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.
Claims 11-12, and 14-31 have been amended.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 11/05/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15, 18-19, 25-26, and 29-30 objected to because of the following informalities: Please do not end sentences with “is”. An acceptable correction would be “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.”. 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 generic 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-15, 18-19, 25-26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Although it is understood that there is an inverse relationship between the maximum speed deviation and the maximum permissible time duration, it is still unclear how the speed deviation is being compared to the time duration for the rolling or coasting operation of the motor vehicle. The specification has no further explanation of how this comparison/relationship between the speed deviation and time duration is established. The closest subject matter found in the specification was Fig, 1 and [0039]. However, Fig. 1 shows that velocity deviation is a vertical axis while time duration is a horizontal axis, so it is unclear how the inverse relation is established. [0039] is simply a reiteration of the claims prior to amendments, which is not equivalent subject matter to the current amended claims.
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.
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.
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 extending in front 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 operating the rolling or coasting mode based on the result of checking (Wurthner [0034] – [0036] & [0045] – [0046] & [0049] – [0050]).
Wurthner does not teach determining a maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12). However, Staudinger teaches determining a maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12) (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 determines a maximum speed deviation (Δvmax) between the cruise-control target speed (11) and the forecast speed profile (12). 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 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 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 method determines 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 such that the larger 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 (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 such that 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. 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 such that 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 (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 such that 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. 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 such that the larger 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 (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 such that 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. 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 such that 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 (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 such that 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. 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). Wurthner as modified by Staudinger and Johansson does not teach obtaining the travelling route data of the travelling route extending in front of the motor vehicle with a GPS system. However, Wurthner2 teaches obtaining the travelling route data of the travelling route extending in front 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 extending in front 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 routefrom 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 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further 112 (a) and 112 (b) claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the above Office Action.
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 FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicant has 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:
The Applicant notes that these variables are, in each case, a measure of the current value of the respective variable. The current roadway incline or roadway gradient is evaluated (see [0031]), the current vehicle speed is considered (see [0033]) and the currently requested vehicle acceleration can be evaluated (see [0034]). The Applicant asserts that the claims of the application are distinct from the teachings of Wurthner et al. as this reference fails to teach, disclose, suggest or even hint at the claimed features considering a forecast speed profile. The forecast speed profile recited in the claims of the application is based on data of the route extending in front of the vehicle that is to be traveled by the vehicle. As indicated in the specification the data about the travelling route lying ahead of the motor vehicle can be provided by a GPS system [0041]. Such data from a GPS could include changes in elevation over distances along the route being travelled for example. Based on such route data, the speed profile of the vehicle as it travels over the route ahead in rolling or coasting operation, i.e., with no torque being transmitted via the transmission, can be determined or rather "forecast". From the forecast speed profile, the minimum forecast speed can be predicted and the maximum deviation of speed relative to the target speed of the cruise control can be determined for further controlling operation of the vehicle.
The Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of the base reference of Wurthner et al. with the additional art of Staudinger et al. and Johansson et al. fails to cure the above noted deficiencies of the base reference and thus still fails to in any way teach, suggest, disclose or remotely hint at the above distinguishing features of the presently claimed invention.
Office Response:
The Office respectfully disagrees and asserts that a forecast speed profile is disclosed. While the specific wording of “forecast speed profile” is not disclosed in Wurthner, based on the claim language and what Applicant has said in the remarks about the forecast speed profile representing variations in speed of the motor vehicle that occurs as it is rolling or coasting and using the forecast speed profile and checking if it would revert back to the cruise-control target speed, the Office is interpreting it as a current vehicle speed. A route extending in front of the vehicle is still the current roadway incline/gradient that the vehicle is traveling on (See new mapping for this). See new mapping for the GPS system. See new mapping for determining deviation and controlling vehicle operation.
Additionally, Johansson explicitly discloses “speed profile”.
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 and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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