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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 7, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on January 7, 2026. Claims 1-12 & 15-20 are currently pending. Claims 13-14 are cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. EP22206103.8, filed on November 8, 2022.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the amendment submitted December 17, 2025, the amendments overcome the prior art rejections of the final rejection dated November 28, 2025. Claims 13-14 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-10, filed December 17, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 & 15-20 under 35 USC 102 & 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2018/0093666 A1, to Kim et al.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10254401 A1, to Heinrich (previously of record) in view of US 2018/0093666 A1, to Kim et al., hereafter Kim (newly of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Heinrichs discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a processor device of a computer system, from at least one data acquisition device of a prime vehicle, measurement data of each of at least two preceding vehicles preceding the prime vehicle (Heinrich [00097]-[0098] & Figs. 1 & 2, Examiner Note: Heinrichs discloses sensors, including a radar sensor, which scans (e.g. distance, speed, angular and lateral offset) the space in front of the motor vehicle (i.e. prime vehicle) for one or more objects in front of the vehicle);
determining, by the processor device, a performance consistency of each of the at least two preceding vehicles based on the measurement data (Heinrich [0042]-[0044], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses using a maximum of six candidates (i.e. two preceding vehicles) of objects in front of the motor vehicle, the driver speed is determined relative to the center line of the lane (i.e. performance consistency) in order to evaluate smooth driving behavior and target vehicle preference)…
…selecting, by the processor device, a standard vehicle of the at least two preceding vehicles based on the performance consistency of each of the at least two preceding vehicles (Heinrich [0042]-[0044], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses using a maximum of six candidates (i.e. two preceding vehicles) of objects in front of the motor vehicle, the driver speed is determined relative to the center line of the lane (i.e. performance consistency) in order to evaluate smooth driving behavior and target vehicle preference (i.e. standard vehicle)); and
adapting, by the processor device, operation of the prime vehicle based on the standard vehicle (Heinrich [0100], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses adapting the motor vehicle using the performance of the preferred preceding vehicle (i.e. standard vehicle)).
However, Heinrich does not specifically disclose the performance consistency of each of the at least two preceding vehicles being based on at least one of variation in speed or acceleration, wherein the performance consistency is considered higher for a smaller variation in speed or acceleration and lower for a greater variation of acceleration;
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the performance consistency of each of the at least two preceding vehicles being based on at least one of variation in speed or acceleration, wherein the performance consistency is considered higher for a smaller variation in speed or acceleration and lower for a greater variation of acceleration (Kim [0078], Examiner Note: Kim teaches detecting the difference in speed between multiple vehicles of interest (i.e. at least two preceding vehicles) and the vehicle of interest with variation of 1 m/s (i.e. smaller variation in speed) is designated as the vehicle of interest, or third group of potential vehicles of interest. [0066] describes the vehicle of interest exerting an influence of the speed control of the subject vehicle);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for influencing the speed of a motor vehicle of Heinrich with the surrounding vehicle speed variation detection of Kim in order to improve adaptive cruise control performance based on the surrounding information received by the vehicle sensors (Kim [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, the selecting of a standard vehicle comprising selecting as the standard vehicle the vehicle of the at least two preceding vehicles considered to have a higher performance consistency (Heinrich [0044], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses the preferred vehicle being the vehicle that has the smoothest driving).
Regarding Claim 3, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, a distance from the prime vehicle to each of the at least two preceding vehicles based on the measurement data, wherein the determining of a performance consistency of each of the at least two preceding vehicles comprises assigning a lower performance consistency with increasing distance (Heinrich [0114], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses that if a distance-dependent threshold from the motor vehicle to the preceding vehicles is exceeded (i.e. increasing distance), the priority object is excluded (i.e. determined) from selection as a target vehicle (i.e. standard vehicle)).
Regarding Claim 4, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the processor device, a number of vehicles located between the prime vehicle and each of the at least two preceding vehicles based on the measurement data, wherein the determining of a performance consistency of each of the at least two preceding vehicles comprises assigning a lower performance consistency with an increasing number of vehicles (Heinrich [0048], Examiner Notes: Heinrich discloses reducing the distance at which objects are considered due to the higher error rate (i.e. lower performance consistency) which occurs from objects that are further away (i.e. more vehicles)).
