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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communications filed 05/13/2026. Claims 1-16 and 20-25 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 17-19 are canceled. Claims 21-25 are newly added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 16, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Labuhn et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0280728).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claims 16 and 20
Labuhn discloses “A system, comprising: a processor;” (See Labuhn Fig. 8, Char. 702 disclosing a processor.).
Labuhn discloses “and a memory storing: an override ascertainment module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine, during an operation of an adaptive cruise control system, that a first action, performed by an operator of an ego vehicle, is an override of the adaptive cruise control system by determining that the first action is performed for a duration of time greater than a threshold duration of time;” (See Labuhn [0051] disclosing detecting if an accelerator pedal override of an adaptive cruise control is active, when a driver presses an accelerator pedal. Also see Labuhn [0059] disclosing preferably using criteria that include the length of time of the presses such as a first predetermined amount of time, thus a criteria for performing the press for a duration of time greater than a threshold.).
Labuhn discloses “an intent ascertainment module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine, during the override, an intent of the operator to change a setting of a mechanism, configured to control a motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle, from a current setting to a preferred setting, the mechanism being of the adaptive cruise control system;” (See Labuhn [0059]-[0060] disclosing checking for a double press of the resume switch of the adaptive cruise control system to ensure that a deliberate driver action has occurred rather than an accidental press.).
Labuhn discloses “and an intent utilization module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause the adaptive cruise control system to utilize information about the intent.” (See Labuhn [0060] disclosing continuing or ending the adaptive cruise control setting based on a detection of the double press.).
Regarding claim 21
Labuhn discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the threshold duration of time is a duration of time that prevents having an anomalous action be determined to be the override of the adaptive cruise control system.” (See Labuhn [0059] disclosing by checking for such a double press of the resume switch, the process helps to ensure that a deliberate driver action has occurred rather than an accidental press or a failure mode.).
Regarding claim 22
Labuhn discloses “A system, comprising: a processor;” (See Labuhn Fig. 8, Char. 702 disclosing a processor.).
Labuhn discloses “and a memory storing:an override ascertainment module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine, during an operation of an adaptive cruise control system, that an action, performed by an operator of an ego vehicle, is an override of the adaptive cruise control system by determining that the action is performed for a duration of time less than a threshold duration of time;” (See Labuhn [0051] disclosing detecting if an accelerator pedal override of an adaptive cruise control is active, when a driver presses an accelerator pedal. Also see Labuhn [0059] disclosing using criteria that includes a predetermined length of time of the presses for detecting an override and [0060] disclosing determining that the criteria for overriding the ACC has not occurred when the double press (including the predetermined time period) is not detected.).
Labuhn discloses “an intent ascertainment module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine, during the override, an intent of the operator to change a setting of a mechanism, configured to control a motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle, from a current setting to a preferred setting, the mechanism being of the adaptive cruise control system;” (See Labuhn [0059]-[0060] disclosing checking for a double press of the resume switch of the adaptive cruise control system to ensure that a deliberate driver action has occurred rather than an accidental press.).
Labuhn discloses “and an intent utilization module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to cause the adaptive cruise control system to utilize information about the intent.” (See Labuhn [0060] disclosing continuing or ending the adaptive cruise control setting based on a detection of the double press.).
Regarding claim 23
Labuhn discloses “The system of claim 22, wherein the threshold duration of time is a duration of time that distinguishes the override of the adaptive cruise control system performed so that the intent of the operator to change the setting of the mechanism is to be determined from the override of the adaptive cruise control system performed to transfer control of the ego vehicle from the adaptive cruise control system to the operator.” (See Labuhn [0059] disclosing by checking for such a double press of the resume switch, the process helps to ensure that a deliberate driver action has occurred rather than an accidental press or a failure mode.).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labuhn et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0280728) in view of Jardine et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0382378).
Regarding claim 2
Labuhn discloses “The system of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein: the motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle is a gap between the ego vehicle and a preceding vehicle,”, “the current setting is for a first gap maintained, by the adaptive cruise control system, between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle,”, “the preferred setting is for a second gap to be maintained, by the adaptive cruise control system, between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle,”, & “and the memory further stores a motion-related aspect determination module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine that the motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle is the gap between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”.
