DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note that in view of applicant’s amendments, the previously indicated rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments concerning the rejections of the independent claims 1 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in particular that the prior art reference US 20200361461 A1 (Eo) fails to fairly render the subject matter of the amended independent claims obvious, the examiner respectfully disagrees [e.g., note that in view of applicant’s amendments, the particular teachings per Eo being relied upon to fairly render the claimed invention(s) obvious have also changed].
In particular, Fig. 5 and the associated context per at least paragraph [0072] of Eo teaches and/or suggests the functionality per the amended independent claims [e.g., similar to the information related to an upcoming road section described per at least page 23 of applicant’s specification, of which may include one or more stretches of road with slow moving traffic, Eo teaches wherein a third increased speed above the reference speed may be achieved following (or immediately following) a decrease of the vehicle speed in the corresponding glide-phase to the second speed] (see annotated Fig. 5 per the detailed rejection below).
Furthermore, there does not appear to be any subject matter per applicant’s dependent claims or specification that would constitute allowable subject matter [e.g., AT BEST, the subject matter that is not explicitly taught by Eo, relates to features/functionality that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to arrive at via considering the collective teachings/context per Eo, without the exercise of inventive skill]; [e.g., contemplating the particular/immediate time period between the end of the glide-phase and the start of the pulse-phase to achieve a desired/optimal fuel efficiency, setting the third increased speed as a function of a preceding vehicle and/or a forward uphill road section, etc. would clearly not involve the exercise of inventive skill in view of the collective teachings/context per Eo]. See detailed rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 2 recites “the glide-phase be commenced”, and should be corrected to read “the glide-phase being commenced” (or similar) for clarity/readability.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20200361461 A1 (Eo).
PNG
media_image1.png
681
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 (Eo)
Regarding claims 1 and 13-15, Eo (Figures 1-8) teaches a method performed by a control arrangement [and commensurate control arrangement, vehicle comprising the control arrangement, and computer program product comprising code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium] for controlling a speed of a vehicle (see controller 20 per Fig. 3 in conjunction with paragraphs [0022]-[0023] and claims 1, 16), the vehicle being configured for carrying out a Pulse and Glide operation (see annotated Fig. 5 above in conjunction with claim 1), the Pulse and Glide operation controlling the speed of the vehicle about a reference speed [e.g., setting vehicle speed] (see annotated Fig. 5 above in conjunction with paragraph [0030]), and comprising a pulse-phase during which the speed of the vehicle is increased to a first speed higher than the reference speed (see annotated Fig. 5 above in conjunction with paragraph [0030]) [e.g., “in the pulse phase during PnG traveling after a target vehicle speed has been set by the driver in the internal combustion engine vehicle, the vehicle is accelerated to a speed higher than a driver setting vehicle speed”], followed by a glide-phase during which the speed of the vehicle is allowed to decrease to a second speed lower than the reference speed (see paragraph [0030]) [e.g., “in the glide phase, the vehicle is decelerated by coast traveling in the engine fuel cut and the transmission neutral state, and the vehicle is decelerated to a speed lower than the driver setting vehicle speed”], the method comprising, when the Pulse and Glide operation is to be carried out:
determining that an increase of the vehicle speed to a third increased speed higher than the reference speed will be required during the Pulse and Glide operation, based at least partly on information related to an upcoming road section of a road on which the vehicle is traveling [e.g., information related to at least one preceding vehicle on the road] (see annotated Fig. 5 above in conjunction with paragraph [0072]) [e.g., the functional equivalent(s) to the claim limitation(s) is/are clearly indicated via the annotated Fig. 5 above]; and
adjusting the Pulse and Glide operation such that the speed increase to the third increased speed is carried out by accelerating the vehicle following a decrease of the speed of the vehicle in the glide-phase to at least the second speed (see annotated Fig. 5 above in conjunction with abstract and paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0067]-[0068], [0072]) [e.g., the functional equivalent(s) to the claim limitation(s) is/are clearly indicated via the annotated Fig. 5 above].
Eo fails to explicitly teach wherein the speed increase to the third increased speed is necessarily carried out by accelerating the vehicle immediately following a decrease of the speed of the vehicle in the glide-phase to at least the second speed.
However, Eo clearly teaches wherein the acceleration (pulse phase) and deceleration (glide phase) traveling pattern can be periodically repeated and alternated rather than maintaining a constant traveling speed (or as required), to thereby enhance and/or maximize fuel economy, and further suggests that the speed increase to the third increased speed is configured to be carried out by accelerating the vehicle “immediately” following a decrease of the speed of the vehicle in the glide-phase to the second speed, via indicating the line between the second speed and the third increased speed as extending abruptly (or sharply) upward as soon as the vehicle reaches the second speed (see annotated Fig. 5 in conjunction with paragraphs [0027]-[0033], [0072]) [e.g., further noting that for the sake of argument that Eo does not explicitly state that the speed increase to the third increased speed takes place “immediately”, the difference, if any, between the claimed and prior art speed increase to the third increased speed is so incredibly close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily contemplated said difference in the process of determining how to enhance and/or maximize fuel economy (e.g., via not choosing to delay the initiation of the pulse-phase to reach the third increased speed)].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to have wherein the speed increase to the third increased speed is configured to be carried out by accelerating the vehicle immediately following a decrease of the speed of the vehicle in the glide-phase to at least the second speed [e.g., one of ordinary skill in the art merely contemplating and/or specifying the desired periodicity and/or alternation time(s) for the pulse and glide traveling pattern(s) indicated via the annotated Fig. 5 above], as suggested by Eo, in order to safely achieve a particular and/or desired degree of enhancement and/or maximization of fuel economy via further adapting the speed(s) of the Pulse and Glide operation(s) as a function of one or more preceding vehicles on the road and/or upcoming road section (implicit in view of the teachings and/or context per Eo).
