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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Dependency error — Claim 4. Claim 4 currently depends from claim 2, which is canceled. This is an obvious typographical mistake in light of the amendments. Correct dependency should be from Claim 1.
Redundancy notice — After correcting the dependency, claim 4 appears to recite the same subject matter as claim 3 (GNSS speed from carrier-frequency change), both depending from Claim 1. Applicant is advised that Claim 4 is unnecessary as drafted and may be canceled or amended to add a distinct limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keenan et al. (EP-2600161-A1), herein after referred to as Keenan, in view of Aoyama et al. (US-20030200021-A1), herein after referred to as Aoyama, in view of Madau et al. (US-6314329-B1), herein after will be referred to as Madau.
Regarding Claim 1,
I. Disclosure by Keenan
Keenan discloses a GPS-assisted speedometer calibration system that measures wheel speed and GPS speed, keeps logs of measurements, computes a calibration factor, and applies it to the speedometer display—directly addressing the meter display ECU logic for calculating and displaying calibrated speed based on GNSS and detected vehicle speed.
[Claim Element 1]: A vehicle control apparatus
See at least: “The present invention relates to vehicle speedometers, in particular to a method of calibrating vehicle speedometers using a GPS signal.” ([0001])
Rationale: A system implementing calibration and display logic for a speedometer is a vehicle control apparatus.
[Claim Element 2]: comprising: a meter display ECU
See at least: “calibration module 15” and connections with GPS module and ABS controller are shown in Figure 1. ([0019])
Rationale: The calibration module 15 performs the meter/display computation and thus functions as a meter display ECU.
[Claim Element 3]: configured to calculate a meter display speed
See at least: “analyse at least one speed log to calculate a suitable calibration factor” … “apply the calibration factor to the speedometer, and display the calibrated speed.” ([0029]–[0030])
Rationale: Computing a calibration factor and display[ing] the calibrated speed is configured to calculate a meter display speed.
[Claim Element 4]: displayed on a speed meter
See at least: “speedometer 25” (Figure 1) and “display the calibrated speed.” ([0030])
Rationale: The speedometer 25 is the speed meter on which the speed is displayed.
[Claim Element 5]: of a host vehicle;
See at least: “Figure 1 illustrates a system for calibrating and/or synchronising a vehicle speedometer.” ([0017])
Rationale: The system is installed in a vehicle, i.e., a host vehicle.
[Claim Element 8]: the meter display ECU being configured to: acquire a GNSS speed of the host vehicle
See at least: “Global Positioning System (GPS) module 20” and “GPS signal … used to measure vehicle speed.” ([0019]; [0022])
Rationale: The module obtains GPS (GNSS) speed.
[Claim Element 9]: from a GNSS receiver of the host vehicle,
See at least: “GPS module 20 … can also be used as speedometer.” ([0019]; [0022])
Rationale: The GPS module 20 is the vehicle’s GNSS receiver.
[Claim Element 10]: calculate a gain error
See at least: “The first step 30 is to measure the average wheel speed and the average GPS speed” … “analyse … to calculate a suitable calibration factor.” ([0027]; [0029])
Rationale: The calibration factor arises from the ratio of wheel speed to GPS speed (gain error) expressly discussed later. See “[the ratio of the wheel speed:GPS speed].” ([0050])
Mapping: The calibration factor from the wheel:GPS ratio is a gain error.
[Claim Element 11]: of a detected vehicle speed
See at least: “wheel speed sensors 5 … ABS controller 10.” ([0019]–[0021])
Rationale: Wheel speed is the detected vehicle speed.
[Claim Element 12]: detected by a vehicle speed sensor of the host vehicle
See at least: “wheel speed sensors 5 … send the speed measurement.” ([0020])
Rationale: The wheel speed sensors are vehicle speed sensors.
[Claim Elements 13–14]: based on the GNSS speed and the detected vehicle speed;
See at least: “ratio of the wheel speed:GPS speed.” ([0050])
Rationale: The gain is computed based on both GNSS speed and detected vehicle speed.
