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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/05/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 and 16 are directed to system, Claim 18 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1, 16 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 16 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle system comprising:
at least one processing circuit having at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive a parameter rule associated with a vehicle parameter;
receive a persistent value for the vehicle parameter;
determine that a user-set value for the vehicle parameter is active;
determine that a context-based value for the vehicle parameter is active; and
set the vehicle parameter to one of the persistent value, the user-set value, or the context-based value based on the parameter rule.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the bolded limitation can be performed by a human, for example, a driver remembers a “rule” such as school zone overrides user-set speed (corresponds to parameter rule), recognize the default speed limit is e.g. 55 mph (corresponds to persistent value), he/she checks whether cruise control is activated to a desired speed (corresponds to user-set value), and checks for posted signage whether a school zone is present (corresponds to context-based value), and picks a final speed based on the rule (corresponds to set…parameter rule). Examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to the concept of collecting information (persistent value, user-set value, context-based value) and evaluating it according to a rule and selecting a value, which is fundamental mental process and/or decision making strategy, which can be done mentally or with pen and paper.
Examiner would also note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle system comprising:
at least one processing circuit having at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive a parameter rule associated with a vehicle parameter;
receive a persistent value for the vehicle parameter;
determine that a user-set value for the vehicle parameter is active;
determine that a context-based value for the vehicle parameter is active; and
set the vehicle parameter to one of the persistent value, the user-set value, or the context-based value based on the parameter rule.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of processing circuit…one processor, merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise abstract ideas and/or additional limitations in a generic or general-purpose computer environment, where processor is recited as generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “a processor” and “computer, the examiner submits that the processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component performing generic calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As explained, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S., 208,223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Electric Power Group, LLC v, Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection, analysis and display constitute insignificant extra-solution activity). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016)( Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-15, 17 and 19 do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial except and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-15, 17 and 19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
As such, claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significant more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
(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) 1-2, 4, 11-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Magolan et al. (US 2020/0307578 A1 hereinafter Magolan).
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claims 16 and 18), Magolan teaches A vehicle system (see at least Abstract Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one processing circuit having at least one processor and at least one memory (see at least Fig. 1-2 [0029-0030]: controller may be configured as microcomputer including microprocessor including memory), the at least one memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive a parameter rule associated with a vehicle parameter; (see at least Fig. 3-5 [0015-0025]: system and method for limiting a vehicle speed and vehicle dynamics of a vehicle with either a gas-only or hybrid or electric-only power train. More specifically, a top vehicle speed, which may be a maximum, upper threshold speed of the vehicle, may be limited in response to one or more conditions.)
receive a persistent value for the vehicle parameter; (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0072-0094]: Method 500 begins at 502 which determines if the vehicle speed is limited (corresponds to persistent value).)
determine that a user-set value for the vehicle parameter is active; (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0072-0094]: Method 500 proceeds to steps 506, 510 determines whether an override request of the speed limiter from an operator may be present and accepted if the operator is authorized to override the speed limiter (corresponds to user-set value is active).)
determine that a context-based value for the vehicle parameter is active; (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0072-0094]: Method 500 proceeds to steps 514, 518 to determine if the vehicle is within a geofenced area, the magnitude of the speed limiter is increased if the vehicle is within a geofenced area (corresponds to context-based value is active). ) and
set the vehicle parameter to one of the persistent value, the user-set value, or the context-based value based on the parameter rule. (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0072-0094]: A limit of the vehicle top speed and vehicle dynamic is adjusted based on whether a speed limiter is present, override request is approved and/or whether the vehicle is within a geofenced area.)
Regarding Claim 2, Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 1,
Magolan further teaches wherein the vehicle parameter includes at least one of a maximum speed (see at least Abstract Fig. 5), a maximum acceleration rate, a maximum current applied by a motor of the vehicle, a maximum battery charge threshold for the motor, or a maximum drive power level.
