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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first Office Action on the merits of Application 18/678,859 filed on 5/30/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/30/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 13-15, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0106388 to Boeckenhoff et al.
Claim 1
Boeckenhoff discloses in Figs 1-13,
A computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain topography data (e.g. via 228) of a current road segment and an upcoming road segment (e.g. via 306 and 311); determine a topography change between the current road segment and the upcoming road segment (e.g. via 308 & 314, different torque control due to current and upcoming conditions); determine a maximum propulsion (e.g. 314) torque based on the topography change; and limit a torque (e.g. 318, torque is limited but maybe modified as necessary) indicatable by an operator-controlled input (e.g. via 316) of a vehicle based on the maximum propulsion torque.
Claim 2
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: responsive to the topography change indicating an uphill change in topography (see Fig 5), increase the maximum propulsion torque (Paragraph 44); and/or responsive to the topography change indicating a downhill change in topography (see Fig 4), decrease the maximum propulsion torque (Paragraph 43).
Claim 6
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain traffic data (Paragraph 47) for the upcoming road segment; and determine the maximum propulsion torque based on the traffic data of the upcoming road segment.
Claim 8
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain road layout data (Paragraph 47) for the upcoming road segment; and determine the maximum propulsion torque based on the road layout data of the upcoming road segment.
Claim 10
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the operator-controlled input is a pedal (e.g. 12, paragraph 56) of the vehicle, preferably an accelerator of the vehicle.
Claim 13
A vehicle (e.g. 50) comprising the computer system of claim 1.
Claim 14
A computer implemented method comprising: obtaining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, topography data of a current road segment and an upcoming road segment (e.g. via 306 and 311); determining, by the processing circuitry of the computer system, a topography change between the current road segment and the upcoming road segment (e.g. via 308 & 314, different torque control due to current and upcoming conditions); determining, by the processing circuitry of the computer system, a maximum propulsion torque (e.g. 314) based on the topography change; and limiting (e.g. 318, torque is limited but maybe modified as necessary), by the processing circuitry of the computer system, a torque indicatable by an operator-controlled input of a vehicle based on the maximum propulsion torque (e.g. via 316).
Claim 15
The computer implemented method of claim 14, further comprising: responsive to the topography change indicating an uphill change in topography (see Fig 5), increasing, by the processing circuitry of the computer system, the maximum propulsion torque (Paragraph 44); and/or responsive to the topography change indicating a downhill change in topography (see Fig 4), decreasing, by the processing circuitry of the computer system, the maximum propulsion torque (Paragraph 43).
Claim 19
A computer program product comprising instructions for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 14 (Fig 10).
Claim 20
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 14 (Fig 9).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0106388 to Boeckenhoff et al. in view of WO 2013136744 to Ashida et al (applicant cited reference).
Claim 11
Boeckenhoff teaches a computer system configured to obtain topography data of a current and upcoming road segment, determine the change in topography of the two, determine maximum propulsion torque and limit a torque indicatable by an operator-controlled input of a vehicle. Boeckenhoff however, does not explicitly disclose that limiting the torque indicatable by the operator-controlled input by controlling a haptic feedback of the operator-controlled input.
Ashida however, teaches providing a pedal reaction force to the accelerator when engine torque changes. Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to include a pedal reaction force, as taught by Ashida, and modify Boeckenhoff for the benefit of having the driver intuitively recognize a change in the road surface gradient and the presence or absence of driving operation support (Ashida translated document, page 10, paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 12 & 16-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN LE whose telephone number is (571)270-3122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm PST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached on 571-270-5565. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUAN LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655