[Claim Element 15]: calculate an offset value
See at least: “Setting the synchronising ratio to, for example, +3% meets homologation requirements.” ([0065])
Rationale: The +3% synchronising ratio is an offset value applied to the display.
[Claim Element 16]: to ensure that the meter speed equals or exceeds both the detected vehicle speed and the GNSS speed,
See at least: “+3% meets homologation requirements.” ([0065])
Rationale: Homologation requires indicated speed not less than true speed, so the offset ensures the meter speed equals/exceeds both references within tolerance.
[Claim Element 17]: based on past gain error calculations,
See at least: “A log of these measurements is stored.” and “The log is kept as a stack, where older logged entries are continuously replaced with newer ones.” ([0027]; [0049]) • Rationale: Using logged wheel/GPS ratios means computations are based on past gain error calculations.
[Claim Elements 19 & 38]: in the past error gain calculations; / calculated during previous driving
See at least: “A log of these measurements is stored.” ([0027])
Rationale: Logs are created during driving, i.e., previous driving sessions.
[Claim Elements 20–23]: calculate the meter display speed based on the detected vehicle speed, the gain error, and offset value;
See at least: “analyse … to calculate a suitable calibration factor” … “apply the calibration factor to the speedometer, and display the calibrated speed.” ([0029]–[0030])
Rationale: The calibrated speed (meter display speed) is computed using detected vehicle speed, the gain (ratio), and the offset (e.g., +3%).
II. Claim Elements Not Explicitly Disclosed by Keenan
Keenan does not explicitly disclose the following claim elements:
and a vehicle speed control ECU (6)
configured to perform vehicle speed control of the host vehicle; (7)
and transmit the calculated gain error and the calculated offset value to the vehicle speed control ECU; (24–26)
and the vehicle speed control ECU being configured to: re-calculate the meter
display speed using the gain error and the offset value transmitted from the meter display ECU and the detected vehicle speed acquired from the vehicle speed sensor; (27–32)
and control at least one of acceleration or deceleration of the host vehicle such that the meter display speed matches a preset target vehicle speed; (33–34)
and wherein, during an ignition ON … sets a maximum value of the gain error … as an initial value … and sets a maximum value of the offset value … as an initial value … (35–44)
III. Disclosure by Aoyama
Aoyama provides the ECU↔ECU architecture, transmission of control constants, and closed-loop vehicle speed control that consume calibration-type parameters over CAN.
[Claim Element 6]: and a vehicle speed control ECU
See at least: “engine ECU 4.” ([0027])
Rationale: The engine ECU 4 serves as a vehicle speed control ECU.
[Claim Element 7]: configured to perform vehicle speed control of the host vehicle;
See at least: “vehicle speed control” system; the engine ECU performs control “to make the actual vehicle speed coincide with the target vehicle speed.” ([Abstract]; [0008])
Rationale: This is configured to perform vehicle speed control.
[Claim Elements 24–26]: and transmit the calculated gain error and the calculated offset value to the vehicle speed control ECU;
See at least: “transmits the vehicle speed difference and the control constants … to the engine ECU 4 through the CAN.” ([0036])
Rationale: Aoyama expressly teaches ECU-to-ECU transmission of control constants over CAN; the gain error/offset are control constants of the speed function.
[Claim Elements 27–32]: and the vehicle speed control ECU being configured to: re-calculate the meter display speed using the gain error and the offset value transmitted from the meter display ECU and the detected vehicle speed acquired from the vehicle speed sensor;
See at least: “calculate … information…based on the vehicle speed difference and the control constants that are received from the…ECU 2…” and the vehicle speed sensor is connected to the engine ECU. ([0030]; [0026]; [0027])
Rationale: Aoyama discloses a dual-ECU CAN-bus architecture where the engine ECU receives control constants and vehicle-speed input, then computes control signals so the actual speed matches a preset target. Given Keenan’s calibrated gain and offset, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to recompute the identical calibrated speed locally for synchronization, diagnostic integrity, and deterministic control consistency.