Regarding Claim 7, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the adapting of the operation of the prime vehicle further comprises maintaining, by the processor device, a minimum distance to an immediately preceding vehicle (Heinrich [0100], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses using distance relative to own vehicle as an attribute of a preceding vehicle in order to adapt the motor vehicle’s own driving behavior (e.g. distance)).
Regarding Claim 9, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the receiving of measurement data from at least one data acquisition device comprises receiving, by the processor device, the measurement data from a radar, lidar or camera sensor of the prime vehicle (Heinrich [00097]-[0098] & Figs. 1 & 2, Examiner Note: Heinrichs discloses sensors, including a radar sensor, which scans (e.g. distance, speed, angular and lateral offset) the space in front of the motor vehicle (i.e. prime vehicle) for one or more objects in front of the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 16, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The computer system comprising the processor device configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Heinrich [0008]-[0013], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses an Electronic Control Unit performing the method disclosed in Heinrich which contains a processing device).
Regarding Claim 17, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches A vehicle comprising the processor device to perform the method of claim 1 (Heinrich [0008]-[0013], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses a motor vehicle connected to the electronic control unit performing for method of Heinrich).
Regarding Claim 18, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processor device, the method of claim 1 (Heinrich [0044], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses the invention of Heinrich is a program which runs in the electronic control unit).
Regarding Claim 19, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches A control system comprising one or more control units configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Heinrich [0008]-[0013], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses an Electronic Control Unit performing the method disclosed in Heinrich).
Regarding Claim 20, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, cause the processor device to perform the method of claim 1 (Heinrich [0044], Examiner Note: Heinrich discloses the invention of Heinrich is a program (i.e. instructions) which runs in the electronic control unit).
Claims 10-11 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10254401 A1, to Heinrich-Bartscher (previously of record) in view of US 2018/0093666 A1, to Kim et al., hereafter Kim (newly of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0375905 A1, to Park et al., hereafter Park (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 10, as shown above, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1,
However, Heinrich does not specifically disclose wherein the receiving of measurement data from at least one data acquisition device comprises receiving, by the processor device, the measurement data from a wireless communication device of the prime vehicle.
Park, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein the receiving of measurement data from at least one data acquisition device comprises receiving, by the processor device, the measurement data from a wireless communication device of the prime vehicle (Park [0008], Examiner Note: Park teaches using V2X (i.e. wireless) communication to transmit information via the radar (i.e. data acquisition device)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for influencing the speed of a motor vehicle of Heinrich in view of Kim with the V2X communication of Park in order to improve smart cruise control performance (Park [0005]).
Regarding Claim 11, Heinrich in view of Kim and further in view of Park teaches The method of claim 10,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the wireless communication device is configured to receive the measurement data by establishing wireless communication with each of the at least two preceding vehicles.
Park further teaches wherein the wireless communication device is configured to receive the measurement data by establishing wireless communication with each of the at least two preceding vehicles (Park [0046], Examiner Note: Park discloses the host vehicle and the two preceding vehicles transmitting, through V2V communication (i.e. wirelessly), driving information to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for influencing the speed of a motor vehicle of Heinrich in view of Kim with the V2V communication of Park in order to improve smart cruise control performance (Park [0005]).
Regarding Claim 15, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1,
However Heinrich does not disclose wherein the performance consistency of each of the at least two preceding vehicles is determined based on variation in deceleration, wherein the performance consistency is considered higher for a smaller variation in deceleration and lower for a greater variation in deceleration.
Park teaches wherein the performance consistency of each of the at least two preceding vehicles is determined based on variation in deceleration, wherein the performance consistency is considered higher for a smaller variation in deceleration and lower for a greater variation in deceleration (Park [0047]-[0049], Examiner Note: Park teaches determining the variation in acceleration using received driving information in order to determine a preceding vehicle. [0008], Park further teaches using adaptive cruise control to reduce the range of deceleration which would use the same process as done with acceleration in [0047]-[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for influencing the speed of a motor vehicle of Heinrich in view of Kim with the variation in speed determination of Park in order to reduce the need for the driver to continuously manipulate the accelerator or brake pedals to adjust the driving speed of the vehicle (Park [0004]).
