DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 2018/0057001) in view of Dickson (US 2023/0150502), Plianos (US 2019/0100209), and Sun (US 11,491,983)
As to claim 1 Hu discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying, by a computing system, a predetermined scenario in an environment (Paragraph 38 “A possible control architecture in this case is one where the traffic condition is first assessed by a fusion of the various sources of connectivity information. According to one example, the traffic condition can be assessed as a numerical value between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds to no traffic and 1 corresponds to heavy traffic. The heavy traffic condition may imply a particular likelihood of an imminent stop or significant deceleration.”);
determining, by the computing system, a trajectory associated with coasting by a vehicle in the environment to increase speed from a stopped condition (Paragraph 38 “According to one example, the traffic condition can be assessed as a numerical value between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds to no traffic and 1 corresponds to heavy traffic. The heavy traffic condition may imply a particular likelihood of an imminent stop or significant deceleration. An imminent stop or slowdown condition may also be directly sensed based on the speed behavior of one or more preceding vehicles. The traffic assessment may be used by the controller to apply acceleration control according to a predetermined speed profile based on the forecasting of an upcoming driving event. And, the controller selects the best engine operating strategy to complement the desired speed trajectory. In a specific use case, once a stop-and-go cyclic traffic condition is detected, vehicle acceleration may be limited in the “go” portions of the cycle based on conserving fuel without adversely affecting driver expectations.”); and
providing, by the computing system, control signals to actuator subsystems of the vehicle to perform the coasting (Paragraph 31 “At location 210, fuel is cutoff from the engine at distance D1, and speed of the engine begins to decrease. Once speed of the engine is substantially zero at location 230, fuel-less coast down may occur during the stopping event. Based on certain variable inputs such as road conditions and driver inputs, actual deceleration according to curve 208 may vary from the desired approaching velocity profile 206. The controller may be programmed to correct friction braking and/or engine braking to maintain a convergence to the ideal deceleration velocity profile. This approach fully utilizes vehicle momentum and concurrently minimizes braking usage.”).
Hu does not explicitly disclose perform coasting from the stopped condition, wherein the coasting is associated with no application of throttle.
Dickson teaches perform coasting from the stopped condition, wherein the coasting is associated with no application of throttle(Paragraph 23 “As an example, the controller may identify using look ahead information that the vehicle will be traversing an uphill portion followed by a downhill portion and the driver has set the cruise speed reference to X miles-per-hour (MPH). The vehicle may also have a droop setting enabled that allows the vehicle cruise control set speed to be within a range (e.g., plus-or-minus Y MPH from the cruise control set speed). The controller may determine that in order to implement an ideal engine off coasting opportunity, the vehicle needs to speed up to X+Y MPH or X+Y+ another value MPH before beginning to traverse the hill so that the vehicle may take advantage of the momentum built up by the increased speed in order to save fuel while traversing the uphill. The controller may then modulate the cruise speed reference point to be X+Y MPH or X+Y+ another value MPH until the vehicle begins traversing the uphill. Once the vehicle traverses the uphill and begins descending a subsequent downhill portion, the controller may determine that the vehicle has sufficient momentum to coast downhill with the engine off for a certain distance, until predefined feedback from one or more sensors (virtual or physical) is received, and/or time without the vehicle's speed dropping below a predefined setting (e.g., X MPH minus the lower droop setting Y MPH). In which case, the controller may turn the engine off. Thus, in operation, the controller modulates the cruise speed reference point to selectively turn the engine off during a cruise control operating mode in order to realize various benefits, such as improved fuel economy, potentially lower overall harmful emissions, prolonged vehicle component life due to overall less usage, and so on.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hu to include the teachings of applying no throttle for the purpose of improving efficiency.
Hu does not explicitly disclose that the coasting is associated with no application of throttle while the vehicle is in gear.
Pilanos teaches that the coasting is associated with no application of throttle while the vehicle is in gear (Paragraph 135 “Such coasting may be referred to as ‘engine-connected coasting’ and includes the (zero throttle) condition in which the vehicle can maintain speed without assistance from the IC engine or electric machine, such as travelling downhill, as well as the (zero throttle) level-driving condition in which speed is deliberately permitted to fall without braking of the vehicle wheels by means of the braking system. During engine-connected coasting, IC engine speed is a function of the speed of the vehicle and the gear ratio of the transmission, so is typically higher than idle speed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hu to include the teachings of applying no throttle for the purpose of improving efficiency.
Hu does not explicitly disclose no application of throttle while the vehicle is increasing speed.
Sun teaches no application of throttle while the vehicle is increasing speed (Column 7 lines 12-21 “For example, the vehicle communication and telematics system 120 may choose the engaged drivetrain coasting mode 150 where the rate of velocity change is increasing to prevent the vehicle from traveling at an excessive speed. This strategy can minimize braking by using the resistance of the engine to slow the speed of the vehicle. In another example, the vehicle communication and telematics system 120 may choose engine-off coasting mode 170 or engine-idle coasting mode 160 when the rate of velocity change of the vehicle is decreasing.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hu to include the teachings of applying no throttle for the purpose of improving efficiency.
As to claim 2 Hu discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the predetermined scenario is associated with stop and go conditions in traffic (Paragraph 38).
As to claim 3 Hu discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the vehicle moves forward from the stopped condition based on the traffic (Paragraph 38).
As to claim 5 Plianos teaches a computer-implemented method wherein the coasting is associated with no application of brake(Paragraph 135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hu to include the teachings of applying no brake for the purpose of improving efficiency.
As to claim 6 Hu discloses a computer-implemented method further comprising:
performing, by the computing system, a safety check prior to the coasting, wherein the safety check comprises a first part associated with comparison of selected boundary values of coasting acceleration and a value of estimated coasting acceleration (Paragraph 60).
As to claim 7 Plianos teaches a computer-implemented a method, wherein the safety check comprises a second part associated with comparison of a following distance threshold value and a distance between the vehicle and another object (Paragraph 57-60).
As to claim 8 Plianos teaches a method wherein the determining a trajectory associated with coasting is in response to determination of a predetermined risk level that falls within a second tier of risk out of a plurality of tiers of risk, the second tier of risk associated with coasting(Paragraph 44).
As to claim 9 Plianos teaches a computer-implemented method wherein the plurality of tiers of risk are three tiers of risk including a first tier of risk associated with
As to claim 10 Hu discloses a computer-implemented method wherein the coasting is associated with a value of estimated coasting acceleration, the estimated coasting acceleration determined based on parameters comprising at least one of rolling resistance, road grade, wind force, and engine power train resistance (Paragraph 26).
As to claim 11 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 21 Dickson teaches a method wherein the predetermined scenario is associated with increasing speed in traffic conditions(Paragraph 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-13,15-18, 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
3/9/2026