DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Dependent Claims
Claim Interpretation
It should be noted that examiner uses the following definition of “” consistent with the interpretation of a person having ordinary skill in the art:
”” [ [Def. 1]. (n.d.). .
Retrieved , from .]
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “” in view of (JP 2015079369 A) hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A method for controlling a speed of a vehicle in an upcoming road section comprising a road crest, the method comprising:
determining a speed reduction amount to be performed before the vehicle reaches the road crest, where the speed reduction amount is based on at least a gradient of a downhill slope following the road crest; See at least ¶¶
[Examiner Note : . ()]
fail to explicitly disclose:
determining whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes; and controlling the speed of the vehicle in the upcoming road section based on the speed reduction amount and based on whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes, wherein the speed reduction amount is limited when the upcoming road section has a single lane compared to when the upcoming road section has multiple lanes.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane or save fuel in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane or save fuel in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the determining whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes is based on information received from one or more of a camera, a lidar, a radar, map data, an infrastructure device, and an external server or a cloud server. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein determining the speed reduction amount is further based on a braking capacity of the vehicle in the downhill slope. See at least :¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the braking capacity of the vehicle comprises an available service braking torque. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein determining the speed reduction amount is further based on a desired speed in the downhill slope. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
“”
It is noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
teaches that in conjunction with vehicle speed to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane and fuel savings in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Thus, teaches that taken together, and vehicle speed are a result effective variable for in that safety by preventing congestion in the case of a single lane and that fuel savings can be increased in the case of multiple lanes is increased in the case of a speed reduction amount See at least ¶¶.
Accordingly, constitutes a result effective variable which achieves the recognized result of .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to since it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
“”
It is noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
teaches that in conjunction with vehicle speed to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane and fuel savings in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Thus, teaches that taken together, and vehicle speed are a result effective variable for in that safety by preventing congestion in the case of a single lane and that fuel savings can be increased in the case of multiple lanes is increased in the case of a speed reduction amount See at least ¶¶.
Accordingly, constitutes a result effective variable which achieves the recognized result of .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to since it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
“”
It is noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
teaches that in conjunction with vehicle speed to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single. See at least ¶¶.
Thus, teaches that taken together, and vehicle speed are a result effective variable for in that safety by preventing congestion in the case of a single lane. See at least ¶¶.
Accordingly, constitutes a result effective variable which achieves the recognized result of .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to since it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the method further comprises: determining a traffic condition behind the vehicle; and determining the speed reduction amount is further based on the traffic condition behind the vehicle. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein determining the speed reduction amount is further based on the traffic condition and an associated traffic condition threshold value. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein determining the traffic condition behind the vehicle is based on information received from one or more of a rear- view camera, a rear-view lidar, a rear-view radar, an infrastructure device, map data and an external server or a cloud server. See at least : ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A control arrangement controlling a speed of a vehicle in an upcoming road section, where the road section comprises a road crest, the control arrangement being configured to:
determine a speed reduction amount to be performed before the vehicle reaches the road crest, where the speed reduction amount is based on at least a gradient of a downhill slope following the road crest See at least ¶¶
[Examiner Note : . ()]
fail to explicitly disclose:
determine whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes; and control the speed of the vehicle in the upcoming road section based on the speed reduction amount and based on whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes, wherein the speed reduction amount is limited when the upcoming road section has a single lane compared to when the upcoming road section has multiple lanes.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane or save fuel in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane or save fuel in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle comprising a control arrangement for controlling a speed of a vehicle in an upcoming road section, where the road section comprises a road crest, the control arrangement being configured to See at least ¶¶ :
determine a speed reduction amount to be performed before the vehicle reaches the road crest, where the speed reduction amount is based on at least a gradient of a downhill slope following the road crest; See at least ¶¶
[Examiner Note : . ()]
fail to explicitly disclose:
determine whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes; and control the speed of the vehicle in the upcoming road section based on the speed reduction amount and based on whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes, wherein the speed reduction amount is limited when the upcoming road section has a single lane compared to when the upcoming road section has multiple lanes.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane or save fuel in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane or save fuel in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A computer program product comprising computer program code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, said computer program product used for controlling a speed of a vehicle in an upcoming road section, where the road section comprises a road crest, said computer program code comprising computer instructions to cause one or more computers to perform the following operations See at least ¶¶:
determining a speed reduction amount to be performed before the vehicle reaches the road crest, where the speed reduction amount is based on at least a gradient of a downhill slope following the road crest; See at least ¶¶
[Examiner Note : . ()]
fail to explicitly disclose:
determining whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes; and controlling the speed of the vehicle in the upcoming road section based on the speed reduction amount and based on whether the upcoming road section has a single lane or multiple lanes, wherein the speed reduction amount is limited when the upcoming road section has a single lane compared to when the upcoming road section has multiple lanes.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of in order to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane or save fuel in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to suppress travel congestion and increase safety in the case of a single lane or save fuel in the case of multiple lanes. See at least ¶¶.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and as applied above and further in view of (SE 1550638), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the braking capacity of the vehicle comprises an available auxiliary braking torque.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to maintain a target downhill speed. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in in order to maintain a target downhill speed. See at least ¶¶ ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
References Cited
R1: ()
R2: (JP 2015079369 A)
R3: (SE 1550638 A1)
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights