Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to RCE
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 is directed to software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. Claim 17 recites “a computer program” which is interpreted as Software per se. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03(I). Furthermore, it is well settled law that software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
The examiner suggests cancellation of claim 17, as claim 17 contains the structural feature and analogous program code.
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 18 is directed to a form of energy or a signal, which is non-statutory subject matter. Claim 18 recites a “computer readable medium”. Under current office policy, absent an explicit definition for the term “machine-readable medium” the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term is taken to include both: statutory forms of storage media, such as RAM, ROM, CD and storage devices, and non-statutory transitory media, or signals. A review of applicant’s specification reveals the term “machine-readable medium” appears in [0034], but does not contain an explicit definition. As such, the claimed medium is directed to transitory media, such as a signal, or form of energy. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. Thus, the claims are rejected as non-statutory.
The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “on a non-transitory computer-readable medium”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 17-19, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Grossman (US20220171398) in view of Maleki (US20190375407).
Regarding claim 1, Grossman teaches a method for controlling a subject vehicle, the method comprising:
Obtaining route data representing information about a portion of a route (RT) to be travelled by the subject vehicle, wherein the route data includes data representing information about one or more curvature and inclinations of the route portions ([0015]-[0017] disclosing route data such as maximum trip time, and grade values, wind values. [0031], [0037]-[0038] disclosing particular portions of the route that has downhills/grades and curvature. [0051] disclosing the optimization for a particular segment based on the grade, and radius of curvature);
Determining an efficient speed (ESi) of the subject vehicle at a position (pi) along the route portion, in dependence on the route data, on a cost of operating the subject vehicle along the route portion, and on a progress of the subject vehicle along the route portion, the progress of the subject vehicle along the route portion being dependent on a time consumed by the subject vehicle travelling through the route portion ([0016]-[0017] disclosing fuel efficient “cost of operating the subject vehicle” speed values for each segment along the route based on traffic data and regulatory speed limits “in dependence on the route data” along the route and predicting for each segment an increase and decrease of the speed to reach a destination at a certain time limit, i.e., progress along a route portion, see also [0018]-[0020] disclosing the change in time as the vehicle professes by changing the speed and how the efficiency is changed. It is also indicated in [0016]-[0018], the mass of the vehicle and characteristics and route data all taken together to determine the efficient speed profile, thus that takes in consideration the progress of the vehicle along the route. [0018] explicitly discloses the speeds are dependent on the total travel time which is determined by adding the times for each segment, i.e., the speed is dependent on the time consumed in each segment);
Determining, independently of the step of determining an efficient speed (ESi), a maximum safe speed (maxSSi) at the position (pi) along the route portion in dependence on the route data and environment data, with an aim to avoid an accident involving the subject vehicle, the environment data including at least one additional vehicles on the route portion, terrain (TN) or one or more structures at the route portion ([0016]-[0020] disclosing the speed is dependent on the route data. [0044] disclosing determining at a position along a route portion where an obstacle exists, a decrease to a safe speed to avoid accident);
Controlling the subject vehicle according to the maximum safe speed (maxSSi) forming an upper limit of the subject vehicle speed at position (pi) ([0042]-[0044] disclosing the safe speed is the maximum speed along the position behind an obstacle at the route portion, then the vehicle returns to the previous speed settings, which is interpreted to include the speed profile since the vehicle autonomously follows the speed profile as indicated by [0042]);
While Grossman teaches determining a safe maximum speed independent of determining an efficient speed, Grossman does not explicitly disclose the determining of the safe maximum speed based on route data including data representing information about one or more curvatures and inclinations of the route portion.
Maleki teaches the safe maximum speed based on route data ([0022] disclosing the safe maximum speed for a curved road, [0034] disclosing safe speed limits to parameterize the roadway based on road topology including curvature and gradient).
