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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered.
[1] Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 19 by incorporating the features of claim 3, which was indicated patent-eligible. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
[2] Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Applicant argued that Luo does not disclose the feature of the amended independent claims: wherein the environmental information includes a location, heading, and current actual speed of other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle, wherein the location, heading, and current actual speed of the other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle are acquired by sensors of the ego vehicle and wherein the advisory speed is dependent upon the location, heading, and current actual speed of the other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle wherein the advisory speed controls the ego vehicle's actual physical speed.
In this office action, rejections for the independent claims are written under U.S.C. 103, further citing Peppoloni.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, 15, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 20250065894 A1) in view of Peppoloni (US 20240265707 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses:
A system for advisory vehicle speed assistance, comprising: a controller coupled to receive a set of environmental information based on a location of an ego vehicle; wherein the environmental information includes a legal speed limit at the location {paragraph [0412] discloses receiving environment information including legal speed limit based on vehicle location};
wherein the controller is configured to generate an advisory speed for the ego vehicle based on the set of environmental information {[0413] discloses driving speed recommendation based on road conditions}; and
wherein the advisory speed is different from the legal speed limit {[0413] discloses that a recommended driving speed may be based on road conditions, which may include road events, road roughness, road frequency content, road friction, road curvature, weather dependent events. Since these factors vary but the legal speed limit for a road segment is fixed, the advisory speed that is determined based on these factors should be different from the legal speed limit}.
wherein the advisory speed controls the ego vehicle's actual physical speed {[0413]}.
Luo does not disclose:
wherein the environmental information includes a location, heading, and current actual speed of other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle, wherein the location, heading, and current actual speed of the other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle are acquired by sensors of the ego vehicle.
Peppoloni teaches acquiring the location, heading, and current actual speed of the other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle by sensors of the ego vehicle in paragraph [0176]: on-board computing system may include (i) a perception subsystem a that generally functions to derive a representation of the surrounding environment being perceived by vehicle; [0181]: deriving the representation of the surrounding environment perceived by vehicle 1310 using the raw data may involve detecting objects within the vehicle's surrounding environment; [0182]: deriving the representation of the surrounding environment perceived by vehicle 1310 using the raw data may involve determining a current state of each object detected in the vehicle's surrounding environment, such as a current position (which could be reflected in terms of coordinates and/or in terms of a distance and direction from vehicle 1310), a current orientation, a current velocity, and/or a current acceleration of each detected object}.
Luo in view of Peppoloni teaches:
wherein the advisory speed is dependent upon the location, heading, and current actual speed of the other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle {Peppoloni: [0176], [0181], [0182] / Luo: [0413], [0463] discloses using other vehicle’s location, heading and speed};
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the other vehicle’s current operation data with the ego vehicle’s sensor with the described invention of Luo in order to obtain the surrounding vehicle’s operation data independently.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Luo discloses: further comprising a driver-assistance system coupled to the controller; wherein the driver-assistance system controls movement of a vehicle; and wherein the movement of the vehicle is based on the advisory speed {[0413]: ADAS enforces the recommended driving speed}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 2, Luo discloses: wherein the driver-assistance system is an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) {[0413]}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, Luo discloses: further comprising a display coupled to the controller; wherein the advisory speed or advisory speed range is presented to a user of the ego vehicle on the display in addition to the legal speed limit {[0412], [0419] discloses a display for the advisory speed}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Luo in view of Peppoloni teaches: wherein the environmental information includes a location, heading, and current actual speed for each other vehicle immediately to a front, rear, right side, and left side of the ego vehicle {Luo: [0058] discloses displaying other vehicles on the ego vehicle’s display, which implies that the other vehicles are close to the ego vehicle / Peppoloni: [0176], [0181], [0182]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the other vehicle’s current operation data with the ego vehicle’s sensor with the described invention of Luo in order to obtain the surrounding vehicle’s operation data independently.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1, Luo discloses: wherein the set of environmental information includes historical speeds at a location and roads ahead of the ego vehicle {[0656] discloses historical speed on a previous traversal}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8, Luo discloses: wherein the ego vehicle is at the location on a current date; and wherein the historical speeds are based upon a range of prior week, month or year dates centered about the current date {[0656] Examiner notes that previous traversal may cover any time period}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 8, Luo in view of Peppoloni teaches: wherein the set of environmental information includes current speeds of other vehicles ahead of the ego vehicle {Luo: [0463] / Peppoloni: [0176], [0181], [0182]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the other vehicle’s current operation data with the ego vehicle’s sensor with the described invention of Luo in order to obtain the surrounding vehicle’s operation data independently.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1, Luo discloses: wherein the set of environmental information includes weather conditions, roadway construction, road hazards, road lighting, and road surface conditions at both a location of the ego vehicle and ahead of the ego vehicle {[0065]: upcoming road conditions may include, but are not limited to, road events, road roughness, road frequency content, road friction, road curvature, weather dependent events. [0068]: high-definition map implies road lighting}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1, Luo in view of Peppoloni teaches: wherein the environmental information includes, a location and speed for vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle; historical speeds at a location and roads ahead of the ego vehicle; and current speeds of other vehicles ahead of the ego vehicle {Luo: [0463], [0656] / Peppoloni: [0176], [0181], [0182]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the other vehicle’s current operation data with the ego vehicle’s sensor with the described invention of Luo in order to obtain the surrounding vehicle’s operation data independently.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 12, Luo discloses:
wherein the controller is configured grant a highest priority to vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle when generating the advisory speed {[0058] discloses surrounding vehicles. [0436] discloses collision warning and avoidance. Granting a highest priority to surrounding vehicles in generating the advisory speed is implied to avoid collision}.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 1, Luo discloses: further comprising an arbiter; wherein the arbiter is configured to generate a commanded speed based on the legal speed limit and the advisory speed; and wherein the commanded speed controls the ego vehicle’s actual physical speed {[0413]: Intelligent Speed Adaptation system, construed as the arbiter}.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 15, Luo discloses: wherein the arbiter is configured to generate the commanded speed also based on an adaptive cruise control (ACC) requested speed and a user requested speed {[0029]: set speed of the adaptive cruise control. [0414] discloses driver to choose driving speed}.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 1: Luo discloses: wherein the environmental information includes the legal speed limit at roads ahead of the ego vehicle {[0412] discloses speed limit. [0129] discloses roads ahead of the ego vehicle: road surface information for a route to be travelled}.