Jardine discloses “wherein: the motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle is a gap between the ego vehicle and a preceding vehicle,” (See Jardine Fig. 4, Char. 508 disclosing receiving a driver intervention to modify an inter-vehicle gap distance.).
Jardine discloses “the current setting is for a first gap maintained, by the adaptive cruise control system, between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle,” (See Jardine Fig. 4, Char. 506 disclosing a first gap.).
Jardine discloses “the preferred setting is for a second gap to be maintained, by the adaptive cruise control system, between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle,” (See Jardine Fig. 4, Char. 508 disclosing a second gap.).
Jardine discloses “and the memory further stores a motion-related aspect determination module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine that the motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle is the gap between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle.” (See Jardine [0106] disclosing a control system may determine whether the measured stop gap is below a predetermined minimum stop gap. If the measured stop gap is greater than the minimum, the measured stop gap becomes the updated target stop gap. If the measured stop gap is less than the minimum, the minimum becomes the updated target stop gap.).
Labuhn and Jardine are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Labuhn to incorporate the teachings of Jardine for enabling a driver to modify a gap distance between a host vehicle and preceding vehicle. Doing so provides a known method in the art for modifying the settings of an adaptive cruise control system, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides customization of an adaptive cruise control system in accordance with driver preferences, see Jardine [0092].
Regarding claim 3
Labuhn modified in view of Jardine discloses “The system of claim 2,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the instructions to determine that the motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle is the gap between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle include instructions to determine that the gap between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than a threshold gap.”.
Jardine discloses “wherein the instructions to determine that the motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle is the gap between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle include instructions to determine that the gap between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than a threshold gap.” (See Jardine [0107] disclosing a minimum stop gap and [0106] disclosing determining if a measured stop gap is less than the minimum.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the motivation to combine Labuhn and Jardine in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12
Labuhn modified in view of Jardine discloses “The system of claim 2,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein: the memory further stores a gap determination module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine if the second gap is one of less than a first threshold gap or greater than a second threshold gap,”, & “the instructions to cause the adaptive cruise control system to utilize the information about the intent include instructions to cause, in response to a determination that the second gap is: less than the first threshold gap, the adaptive cruise control system to use a value of the first threshold gap as a value of the preferred setting, and greater than the second threshold gap, the adaptive cruise control system to use a value of the second threshold gap as the value of the preferred setting.”.
Jardine discloses “wherein: the memory further stores a gap determination module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine if the second gap is one of less than a first threshold gap or greater than a second threshold gap,” (See Jardine [0106] disclosing determining if a measured stop gap is less than a minimum.).
Jardine discloses “the instructions to cause the adaptive cruise control system to utilize the information about the intent include instructions to cause, in response to a determination that the second gap is: less than the first threshold gap, the adaptive cruise control system to use a value of the first threshold gap as a value of the preferred setting, and greater than the second threshold gap, the adaptive cruise control system to use a value of the second threshold gap as the value of the preferred setting.” (See Jardine [0106] disclosing if the measured stop gap is less than the minimum, the minimum becomes the updated target stop gap.).
The motivation to combine is similar to the motivation to combine Labuhn and Jardine in the rejection of claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding P. 14-17 of arguments filed with respect to claims 1, 16 and 20, and similarly with respect to claims 22-23.
Labuhn discloses “and a memory storing: an override ascertainment module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine, during an operation of an adaptive cruise control system, that a first action, performed by an operator of an ego vehicle, is an override of the adaptive cruise control system by determining that the first action is performed for a duration of time greater than a threshold duration of time;” (See Labuhn [0051] disclosing detecting if an accelerator pedal override of an adaptive cruise control is active, when a driver presses an accelerator pedal. Also see Labuhn [0059] disclosing preferably using criteria that include the length of time of the presses such as a first predetermined amount of time, thus a criteria for performing the press for a duration of time greater than a threshold.).