Grossman already teaches the fuel efficient speed limit remain within the maximum speed limit which is determined based on historical data and traffic on the road ([0044], [0054], [0065]-[0066], [0077]-[0079]. Thus the combination of the teaching of Maleki to incorporate the maximum speed limit based on the curvature of the route is obvious yielding predictable result in order to ensure the safety based on curvature of the road thus avoiding overturning of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the steps of determining an efficient speed (Esi) and determining a maximum safe speed (max SSi) are performed by the use of separate respective hardware units, or by the use of separate respective software modules (Grossman [0052] disclosing the fuel economy optimization module calculates the efficient speed profile, whereas AVCS determines the safe maximum speed [0044] which is independent of the efficient speed profile).
Regarding claim 4, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining a maximum safe speed (maxSSI) is repeated as the subject vehicle moves along the route (RT) (Grossman [0044] disclosing the perception monitors for obstacles along a route and avoidance of an obstacle along a route by determining a safe speed, thus it is interpreted that it is repeated as the vehicle travels along the route).
Regarding claim 5, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, determining, independently of the step of determining an efficient speed (ESi), a minimum safe speed (minSSi) at at position (pi) along the route portion, in dependence on the route data, with an aim to avoid an accident involving the subject vehicle, wherein the minimum safe speed (minSSi) forms a lower limit of the subject vehicle speed at the position (pi) (Grossman [0077] disclosing updating the speed values based on the route data indicative of a minimum threshold speed for the location, this step is determined independent of the step of determining the vehicle efficient speed profile).
Regarding claim 11, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining an efficient speed profile (ES), including the efficient speed (ESi), of the subject vehicle along the route portion, in dependence on the route data, on a cost of operating the subject vehicle along the route portion, and on a progress of the subject vehicle along the route portion (Grossman [0016]-[0017] disclosing fuel efficient “cost of operating the subject vehicle” speed values for each segment along the route based on traffic data and regulatory speed limits “in dependence on the route data” along the route and predicting for each segment an increase and decrease of the speed to reach a destination at a certain time limit, i.e., progress along a route portion, see also [0018]-[0020] disclosing the change in time as the vehicle professes by changing the speed and how the efficiency is changed. It is also indicated in [0016]-[0018], the mass of the vehicle and characteristics and route data all taken together to determine the efficient speed profile, thus that takes in consideration the progress of the vehicle along the route).
Regarding claim 17, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches a computer program, or a group of computer programs comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1, when the program is run on a computer or a group of computers (Grossman [0105]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 18, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches a computer readable medium carrying a computer program or a group of computer programs, comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1 when the program product is run on a computer or a group of computers (Grossman [0105]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 19, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches a control unit configured to perform the steps of the method of claim 1 (Grossman [0042] disclosing the control system).
Regarding claim 20, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the control unit of claim 19, wherein the control unit comprises two software modules arranged to communicate with each other, and the software modules are configured to perform the steps of a respective of determining an efficient speed (ESi) and determining a maximum safe speed (maxSSi) (Grossman [0043] disclosing modules communicating with systems in the vehicle. [0067] disclosing each method can be performed by individual processing device and one or more processing units communicatively coupled to each others, see also [0097], at least [0044] disclosing the determination of the safe speed done in a different module than the efficiency module, see [0052]).
While it is believed that Grossman teaches the limitations of the claim, it would also be obvious to make the modules separable to divide a load and for redundancy.
Regarding claim 21, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the control unit of claim 19, wherein the control unit comprises two hardware units, arranged to communicate with each other, and the hardware units are configured to perform the steps of a respective of determining an efficient speed (ESi) and determining a maximum safe speed (maxSSi) (Grossman [0043] disclosing modules communicating with systems in the vehicle. [0067] disclosing each method can be performed by individual processing device and one or more processing units communicatively coupled to each others, see also [0097], at least [0044] disclosing the determination of the safe speed done in a different module than the efficiency module, see [0052]).
While it is believed that Grossman teaches the limitations of the claim, it would also be obvious to make the hardware separable to divide a load and for redundancy.
Regarding claim 22, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches a vehicle comprising the control unit of claim 19 (Grossman [0016]-[0052]).