Regarding claim 19, Luo discloses: A method for advisory vehicle speed assistance, comprising: receiving a set of environmental information based on a location and route of an ego vehicle; wherein the environmental information includes a legal speed limit at the location and roads ahead {[0412], [0413], [0129]: downloading road surface information for a predetermined route to be travelled}; generating an advisory speed for the ego vehicle based on the set of environmental information; wherein the advisory speed is different from the legal speed limit {[0413]}.
Luo in view of Peppoloni teaches: wherein the environmental information includes a location, heading, and current actual speed of other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle, wherein the location, heading, and current actual speed of the other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle are acquired by sensors of the ego vehicle and wherein the advisory speed is dependent upon the location, heading, and current actual speed of the other vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle wherein the advisory speed controls the ego vehicle's actual physical speed {Peppoloni: [0176], [0181], [0182] / Luo: [0413], [0463]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the other vehicle’s current operation data with the ego vehicle’s sensor with the described invention of Luo in order to obtain the surrounding vehicle’s operation data independently.
Regarding claim 20, Luo in view of Peppoloni teaches: A system for advisory vehicle speed assistance, comprising: a controller coupled to receive a set of environmental information based on a location of an ego vehicle; wherein the environmental information includes a legal speed limit at the location; wherein the controller is configured to generate an advisory speed for the ego vehicle based on the set of environmental information; and wherein the advisory speed is different from the legal speed limit; wherein the environmental information includes, a location and current actual speed for vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle, wherein the location and current actual speed for the vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle are acquired by sensors of the ego vehicle; historical speeds at a location and roads ahead of the ego vehicle; and current speeds of other vehicles ahead of the ego vehicle; wherein the controller is configured grant a highest priority to the current actual speed of the vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle when generating the advisory speed; wherein the advisory speed controls the ego vehicle's actual physical speed {Luo: [0412], [0413], [0129], [0463], [0656], [0058], [0436] / Peppoloni: [0176], [0181], [0182]}.
Examiner notes that since the current actual speed of the vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle is directly influencing the operation of the ego vehicle, while the historical speeds at a location and roads ahead of the ego vehicle is just an additional factor to be considered, granting a highest priority to the current actual speed of the vehicles surrounding the ego vehicle when generating the advisory speed is implied for the purpose of collision warning and avoidance (Luo [0436]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the other vehicle’s current operation data with the ego vehicle’s sensor with the described invention of Luo in order to obtain the surrounding vehicle’s operation data independently.
Claim(s) 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Peppoloni and in further view of Zhang (US 20210188269 A1).
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 12, modified Luo does not disclose: wherein the controller is configured assign a pre-defined weight to the surrounding speeds, the historical speeds and the current speeds; and wherein the controller is configured to generate the advisory speed based on a weighted average of the surrounding speeds, the historical speeds and the current speeds.
Zhang teaches generating the advisory speed based on a weighted average of factors in paragraph [0041]: The recommended speed may be determined under weighted calculation of the factors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the weighting feature of Zhang with the described invention of modified Luo in order to generate the advisory speed under consideration of influence of the factors.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 16, Luo in view of Zhang teaches: wherein the arbiter is configured assign a pre-defined weight to the legal speed limit, the advisory speed, the ACC requested speed, and the user requested speed; and wherein the arbiter is configured to set the commanded speed based on a weighted average of the legal speed limit, the advisory speed, the ACC requested speed, and the user requested speed {Luo, [0413], [0029], [0414] / Zhang, [0041]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the weighting feature of Zhang with the described invention of modified Luo in order to optimally control driver assistance system.
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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661