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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/22/2023 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102021206541.4, filed on 06/24/2021.
Status of Application
Claims 11-31 are pending.
Claims 11 and 22 are the independent claims.
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 04/07/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the relative inverse” should be rewritten to “a relative inverse”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 22-31 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “control unit” coupled with functional language “carry out a method” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 22-31 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 22-31 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “control unit” is a generic controller/computer ([0049]). Therefore, the examiner is interpreting “control unit” as a computer.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14-15, 18-19, 25-26, and 29-30 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14, 18, 25, and 29 recite the limitation "the larger the maximum the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12) is, the shorter the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle is". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear based on the claims and specification how the inverse comparison/relation is established. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of this limitation with reasonable certainty.
While the interview conducted on 08/31/2026 sheds light into what applicant is attempting to convey with these claims, where if the speed is too far from the cruise control target speed, the motor vehicle can’t coast for very long, the claims do not recite that.
Claims 15, 19, 26, and 30 recite the limitation "the smaller the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12) is, the longer the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle is". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear based on the claims and specification how the inverse comparison/relation is established. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of these limitations with reasonable certainty.
While the interview conducted on 08/31/2026 sheds light into what applicant is attempting to convey with these claims, where if the speed is close to the cruise control target speed, the motor vehicle can coast for longer periods of time, the claims do not recite that.
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.
Claim(s) 11-19, 22, and 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20120220422-A1 to Wurthner et. al. (“Wurthner”) in view of US-20120220424-A1 to Staudinger et. al. (“Staudinger”) and further in view of US-9821803-B2 to Johansson et. al. (“Johansson”).
Regarding claim 11, Wurthner teaches a method for operating a motor vehicle (10) having a drive aggregate and a transmission, the method comprising (Wurthner Claim 11):
calculating a forecast speed profile (Wurthner [0045] ref v_F) when the transmission is torque-transmitting, a cruise-control function is active (Wurthner Abstract), and a cruise-control target speed (11) has been specified (Wurthner [0045] ref v_B or v_T), wherein the forecast speed profile being based on travelling route data of a travelling route of the motor vehicle (10) (Wurthner Abstract “To effectively and reliably use the rolling or coasting function in suitable driving situations, taking into account the influence of the driving speed control device, a rolling or a coasting condition for a downhill gradient taper is checked,”) and the forecast speed profile representing variations in speed of the motor vehicle (10) that would occur when the motor vehicle is rolling or coasting along the traveling route with the transmission in a non-torque-transmitting condition (Wurthner Fig. 1 and [0044] – [0045]);
checking whether, within the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for rolling or coasting operation, the forecast speed profile (12) would revert to the cruise-control target speed (11) (Wurthner Abstract, Fig. 1, and [0045] “The vehicle 1 accelerates, and the vehicle speed v_F approaches a Bremsomat speed v_B set beforehand by the driver. Upon reaching the Bremsomat speed v_B=v_F” and [0049] – [0050]);
and controlling the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle based on a result of the check (Wurthner [0034] – [0036] & [0045] – [0046] & [0049] – [0050]).
Wurthner does not teach comparing the cruise-control target speed (11) to the forecast speed profile (12) to determine a maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) therebetween. However, Staudinger teaches comparing the cruise-control target speed (11) to the forecast speed profile (12) to determine a maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) therebetween (Staudinger [0042] “Δv_F_T = v_F – v_T”, where v_F is the current vehicle speed and v_T is a cruise control speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Wurthner to incorporate the teachings of Staudinger such that the method compares the cruise-control target speed (11) to the forecast speed profile (12) to determine a maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) therebetween. Doing so would allow for the rolling or coasting function to consider the effect of a vehicle’s speed regulating device (Staudinger [0019]).