[Claim Elements 33–34]: and control at least one of acceleration or deceleration of the host vehicle such that the meter display speed matches a preset target vehicle speed;
See at least: engine ECU “controls the amount of actual fuel injection” and “auxiliary braking … so that the actual vehicle speed coincides with the target.” ([0030]; [0004])
Rationale: This is control of acceleration/deceleration to meet a preset target vehicle speed.
IV. Motivation to Combine Keenan and Aoyama
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Keenan and Aoyama before them, to integrate Keenan’s meter display ECU calibration (wheel/GPS logging, gain and offset computation, homologation-compliant display) with Aoyama’s ECU↔ECU architecture that transmits control constants over CAN and performs vehicle speed control. The references are in the same field (vehicle control/indication), are technically compatible (CAN-based ECU networking), and the result—using Keenan’s gain/offset as control constants in Aoyama’s engine ECU—yields a predictable, industry-standard outcome: consistent calibrated speed used for both driver display and closed-loop control.
V. Claim Elements Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Keenan and Aoyama
After combining Keenan and Aoyama, the following remain not explicitly disclosed:
and wherein, during an ignition ON of the host vehicle, the meter display ECU sets a maximum value of the gain error calculated during previous driving as an initial value of the gain error calculated by the gain error calculation unit, and sets a maximum value of the offset value calculated during previous driving as an initial value of the offset value calculated by the offset value calculation unit. (35–44)
even when the gain error takes a minimum value in the past error gain calculations; (18)
VI. Disclosure by Madau
Madau teaches initialization at ignition ON using max/min stored values and computing a new initial offset (mean) with ECU logic—directly supporting the “maximum value … as an initial value” pattern and ignition-based initialization.
[Claim Elements 35–36–39–40]: and wherein, during an ignition ON of the host vehicle, the meter display ECU sets a maximum value … as an initial value of the gain error … calculated by the gain error calculation unit,
See at least: “When the vehicle is waken … ignition is first turned on … the initial actual value … is stored both as a maximum and minimum value … “When the ignition is turned off … the zero point offset maximum and minimum values are stored in memory. The mean value is calculated to provide the new zero point offset value … when the vehicle ignition is then turned on.” (Abstract) “The electronic control unit then recalculates the average.” (Col. 1, ll. 53-55)
Rationale: Applying Madau’s ignition-seeded initialization using the stored maximum—rather than the illustrated mean—would have been an obvious optimization to a PHOSITA in view of Keenan’s homologation constraint, representing one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (KSR). Madau does not teach away; it teaches the pattern (persist extrema; initialize at ignition). Selecting max to preclude under-indication is a common-sense, safety-conservative variation.
[Claim Elements 41–44]: and sets a maximum value of the offset value calculated during previous driving as an initial value of the offset value calculated by the offset value calculation unit.
See at least: “maximum and minimum … stored in memory … “The mean value is calculated to provide the new zero point offset value … when the vehicle ignition is then turned on” and “electronic control unit then recalculates the average.” (Abstract; Col. 1, ll. 53-55)
Rationale: Madau discloses storage of extrema (max/min) and ECU computation of an initial offset value at ignition ON, which a PHOSITA would apply to speedometer offset or gain parameters used by Keenan/Aoyama.
[Addressing Claim Element 18]: even when the gain error takes a minimum value in the past error gain calculations
See at least: “maximum and minimum … stored” (Abstract).
Rationale: Madau’s explicit handling of minimum and maximum stored values satisfies robustness even when the gain error takes a minimum value; a PHOSITA would analogize this initialization robustness to Keenan’s logged gain error history.