Regarding Claim 4, Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 1,
Magolan further teaches wherein the vehicle parameter includes at least one of a stability control level or an anti-skid control level. (see at least Fig. 5 [0006, 0020-0021, 0048, 0065, 0069, 0094]: The vehicle dynamics may be configured to specific or matching conditions (i.e. vehicle drive mode may be selectable by operator), e.g., if the vehicle is in snowy or icy conditions, the controller may activate and/or increase output from a traction control system and a stability control system to increase vehicle traction. The vehicle dynamics may include a plurality of modes comprising different adjustments to one or more vehicle dynamics features including a traction control system, a stability control system, a power assisted steering system, a vehicle brake assist system. An override request may also request changes to the vehicle dynamics where the operator may prefer to operate the vehicle without electric stability control or with a stiffer suspension.)
Regarding Claim 11, Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 1, further comprising
Magolan further teaches one or more sensors configured to sense one or more operational parameters of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 [0027-0030, 0043, 0048-0055]: vehicle system may include control system that receive information from plurality of sensors and sending control signals to a plurality of actuators.), and wherein determining that the context-based value is active is based on the one or more operational parameters of the vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1 , 4-5 [0070-0092]: A navigation system, GPS, cellular device may provide feedback to an onboard vehicle controller or GOES radar may be used to determine a position of the vehicle to determine if the vehicle is within a geofenced area for adjusting a vehicle speed.)
Regarding Claim 12, Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 11,
Magolan further teaches wherein the one or more operational parameters include one or more of a vehicle orientation grade angle of the vehicle, a vehicle turning angle of the vehicle, a system health score of the vehicle, a motor torque of a motor of the vehicle, or an inferred payload of the vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1-2 [0043]: Control system 290 may communicate with one or more of engine 210 , motor 220 , fuel system 240 , energy storage device 250 , and generator 260 . In some examples, control system 290 may be used similarly to controller 12 of FIG. 1. Control system 290 may receive sensory feedback information from one or more of engine 210 , motor 220 , fuel system 240 , energy storage device 250 , and generator 260 . Further, control system 290 may send control signals to one or more of engine 210 , motor 220 , fuel system 240 , energy storage device 250 , and generator 260 responsive to this sensory feedback. In some examples, control system 290 may receive an indication of an operator requested output of the vehicle propulsion system from a vehicle operator 202 . For example, control system 290 may receive sensory feedback from pedal position sensor 294 which communicates with pedal 292 .)
Regarding Claim 13, Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 11, further comprising
Magolan further teaches a battery system (see at least Fig. 1-2), and
wherein the one or more operational parameters comprise at least one of a charge level of the battery system or a battery state of health of the battery system. (see at least Fig. 1-2 [0045]: Control system 290 may identify and/or control the amount of electrical energy stored at the energy storage device, which may be referred to as the state of charge (SOC).)
Regarding Claim 14, Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 1, further comprising
Magolan further teaches a vehicle (see at least Fig. 1), wherein the at least one processing circuit is at least one of local to or remote from the vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1)
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) 3, 5-6, 8-10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magolan in view of Chutorash (US 2018/0237009 A1)
Regarding Claim 3 (similarly claim 19), Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 2, wherein setting the vehicle parameter based on the parameter rule includes:
Examiner notes that Magolan discloses a persistent value, user-set value, context-based value and a logic for selecting which of these values to apply to set the vehicle’s top speed (conditional selection). While Magolan disclose rule-based selection of top speed parameters, Magolan does not explicitly teach comparing the persistent value, the user-set value, and the context-based value; and setting the vehicle parameter to a lowest of the persistent value, the user-set value, and the context-based value.
Chutorash is directed to an intelligent dynamic speed limiting system for use with a motor vehicle, Chutorash teaches comparing the persistent value, the user-set value, and the context-based value; and setting the vehicle parameter to a lowest of the persistent value, the user-set value, and the context-based value. (see at least Fig. 1-2 [0011-0028]: The IDSLS 106 may obtain the posted speed limit for a given road that the vehicle 12 is travelling on by accessing the on-board map 18 and/or an image(s) obtained by the camera 28 and/or the Cloud-based map/traffic information source 44 , or combinations of these sources. If two or more of these information sources 18 , 28 and 44 produce a conflicting speed limit, then the processor 14 may be programmed to make a selection according to a predetermined methodology, fox example selecting the lowest one of the posted speed limits from the information sources 18 , 28 and 44 .)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Magolan’s system and method for limiting a vehicle speed to incorporating the technique of selecting the lowest value when multiple speed limit sources conflict as taught by Chutorah with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that the vehicle does not exceed any potentially valid restriction to provide a fail-safe design that ensure the most restrictive safe value is selected when uncertainty arise.
