zhao at least the abstract, [0005], [0035], [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve accuracy of a driver’s true intent and preferences (Zhao [0039]).
Claim(s) 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer in view of Huang .
As per claims 11 and 16, Bohrer teaches the inventions as described above. Bohrer does not disclose:
re-engaging the ACC via the controller automatically to the desired set speed includes re-engaging the ACC via the controller automatically to a new desired set speed when the ACC system detects a constant speed for a predetermined period of time, wherein the new desired set speed includes the constant speed.
However, Huang teaches the aforementioned limitation (Huang at least [0014-0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bohrer with the aforementioned limitations taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow a driver to easily change the target speed (Huang [0010]).
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights