DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Status of Application
The amended list of claims 14-22, 24 and 25 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 02/03/2026:
Claim(s) 1-13 remain cancelled.
Claim(s) 23 has/have been further cancelled.
Claim(s) 15, 17-19, 22 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 20, 21, 24 and 25 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 14, 24 and 25 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 02/03/2026; the Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. The Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the objection(s) of claim(s) 14, 24 and 25, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection(s) of claim(s) 14, 24 and 25 has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection (s) of claim(s) 14-22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection (s) of claim(s) 14-22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has/have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a computing unit configured to ascertaining a maximum end speed of a motor vehicle before a start of a speed limit area” in claim 24.
Claim limitations: “a computing unit configured to ascertaining a maximum end speed of a motor vehicle before a start of a speed limit area” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder(s) such as “unit” respectively coupled with functional language: without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, the applicant describes the structure of the “computing unit” as: “The object of the present invention is additionally solved by a control unit for a driver assistance system for controlling a longitudinal control of a motor vehicle, having a computing unit for carrying out the method according to the present invention. Such a control unit can thus be integrated into a motor vehicle so that the advantages described for the method can be achieved. The method according to the present invention described above can, for example, in particular be computer-implemented and thus embodied in software. The present invention therefore also relates to a computer program comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed on one or more computers, cause the computer or computers to carry out the described method” in at least page 6, lines: 25-30, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “computing unit” as including but not limited to generic computing components that in conjunction with software achieve the claimed functionality, for example.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 14, 18-22, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SEBASTIEN et al. (German Patent Publication 102018210648 A1) referenced as Sebastien moving forward.
With respect to claim 14, Sebastien discloses:
“A method for accelerating a motor vehicle to a maximum end speed and then decelerating the motor vehicle before a start of a reduced speed limit area, comprising the following steps: ascertaining a current motor vehicle speed, a speed limit value of an upcoming reduced speed limit area, and a distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses a method for controlling an automated longitudinal guidance mode (e.g. when a cruise control is activated) for a vehicle. Sebastien further discloses, in at least Fig. 2a and/or 2b, a speed profile of the vehicle over time in which the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle changes over time based on the speed limits of the respective upcoming road sections. In the cited figures, the speed limit for the road prior d0 is 40 km/h, the speed limit for the section of road between d0 and d2 is 80 km/h, and the speed limit for the road after d2 is 50 km/h (and therefore the section of road after d2 is patentably indistinct from "a reduced speed limit area"). Sebastien further discloses detecting an "actual speed" of the vehicle (patentably indistinct from "a current motor vehicle speed") and "the basic dynamics of the vehicle will be reduced depending on the distance to the second event" (¶: 0023); wherein, the "second event" is the previously disclosed reduced speed limit to 50km/h at location d2; See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0018, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“estimating a time to the reduced speed limit area based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed limit, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area; determining a speed increase with respect to the current motor vehicle speed, the increase being dependent on the time to the reduced speed limit area; estimating a deceleration so that, based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed increase, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, the speed limit value is followed by the motor vehicle at the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses determining if an acceleration behavior, denoted a1, must be adapted to a reduced acceleration behavior a1' in which the acceleration a1 results in the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle reaching 80 km/h at location d1 by time t1 (in Fig. 2a and 2b) and the reduced acceleration a1' results in the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle reaching less 80 km/h at location d1 by time t1 (as shown in Fig. 2b). Sebastien further discloses that the determination regarding whether to control the vehicle according to the acceleration behavior, a1, or the reduced acceleration behavior a1', is based on whether the required deceleration to slow the vehicle from the maximum permissible speed to the reduced target speed is using a "specified deceleration potential" (¶: 0018 and denoted as a2 in Fig. 2a) using a "linearly assumed deceleration" (¶: 0023); See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“reducing the speed increase when the estimated deceleration is greater than a deceleration limit value” [Sebastien; Sebastien further discloses that the determination regarding whether to control the vehicle according to the acceleration behavior, a1, or the reduced acceleration behavior a1', is based on whether the required deceleration to slow the vehicle from the maximum permissible speed to the reduced target speed is using a "specified deceleration potential" (¶: 0018 and denoted as a2 in Fig. 2a) using a "linearly assumed deceleration" (¶: 0023); See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“ascertaining the maximum end speed based on the current motor vehicle speed and the speed increase, accelerating, after the maximum end speed has been ascertained and before the motor vehicle has reached the upcoming reduced speed limit area, the motor vehicle from the current motor vehicle speed to the maximum end speed; and decelerating, after the motor vehicle has been accelerated and before the motor vehicle has reached the upcoming reduced speed limit area, the motor vehicle from the maximum end speed to the speed limit value until the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses determining that two subsequent sections of road comprise speed limit changes that would result in an increase of the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle followed by an immediate reduction of the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle. Sebastien further discloses determining how much to increase the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle using one of two acceleration profiles based on whether the vehicle would be able to subsequently decelerate from the increased maximum permissible speed to the reduced maximum permissible speed using a predetermined deceleration threshold (referred as a2, for example) and subsequently performing the above determined longitudinal control steps for the vehicle to perform automatic speed adjustment of the vehicle in real-time; See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0018, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047].
With respect to claim 18, Sebastien discloses: “The method according to claim 14, wherein a constant deceleration is assumed in order to estimate the deceleration” [Sebastien; Sebastien further discloses that the determination regarding whether to control the vehicle according to the acceleration behavior, a1, or the reduced acceleration behavior a1', is based on whether the required deceleration to slow the vehicle from the maximum permissible speed to the reduced target speed is using a "specified deceleration potential" (¶: 0018 and denoted as a2 in Fig. 2a) using a "linearly assumed deceleration" (¶: 0023); See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047].
With respect to claim 19, Sebastien discloses: “The method according to claim 14, wherein a predefined deceleration function is used for the deceleration” [Sebastien; Sebastien further discloses that the determination regarding whether to control the vehicle according to the acceleration behavior, a1, or the reduced acceleration behavior a1', is based on whether the required deceleration to slow the vehicle from the maximum permissible speed to the reduced target speed is using a "specified deceleration potential" (¶: 0018 and denoted as a2 in Fig. 2a) using a "linearly assumed deceleration" (¶: 0023); See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047].
With respect to claim 20, Sebastien discloses: “The method according to claim 14, wherein the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area is ascertained using map data and/or sensor data and/or cloud data” [Sebastien; " The recording unit E1 is a map-based detection unit which, based on available map data, its own position and a known upcoming section of track, recognizes events e1 and e2 or e<sub>i</sub> that require an adjustment of the target speed (e.g. speed limits, roundabouts, motorway exits, curve radii). The map-based recording unit E1 is designed in such a way that it can, on the one hand, determine the location of the preceding relevant event (e.g., the location of the accident). Reaching a roundabout, a motorway exit or a sharp bend), thus also recognizing the maximum permitted target speed applicable from this point and transmitting it to the functional unit FE as a location-dependent time d2 or t2;" ¶: 0037;
"Additionally, the E1 detection unit can also be camera-based, so that a forward-facing (e.g. Video) sensors can also detect upcoming, speed-limiting events that may require an adjustment of the target speed;" ¶: 0038; See also: ¶: 0021].
With respect to claim 21, Sebastien discloses: “The method according to claim 14, wherein the speed limit value is ascertained based on legally prescribed limit values and/or road-section-dependent limit values” [Sebastien; See the road speed limit values disclosed in at least Fig. 2a and 2b; See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0008, 0018, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047].
With respect to claim 22, Sebastien discloses: “The method according to claim 21, wherein the speed limit value is ascertained using map data and/or camera data and/or cloud data” [Sebastien; " The recording unit E1 is a map-based detection unit which, based on available map data, its own position and a known upcoming section of track, recognizes events e1 and e2 or e<sub>i</sub> that require an adjustment of the target speed (e.g. speed limits, roundabouts, motorway exits, curve radii). The map-based recording unit E1 is designed in such a way that it can, on the one hand, determine the location of the preceding relevant event (e.g., the location of the accident). Reaching a roundabout, a motorway exit or a sharp bend), thus also recognizing the maximum permitted target speed applicable from this point and transmitting it to the functional unit FE as a location-dependent time d2 or t2;" ¶: 0037;
"Additionally, the E1 detection unit can also be camera-based, so that a forward-facing (e.g. Video) sensors can also detect upcoming, speed-limiting events that may require an
adjustment of the target speed;" ¶: 0038; See also: ¶: 0021].