Regarding Claim 5 (similarly claim 17), Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
Magolan further teaches receive context-based parameter command information from a context analysis device or system via the communications network, the context-based parameter command information including a context-based activity status and the context-based value; (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0049-50, 0072-0094, 0107]: vehicle system may include on-board navigation system that has one or more location sensors for assisting in estimating vehicle speed, altitude, position/location etc.. this information may be used to infer engine operating parameters. The control system may be configured to receive information via the internet or other communication networks. Information received from the gps may be cross-referenced to information available via the internet to determine local weather conditions, local vehicle regulations. The method of determining if speed limiting conditions are met include determine if a vehicle location is within a geofenced area based on vehicle location data retrieved. If the vehicle is within a geofenced area, the magnitude of the speed limiter is increased so that the current top vehicle speed becomes more limited.)
wherein determining that the user-set value is active is based on the user-set activity status being set to active (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0072-0094]: Method 500 proceeds to steps 506, 510 determines whether an override request of the speed limiter from an operator may be present and accepted if the operator is authorized to override the speed limiter (corresponds to user-set value is active).); and
wherein determining that the context-based value is active is based on the context-based activity status being set to active. (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0072-0094]: Method 500 proceeds to steps 514, 518 to determine if the vehicle is within a geofenced area, the magnitude of the speed limiter is increased if the vehicle is within a geofenced area (corresponds to context-based value is active). )
Magolan further teaches receiving user-set parameter commands via user interfaces such as button or accelerator pedal, it may be alleged that Magolan does not explicitly teach receive user-set parameter command information from a user interface device via a communications network, the user-set parameter command information including a user-set activity status and the user-set value;
Chutorash is directed to an intelligent dynamic speed limiting system for use with a motor vehicle, Chutorash teaches receive user-set parameter command information from a user interface device via a communications network, the user-set parameter command information including a user-set activity status and the user-set value; (see at least Fig. 1-2B [0011-0030]: The IDSLS may be in communication with a center stack display having driver preference controls. The driver preference controls includes a soft button acting as a speed set control to enable the user to set a speed increase value that the vehicle speed can be increased by over a speed limit for a given road. This maximum speed increase value may be a percentage value, a fixed miles per hours.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Magolan’s system and method for limiting a vehicle speed to incorporating the technique of receiving user-set parameter command using networked input system as taught by Chutorah with reasonable expectation of success to improve modularity and enable distributed input without altering the fundamental speed control functionality of the vehicle control system.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Magolan in view of Chutorah teaches The vehicle system of Claim 5,
Magolan further teaches wherein the context-based value is a geofence-based value, and the context-based activity status is set to active based on a determination by the context analysis device or system that a vehicle is entering or is within a geofence associated with the context-based value. (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0072-0094]: Method 500 proceeds to steps 514, 518 to determine if the vehicle is within a geofenced area, the magnitude of the speed limiter is increased if the vehicle is within a geofenced area (corresponds to context-based value is active.)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Magolan in view of Chutorah teaches The vehicle system of Claim 5,
Magolan further teaches wherein the context-based value is a weather-based value, and wherein the weather-based value is set to active based on a notification of inclement weather received by the context analysis device or system. (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0055, 0071-0090]: If one or more of the sensors determines that visibility is less than a threshold visibility, then the vehicle top speed may be decreased. Method 400 includes measuring one or more of an ambient light, road type and speed limit, weather and time of day. The weather may be measured via a set of onboard vehicle sensors or feedback from wireless network, navigation system, cellular network, or the like. Conditions for limiting a vehicle top speed (e.g., a maximum speed) may be met if one or more of the ambient light, road type or condition, weather, and time of day decrease visibility to an amount less than the threshold visibility.)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Magolan in view of Chutorah teaches The vehicle system of Claim 8,