VII. Motivation to Combine Keenan, Aoyama, and Madau
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Keenan, Aoyama, and Madau before them, to implement Keenan’s calibrated gain/offset (from GPS↔wheel logs) within Aoyama’s dual-ECU CAN architecture by transmitting those constants to the engine (vehicle-speed control) ECU, and to initialize the same parameters at ignition-ON using stored extrema per Madau. The references address the same vehicle speed sensing/indication/control domain, are technically compatible (ECU NVM, CAN messaging, speed inputs), and present finite, predictable design choices (compute upstream vs. downstream; initialize by mean vs. maximum). Selecting downstream recomputation ensures synchronized display/control values, as well as reduced bus load. Selecting the maximum startup value aligns with Keenan’s homologation (non-under-read) requirement. No teaching away exists, and a PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Keenan, Aoyama, and Madau establishes the vehicle control apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
I. Disclosure by Keenan
Keenan discloses a GPS-aided speedometer calibration architecture comprising a calibration/meter module, wheel-speed sensing, GPS speed acquisition, calculation of a calibration factor from the ratio of wheel speed to GPS speed, and application of that factor to produce a calibrated (i.e., corrected) displayed speed.
[Claim Element 2]: wherein the meter display ECU
Excerpt: “There are shown … calibration module 15 … and speedometer 25.” (see at least [0019])
Rationale: Keenan’s calibration module 15 that interfaces the speed sources and the speedometer 25 functions as the meter display ECU recited in “wherein the meter display ECU.”
[Claim Element 3]: is configured to: calculate a gain error correction vehicle speed
Excerpt: “Figure 4 defines a process to determine the calibration factor applied to the speedometer.” ([0047])
Excerpt: “the ratio of the wheel speed:GPS speed is measured (step 115).” ([0050])
Rationale: A “gain error correction vehicle speed” is the detected speed adjusted by the ratio-derived calibration factor; Keenan expressly determines the calibration factor from the ratio and applies it, which a PHOSITA understands yields a gain-error-corrected vehicle speed.
[Claim Element 4]: based on the detected vehicle speed
Excerpt: “wheel speed sensors 5 … The ABS unit can output an averaged wheel speed to be displayed by the speedometer 25.” ([0020])
Excerpt: “measure the average wheel speed … A log of these measurements is stored.” ([0027])
Rationale: The gain error correction vehicle speed is computed based on the detected vehicle speed (the average wheel speed from the wheel speed sensors).
[Claim Element 5]: and the gain error
Excerpt: “the ratio of the wheel speed:GPS speed is measured (step 115).” ([0050])
Excerpt: “determine the calibration factor …” ([0047])
Rationale: Keenan’s ratio provides the gain error, and the resulting calibration factor embodies that gain error, satisfying “and the gain error.”
[Claim Element 6]: and calculate the meter display speed
Excerpt: “apply the calibration factor to the speedometer, and display the calibrated speed.” ([0030])
Rationale: Applying the calibration factor to produce a calibrated speed is to calculate the meter display speed.
[Claim Element 7]: based on the gain error correction vehicle speed
Excerpt: “display the calibrated speed” and “synchronisation is continuous and proportional … the display will now read the calibrated speed derived from the measured wheel speed, and the GPS derived speed.” ([0030], [0061]-[0062])
Rationale: The calibrated (displayed) speed is based on the gain error correction vehicle speed (the wheel-speed measurement adjusted by the calibration factor derived from the GPS-to-wheel ratio).
[Claim Element 8]: and the offset value.
Excerpt: “Setting the synchronising ratio to, for example, +3% meets homologation requirements.” ([0065])
Rationale: Keenan’s synchronising ratio … +3% is an offset value applied with the corrected speed, meeting “and the offset value.”
IV. Motivation to Combine Keenan, Aoyama, Madau, and Sakumoto
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Keenan, Aoyama, Madau, and Sakumoto before them, to implement Sakumoto’s Doppler-carrier GNSS speed determination within the meter display ECU of the Claim-1 apparatus established by Keenan (GNSS-aided calibration), integrated on the dual-ECU/CAN architecture of Aoyama, and initialized per ignition-ON practices in Madau. All references are in the same field of vehicular speed sensing/indication/control, and are technically compatible (GNSS receiver algorithms, ECU firmware, CAN messaging, and NVM). Selecting Doppler as the GNSS velocity source is a finite, predictable substitution (time-differenced position vs. Doppler), yielding known benefits—higher responsiveness and robustness—that directly satisfy “determine the GNSS speed based on frequency change of the carrier wave emitted by positioning satellites.” No teaching away exists, and a PHOSITA would reasonably expect success.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keenan, in view of Aoyama, and in view of Sakumoto et al. (US-6009375-A), herein after will be referred to as Sakumoto.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4,
The combination of Keenan, Aoyama, and Madau establishes the vehicle control apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claims 3 and 4.