Wurthner as modified by Staudinger does not teach that the forecast speed profile is based on travelling route data of a travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle, and that the method comprises determining a maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle based on the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax). However, Johansson teaches that the forecast speed profile is based on travelling route data of a travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle (Johansson (26) “In a first step 501 of the method, a simulation of a future speed profile v.sub.sim.sub._.sub.coast for an actual speed related to coasting for the vehicle 100 over the course of the road section is conducted. Simulation is conducted when the road section lies ahead of the vehicle and is based at least on a road slope. This road slope is obtained from map data in combination with positioning information or from a road slope encountered by the vehicle in the simulation instance.”), and that the method comprises determining a maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle based on the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) (Johansson Fig. 6 ref T2 and T3 and/or Fig.7 ref T.sub.1′4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger such that the forecast speed profile is based on travelling route data of a travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle, and that the method comprises determining a maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle based on the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax). Doing so would allow for the improvement of fuel saving when coasting is applied (Johansson col 2 lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 12, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Wurthner further discloses determining that the forecast speed profile (12) would revert to the cruise-control target speed (11) within the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) (Wurthner Fig. 1 and [0045] “The vehicle 1 accelerates, and the vehicle speed v_F approaches a Bremsomat speed v_B set beforehand by the driver. Upon reaching the Bremsomat speed v_B=v_F”); and activating the rolling or coasting operating mode (Wurthner [0045] “Upon reaching the Bremsomat speed v_B=v_F, a speed regulator activates the auxiliary brake to keep the vehicle 1 at a constant speed v_F=constant.”).
Regarding claim 13, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Johansson further discloses that the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) begins from when the forecast speed profile (12) deviates from the cruise-control target speed (11) by more than a threshold value (SW) (Johansson Fig. 6 and col 8 lines 47 - 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) begins from when the forecast speed profile (12) deviates from the cruise-control target speed (11) by more than a threshold value (SW). Doing so would allow for the improvement of fuel saving when coasting is applied (Johansson col 2 lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 14, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12. Johansson further discloses that determining the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle, based on a relative inverse relationship of the permissible time duration to the speed deviation, such that the larger the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) is between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12), the shorter the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) is for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle (Johansson Fig. 6-7 and col 8 line 47 – col 9 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that determining the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle, based on a relative inverse relationship of the permissible time duration to the speed deviation, such that the larger the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) is between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12), the shorter the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) is for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle. Doing so would allow for the improvement of fuel saving when coasting is applied (Johansson col 2 lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 15, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Johansson further discloses that determining the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle, based on the relative inverse relationship of the permissible time duration to the speed deviation, such that the smaller the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) is between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12), the longer the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) is for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle (Johansson Fig. 6-7 and col 8 line 47 – col 9 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that determining the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle, based on the relative inverse relationship of the permissible time duration to the speed deviation, such that the smaller the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) is between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12), the longer the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) is for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle. Doing so would allow for the improvement of fuel saving when coasting is applied (Johansson col 2 lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 16, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Wurthner further discloses determining that forecast speed profile (12) would not revert to the cruise-control target speed (11) within the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax); and maintaining deactivation of the rolling or coasting operating mode (Wurthner [0034] – [0036] & [0045] – [0046]).
Regarding claim 17, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 16. Johansson further discloses that the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) begins from when the forecast speed profile (12) deviates from the cruise-control target speed (11) by more than a threshold value (SW) (Johansson Fig. 6 and col 8 lines 47 - 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) begins from when the forecast speed profile (12) deviates from the cruise-control target speed (11) by more than a threshold value (SW). Doing so would allow for the improvement of fuel saving when coasting is applied (Johansson col 2 lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 18, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 16. Johansson further discloses that determining the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle, based on a relative inverse relationship of the permissible time duration to the speed deviation, such that the larger the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) is between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12), the shorter the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) is for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle (Johansson Fig. 6-7 and col 8 line 47 – col 9 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that determining the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle, based on a relative inverse relationship of the permissible time duration to the speed deviation, such that the larger the maximum the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) is between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12), the shorter the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) is for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle. Doing so would allow for the improvement of fuel saving when coasting is applied (Johansson col 2 lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 19, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 16. Johansson further discloses that determining the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle, based on a relative inverse relationship of the permissible time duration to the speed deviation, such that the smaller the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) is between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12), the longer the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) is for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle (Johansson Fig. 6-7 and col 8 line 47 – col 9 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that determining the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle, based on a relative inverse relationship of the permissible time duration to the speed deviation, such that the smaller the maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) is between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12), the longer the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) is for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle. Doing so would allow for the improvement of fuel saving when coasting is applied (Johansson col 2 lines 62-64).
