DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of species I, A (claims 1-4, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14-17) in the reply filed on 16 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 April 2008.
Remarks
Many of the claims maintain optional limitations (e.g. “optionally”, “or”). These limitations need not be met for the claim to have been anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
The use of reference characters in the claims is to be considered as having no effect on the scope of the claims.
Intended Use
3. Independent claim 1 is a method claim which contains the embodiment “…thereby determining a simulated vehicle speed profile”. This embodiment has not been afforded patentable weight because it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. See MPEP at 2111.04.
Independent claim 15 contains a statement of intended use or field of use (e.g. “thereby determining a simulated vehicle speed profile”. These statements of intended/field of use are essentially method limitations. Said statement does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference.
See MPEP § 2114 which states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does.
As set forth in MPEP § 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim.
Additionally, the terms “configured to" or "arranged to" are considered to be structurally modified statements and are not intended use. Claims amended to include the above listed language may patentably distinguish themselves structurally.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 2 maintains the phrase “the first predefined criterion”. It is inferred from the specification that said phrase is referring to “a first predefined condition” as recited in independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is respectfully requested to prevent potential antecedence issues.
Claims 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particular1y when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.0 I. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions/or Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The memory embodied in claim 14 is drawn toward a generic storage medium; given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes a signal, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as including non-statutory subject matter. The examiner suggests amending the embodiments to read "A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions…”
Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g.. Gentry Gallery, Inc v. Berkline Corp, 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 14 attempts to incorporate all embodiments of claim 1. Since the many of the features listed in claim 14 are recited in claim 1, insufficient antecedence issues are created.
Independent claim 16 attempts to incorporate all embodiments of claim 15. Since the components listed in claim 16 are recited in claim 15, insufficient antecedence issues are created.
Independent claim 17 attempts to incorporate all embodiments of claim 15. Since the components listed in claim 17 are recited in claim 15, insufficient antecedence issues are created.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 1-4 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Roos (US 2017/0297572).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-17, as best understood, Roos discloses a method, performed by a control device (Roos at 0038) with associated storage medium, for controlling a cruise control system of a host vehicle (LACC for a vehicle; Roos at 0033), said cruise control system configured to control vehicle speed in dependence of a set speed through control of output torque of at least one propulsion unit of the host vehicle (vehicle speed controlled as a function of set speed and economic considerations; Roos at 0007, 0033), the method comprising:
Simulating vehicle speed of the host vehicle for an upcoming road section under a condition of a predetermined torque limitation being active and in consideration of a current set speed of the cruise control, thereby determining a simulated vehicle speed profile for the host vehicle, wherein said predetermined torque limitation limits the output torque that the cruise control system may request from the at least one propulsion unit (LACC predicts vehicle control on upcoming road segments given torque limitations, set speed, and a target speed profile; Roos at 0033, 0040).
In response to a determination that the simulated vehicle speed profile for the host vehicle fulfils a first predefined condition, activating the predetermined torque limitation, if not already active (control according to set speed and torque criteria; Roos at 0062).
Regarding claim 2, Roos determines wherein the first predefined criterion is: that a minimum vehicle speed defined by the simulated vehicle speed profile for the host vehicle is equal to or higher than a predefined minimum threshold speed, said predefined minimum threshold speed being dependent of the current set speed of the cruise control system (allowed speed deviation includes minimum and maximum speed thresholds operating around the set speed; Roos at 0059-0062).
Regarding claim 3, Roos discloses determining the reference speed profile of the host vehicle for the upcoming road section based on a condition of the predetermined torque limitation being inactive and in consideration of the current set speed of the cruise control system (economical/non-economical considerations for upcoming road segments and speed profile; Roos at 0063, 0064).
Regarding claim 4, Roos discloses in response to a determination that the simulated vehicle speed profile for the host vehicle does not fulfil the first predefined condition, simulating an adjusted vehicle speed profile of the host vehicle for the upcoming road section under the
condition of the predetermined torque limitation being active and based on adjusted control parameters of the cruise control system leading to an increase of vehicle speed during a portion of the upcoming road section, and in response to a determination that the simulated adjusted vehicle speed profile of the host vehicle fulfils the first predefined condition, activating the predetermined torque limitation, if not already active, and controlling the cruise control
system according to the adjusted control parameters (updating speed profile in LACC for host vehicle control when the speed profile does not meet certain criteria, the updated speed profile will adhere to speed and torque criteria such as minimum/maximum speed allowed, torque limitations; Roos at 0059, 0062).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
7a. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos, as cited above, and further in view of He (US 2022/0402487).
Regarding claim 1, Roos discloses a method, performed by a control device (Roos at 0038), for controlling a cruise control system of a host vehicle (LACC for a vehicle; Roos at 0033), said cruise control system configured to control vehicle speed in dependence of a set speed through control of output torque of at least one propulsion unit of the host vehicle (vehicle speed controlled as a function of set speed and economic considerations; Roos at 0007, 0033), the method comprising:
Simulating vehicle speed of the host vehicle for an upcoming road section under a condition of a predetermined torque limitation being active and in consideration of a current set speed of the cruise control, thereby determining a simulated vehicle speed profile for the host vehicle, wherein said predetermined torque limitation limits the output torque that the cruise control system may request from the at least one propulsion unit (LACC predicts vehicle control on upcoming road segments given torque limitations, set speed, and a target speed profile; Roos at 0033, 0040).
Roos is silent as to the optional limitation of determining an estimated following distance profile, relative to a target vehicle, for the host vehicle for the upcoming road section based on the simulated vehicle speed profile for the host vehicle.
Follen, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches a look-ahead controller configured to utilize predictive cruise control (equivalent to LACC of Roos; Follen at 0029) generate a predicted speed profile of a host vehicle on an upcoming road section, and based on the speed profile adjusting adaptive cruise control distances to a preceding vehicle (Follen at 0041-0044), ultimately controlling host vehicle torque output so that the vehicle follows the predicted upcoming distance profile (Follen at 0015, 0037, 0047).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the base LACC of Roos with the blended ACC and LACC of Follen. Doing so would provide for economical vehicle control as well as collision avoidance.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the second predefined condition is that a maximum following distance, relative to a target vehicle, defined by the determined estimated following distance profile for the host vehicle is equal to or below a predefined maximum allowable distance threshold (host vehicle controlled according to minimum/maximum following distance; Follen at 0047, 0054).
7b. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos, as cited above, and further in view of Dickson (US 2023/0150502).
Regarding claim 11, Roos is silent to in response to a driver-initiated request for acceleration of the vehicle, deactivating the predetermined torque limitation, if not already inactive.
Dickson, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches driver override of cruise control systems via pedal input (Dickson at 0024).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the base method of Roos with the override features of Dickson. Doing so would provide for an intuitive cancellation of cruise control via driver intent when vehicle automated control is insufficient.
7c. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roos, as cited above, and further in view of Sidhu (US 2023/0115240).
Regarding claim 12, Roos is silent as to in response to a determination of loss of map data, deactivating the predetermined torque limitation if not already inactive.
Sidhu teaches that driver assistance may be deactivated in situations such as low map confidence or loss of digital map data (Sidhu at abstract, 0002, 0040, 0090).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of the claimed invention to augment the base method of Roos with the vehicle response of Sidhu. Doing so would prevent unsafe driving assistance in areas where map data is out of date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 02 February 2026