Claims 6-10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Grossman (US20220171398) in view of Maleki (US20190375407) and Lee (US8996273).
Regarding claim 6, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 1, Grossman as modified by Maleki does not teach further comprising determining, independently of the step of determining an efficient speed (ESi), a maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and/or a minimum comfortable speed (min CS1i), at the position (pi) along the route portion, in dependence on the route data, with an aim to avoid discomfort for a driver and/or an occupant of the subject vehicle, wherein the maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi) forms an upper limit of the subject vehicle speed at the position (pi), and the minimum comfortable speed (min CSi) forms a lower limit of the subject vehicle speed at the position (pi).
Lee teaches determining, independently of the step of determining an efficient speed (ESi), a maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and/or a minimum comfortable speed (min CS1i), at the position (pi) along the route portion, in dependence on the route data, with an aim to avoid discomfort for a driver and/or an occupant of the subject vehicle, wherein the maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi) forms an upper limit of the subject vehicle speed at the position (pi), and the minimum comfortable speed (min CSi) forms a lower limit of the subject vehicle speed at the position (pi) (abstract disclosing adjusting travel speed based on road conditions in a safe and comfortable manner. Col. 3 lines 45-55 disclosing the selection of a speed that does not exceed comfort thresholds, i.e., maximum comfortable speed limit that ensures comfortability based on the route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman as modified by Lee to incorporate the teaching of Lee of a maximum comfortable speed in order to ensure the comfortability of the vehicle driver or passenger and safety depending on the situation such as negotiating a curve as taught by Lee col.3 and col. 4, abstract.
Regarding claim 7, Grossman as modified by Maleki and Lee further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising receiving interface data from a human machine interface device, representative of one or more requests from a driver and/or an occupant of the subject vehicle, wherein the maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and/or the minimum comfortable speed (minCSi), is determined in dependence on the interface data.
Specifically, Lee teaches comprising receiving interface data from a human machine interface device, representative of one or more requests from a driver and/or an occupant of the subject vehicle, wherein the maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and/or the minimum comfortable speed (minCSi), is determined in dependence on the interface data (col. 4 lines 23-67 disclosing selecting between a speed received by the user and the speed determined by the autonomous drive and the curve speed, the speed that will be the most comfortable, i.e., the comfortable speed is determined in dependence to the interface data. At least col. 3 last two paragraphs disclose the HMI to receive the speed by a vehicle user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman as modified by Maleki and lee to incorporate the teaching of Lee of comprising receiving interface data from a human machine interface device, representative of one or more requests from a driver and/or an occupant of the subject vehicle, wherein the maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and/or the minimum comfortable speed (minCSi), is determined in dependence on the interface data in order to arbitrate between the speeds to select a most comfortable and safest speed from amongst a plurality of speeds depending on a driving scenario improving comfortability and safety as taught by Lee, abstract, col.3 and col.4 at least.
Regarding claim 8, Grossman as modified by Maleki and Lee further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the steps of determining an efficient speed (ES) and determining a maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi) and/or a minimum comfortable speed (minCSi) are performed by the use of separate respective hardware unite, or by the use of separate respective software modules (Grossman discloses the efficient module for determining the speed profile for efficiency and a separate module for determining a max safe speed [0052], and [0044]. whereas Lee discloses determining a speed for safely and comfortably negotiating a curve, thus Lee does not depend on an efficiency module col. 3 and col. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman to combine the teaching of Lee and Grossman have separate hardware and software for determining efficient speed and comfortable speeds, Grossman already teaches a separate hardware/software for determining a maximum safe speed that is independent of the efficiency module, thus incorporating a module to negotiate a curve with comfortability is obvious to avoid discomfort and increase safety. In anyways it is obvious to use separate parts for the purpose of redundancy.
Regarding claim 9, Grossman as modified by Maleki and Lee further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and/or the minimum comfortable speed (minCSi), is determined in dependence on environment data, including data representative of one or more additional vehicles on the route portion, and/or data representative of terrain (TN) and/or one or more structures at the route portion.