Claims 5-6 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10254401 A1, to Heinrich-Bartscher (previously of record) in view of US 2018/0093666 A1, to Kim et al., hereafter Kim (newly of record) as applied to claims 1 & 7 above, and further in view of US 2018/0037227 A1, to D’Sa et al., hereafter D’Sa (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 5, as shown above, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1,
However, Heinrich does not specifically disclose further comprising: determining, by the processor device, that the performance consistency of two immediately preceding vehicles fail to comply with a performance consistency criterion; and determining, by the processor device, that performance consistency of a further preceding vehicle complies with the performance consistency criterion; wherein selecting standard vehicle comprises selecting said further preceding vehicle as the standard vehicle.
D’Sa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: determining, by the processor device, that the performance consistency of two immediately preceding vehicles fail to comply with a performance consistency criterion (D’Sa [0127], Examiner Note: D’Sa teaches an embodiment in which the host vehicle, 106, determines that using a seven second headway time from the host vehicle, that vehicle 108d and 108c are not far enough away (i.e. fail to comply with a performance consistency criterion) to be selected as the remote vehicle); and determining, by the processor device, that performance consistency of a further preceding vehicle complies with the performance consistency criterion; wherein selecting standard vehicle comprises selecting said further preceding vehicle as the standard vehicle (D’Sa [0127], Examiner Note: D’Sa teaches after concluding that vehicles 108d and 108c are not far enough away, that 108b meets the seven second headway (i.e. performance consistency) and 108b is selected as the remote vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for influencing the speed of a motor vehicle of Heinrich in view of Kim with the capability to select the vehicle that fits the required criteria of the host vehicle of D’Sa in order to select the remote vehicle that has the greatest impact of operation of the host vehicle’s travel path (D’Sa [0126]).
Regarding Claim 6, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1,
However, Heinrich does not specifically disclose wherein no adapting of the operation of the prime vehicle is performed, by the processor device, if it is determined that none of the preceding vehicles has a determined performance consistency complying with the performance consistency criterion.
D’Sa teaches wherein no adapting of the operation of the prime vehicle is performed, by the processor device, if it is determined that none of the preceding vehicles has a determined performance consistency complying with the performance consistency criterion (D’Sa [0217], Examiner Note: D’Sa teaches not assisting in brake boost operation if it is found that the preceding vehicle is not decelerating faster than what is required (i.e. performance consistency criterion) for the vehicle control system to intervene. Thereby none of the preceding vehicles complying with the performance consistency criterion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for influencing the speed of a motor vehicle of Heinrich in view of Kim with control braking of D’Sa in order to mitigate collisions (D’Sa [0215]).
Regarding Claim 8, as shown above, Heinrich in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 7,
However, Heinrich does not specifically disclose further comprising discontinuing, by the processor device, attempting to maintain a minimum distance to the immediately preceding vehicle when the minimum distance to the immediately preceding vehicle cannot be maintained.
D’Sa teaches further comprising discontinuing, by the processor device, attempting to maintain a minimum distance to the immediately preceding vehicle when the minimum distance to the immediately preceding vehicle cannot be maintained (D’Sa [0216] & Fig. 27, Examiner Note: D’Sa teaches when the following distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is abruptly decreased and considered tailgating (i.e. minimum distance) and if the time to collision is below a threshold, if the determined deceleration rate is less than a threshold (i.e. adapting cannot be maintained) control braking is used (i.e. discontinuing the adapting) in order to execute brake boost operations to prevent a collision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for influencing the speed of a motor vehicle of Heinrich in view of Kim with control braking of D’Sa in order to mitigate collisions (D’Sa [0215]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10254401 A1, to Heinrich-Bartscher (previously of record) in view of US 2018/0093666 A1, to Kim et al., hereafter Kim (newly of record), further in view of US 2016/0375905 A1, to Park et al. (previously of record) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2018/0037227 A1, to D’Sa et al (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 12, Heinrich in view of Kim and further in view of Park, as shown above, teaches The method of claim 10,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the wireless communication device is configured to receive the measurement data by establishing wireless communication with a remotely located device having access to the measurement data of each of the at least two preceding vehicles.
D’Sa teaches wherein the wireless communication device is configured to receive the measurement data by establishing wireless communication with a remotely located device having access to the measurement data of each of the at least two preceding vehicles (D’Sa [0076], Examiner Note: D’Sa teaches having servers (i.e. remotely located device) in order to transmit vehicle information to and from the host or remote vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for influencing the speed of a motor vehicle of Heinrich in view of Kim and further in view of Park with server of D’Sa in order more efficiently allow the systems involved to communicate and transmit information from afar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached at (571)-270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669