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 . Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 6, 13, 15-16, and 20 have been amended. Claim 14 has been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within 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 Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “throttle controller” claims 1-13 and 15-20.
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.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “throttle controller” claims 1-13 and 15-20 uses a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves 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:
Throttle controller: [0029, 0084-0095]
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2022/0324449 A1) in view of Grewal (US 2017/0291605 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses a method performed by an adjustable cruise control system of a vehicle, the method comprising: providing a first throttle control output to a throttle controller of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be controlled in accordance with the first throttle control output (see at least [0062, 0064] - based on different road conditions in the vehicle traveling process, the accelerator opening degree for vehicle traveling needs to be adjusted in real time or periodically); determining a second throttle control output based at least in part on route information (see at least [0007, 0029, 0059-0060, 0062] – based on the traveling track and speed of the intelligent vehicle… the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is S2); determining a third throttle control output based at least in part on one or more parameters representing driver-preferred driving characteristics (see at least [0062] - the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is S1); obtaining a first cruise control weighting factor (see at least [0062] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1); determining a fourth throttle control output based at least in part on the first cruise control weighting factor, the second throttle control output, and the third throttle control output, wherein determining the fourth throttle control output comprises using the first cruise control weighting factor to weight the second throttle control output and the third throttle control output (see at least [0062] - a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2 – Examiner note: see paragraph [0038] of the specification, where one throttle control output is multiplied by a cruise control weighting factor, another throttle control output is multiplied by (1 - the cruise control weighting factor), and the resulting weight throttle control outputs are added together to generate the throttle control output to the throttle controller); providing the fourth throttle control output to the throttle controller of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be controlled in accordance with the fourth throttle control output (see at least [0062] - the automated driving controller may send the accelerator opening degree S to the vehicle execution system in the intelligent vehicle as content of the speed control instruction, so as to control traveling of the intelligent vehicle), after providing the fourth throttle control output to the throttle controller, determining that a current driving scenario corresponds to a predetermined driving scenario (see at least [0066-0069] – driver adjusts the driving style model); and in accordance with the determination that the current driving scenario corresponds to the predetermined driving scenario, automatically updating the first cruise control weighting factor to a second cruise control weighting factor (see at least [0062, 0069-0069] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… when the driver adjusts the driving style model, update the speed control instruction based on a driving style model adjusted by the driver and the target speed).
Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a second throttle control output based at least in part on upcoming route information.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining a second control output based at least in part on upcoming route information (see at least abstract, [0038] - calculate a modified vehicle speed having increased fuel economy for traversing the highway topography change compared to a fuel economy at a selected vehicle speed for the current highway topography condition and to change the vehicle speed to the modified vehicle speed having the increased fuel economy prior to reaching the upcoming highway topography change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Grewal into the invention of Shi with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of anticipating upcoming topography changes of the highway which can be used to modify the set vehicle speed, and particularly to optimize fuel economy for the upcoming or projected conditions rather than present topography conditions (Grewal – [0003-0004, 0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Shi discloses wherein the fourth throttle control output is a weighted combination of the second throttle control output and the third throttle control output based on the first cruise control weighting factor (see at least [0062] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2).
Regarding claim 4, Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose determining the second throttle control output based on one or more of: a topographic profile of the upcoming route, traffic on the upcoming route, turns in the upcoming route, or an upcoming speed limit.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining the second control output based on one or more of: a topographic profile of the upcoming route, traffic on the upcoming route, turns in the upcoming route, or an upcoming speed limit (see at least abstract, [0038] - calculate a modified vehicle speed having increased fuel economy for traversing the highway topography change compared to a fuel economy at a selected vehicle speed for the current highway topography condition and to change the vehicle speed to the modified vehicle speed having the increased fuel economy prior to reaching the upcoming highway topography change).
The motivation to combine Shi and Grewal is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the topographic profile of the upcoming route, the traffic on the upcoming route, the turns in the upcoming route, or the upcoming speed limit is detected by one or more sensors on the vehicle.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein one or more of the topographic profile of the upcoming route, the traffic on the upcoming route, the turns in the upcoming route, or the upcoming speed limit is detected by one or more sensors on the vehicle (see at least [0037] - GPS vehicle location data may be continuously updated by the controller 52 of the motor vehicle 12 and the topography data is applied together with the motor vehicle GPS location data to “look ahead” of the motor vehicle 12 for predicted and known upcoming changes required to the cruise control system conditions).
The motivation to combine Shi and Grewal is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Shi discloses further comprising: determining a fifth throttle control output based at least in part on updated route information, and determining a sixth throttle control output based at least in part on the one or more parameters representing the driver-preferred driving characteristics; determining a seventh throttle control output based at least in part on the second cruise control weighting factor, the fifth throttle control output, and the sixth throttle control output (see at least [0062, 0066-0069] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2… when the driver adjusts the driving style model, update the speed control instruction based on a driving style model adjusted by the driver and the target speed); providing the seventh throttle control output to the throttle controller of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be controlled in accordance with the seventh throttle control output (see at least [0062, 0066-0069] - the automated driving controller may send the accelerator opening degree S to the vehicle execution system in the intelligent vehicle as content of the speed control instruction, so as to control traveling of the intelligent vehicle).
Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a fifth throttle control output based at least in part on upcoming route information.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining a fifth control output based at least in part on upcoming route information (see at least abstract, [0038] - calculate a modified vehicle speed having increased fuel economy for traversing the highway topography change compared to a fuel economy at a selected vehicle speed for the current highway topography condition and to change the vehicle speed to the modified vehicle speed having the increased fuel economy prior to reaching the upcoming highway topography change).
The motivation to combine Shi and Grewal is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the determination that the current driving scenario corresponds to the predetermined scenario is based on information received from one or more sensors of the vehicle.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the determination that the current driving scenario corresponds to the predetermined scenario is based on information received from one or more sensors of the vehicle (see at least [0037-0038] - GPS vehicle location data may be continuously updated by the controller 52 of the motor vehicle 12 and the topography data is applied together with the motor vehicle GPS location data to “look ahead” of the motor vehicle 12 for predicted and known upcoming changes required to the cruise control system conditions… at a predetermined distance from a next change in topography, calculate from multiple variable engine and vehicle speeds an optimum vehicle speed to maximize fuel economy as the motor vehicle 12 approaches and traverses the downhill portion).
The motivation to combine Shi and Grewal is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Shi discloses further comprising: after providing the fourth throttle control output, determining: a fifth throttle control output based at least in part on updated information, and a sixth throttle control output based at least in part on the one or more parameters representing the driver-preferred driving characteristics (see at least [0062, 0066-0069] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2… when the driver adjusts the driving style model, update the speed control instruction based on a driving style model adjusted by the driver and the target speed); obtaining a second cruise control weighting factor (see at least [0062, 0069-0069] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… when the driver adjusts the driving style model, update the speed control instruction based on a driving style model adjusted by the driver and the target speed); determining a seventh throttle control output based at least in part on the second cruise control weighting factor, the fifth throttle control output, and the sixth throttle control output (see at least [0062, 0066-0069] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2… when the driver adjusts the driving style model, update the speed control instruction based on a driving style model adjusted by the driver and the target speed); and providing the seventh throttle control output to the throttle controller of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be controlled in accordance with the seventh throttle control output (see at least [0062, 0066-0069] - the automated driving controller may send the accelerator opening degree S to the vehicle execution system in the intelligent vehicle as content of the speed control instruction, so as to control traveling of the intelligent vehicle).
Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose determining: a fifth throttle control output based at least in part on updated upcoming route information.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining: a fifth control output based at least in part on updated upcoming route information (see at least abstract, [0038] - calculate a modified vehicle speed having increased fuel economy for traversing the highway topography change compared to a fuel economy at a selected vehicle speed for the current highway topography condition and to change the vehicle speed to the modified vehicle speed having the increased fuel economy prior to reaching the upcoming highway topography change).
The motivation to combine Shi and Grewal is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Shi discloses further comprising: before providing the first throttle control: detecting a user input requesting to engage the cruise control system, and engaging the cruise control system in response to detecting the user input (see at least [0026-0027, 0036-0042] – driver selects the automated driving mode and driving style model), wherein the first cruise control weighting factor is obtained in response to the user input (see at least [0062] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1).
Regarding claim 12, Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more parameters representing driver-preferred driving characteristics comprise one or more parameters representing one or more of: a driver’s preferred minimum following distance to a leading vehicle, a maximum absolute velocity, a maximum velocity relative to the leading vehicle, a maximum absolute acceleration, a maximum acceleration relative to the leading vehicle, a maximum jerk, or a minimum time headway to the leading vehicle.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the one or more parameters representing driver-preferred driving characteristics comprise one or more parameters representing one or more of: a driver’s preferred minimum following distance to a leading vehicle, a maximum absolute velocity (see at least [0036-0037] - After the vehicle operator initiates operation of the cruise control system 10, enters the selected speed “S”, and enters the speed deviation “SD” values above and below the selected speed “S”.), a maximum velocity relative to the leading vehicle, a maximum absolute acceleration, a maximum acceleration relative to the leading vehicle, a maximum jerk, or a minimum time headway to the leading vehicle.
The motivation to combine Shi and Grewal is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Shi discloses method performed by an adjustable cruise control system of a vehicle, the method comprising: obtaining a first cruise control weighting factor as a cruise control weighting factor, wherein the cruise control weighting factor is a selectable and variable indication of a preference for the cruise control system (see at least [0062] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1) between a cruise control behavior (see at least [0007, 0029, 0059-0060, 0062] – based on the traveling track and speed of the intelligent vehicle) and a driver-preferred driving behavior (see at least [0062] - the driving style), wherein obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor comprises obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor based on information (see at least [0007, 0029, 0059-0060, 0062] – based on the traveling track and speed of the intelligent vehicle); determining, by a cruise control system, a first throttle control output based at least in part on first route information, parameters representing driver-preferred driving characteristics, and the first cruise control weighting factor, wherein determining the first throttle control output comprises using the first cruise control weighting factor to weight a second throttle control output that is based on the first route information and a third throttle control output that is based on the parameters representing driver-preferred driving characteristics (see at least [0007, 0029, 0059-0060, 0062] – based on the traveling track and speed of the intelligent vehicle… the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is S2… the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is S1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2), wherein determining the first throttle control output comprises using the first cruise control weighting factor to weight a second throttle control output that is based on the first route information and a third throttle control output that is based on the parameters representing driver-preferred driving characteristics (see at least [0007, 0029, 0059-0060, 0062] – based on the traveling track and speed of the intelligent vehicle… the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is S2… the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is S1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2); and providing the first throttle control output to a throttle controller of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be controlled in accordance with the first throttle control output (see at least [0062] - the automated driving controller may send the accelerator opening degree S to the vehicle execution system in the intelligent vehicle as content of the speed control instruction, so as to control traveling of the intelligent vehicle).
Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose a predictive cruise control (PCC) behavior; obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor based on information received from sensors on the vehicle; a first throttle control output based at least in part on first upcoming route information.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a predictive cruise control (PCC) behavior (see at least abstract, [0038] - calculate a modified vehicle speed having increased fuel economy for traversing the highway topography change compared to a fuel economy at a selected vehicle speed for the current highway topography condition and to change the vehicle speed to the modified vehicle speed having the increased fuel economy prior to reaching the upcoming highway topography change); obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor based on information received from sensors on the vehicle (see at least [0033, 0037-0038] - The control logic includes or enables a plurality of logic routines for monitoring, manipulating, and generating data and control signals. The controller 50 may be connected to multiple sensors providing input data on transmission operating conditions… GPS vehicle location data may be continuously updated by the controller 52 of the motor vehicle 12 and the topography data is applied together with the motor vehicle GPS location data to “look ahead” of the motor vehicle 12 for predicted and known upcoming changes required to the cruise control system conditions… at a predetermined distance from a next change in topography, calculate from multiple variable engine and vehicle speeds an optimum vehicle speed to maximize fuel economy as the motor vehicle 12 approaches and traverses the downhill portion); a first throttle control output based at least in part on first upcoming route information (see at least abstract, [0038] - calculate a modified vehicle speed having increased fuel economy for traversing the highway topography change compared to a fuel economy at a selected vehicle speed for the current highway topography condition and to change the vehicle speed to the modified vehicle speed having the increased fuel economy prior to reaching the upcoming highway topography change).
The motivation to combine Shi and Grewal is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Shi discloses further comprising: after providing the first throttle control output to the throttle controller, receiving a second cruise control weighting factor that is different from the first cruise control weighting factor (see at least [0062, 0069-0069] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… when the driver adjusts the driving style model, update the speed control instruction based on a driving style model adjusted by the driver and the target speed); determining, by the cruise control system, a second throttle control output based at least in part on second upcoming route information, the parameters representing driver-preferred driving characteristics, and the second cruise control weighting factor (see at least [0062, 0066-0069] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2… when the driver adjusts the driving style model, update the speed control instruction based on a driving style model adjusted by the driver and the target speed); and providing the second throttle control output to the throttle controller of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to be controlled in accordance with the second throttle control output (see at least [0062, 0066-0069] - the automated driving controller may send the accelerator opening degree S to the vehicle execution system in the intelligent vehicle as content of the speed control instruction, so as to control traveling of the intelligent vehicle).
Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose a second throttle control output based at least in part on second upcoming route information.
Grewal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a second throttle control output based at least in part on second upcoming route information (see at least abstract, [0038] - calculate a modified vehicle speed having increased fuel economy for traversing the highway topography change compared to a fuel economy at a selected vehicle speed for the current highway topography condition and to change the vehicle speed to the modified vehicle speed having the increased fuel economy prior to reaching the upcoming highway topography change).
The motivation to combine Shi and Grewal is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Grewal and Laiou (US 2009/0265073 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein determining the fourth throttle control output comprises selecting the second throttle control output or the third throttle control output based on the first cruise control weighting factor.
However, Shi does disclose wherein determining the fourth throttle control output comprises combining the second throttle control output and the third throttle control output based on the first cruise control weighting factor (see at least [0062] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the limitation of selecting the second throttle control output or the third throttle control output corresponds to a situation in Shi’s invention where one of the weights (a1 or a2) is 0 and the other weight is 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement this situation (or modification) with a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results.
Laiou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein determining the fourth control output comprises selecting the second control output or the third control output based on the first cruise control weighting factor (see at least [0008, 0023] - The vehicle speed v_Fzg is determined as a function of the determined provisional first speed value v1 either from the provisional first speed value v1 or from the provisional second speed value v2 or from a combination of the first and second speed values v1 and v2. The weighting factor A serves to weigh the two provisionally determined speed values v1 and v2 such that the total of the weighting is 1. The definition of the weighting factor A ensures that the vehicle speed v_Fzg is further calculated if the determined provisional first speed value v1 is zero.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Laiou into the invention of Shi with a reasonable expectation of success because Laiou demonstrates that it is obvious when using two weight values that sum up to 1, the weight of one parameter can be 0 and the weight of the other parameter can be 1 such that only one of the parameters is taken into account (or selected for implementation). Alternatively, the weight of the parameters can be variable between 0 and 1 such that a combination of the values is taken into account. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement this modification to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Grewal and Rakshit (US 2020/0164881 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined driving scenario corresponds to another vehicle passing the vehicle.
Rakshit, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the predetermined driving scenario corresponds to another vehicle passing the vehicle (see at least [0073] - The driver passing characteristics can include changes in speed according to prior responses to passing vehicles determined from the driver history 414, such as increase speed while being passed, decreasing speed while being passed, and combinations thereof.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Rakshit into the invention of Shi with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of taking into account driver characteristics for successful and safe passing attempts, such as when the vehicle is being passed by another vehicle (Rakshit – [0063, 0073]). This is particularly advantageous in the situation shown in Fig. 4 of Rakshit where the vehicle is being passed by a vehicle in the oncoming lane and there is oncoming traffic. If the vehicle increases speed in this situation it is likely to cause a dangerous incident. Decreasing the speed while being passed in this situation is safer.
Claims 10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Grewal and Thomas (US 2017/0144659 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the second cruise control weighting factor comprises generating the second cruise control weighting factor based on a measure of cruise control usage, and wherein the second cruise control weighting factor increases a weight of the sixth throttle control output versus a weight of the fifth throttle control output based on the measure.
However, Shi does disclose wherein obtaining the second cruise control weighting factor comprises generating the second cruise control weighting factor based on a measure, and wherein the second cruise control weighting factor increases a weight of the sixth throttle control output versus a weight of the fifth throttle control output based on the measure (see at least [0062, 0066-0069] - the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the driving style model algorithm is a1, the weight of the accelerator opening degree obtained by using the proportional-integral-derivative algorithm is a2… a1 + a2 = 1… a finally determined accelerator opening degree S = S1 × a1 + S2 × a2… when the driver adjusts the driving style model, update the speed control instruction based on a driving style model adjusted by the driver and the target speed).
Thomas, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein obtaining the second cruise control weighting factor comprises generating the second cruise control weighting factor based on a measure of cruise control usage, and wherein the second cruise control weighting factor increases a weight of the sixth throttle control output versus a weight of the fifth throttle control output based on the measure (see at least Fig. 2, [0014, 0020-0025] - In a step 140, a determination is made whether the number of cruise control overrides by the driver and/or the other drivers at the current location and/or additional previous vehicle locations that have similar road terrain and, optionally, current road conditions is at least a predetermined number (e.g., three (3))… In the step 142, the ECU 14 creates a profile of the driver behavior associated with the current geographic location and/or the additional previous vehicle locations that have similar road terrain and/or road conditions based on the respective actions by the driver and, optionally, other drivers (e.g., previous drivers) at the current geographic location and the additional previous vehicle locations that have similar road terrain... In a step 144, a determination is made whether the profile (e.g., the behavior profile) created in the step 142 is acceptable (e.g., safe) for the road terrain at the current geographic location and the additional previous vehicle locations. In one embodiment, the determination in the step 144 is also made based on the current road condition. If it is determined in the step 144 that the behavior profile created in the step 142 is not acceptable, control returns to the step 110. Otherwise, if it is determined in the step 144 that the behavior profile created in the step 142 is acceptable, the behavior profile created in the step 142 is set as a default behavior profile for the current geographic location and the additional previous vehicle locations in a step 146.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Thomas into the invention of Shi with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of balancing safety and driver sentiment by modifying the profile of driver behavior at a vehicle location where the cruise control is overridden a threshold number of times by a driver (Thomas – [0002, 0004]).
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 10, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 10; therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 2; therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 6; therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 6; therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, Shi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions cause the system to obtain the second cruise control weighing factor in response to determining that a measure of cruise control usage fails to satisfy a threshold.
Thomas, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions cause the system to obtain the second cruise control weighing factor in response to determining that a measure of cruise control usage fails to satisfy a threshold (see at least Fig. 2, [0014, 0020-0025] - In a step 140, a determination is made whether the number of cruise control overrides by the driver and/or the other drivers at the current location and/or additional previous vehicle locations that have similar road terrain and, optionally, current road conditions is at least a predetermined number (e.g., three (3))… In the step 142, the ECU 14 creates a profile of the driver behavior associated with the current geographic location and/or the additional previous vehicle locations that have similar road terrain and/or road conditions based on the respective actions by the driver and, optionally, other drivers (e.g., previous drivers) at the current geographic location and the additional previous vehicle locations that have similar road terrain... In a step 144, a determination is made whether the profile (e.g., the behavior profile) created in the step 142 is acceptable (e.g., safe) for the road terrain at the current geographic location and the additional previous vehicle locations. In one embodiment, the determination in the step 144 is also made based on the current road condition. If it is determined in the step 144 that the behavior profile created in the step 142 is not acceptable, control returns to the step 110. Otherwise, if it is determined in the step 144 that the behavior profile created in the step 142 is acceptable, the behavior profile created in the step 142 is set as a default behavior profile for the current geographic location and the additional previous vehicle locations in a step 146.).
The motivation to combine Shi and Thomas is the same as in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-17 filed 1/22/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: With respect to newly amended claim 1, Applicant argues that driver-initiated changes to a style selection and updating a speed control instruction as described by Shi are not the same as “determining that a current driving scenario corresponds to a predetermined driving scenario” as in claim 1. Shi does not disclose a system that detects a predetermined scenario and automatically updates the cruise control weighting factor based on that detection.
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite “detect a predetermined scenario” as Applicant argues. In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., detect a predetermined scenario) are not recited in newly amended claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Newly amended claim 1 recites “determining a predetermined scenario”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of determining is different from the broadest reasonable interpretation of detecting. For example, claim 8 recites that the predetermined scenario is based on information receiving from one or more sensors (i.e., detecting), and for this limitation the examiner relied upon Grewal (see at least paragraphs [0037-0038]). With regards to Shi reading on the limitation “determining that a current driving scenario corresponds to a predetermined driving scenario”, the examiner first determines the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the limitation. Under BRI, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. Additionally, though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. The claim does not require that the scenario be detected or otherwise determined based on sensors. The claim also does not require that the scenario be environment specific. Therefore, according to broadest reasonable interpretation, any driving configuration determined in advance that governs vehicle behavior can constitute a predetermined scenario. In Shi (see at least paragraphs [0066-0069, 0085]), the driver can select a driving style model (i.e., aggressive or conservative – see paragraph [0052] of Shi) from the driving style model library (i.e., the driving styles are preconfigured), the driver’s selection is identified control of the vehicle is adjusted accordingly. The driver-selected driving style model defines the parameters such as acceleration and braking prior to operation. Accordingly, the driving conditions governing vehicle behavior are determined in advance, which constitutes a predetermined driving scenario. The arguments pertaining to Grewal for this limitation are moot, as the examiner does not rely upon Grewal for the argued limitation.
Applicant’s argument: With respect to newly amended claim 13, Applicant argues that Grewal does not disclose “obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor” or wherein “the first cruise control weighting factor [is used] to weight [the] second throttle control output […] and [the] third throttle control output” as recited in claim 13.
Examiner’s response: The examiner does not rely upon Grewal and instead relies upon Shi for the limitations “obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor” and “the first cruise control weighting factor [is used] to weight [the] second throttle control output […] and [the] third throttle control output” as recited in claim 13. Furthermore, the examiner relies upon the combination of Shi and Grewal to teach the limitation “obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor based on information received from sensors on the vehicle.” To clarify, Shi does disclose that the first cruise control weighting factor comprises obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor based on information, but does not explicitly disclose that this information is received from sensors on the vehicle. The examiner relies upon Grewal to teach using information from sensors to adjust a preselected cruise control speed. In Shi, the first cruise control weighting factor is based on an information, and in Grewal the cruise control is adjusted based on the information from sensors. The claim very broadly recites “based on information received from sensors” and does not recite specific equations or formulas as to how exactly the information from the sensors is taken into account. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to take into account sensor information when obtaining Shi’s first cruise control weighting factor with a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the combination of Shi and Grewal teach the limitation “obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor based on information received from sensors on the vehicle.” In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument: With respect to claim 16, Applicant argues that Thomas does not disclose “wherein obtaining the second cruise control weighting factor comprises generating the second cruise control weighting factor based on a measure of cruise control usage, and wherein the second cruise control weighting factor increases a weight of the sixth throttle control output versus a weight of the fifth throttle control output based on the measure.”
Examiner’s response: The examiner relies upon the combination of Shi and Thomas to teach the limitation “wherein obtaining the second cruise control weighting factor comprises generating the second cruise control weighting factor based on a measure of cruise control usage, and wherein the second cruise control weighting factor increases a weight of the sixth throttle control output versus a weight of the fifth throttle control output based on the measure.” To clarify, Shi does disclose wherein obtaining the second cruise control weighting factor comprises generating the second cruise control weighting factor based on a measure, and wherein the second cruise control weighting factor increases a weight of the sixth throttle control output versus a weight of the fifth throttle control output based on the measure, but does not explicitly disclose that this measure is a measure of cruise control usage. The examiner relies upon Thomas to teach adjusting cruise control based on a measure of cruise control usage. In Shi, the second cruise control weighting factor is based on a driver profile, and in Thomas the driver profile is created based on the driver overrides of the cruise control (cruise control usage). The claim very broadly recites “based on a measure of cruise control usage” and does not recite specific equations or formulas as to how exactly the cruise control usage is taken into account. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to take into account cruise control usage when obtaining Shi’s second cruise control weighting factor with a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the combination of Shi and Thomas teach the limitation “obtaining the first cruise control weighting factor based on information received from sensors on the vehicle.” In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669