Specifically, Lee further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and/or the minimum comfortable speed (minCSi), is determined in dependence on environment data, including data representative of one or more additional vehicles on the route portion, and/or data representative of terrain (TN) and/or one or more structures at the route portion (col. 4 lines 23-67 disclosing selecting between a speed received by the user and the speed determined by the autonomous drive and the curve speed, the speed that will be the most comfortable for negotiating a curve “based on terrain”, i.e., the comfortable speed is determined in dependence to the interface data. At least col. 3 last two paragraphs disclose the HMI to receive the speed by a vehicle user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman as modified by Maleki and lee to incorporate the teaching of Lee of wherein the maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and/or the minimum comfortable speed (minCSi), is determined in dependence on environment data, including data representative of one or more additional vehicles on the route portion, and/or data representative of terrain (TN) and/or one or more structures at the route portion in order to arbitrate between the speeds to select a most comfortable and safest speed from amongst a plurality of speeds depending on a driving scenario including a curvature of a road improving comfortability and safety as taught by Lee, abstract, col.3 and col.4 at least.
Regarding claim 10, Grossman as modified by Maleki and Lee further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the step of determining a maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and or a minimum comfortable speed (minCSi), is repeated as the subject vehicle moves along the route (RT).
Specifically, Lee further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the step of determining a maximum comfortable speed (maxCSi), and or a minimum comfortable speed (minCSi), is repeated as the subject vehicle moves along the route (RT) (abstract disclosing the adjustment of speeds based on different changes in upcoming road conditions in a safe and comfortable manner, at least col. 3 and col. 4 disclose the navigation of roads and changing speed to be the maximum comfortable speed for the vehicle user, it is interpreted from the citation that the process is repeated as the vehicle travels along the route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman as modified by Maleki and Lee to repeat the step of determining a maximum comfortable speed in order to travel along the route with upcoming road condition changes safely and comfortably as taught by Lee (abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising determining a ([0044] disclosing determining at a position along a route portion where an obstacle exists, a decrease to a safe speed to avoid accident).
While Grossman teaches the maximum safe speed, grossman does not explicitly state a maximum safe speed profile (maxSS),
Lee teaches a maximum safe speed profile including a maximum safe speed and wherein the maximum safe speed profile (maxSS) involves a plurality of maximum safe speeds (maxSSi) at respective positions (pi) along the route (col. 3 lines 20-col 4 line 45 disclosing generating speeds along the route that maximize safety and comfortability based on route such as negotiating a curve with a most safest and most comfortable speed profile, at least figure 4 discloses plurality of safe speeds based on the curve).
It would have been obvious to combine the safe speed of Grossman as modified by Maleki with a speed profile of Lee in order to determine a profile to negotiate a curve and increase vehicle safety as taught by Lee col. 3- col.4.
Regarding claim 13, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 11, Grossman as modified by Maleki does not teach wherein the maximum safe speed profile is determined independently of the step of determining an efficient speed profile (ES). However, Grossman teaches efficient speed profile ([0016]-[0020]).
Lee teaches wherein the maximum safe speed profile is determined independently of the step of determining an efficient speed profile (ES). (col. 3 lines 20-col 4 line 45 disclosing generating speeds along the route that maximize safety and comfortability based on route such as negotiating a curve with a most safest and most comfortable speed profile, it takes no consideration to efficiency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman to combine the teaching of Lee and Grossman wherein the maximum safe speed profile is determined independent of efficient speed profile in order to choose the speed that is safe for the vehicle, safety is more important than efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 1, Grossman as modified by Maleki does not teach further comprising determining, a maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS), and/or a minimum comfortable speed profile (min CS), along the route portion, in dependence on the route data, with an aim to avoid discomfort for a driver and/or an occupant of the subject vehicle, wherein the maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS) forms an upper boundary of the subject vehicle speed along the route portion, and the minimum comfortable speed profile (min CS) forms a lower boundary of the subject vehicle speed along the route portion.