With respect to Claim 22, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 11, except for a control unit for operating a motor vehicle. However, Johansson further discloses a control unit for operating a motor vehicle (Johansson Fig. 8 and col 12 lines 51 – 52 “electronic control units (ECU’s)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that a control unit for operating a motor vehicle is provided in order to carry out the method. Doing so would allow for data and code to be stored and performed (Johansson col 12 lines 21 - 24). The method taught/disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform the remaining limitations of the control unit of claim 22. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 27-30, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 16-19. The method taught/disclosed in claims 16-19 can clearly perform the control unit of claims 27-30. Therefore claims 27-30 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 31, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention in claim 22. Wurthner further discloses that the control unit is configured to carry out the method in an automated or automatic manner (Wurthner [0005] “automatic vehicle speed control functions”).
Claim(s) 20-21 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurthner in view of Staudinger, further in view of Johansson and US-20120046841-A1 to Wurthner et. al. (“Wurthner2”).
Regarding claim 20, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Wurthner further discloses and that the motor vehicle (10) is a utility vehicle (Wurthner Fig. 1 ref 1). Johansson further teaches travelling route data of a travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle (Johansson (26) “In a first step 501 of the method, a simulation of a future speed profile v.sub.sim.sub._.sub.coast for an actual speed related to coasting for the vehicle 100 over the course of the road section is conducted. Simulation is conducted when the road section lies ahead of the vehicle and is based at least on a road slope. This road slope is obtained from map data in combination with positioning information or from a road slope encountered by the vehicle in the simulation instance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Johansson to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that the forecast speed profile is based on travelling route data of a travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle. Doing so would allow for the improvement of fuel saving when coasting is applied (Johansson col 2 lines 62-64).
Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson does not teach obtaining the travelling route data of the travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle with a GPS system. However, Wurthner2 teaches obtaining the travelling route data of the travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle with a GPS system (Wurthner2 [0039] & [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Wurthner2 to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that the method further comprises obtaining the travelling route data of the travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle with a GPS system. Doing so would allow for detection of the terrain ahead of the vehicle (Wurthner2 [0039]).
Regarding claim 21, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger, Johansson, and Wurthner2 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 20. Wurthner further discloses that the utility vehicle is a truck (Wurthner Fig. 1 ref 1 and [0005] “commercial vehicles”).
Regarding claim 23, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 22. Wurthner further discloses determining that the forecast speed profile (12) would revert to the cruise-control target speed (11) within the maximum permissible time duration (Δtmax) (Wurthner Fig. 1 and [0045] “The vehicle 1 accelerates, and the vehicle speed v_F approaches a Bremsomat speed v_B set beforehand by the driver. Upon reaching the Bremsomat speed v_B=v_F”); and activating the rolling or coasting operating mode (Wurthner [0045] “Upon reaching the Bremsomat speed v_B=v_F, a speed regulator activates the auxiliary brake to keep the vehicle 1 at a constant speed v_F=constant.”).
Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson does not teach obtaining the travelling route data of the travelling route from a GPS system. However, Wurthner2 teaches obtaining the travelling route data of the travelling route from a GPS system (Wurthner2 [0039] & [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Wurthner2 to Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson such that the method further comprises obtaining the travelling route data of the travelling route from a GPS system. Doing so would allow for detection of the terrain ahead of the vehicle (Wurthner2 [0039]).
With respect to claim 24, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger, Johansson, and Wurthner2 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 23. Additionally, the limitations recited in claim 24 mirror the limitations recited in claim 13, which were rejected above. See the rejection of claim 13 above.
With respect to claims 25-26, Wurthner as modified by Staudinger, Johansson, and Wurthner2 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 24. Additionally, the limitations recited in claims 25-26 mirror the limitations recited in claim 14-15, which were rejected above. See the rejection of claims 14-15 above.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/05/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. While the interview conducted on 08/31/2026 sheds light into what applicant is attempting to convey with these claims, where if the speed is too far from the cruise control target speed, the motor vehicle can’t coast for very long, the claim amendments do not recite that what applicant is trying to claim.
With respect to the claim rejections of 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicants have amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
Applicant argues that Wurthner and Staudinger do not teach “forecast speed profile being based on travelling route data of a travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle”.
Office Response:
Johansson discloses “forecast speed profile being based on travelling route data of a travelling route that lies ahead of the motor vehicle”. Please see above mapping.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject matter and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicants’ arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered, and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights