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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 05/06/2024.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 17 have been amended by Applicant. Note that this refers to the lower set (of two sets) of claims (the amended set) in the docket both filed on 05/06/2024.
Claim 13 was cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 17 are currently pending and have been examined.
THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claims purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but fail to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson (US20130030668A1) in view of Dickson (US20230150502A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 15, 16, and 17
Eriksson discloses:
A method performed by a control for controlling a predictive cruise control of a vehicle (“The present invention relates to a method for controlling a cruise control in a vehicle. The invention also relates to a vehicle cruise control system intended for such method for controlling said cruise control.”, [001]);
said predictive cruise control configured to control vehicle speed in accordance with a planned vehicle speed profile for an upcoming road section, (“It is desirable to further develop such a cruise control system where information about current vehicle position and upcoming road topography is used by the cruise control for controlling vehicle speed.”, [005]) and (“Said method comprising the steps of: driving said vehicle with said cruise control active and set to maintain a vehicle set target speed;”, [006];
said planned vehicle speed profile being determined based on a set speed (cc-set), (“A method and a vehicle cruise control system performing the steps of driving with the cruise control active and set to maintain a set target speed”, [Abstract, published 01/31/2013);
a minimum speed threshold (vmin) and (“registering said first vehicle speed being just below a direct gear engagement vehicle speed; when having registered a predetermined vehicle condition setting said minimum vehicle speed”, [018]);
characteristics of the upcoming road section, 9” (“In a further embodiment of the invention said crest, said second position and said minimum vehicle speed are predicted with information about present vehicle position and coming road topography of said hill.”, [030]);
Eriksson does not expressly disclose, but Dickson teaches:
the method comprising the following steps:
based on an assessment of a traffic situation behind the vehicle and a current set speed (cc-set), determining a minimum allowable vehicle speed (v_a), and (“Based on the foregoing and in some embodiments, the controller 140 may implement an ideal engine off coasting opportunity based on the proximity of the vehicle 100 to a trailing vehicle (e.g., a vehicle behind the vehicle) plus a minimum set speed (e.g., a minimum cruise control set speed or other desired minimum speed). In this example, the controller 140 is selectively implementing an engine off coasting event responsive to a trailing vehicle (i.e., the vehicle 100 is the lead vehicle). In operation, the controller 140 may examine/analyze dynamic information, such as traffic information including one or more trailing vehicles.”, [083]) and (“The first minimum set speed may be lower than the second minimum set speed. In this way, the controller 140 allows the vehicle to go slower when trailing vehicle(s) are outside of a predefined distance of the vehicle 100 so to minimize potential traffic buildups.”, [085]) and (“determining a coasting opportunity for the vehicle based on at least one of the look ahead information or the vehicle information; modulating a cruise control set speed based on the determined coasting opportunity; and turning the engine off during the determined coasting opportunity for the vehicle based on modulation of the cruise control set speed.”, [008]);
in response to a determination that the determined minimum allowable vehicle speed (v_a) is lower than a currently selected minimum speed threshold (v_min) and a predetermined condition is fulfilled, (“The first minimum set speed may be lower than the second minimum set speed. In this way, the controller 140 allows the vehicle to go slower when trailing vehicle(s) are outside of a predefined distance of the vehicle 100 so to minimize potential traffic buildups.”, [085]);
adjusting the currently selected minimum speed threshold (v_min) to correspond to the determined minimum allowable vehicle speed (v_a). (“At process 330, the controller 140 modulates the cruise control set speed based on the ideal engine off coasting opportunity determined at 325. In this way, the controller 140 may adjust the first or original cruise control set speed upwards or downwards in order to enable an engine off coasting event at some point in the future along the vehicle route. For example, the cruise control set speed may be increased based on the route conditions in order to enable an ideal engine off coasting opportunity.”, [096]), the cruise control is adjusted to an allowable minimum speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Eriksson to incorporate the teachings of Dickson because Eriksson would be more efficient and versatile if it could automatically adjust speed control as a function of rearward traffic as done in Dickson. (“The predictive cruise control system 155 utilizes the vehicle's route and automatically adjusts the cruise control set speed according to the route.”, see Dickson at [044], and (“ideal engine off coasting opportunity based on the proximity of the vehicle 100 to a trailing vehicle (e.g., a vehicle behind the vehicle) plus a minimum set speed (e.g., a minimum cruise control set speed or other desired minimum speed), see also Dickson at [084]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended so as to place at least one claim into an independent form, and to otherwise place the claim(s) into an allowable condition, in light of the above noted 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1 and 14 – 17, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 15, and the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the above mentioned claims may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims (2 – 12) as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Diamond (US20240199012A1) - A system and method for operating a cruise control feature of a vehicle may operate by receiving a current speed limit for a roadway on which the vehicle is travelling, determining a first speed based upon the current speed limit, receiving current traffic data for the roadway on which the vehicle is travelling, determining a second speed based upon the current traffic data, and assigning a minimum of the first and second speeds as a set speed for a cruise control feature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661