Magolan further teaches wherein the parameter rule specifies that, when the weather-based value is active, the vehicle parameter is set to the weather-based value. (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0055, 0071-0090]: Method 400, 402-412: determine if speed limiter conditions are met wherein the conditions for limiting a vehicle top speed (e.g. a maximum speed) may be met if one or more of the ambient light, road type or conditions, weather, and time of day decrease visibility to an amount less than the threshold visibility.)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Magolan in view of Chutorah teaches The vehicle system of Claim 5,
Magolan further teaches wherein the context-based value is changed between different values by the context analysis device or system based on a time, week, or event schedule for a location at which the vehicle is present. (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0066-0090]: The top vehicle speed is limited by an amount that may be fixed or dynamic. In some examples, the amount may be a percentage between 5 to 50%. The amount may be adjusted based on an estimated reaction time. For example, if the reaction time is relatively low, then the vehicle speed may be more limited than if the reaction time was higher (e.g., more distance desired to stop rather compared to less). As an example, if the vehicle is on an iced road with visibility less than the threshold visibility, then the vehicle top speed may be reduced more (e.g., via larger percentage) than if the vehicle were on a dry road with visibility less than the threshold visibility. For example, if a vehicle operator is trained to drive in low ambient light (e.g., nighttime), then their top vehicle speed may be less limited or not limited at all relative to an untrained vehicle operator driving in similar conditions. Some locations may regularly comprise amounts of ambient light lower than the threshold ambient light (e.g., Barrow, Alaska comprises consecutive days with 24 hours of no daylight). As such, a vehicle may be in a nighttime drive mode. In such an example, the magnitude of the speed limiter may be reduced compared to nighttime driving in another location due to the regularity of the low amounts of ambient light.)
Claim(s) 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magolan in view of Chutorah and Knauer (US 2019/0304302 A1)
Regarding Claim 7 (similarly claim 20), the combination of Magolan in view of Chutorah teaches The vehicle system of Claim 6,
Magolan further teaches wherein the context-based activity status is set to active based on a determination that the vehicle is entering or has entered the geofence(see at least Fig. 4-5 [0018, 0072-0094]: Method 500 proceeds to steps 514, 518 to determine if the vehicle is within a geofenced area, the magnitude of the speed limiter is increased if the vehicle is within a geofenced area (corresponds to context-based value is active.), wherein the vehicle is set to the user-set value based on the parameter rule (see at least Fig. 4-5 [0072-0094]: Method 500 proceeds to steps 506, 510 determines whether an override request of the speed limiter from an operator may be present and accepted if the operator is authorized to override the speed limiter (corresponds to user-set value is active) , and wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
It may be alleged that the combination of Magolan in view of Chutorah does not explicitly teach determine that the user-set value is below a minimum value associated with the geofence; and cause the vehicle to exit the geofence, instruct an operator off the vehicle to exit the geofence, or disable the vehicle.
Knauer is directed to system and method for warning a vehicle driver, Knauer teaches determine that the user-set value is below a minimum value associated with the geofence; and cause the vehicle to exit the geofence, instruct an operator off the vehicle to exit the geofence, or disable the vehicle. (see at least Abstract Fig. 3 [0002-0003, 0041-0058]: a fast lane driving warning unit of a vehicle that determines whether the vehicle is driving in the fast lane, and a warning signal is sent out when the vehicle runs in the fast lane at a vehicle speed lower than a lower limit of an allowed speed range of the fast lane over time longer than a preset time period. A warning signal will be sent to the driver to indicate that the vehicle runs too slow in the fast lane for a long time and the driver may pull the vehicle into another lane.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Magolan and Chutorah to incorporate the technique of minimum speed enforcement and lane-exit instruction logic as taught by Knauer with reasonable expectation of success by enforcing minimum speeds in designated zones improve traffic flow and safety to ensure compliance with zone-specific speed policies.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magolan in view of Wittenschlaeger (US 2024/0149703 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Magolan teaches The vehicle system of Claim 14, Magolan does not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle is a golf cart.
Wittenschlaeger is directed to system and method for controlling vehicle acceleration to regulate environmental impact, Wittenschlaeger teaches wherein the vehicle is a golf cart. (see at least [0041-0046]: the operational profile may limit the max speed of a low speed vehicle such as a golf cart when operating in a certain area).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Magolan’s system and method for limiting a vehicle speed in a golf cart as taught by Chutorah with reasonable expectation of success because golf carts are vehicles that utilize electronic motor controllers and are subject to speed regulation for safety and operational constraints.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm EST.
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 S. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667