I. Disclosure by Keenan
Keenan discloses a vehicle-installed system with a GPS module that provides GPS-derived speed used by a calibration module.
[Claim Element 2]: wherein the meter display ECU is further configured to determine the GNSS speed
See at least: “The GPS module 20 can also be used as speedometer, using the GPS signal to calculate speed…”
Rationale: Keenan expressly teaches calculating speed from GPS. While Keenan locates this function in a GPS module 20, integrating such signal processing into the meter display ECU would have been an obvious implementation choice for a PHOSITA due to packaging or architectural reasons.
II. Claim Elements Not Explicitly Disclosed by Keenan, Aoyama, and Madau
Keenan does not explicitly disclose the following elements as recited:
the GNSS speed acquisition unit determines the GNSS speed based on frequency change of the carrier wave emitted by positioning satellites.
III. Disclosure by Sakumoto
Sakumoto provides the missing GNSS-speed determination mechanism (Doppler of satellite carrier waves).
[Claim Element 3]: the GNSS speed acquisition unit determines the GNSS speed based based on frequency change
See at least: “The receiver finds the speed from the Doppler frequencies…” (Abstract)
Rationale: Doppler frequencies are the frequency change used to compute speed.
[Claim Element 4]: of the carrier wave
See at least: “from the Doppler frequencies of the carrier waves.” (Abstract)
Rationale: This ties the Doppler change to the carrier waves.
[Claim Element 5]: emitted by positioning satellites.
See at least: ““the GPS receiver captures a given number of satellites…” and then “processing for measuring the speed by making use of the Doppler frequencies of the carrier waves is started” (col. 5, ll. 48-54, Fig. 8)
Rationale: The sequence—captur[ing]…satellites then starting Doppler-based speed measurement—links the carrier waves to signals emitted by positioning satellites (GPS satellites), satisfying this element within the Description/flow steps.
IV. Motivation to Combine Keenan, Aoyama, Madau, and Sakumoto
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Keenan, Aoyama, Madau, and Sakumoto before them, to implement Sakumoto’s Doppler-carrier GNSS speed determination within the meter display ECU of the Claim-1 apparatus established by Keenan (GNSS-aided calibration), integrated on the dual-ECU/CAN architecture of Aoyama, and initialized per ignition-ON practices in Madau. All references are in the same field of vehicular speed sensing/indication/control, and are technically compatible (GNSS receiver algorithms, ECU firmware, CAN messaging, and NVM). Selecting Doppler as the GNSS velocity source is a finite, predictable substitution (time-differenced position vs. Doppler), yielding known benefits—higher responsiveness and robustness—that directly satisfy “determine the GNSS speed based on frequency change of the carrier wave emitted by positioning satellites.” No teaching away exists, and a PHOSITA would reasonably expect success.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure”
Tsuruhara et al.: (US 20050073399 A1): This provides a direct teaching of a control ECU (the PCM) being the primary unit for calculating vehicle speed and then broadcasting that "obtained vehicle speed" as a signal to a separate display ECU (the speedometer ECU) located in the instrument panel. This is a standard and well-documented practice in the automotive industry.
SAE J1939-71 (Vehicle Application Layer): SAE J1939-71 defines cyclic CAN broadcasts (e.g., PGN 65265 CCVS with SPN 84 vehicle speed) from powertrain/brake ECUs to other nodes, including the instrument cluster. This expressly teaches dual-ECU, ECU↔ECU runtime communication where a control ECU computes and transmits speed for display/control. Substituting or augmenting these messages with calibration gain/offset parameters would be a predictable, field-standard extension—rendering the claims obvious.
SAE J1979-2 (OBD on UDS): SAE J1979-2 is directly relevant because it formalizes retrieval of vehicle speed and calibration parameters from the powertrain ECU using UDS (Unified Diagnostic Services). This evidences that the ECU is the authoritative computation source for speed and that other modules (e.g., the meter display ECU) obtain this data via diagnostic or CAN communication. Together with SAE J1939 periodic broadcasts, it corroborates the industry-standard, predictable architecture of cross-ECU transmission of gain, offset, and calibrated speed parameters—rendering the claimed dual-ECU configuration obvious to a PHOSITA under KSR v. Teleflex.
Patzer is highly relevant to the claimed invention because it defines standardized ECU calibration and measurement protocols using ASAM XCP over CAN, FlexRay, and Ethernet, enabling real-time access to and updating of gain and offset calibration parameters stored in RAM. It explicitly models ECU computation as y = a × x + b, mirroring the claimed gain-error and offset logic for vehicle speed correction. By describing cross-ECU calibration synchronization, data persistence, and ignition-based reinitialization mechanisms, Patzer corroborates the industry-standard, predictable use of calibration constants across ECUs for display and control, rendering such an implementation obvious to a PHOSITA under KSR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101 — Rejection Withdrawn (Amended Claims)
Upon consideration of Applicant’s amendments, the §101 rejection is withdrawn for the reasons below.
Step 1 (Statutory Category).
As amended, independent claim 1 is directed to a machine—a “vehicle control apparatus” comprising two electronic control units (ECUs), a GNSS receiver, a vehicle speed sensor, and defined inter-ECU communications and control logic. Machines are statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial Exception).
While the claim recites calculations (e.g., gain error, offset, meter display speed), the claim is not drafted to an abstract idea “as such.” The recited computations are anchored to specific vehicular components and signals (GNSS speed acquisition from an in-vehicle receiver; sensor-derived detected speed; ECU-to-ECU transmission of parameters).
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application).
Even assuming certain elements could be characterized as mathematical relationships, the claim integrates any such matter into a practical application by requiring:
a meter display ECU that acquires GNSS speed and computes gain/offset;
explicit inter-ECU transmission of those parameters;
a vehicle speed control ECU that re-calculates the meter display speed using the transmitted parameters and the detected speed, and that controls acceleration/deceleration so the meter display speed matches a preset target; and
an ignition-ON initialization using stored values for immediate, compliant operation.
These limitations tie the computations to concrete vehicle operation and actuator control, improving the functioning of the vehicle control/display system itself. Accordingly, the claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept) — not reached.
Because the claim is patent-eligible under Step 2A, analysis under Step 2B is unnecessary.
Conclusion.In light of the amendments that recite specific dual-ECU architecture, defined sensor/receiver inputs, explicit ECU-to-ECU parameter transmission, actuator-facing control, and startup initialization, the claims are §101-eligible. The prior §101 rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The arguments presented in the Applicant's response have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered but do not place the claimed invention in patentable condition over the prior art. The rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 is MAINTAINED under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the following reasons:
1. Dual-ECU Architecture and ECU-to-ECU Transmission
Applicant’s Position: Applicant argues that Keenan discloses only a single “calibration module” and does not teach the claimed dual-ECU configuration where parameters are transmitted and the meter display speed is calculated by both ECUs.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner acknowledges that Keenan alone does not teach a dual-ECU architecture. The final rejection, however, is predicated on the combination of Keenan with Aoyama, which directly and expressly supplies the missing elements.
Aoyama teaches:
A multi-ECU configuration comprising a first ECU (auto-cruise ECU 2) and a second ECU (engine ECU 4) functioning as a vehicle speed control ECU ([0027]-[0031]).
Inter-ECU transmission of control constants from the first ECU to the second ECU over a CAN bus ([0036]).
Vehicle speed control where the second ECU performs calculations based on received constants and sensor data to control acceleration/deceleration, ensuring the actual vehicle speed matches a preset target ([0030], [0004]).
In light of Keenan's disclosure of gain and offset as calibration parameters, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to transmit these specific parameters as the "control constants" within Aoyama's established architectural framework. The resulting configuration—where the vehicle speed control ECU recalculates the display speed—is a predictable design pattern for ensuring data consistency and diagnostic integrity across distributed systems. This represents the application of known elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Regarding Induni: The Examiner clarifies that Induni is not relied upon for the "vehicle speed control ECU" or its associated functions in this final rejection. Those claim elements are fully taught by Aoyama. Therefore, Applicant's arguments directed at Induni's capabilities are not dispositive and are deemed moot.
2. Vehicle Speed Control and Recalculation of Meter Display Speed
Applicant’s Position: Applicant asserts that the prior art does not disclose a vehicle-speed-control ECU that recalculates the meter display speed.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s position is not persuasive. In a distributed control system like the one taught by Aoyama, it is a fundamental and necessary systems engineering practice for the controlling ECU (here, the vehicle speed control ECU) to maintain its own authoritative, real-time calculation of the parameter it is tasked to control. Relying on an intermittently transmitted display value from another ECU would introduce unacceptable latency and a single point of failure for the critical speed control loop.
Therefore, having the vehicle speed control ECU re-calculate the meter display speed locally using the transmitted gain and offset is not merely a design alternative; it is a predictable and essential step to achieve deterministic, fault-tolerant, and synchronized vehicle operation. This is a routine implementation detail within the ordinary skill of a PHOSITA designing a multi-ECU automotive system. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (endorsing the application of common sense and established engineering principles).
3. Ignition-ON Initialization Using Maximum Stored Value
Applicant’s Position: Applicant argues that Madau pertains to a yaw-rate sensor and uses a mean value, addressing a different technical problem.
Examiner’s Response:
Obviousness does not require a reference to be from the same specific technical niche. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Madau is analogous art as it provides clear teaching for the general problem of ECU-based parameter initialization in a vehicle using stored historical extrema.
Madau expressly teaches:
Storing sensor parameter "maximum and minimum values... in memory" (Abstract).
Initializing a parameter value "when the vehicle ignition is then turned on" (Id.).
A PHOSITA, motivated by Keenan's explicit requirement for a homologation-compliant display speed that must equal or exceed the true speed, would find it obvious to apply Madau's initialization pattern. Selecting the maximum historical value instead of the mean is a predictable, safety-conservative optimization to ensure immediate regulatory compliance upon vehicle startup. This is a straightforward application of a known technique to achieve a known benefit. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
4. Alleged “Unexpected Results”
Applicant’s Position: Applicant asserts that the combination yields unexpected results: robust regulatory compliance, startup reliability, and efficient inter-ECU communication.
Examiner’s Response:
The argument is not evidence. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the alleged results are not unexpected, but are the direct and declared objectives of the respective prior art references:
Regulatory compliance is the express purpose of Keenan's "+3% synchronising ratio" ([0065]).
Startup reliability is the express purpose of Madau's ignition-ON initialization using stored extrema (Abstract).
Efficient communication is the express purpose of Aoyama's architecture of transmitting only necessary control constants ([0009]-[0011]).
Achieving these stated goals through their combination yields a predictable, aggregate benefit, not an unexpected or synergistic result. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Disposition by Claim
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for the combination teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim 1: Rendered obvious by the combination of Keenan (GNSS-based calibration, gain error, offset, meter display ECU), Aoyama (dual-ECU architecture, transmission of constants, vehicle speed control, recalculation), and Madau (ignition-ON initialization using stored maximum values)..
Claims 3 and 4: Sakumoto expressly teaches determining GNSS speed "from the Doppler frequencies of the carrier waves" (Abstract). Substituting this well-known, precise GNSS velocity determination method for Keenan's GPS speed calculation is a predictable enhancement to improve accuracy and responsiveness. The rejection of Claims 3 and 4 under §103 over Keenan, Aoyama, Madau, and Saku.
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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662