With respect to claim 24, Sebastien discloses:
“A control unit for a driver assistance system for controlling a longitudinal control of a motor vehicle, comprising: a computing unit for accelerating the motor vehicle to a maximum end speed and then decelerating the motor vehicle before a start of a reduced speed limit area, the computing unit configured to: ascertain a current motor vehicle speed, a speed limit value of an upcoming reduced speed limit area, and a distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses a method for controlling an automated longitudinal guidance mode (e.g. when a cruise control is activated) for a vehicle. Sebastien further discloses, in at least Fig. 2a and/or 2b, a speed profile of the vehicle over time in which the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle changes over time based on the speed limits of the respective upcoming road sections. In the cited figures, the speed limit for the road prior d0 is 40 km/h, the speed limit for the section of road between d0 and d2 is 80 km/h, and the speed limit for the road after d2 is 50 km/h (and therefore the section of road after d2 is patentably indistinct from "a reduced speed limit area"). Sebastien further discloses detecting an "actual speed" of the vehicle (patentably indistinct from "a current motor vehicle speed") and "the basic dynamics of the vehicle will be reduced depending on the distance to the second event" (¶: 0023); wherein, the "second event" is the previously disclosed reduced speed limit to 50km/h at location d2;
Sebastien further discloses: "The longitudinal driver assistance (control) system according to the invention has a correspondingly programmed functional unit in the form of a computer program product, which can be integrated into an electronic control unit for driver assistance systems that is known per se;" ¶: 0020; See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0018, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“estimate a time to the reduced speed limit area based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed limit value, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, determine a speed increase with respect to the current motor vehicle speed, the increase being dependent on the time to the reduced speed limit area, estimate a deceleration so that, based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed increase, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, the speed limit value is followed by the motor vehicle at the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses determining if an acceleration behavior, denoted a1, must be adapted to a reduced acceleration behavior a1' in which the acceleration a1 results in the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle reaching 80 km/h at location d1 by time t1 (in Fig. 2a and 2b) and the reduced acceleration a1' results in the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle reaching less 80 km/h at location d1 by time t1 (as shown in Fig. 2b). Sebastien further discloses that the determination regarding whether to control the vehicle according to the acceleration behavior, a1, or the reduced acceleration behavior a1', is based on whether the required deceleration to slow the vehicle from the maximum permissible speed to the reduced target speed is using a "specified deceleration potential" (¶: 0018 and denoted as a2 in Fig. 2a) using a "linearly assumed deceleration" (¶: 0023); See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“reduce the speed increase when the estimated deceleration is greater than a deceleration limit value” [Sebastien; Sebastien further discloses that the determination regarding whether to control the vehicle according to the acceleration behavior, a1, or the reduced acceleration behavior a1', is based on whether the required deceleration to slow the vehicle from the maximum permissible speed to the reduced target speed is using a "specified deceleration potential" (¶: 0018 and denoted as a2 in Fig. 2a) using a "linearly assumed deceleration" (¶: 0023); See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“ascertain the maximum end speed based on the current motor vehicle speed and the speed increase, accelerate, after the maximum end speed has been ascertained and before the motor vehicle has reached the upcoming reduced speed limit area, the motor vehicle from the current motor vehicle speed to the maximum end speed, and decelerate, after the motor vehicle has been accelerated and before the motor vehicle has reached the upcoming reduced speed limit area, the motor vehicle from the maximum end speed to the speed limit value until the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses determining that two subsequent sections of road comprise speed limit changes that would result in an increase of the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle followed by an immediate reduction of the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle. Sebastien further discloses determining how much to increase the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle using one of two acceleration profiles based on whether the vehicle would be able to subsequently decelerate from the increased maximum permissible speed to the reduced maximum permissible speed using a predetermined deceleration threshold (referred as a2, for example) and subsequently performing the above determined longitudinal control steps for the vehicle to perform automatic speed adjustment of the vehicle in real-time; See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0018, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047].