Lee teaches determining, a maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS), and/or a minimum comfortable speed profile (min CS), along the route portion, in dependence on the route data, with an aim to avoid discomfort for a driver and/or an occupant of the subject vehicle, wherein the maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS) forms an upper boundary of the subject vehicle speed along the route portion, and the minimum comfortable speed profile (min CS) forms a lower boundary of the subject vehicle speed along the route portion (abstract disclosing adjusting travel speed based on road conditions in a safe and comfortable manner. Col. 3 lines 45-55 disclosing the selection of a speed that does not exceed comfort thresholds, i.e., maximum comfortable speed limit that ensures comfortability based on the route. col. 3 lines 20-col 4 line 45 disclosing generating speeds along the route that maximize safety and comfortability based on route such as negotiating a curve with a most safest and most comfortable speed profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman as modified by Maleki to incorporate the teaching of Lee of a maximum comfortable speed in order to ensure the comfortability of the vehicle driver or passenger and safety depending on the situation such as negotiating a curve as taught by Lee col.3 and col. 4, abstract.
Regarding claim 15, Grossman as modified by Maleki teaches the method of claim 11, but does not teach wherein the maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS), and or the minimum comfortable speed profile (minCS) is determind independently of the step of determining an efficient speed profile Lee teaches wherein the maximum safe speed profile is determined independently of the step of determining an efficient speed profile (ES). However Grossman teaches an efficient speed profile ([0016]-[0020].
Lee teaches wherein the maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS), and or the minimum comfortable speed profile (minCS) is determined independently of the step of determining an efficient speed profile (col. 3 lines 20-col 4 line 45 disclosing generating speeds along the route that maximize safety and comfortability based on route such as negotiating a curve with a most safest and most comfortable speed profile, it takes no consideration to efficiency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman as modified by Lee to combine the teaching of Lee and Grossman wherein the maximum comfortable speed profile is determined independent of efficient speed profile in order to choose the speed that is comfortable for the vehicle user avoiding discomfort, safety is more important than efficiency.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Grossman (US20220171398) in view of Maleki and Lee (US8996273) and Pendelton (US20200130703).
Regarding claim 16, Grossman as modified by Maleki and Lee teaches the method of claim 14, Grossman as modified by Maleki and Lee does not teach further comprising allowing, within an allowable time interval, or allowing within an allowable distance travelled by the subject vehicle, the subject vehicle speed to exceed the maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS) and or to move slower than the minimum comfortable speed profile (minCS).
Pendelton teaches allowing, within an allowable time interval, or allowing within an allowable distance travelled by the subject vehicle, the subject vehicle speed to exceed the maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS) and or to move slower than the minimum comfortable speed profile (minCS) ([0148] disclosing allowing the vehicle to exceed the maximum speed limit to avoid an accident).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Grossman as modified by Maleki and Lee to incorporate the teaching of Pendelton of allowing, within an allowable time interval, or allowing within an allowable distance travelled by the subject vehicle, the subject vehicle speed to exceed the maximum comfortable speed profile (maxCS) and or to move slower than the minimum comfortable speed profile (minCS) in order to avoid an accident thus prioritizing safety as taught by Pendelton [0148]. Pendelton teaches the allowance of exceeding the limit only to avoid the accident, thus It would have been obvious to try and allow it within an allowance time or distance enough to avoid the accident with reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1, that “comparatively, applicant discloses that the maximum safe speed at said position is determined with an aim to avoid an accident…, where the route data includes data representing information about one or more of curvatures and inclinations of the route portion”, (In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. safe speed for avoiding overturn) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Grossman fails to disclose or suggest “obtaining route data,…, the route data includes data representing information about one or more of curvature and inclinations of the route portion, and, determining independently of the step of determining an efficient speed, a maximum safe speed at a position along the route portion in dependence on the route data”, the argument is Moot since it is taught by a Maleki.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20190276018 disclosing ignoring a speed profile when safety is compromised.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B