See Labuhn [0056]-[0059] indeed disclosing that a double press of a resume switch may cause a resumption of an adaptive cruise control, however specifically with respect to Labuhn [0056] an alternative to an accelerator pedal override when full speed range adaptive cruise control is active and the vehicle is stopped. That is, the press or double press is an action performed by a vehicle operator, which may as presented in an alternative embodiment effectively override an adaptive cruise control system.
Further, see [0067] of the instant application publication disclosing “For example, the second action can include one or more of an action, via: (1) an ACC operator interface, to cause the resumption of the operation of the adaptive cruise control system,” & “For example, the ACC operator interface can include a resume button. For example, the ACC operator interface can be the ACC operator interface 238 illustrated in FIG. 2 . For example, the resume button can be the resume button 240 illustrated in FIG. 2 .” That is, the performance of pressing a switch as disclosed by Labuhn may be interpreted as an action that may override an ACC system in accordance with the description of the instant application.
For these reasons claims 1, 16, and 20 remain rejected in view of Labuhn et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0280728).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4
The recitation “The system of claim 2, wherein: the adaptive cruise control system includes a database that has records with a first field and a second field, the first field being for values of speeds of the ego vehicle, the second field being for values of settings for gaps to be maintained between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle, and the instructions to cause the adaptive cruise control system to utilize the information about the intent include: instructions to determine a value of a speed of the ego vehicle during the override, instructions to retrieve, from the database, a record, of the records, in which a value of a speed of the ego vehicle is equal to the value of the speed of the ego vehicle during the override, instructions to overwrite, in the record, a value of a setting for a gap to be maintained between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle with a value of the preferred setting, and instructions to cause a resumption of the operation of the adaptive cruise control system.” overcomes the art of record rendering the claims in manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Labuhn et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0280728). The claim specifically overcomes the art of record, because of the limitation directed to retrieving a record corresponding to a speed of the vehicle during a detected override of an adaptive cruise control system. For example, Labuhn discloses detection of the speed of the vehicle during an override, however retrieving a record corresponding to the detected speed is not disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Claims 5-10 are objected to by virtue of dependency of claim 4.
Regarding claim 11
The recitation “and the instructions to cause the adaptive cruise control system to utilize the information about the intent include instructions to cause, in response to a determination that the second gap is the one of less than the first threshold gap or greater than the second threshold gap, the adaptive cruise control system to remain in a current status of the adaptive cruise control system.” overcomes the art of record rendering the claims in manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Labuhn et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0280728). The claim specifically overcomes the art of record, because of the limitation directed to remaining in a current status of an adaptive cruise control when a gap is greater than or less than threshold gaps. For example, Labuhn modified in view of the art of record discloses modifying settings of the adaptive cruise control based on detected gap deviations from a threshold minimum, however remaining in a current status is not disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Regarding claim 13
The recitation “The system of claim 1, wherein: the motion-related aspect of the ego vehicle is a rate of a change of a speed of the ego vehicle, the current setting is for a first rate, controlled by the adaptive cruise control system, of the change of the speed of the ego vehicle, and the preferred setting is for a second rate, to be controlled by the adaptive cruise control system, of the change of the speed of the ego vehicle,” overcomes the art of record rendering the claims in manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Labuhn et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0280728). The claim specifically overcomes the art of record, because of the limitation directed to the modification of an acceleration of the adaptive cruise control system. For example, Labuhn modified in view of the art of record discloses modification of a gap and speed of an adaptive cruise control system to override settings of the adaptive cruise control, however modifying the acceleration between a specified first and/or second value, corresponding to a rate of change of the vehicle speed, is not disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Claims 24-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 24
The recitation “an override ascertainment module including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine, during an operation of an adaptive cruise control system, that an action, performed by an operator of an ego vehicle, is an override of the adaptive cruise control system by determining that the action is, within a duration of time less than a threshold duration of time, repeated;” overcomes the art of record rendering the claims in manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Labuhn et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0280728). The claim specifically overcomes the art of record, because of the limitation directed to detecting an override of an adaptive cruise control system when an action is less than a threshold duration. For example, Labuhn discloses using criteria that includes a predetermined length of time of the presses for detecting an override, thus teaching away from the claimed invention, and the claim limitation is not disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights