DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application and IDS filed 7/8/2024.
In the application Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Acknowledgement is made for foreign priority to 10-2023-0179093 (KR), filed 12/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/8/2024 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
6. The Drawings filed on 7/8/2024 have been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims recite “driving situation information” however the specification lack clarity has to what specific data encompasses the situation information (ex: traffic conditions, weather, road geometry, other vehicles etc.). In addition, the claims recite “control information of a section including the control command value” but it unclear from the specification what constitutes a section and/or how it’s used, for example is it a lookup table, time segment, data structure, map region? Furthermore, the phrase “set an initial state” to an acceleration device operating state is not adequately described in the specification thereby a PHOSITA would not understand how to implement or use this step. In the specification paragraph 65 only appears to repeat that the control device may set the initial state of the host vehicle.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recites: “driving situation information” & “information of a section”
The phrase “situation information” is undefined and vague in the claims has it could include an unlimited number of variables that could comprise a situation during driving. Furthermore, it is unclear what defines a “section”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of these limitations. Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
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.
9. Claims 1, 6, 9, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (U.S. Pub 2010/0121549, filed Nov. 9, 2009) in view of Cullen (U.S. 6,295,500, filed Jun. 26, 2000).
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 16, Fukuda discloses A vehicle control apparatus, comprising:
a sensor device (see paragraphs 31-32, discloses acceleration, wheel speed and pedal position sensors 21);
an acceleration device configured to adjust a driving speed of a host vehicle (see paragraph 35, discloses an acceleration control ECU 10 that receives signals from the sensors for controlling the vehicle acceleration at a target acceleration);
a deceleration device configured to adjust the driving speed of the host vehicle (see paragraphs 35 & 96, discloses a brake ECU 40 that controls a drive force and a braking force of the vehicle. Further describing a brake pedal for deceleration);
a memory configured to store instructions (see paragraph 57); and
a control device operatively connected to the sensor device, the acceleration device, the deceleration device, and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: set an initial state of the host vehicle to an acceleration device operating state (see paragraphs 31, 35 and 45, discloses that the ECU 10 is connected to all sensors and actuators. Further paragraphs 11-12, disclose setting an initial value based on demanded acceleration estimated at the start timing of control. The demanded acceleration represents what the driver is requesting via the acceleration device (pedal));
generate a required acceleration based on driving situation information and a host vehicle acceleration obtained based on the sensor device (see paragraphs 32 and 41-42, discloses that the required acceleration is the target acceleration of the control system. Further disclosing that the host vehicle acceleration is obtained based on situation information via preceding vehicles (traffic conditions, relative position/speed of other vehicles) and a wheel speed sensors);
control at least one of the acceleration device or the deceleration device based on control information of a section including the control command value (see paragraphs 35 and 50, discloses that the control torque is distributed to engine acceleration device and brake deceleration device ECUs for execution. Further disclosing that both acceleration and deceleration devices are controlled based on the calculated torque command). Fukuda teaches calculating torque command from acceleration demand and using stored maps to identify torque commands but fails to teach using “control information of a section” (see paragraphs 49 and 56-57).
Cullen discloses:
identify a control command value that corresponds to the required acceleration and is to be delivered to at least one of the acceleration device or the deceleration device (see fig. 6 & col. 5, lines 10-67 & col. 6, lines 25-35, discloses use of a lookup table to covert desired acceleration into a torque command value via feedforward control torque, which is a control command value that corresponds to the required acceleration. Further showing that acceleration is converted to wheel torque command using established relationships. Also demonstrating use of lookup tables indexed by relevant parameters to identify control values. In addition, disclosing torque commands converted to airflow commands for throttle (acceleration device)); Both Fukuda and Cullen are from the same field of endeavor of longitudinal vehicle control (acceleration/deceleration control) using command value and control information. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented Cullen’s table-based approach to solve the efficiency concern of Fukuda. The motivation being that it provides table lookup with immediate response and without computational delays mentioned in paragraph 9 of Fukuda.
Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 1, Fukuda fails to teach a first and second acceleration device. Cullen discloses wherein: the acceleration device includes a first accelerator and a second accelerator; the deceleration device includes a first decelerator and a second decelerator; and the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine that the control command value is included in a first section when the control command value is greater than a sum of a first maximum driving amount of the first decelerator and a first threshold value, set a current state of the host vehicle to a simultaneous acceleration device operating state based on first control information corresponding to the first section, control the first accelerator based on the first maximum driving amount, and control the second accelerator based on a value from subtracting the first maximum driving amount from the control command value (see Fig. 1 & col. 2, lines 30-45 & col. 3, lines 49-60, discloses engine 10 and motor 11 both capable of providing drive torque. Further disclosing that engine 10 and motor 11 can be coupled in various ways such as in parallel, series or any other combination). Both Fukuda and Cullen are from the same field of endeavor of longitudinal vehicle control (acceleration/deceleration control) using command value and control information. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented Cullen’s table-based approach to solve the efficiency concern of Fukuda. The motivation being that it provides table lookup with immediate response and without computational delays mentioned in paragraph 9 of Fukuda.
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 1, Fukuda fails to teach a first and second acceleration device. Cullen discloses wherein: the acceleration device includes a first accelerator and a second accelerator; the deceleration device includes a first decelerator and a second decelerator; and the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine that the control command value is included in a third section when the control command value is included between a difference between a first maximum driving amount of the first accelerator and a second threshold value and a sum of a minimum driving amount and a third threshold value, set a current state of the host vehicle to a first accelerator operating state based on third control information corresponding to the third section, and control the first accelerator based on the control command value (see Fig. 1 & col. 2, lines 30-45 & col. 3, lines 49-60, discloses engine 10 and motor 11 both capable of providing drive torque. Further disclosing that engine 10 and motor 11 can be coupled in various ways such as in parallel, series or any other combination). Both Fukuda and Cullen are from the same field of endeavor of longitudinal vehicle control (acceleration/deceleration control) using command value and control information. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented Cullen’s table-based approach to solve the efficiency concern of Fukuda. The motivation being that it provides table lookup with immediate response and without computational delays mentioned in paragraph 9 of Fukuda.
Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 1, Fukuda fails to teach a first and second acceleration device. Cullen discloses wherein: the acceleration device includes a first accelerator and a second accelerator; the deceleration device includes a first decelerator and a second decelerator; and the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine that the control command value is included in a fifth section when the control command value is included between a difference between a minimum driving amount and a fourth threshold value and a sum of a second maximum driving amount and a fifth threshold value, set a current state of the host vehicle to a first decelerator operating state based on fifth control information corresponding to the fifth section, and control the first decelerator based on the control command value (see Fig. 1 & col. 2, lines 30-45 & col. 3, lines 49-60, discloses engine 10 and motor 11 both capable of providing drive torque. Further disclosing that engine 10 and motor 11 can be coupled in various ways such as in parallel, series or any other combination). Both Fukuda and Cullen are from the same field of endeavor of longitudinal vehicle control (acceleration/deceleration control) using command value and control information. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented Cullen’s table-based approach to solve the efficiency concern of Fukuda. The motivation being that it provides table lookup with immediate response and without computational delays mentioned in paragraph 9 of Fukuda.
Regarding Dependent claim 15, with dependency of claim 1, Fukuda fails to teach a first and second acceleration device. Cullen discloses wherein: the acceleration device includes a first accelerator and a second accelerator; the deceleration device includes a first decelerator and a second decelerator; and the instructions, when executed by the control device, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine that the control command value is included in a seventh section when the control command value is smaller than or equal to a difference between a second maximum driving amount of the first decelerator and a sixth threshold value, set a current state of the host vehicle to a simultaneous deceleration device operating state based on seventh control information corresponding to the seventh section, control the first decelerator based on the second maximum driving amount, and control the second decelerator based on a value from summing the control command value and a first maximum driving amount of the first accelerator (see Fig. 1 & col. 2, lines 30-45 & col. 3, lines 49-60, discloses engine 10 and motor 11 both capable of providing drive torque. Further disclosing that engine 10 and motor 11 can be coupled in various ways such as in parallel, series or any other combination). Both Fukuda and Cullen are from the same field of endeavor of longitudinal vehicle control (acceleration/deceleration control) using command value and control information. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented Cullen’s table-based approach to solve the efficiency concern of Fukuda. The motivation being that it provides table lookup with immediate response and without computational delays mentioned in paragraph 9 of Fukuda.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
12/23/2025