With respect to claim 25, Sebastien discloses:
“A non-transitory machine-readable data carrier on which is stored a computer program for accelerating a motor vehicle to a maximum end speed and then decelerating the motor vehicle before a start of a reduced speed limit area, the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps: ascertaining a current motor vehicle speed, a speed limit value of an upcoming reduced speed limit area, and a distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses a method for controlling an automated longitudinal guidance mode (e.g. when a cruise control is activated) for a vehicle. Sebastien further discloses, in at least Fig. 2a and/or 2b, a speed profile of the vehicle over time in which the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle changes over time based on the speed limits of the respective upcoming road sections. In the cited figures, the speed limit for the road prior d0 is 40 km/h, the speed limit for the section of road between d0 and d2 is 80 km/h, and the speed limit for the road after d2 is 50 km/h (and therefore the section of road after d2 is patentably indistinct from "a reduced speed limit area"). Sebastien further discloses detecting an "actual speed" of the vehicle (patentably indistinct from "a current motor vehicle speed") and "the basic dynamics of the vehicle will be reduced depending on the distance to the second event" (¶: 0023); wherein, the "second event" is the previously disclosed reduced speed limit to 50km/h at location d2;
Sebastien further discloses: "The longitudinal driver assistance (control) system according to the invention has a correspondingly programmed functional unit in the form of a computer program product, which can be integrated into an electronic control unit for driver assistance systems that is known per se;" ¶: 0020; See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0018, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“estimating a time to the reduced speed limit area based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed limit value, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area; determining a speed increase with respect to the current motor vehicle speed, the increase being dependent on the time to the reduced speed limit area; estimating a deceleration so that, based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed increase, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, the speed limit value is followed by the motor vehicle at the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses determining if an acceleration behavior, denoted a1, must be adapted to a reduced acceleration behavior a1' in which the acceleration a1 results in the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle reaching 80 km/h at location d1 by time t1 (in Fig. 2a and 2b) and the reduced acceleration a1' results in the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle reaching less 80 km/h at location d1 by time t1 (as shown in Fig. 2b). Sebastien further discloses that the determination regarding whether to control the vehicle according to the acceleration behavior, a1, or the reduced acceleration behavior a1', is based on whether the required deceleration to slow the vehicle from the maximum permissible speed to the reduced target speed is using a "specified deceleration potential" (¶: 0018 and denoted as a2 in Fig. 2a) using a "linearly assumed deceleration" (¶: 0023); See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“and reducing the speed increase when the estimated deceleration is greater than a deceleration limit value” [Sebastien; Sebastien further discloses that the determination regarding whether to control the vehicle according to the acceleration behavior, a1, or the reduced acceleration behavior a1', is based on whether the required deceleration to slow the vehicle from the maximum permissible speed to the reduced target speed is using a "specified deceleration potential" (¶: 0018 and denoted as a2 in Fig. 2a) using a "linearly assumed deceleration" (¶: 0023); See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047];
“ascertaining the maximum end speed based on the current motor vehicle speed and the speed increase; accelerating, after the maximum end speed has been ascertained and before the motor vehicle has reached the upcoming reduced speed limit area, the motor vehicle from the current motor vehicle speed to the maximum end speed; and decelerating, after the motor vehicle has been accelerated and before the motor vehicle has reached the upcoming reduced speed limit area, the motor vehicle from the maximum end speed to the speed limit value until the start of the reduced speed limit area” [Sebastien; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sebastien discloses determining that two subsequent sections of road comprise speed limit changes that would result in an increase of the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle followed by an immediate reduction of the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle. Sebastien further discloses determining how much to increase the maximum permissible speed of the vehicle using one of two acceleration profiles based on whether the vehicle would be able to subsequently decelerate from the increased maximum permissible speed to the reduced maximum permissible speed using a predetermined deceleration threshold (referred as a2, for example) and subsequently performing the above determined longitudinal control steps for the vehicle to perform automatic speed adjustment of the vehicle in real-time; See also: Fig. 1, 2a, 2b; ¶: 0008, 0018, 0023, 0032, 0035, 0043-0047].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastien in view of in view of Kelly (United States Patent Publication 2017/0197619 A1), referenced as Kelly moving forward.
With respect to claim 15, Sebastien does not specifically state: “wherein the speed increase is read out from a characteristic map.”
Kelly, which is in the same field of invention of system/methods for controlling vehicle speed, teaches: “wherein the speed increase is read out from a characteristic map” [Kelly; "The rate limiter function block 230 attempts to cause v_ref to become equal to LSP_set-speed by adjusting LSP_set-speed_inst at a rate determined according to a predetermined acceleration profile stored by the LSP control system 12. The rate limiter function block 230 causes the value of LSP_set-speed_inst (and in turn v_ref) to transition iteratively towards the value of LSP_set-speed at a rate determined according to the predetermined acceleration profile;" ¶: 0115;
"As noted above, the rate limiter function block 230 stores an acceleration profile that is employed when v_ref is less than LSP_set-speed and an increase in v_ref is required and may optionally also store an acceleration profile employed when v_ref is greater than LSP_set-speed and a decrease in v_ref is required. This is because in certain terrain conditions it is desirable to have positive acceleration profiles that demand higher rates of acceleration than the corresponding negative acceleration profiles, and vice-versa. However it will be appreciated that a common profile may be used for both acceleration and deceleration in some embodiments;" ¶: 0116; See also: ¶: 0092, 0117-0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a vehicle according to a target speed and further modifying the target speed based on upcoming events as disclosed by Sebastien to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically controlling vehicle speed based on stored acceleration profiles as taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a vehicle according to a target speed and further modifying the target speed based on upcoming events that additionally: “has the advantage that a reduction in vehicle composure due to a relatively rapid increase in the amount of powertrain torque applied to one or more wheels of a vehicle following a period of powertrain torque interruption may be prevented, or the amount of the reduction in composure reduced, when vehicle speed is being controlled automatically by a speed control system” [Kelly; ¶: 0017].
With respect to claim 17, Sebastien does not specifically state: “wherein the characteristic map is selected according to a selected driving mode of the motor vehicle.”
Kelly teaches: “wherein the characteristic map is selected according to a selected driving mode of the motor vehicle” [Kelly; "It is to be understood that the VCU 10 is configured to implement a known Terrain Response (TR)® System of the kind described above in which the VCU 10 controls settings of one or more vehicle systems or sub-systems such as the powertrain controller 11 in dependence on a selected driving mode. The driving mode may be selected by a user by means of a driving mode selector 141S (FIG. 1);" ¶: 0092; See also: ¶: 0115-0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a vehicle according to a target speed and further modifying the target speed based on upcoming events as disclosed by Sebastien to incorporate the teachings regarding automatically controlling vehicle speed based on stored acceleration profiles as taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a vehicle according to a target speed and further modifying the target speed based on upcoming events that additionally: “has the advantage that a reduction in vehicle composure due to a relatively rapid increase in the amount of powertrain torque applied to one or more wheels of a vehicle following a period of powertrain torque interruption may be prevented, or the amount of the reduction in composure reduced, when vehicle speed is being controlled automatically by a speed control system” [Kelly; ¶: 0017].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastien in view of DÜSER (United States Patent Publication 2021/0262190 A1), referenced as Düser moving forward.
With respect to claim 16, Sebastien does not specifically state: “wherein the reduction of the speed increase is calculated using a characteristic map for the estimated deceleration.”
Düser, which is in the same field of invention of system/methods for controlling vehicle speed, teaches: “wherein the reduction of the speed increase is calculated using a characteristic map for the estimated deceleration” [Düser; "Furthermore, the need for timely braking is preferably factored into the dynamized speed profile. In order to determine suitable braking points at which braking must at the latest occur at a maximum target deceleration, which can be motor vehicle-dependent and/or driver-type-dependent, prior to dips in the static speed profile; i.e. negative speed jumps, the static speed profile is preferably searched backwards in this regard for positive jumps in speed 102 a, 102 b; 103 a, 103 b. Upon such a speed jump occurring, the speed value is calculated in each route segment i from the speed minimum of the respective speed jump, or previous route segment i−1, respectively using the following equation: vi = √(vi-12 + 2·Δs·a);" ¶: 0109; See also: ¶: 0110-0114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a vehicle according to a target speed and further modifying the target speed based on upcoming events as disclosed by Sebastien to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a maximum permissible speed change for an upcoming road section based on a prescribed maximum deceleration in order to generate a time-based dynamic speed profile with which to control a vehicle as taught by Düser with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a vehicle according to a target speed and further modifying the target speed based on upcoming events that is more robust in its ability to generate an even more realistically accurate speed profile with which to control the vehicle for an upcoming section of the road [Düser; ¶: 0051].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
SHIN (United States Patent Publication 2010/0161195 A1) discloses: A method is provided for automatically transitioning a cruise control speed from a current speed zone to a next speed zone. A location at which the speed zone limit changes from the current speed limit to the next speed limit forward of a driven vehicle is determined. A speed profile is determined for changing the vehicle speed from the current speed limit to the next speed limit. The speed profile includes non-linear changes in the vehicle speed between the current speed zone and the next speed zone for eliminating abrupt changes in the vehicle speed. A relative location is determined for initiating the non-linear changes in the speed of the vehicle. The non-linear changes are actuated in the speed of the vehicle at the relative location for gradually changing the speed to the next speed limit.
Morisaki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0019097 A1) discloses: A control system for a vehicle includes a rotary electric machine and an electronic control unit. The rotary electric machine is configured to generate regenerative braking force at a wheel by generating electric power with the use of power from the wheel during braking of the vehicle. The electronic control unit is configured to acquire information including a target stopping position of the vehicle and execute deceleration control for controlling a deceleration of the vehicle by controlling regenerative power generation up to the target stopping position. The electronic control unit is configured to prohibit the deceleration control when a predetermined driving mode set in advance in response to input through driver's operation is selected from among a plurality of driving modes having specific acceleration/deceleration characteristics.
KNOLLER et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0015320 A1) discloses: A longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle includes a detection system for detecting currently applying events and relevant events lying ahead, which require an adaptation of the permissible maximum speed, and a function unit which, when detecting a relevant event, while taking into account the location of the relevant event lying ahead, determines a location-dependent point in time, whose reaching causes the function unit to initiate an output of prompt information for permitting an automatic adaptation of the currently permissible maximum speed to a new permissible maximum speed. The function unit is designed, in the case of an activation of the longitudinally guiding driver assistance system, while taking into account a detected currently applying event, to initiate a first output of prompt information for permitting an automatic first setting of the currently applying permissible maximum speed as the new permissible maximum speed.
YOON et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0222483 A1) discloses: A vehicle and a control method of the vehicle are provided. The vehicle includes an engine management system to drive an engine to adjust a driving torque of the engine to accelerate the vehicle, a communicator to receive road gradient information, and a controller configured to control the engine management system such that running speed of the vehicle follows a target speed. The controller predicts an increase amount of speed of a next downhill section based on the road gradient information, and determines a start point of coasting control of a current section for maximizing a coasting distance based on the predicted speed increase amount.
Wolff et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0223435 A1) discloses: A vehicle control system determines an upper non-zero limit on deceleration of a vehicle to prevent rollback of the vehicle down a grade being traveled up on by the vehicle. The upper non-zero limit on deceleration is determined by the controller based on a payload carried by the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, and a grade of a route being traveled upon by the vehicle. The controller is configured to monitor the deceleration of the vehicle, and to automatically prevent the deceleration of the vehicle from exceeding the upper non-zero limit by controlling one or more of a brake or a motor of the vehicle. The controller also is configured to one or more of actuate the brake or supply current to the motor of the vehicle to prevent rollback of the vehicle while the vehicle is moving up the grade at a non-zero speed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666