Regarding claim 2, Eo teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The subject matter of claim 2 is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) as discussed above regarding the independent claims 1 and 13-15 [e.g., the line extending to the third increased speed per the annotated Fig. 5 above is clearly straight and/or indicative of a continuous acceleration being maintained at a given acceleration interval] (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Also refer to discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13-15.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Eo teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The subject matter of claims 3 and 17 is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) as discussed above regarding the independent claims 1 and 13-15 [e.g., the corresponding Pulse and Glide operation is clearly provided for maintaining the speed of the vehicle within a speed interval selected around the reference speed, the speed interval being defined by the first speed and the second speed, and wherein the third increased speed exceeds the reference speed]; [e.g., further noting that the claim limitation “wherein the third increased speed exceeds the reference speed” is redundant, as this is already provided and/or implied via the recitation of “a third increased speed, higher than the reference speed” per the independent claim 1] (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Also refer to discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13-15.
Regarding claim 4, Eo teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The subject matter of claim 4 is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) as discussed above regarding the independent claims 1 and 13-15 [e.g., Eo further suggests wherein the increase of the vehicle speed to the third increased speed is configured to be performed when the vehicle is approaching an uphill road section] (see annotated Fig. 5 above in conjunction with Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0072], [0092]-[0095]) [e.g., when there is a preceding vehicle as per Fig. 5 AND a forward uphill road/gradient as per Fig. 7, the invention(s) per Eo would presumably be configured (or configurable) such that the third increased speed above the reference speed may be achieved following (or immediately following) a decrease of the vehicle speed in the corresponding glide-phase to the second speed, based at least in part on information related to the forward uphill road/gradient and the preceding vehicle]. Also refer to discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13-15.
Regarding claims 5-6, Eo teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The subject matter of claims 5-6 is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) as discussed above regarding the independent claims 1 and 13-15 [e.g., at least the annotated Fig. 5 above suggests wherein the glide-phase is (or can be) commenced at a particular point in time, such that the point in time when the glide-phase starts is adjustable, and wherein the speed increase to the third increased speed is configured to take place following the speed decrease in the glide-phase to at least the second speed] (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Also refer to discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13-15.
Regarding claims 7-8, Eo teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The subject matter of claims 7-8 is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) as discussed above regarding the independent claims 1 and 13-15 [e.g., at least the annotated Fig. 5 above suggests wherein the corresponding Pulse and Glide phases comprise respective adjustable durations and such that the speed increase to the third increased speed is configured to be carried out by accelerating the vehicle “immediately” following the speed decrease in the glide-phase to at least the second speed, and wherein the adjustment of the duration of the pulse-phase may comprise increasing the duration of the pulse-phase until the third increased speed is reached] (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Also refer to discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13-15.
Regarding claim 9, Eo teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The subject matter of claim 9 is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) as discussed above regarding the independent claims 1 and 13-15 [e.g., at least the annotated Fig. 5 above suggests wherein the adjustment of the duration of the pulse-phase may comprise increasing the speed of the vehicle to a speed above the first speed until the third increased speed is reached] (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Also refer to discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13-15.
Regarding claim 10, Eo teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The subject matter of claim 10 is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) as discussed above regarding the independent claims 1 and 13-15 [e.g., at least the annotated Fig. 5 above suggests wherein the adjusting of the duration of the glide-phase may comprise increasing the duration of the glide-phase by decreasing the speed of the vehicle during the glide-phase to a speed below the second speed]; [e.g., in consideration of the functionality indicated via the annotated Fig. 5 above, this is a straightforward possibility that may exist based on the particular speed(s) of the preceding vehicle]; [e.g., reference the corresponding glide-phase functionality indicated via the rightmost half of the annotated Fig. 5 above] (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Also refer to discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13-15.
Regarding claim 12, Eo teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. The subject matter of claim 12 is fairly rendered obvious for the same (or substantially similar) reason(s) as discussed above regarding the independent claims 1 and 13-15 [e.g., at least the annotated Fig. 5 above suggests and/or implicitly teaches wherein the adjusting of the Pulse and Glide operation is further based on a position where the third increased speed is to be reached]; [e.g., the position corresponding to the particular vehicle speed and/or preceding vehicle speed, such that a safety distance between the vehicles is maintained] (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Also refer to discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13-15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 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 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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747