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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are 2 recitations of claim 16; one for the method of claim 1, and one for the method of claim 12. The claims should be renumbered accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 and 17-20 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, at no point in the disclosure does the invention define improper acceleration detection based on “a detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds an exhaust gas composition threshold value more than the predetermined number of times over the predetermined time period” as recited in claims 3 and 18-20. Such language is not found to be sufficiently within the disclosure, and is not implicitly suggested by the combination of features disclosed.
Similarly, at no point in the disclosure does the invention define improper acceleration detection based on “when the detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds a threshold value more than three times over the predetermined time period of 30 seconds” as recited in claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallapa (US8131441B2) in view of Gratz (US20070158128A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nallapa teaches;
A method for detecting and controlling incorrect operation of a motor vehicle (80), comprising:
using at least one sensor unit (20) for detecting data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of a driver of the motor vehicle (80) (taught as an acceleration torque module, element 22, which determines acceleration operation by the driver, column 4 lines 14-16) by detecting an actuation of an accelerator pedal of the motor vehicle (taught as an accelerator pedal position, column 4 lines 32-40);
using a processing unit (22) for determining (200) the current acceleration behavior of the driver of the motor vehicle (80) based on the data indicative of the current acceleration behavior of a driver of the motor vehicle (80) (taught as a driving mode/condition controller, element 16, which evaluates the conditions such as whether acceleration is over a set threshold, column 3 lines 13-23);
using a control unit (24) (taught as a powertrain control module [PCM], element 12, including a torque and pedal feel controller, element 20) for controlling (300) an operation of the motor vehicle (80) based on the determined current acceleration behavior determined by the processing unit (22) (taught as the PCM transmitting signals regarding torque, column 3 lines 57-62); and
reducing a [[maximum]] speed available for operation of the motor vehicle (80) when an improper acceleration behavior of the motor vehicle is detected (taught as adjusting the toque response based on driver conditions and driver modes, column 3 line 62-column 4 line 4, such as by determining a compensation value to reduce acceleration torque requested by a driver, column 4 lines 41-54),
wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when actuation of the accelerator pedal by more than a predetermined travel amount, as detected by the at least one sensor unit, occurs more than a predetermined number of times [examiner notes that a predetermined number of times still includes one time, and thus responding to an overaccelerating operation once would fulfill the requirements in this language] over a predetermined time period (taught as considering the driver_cond [driver condition], which indicates conditions including over accelerations over a set max threshold, column 3 lines 24-30, which is used to generate the appropriate torque response, column 3 line 62-column 4 line 4).
However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; reducing a maximum speed available for operation of the motor vehicle (80).
Gratz teaches; reducing a maximum speed available for operation of the motor vehicle (80) (taught as limiting the maximum vehicle operating speed, based on user and the current situation that the driver is in, paragraph 0035).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a maximum speed limit as suggested by Gratz in the system taught by Nallapa in order to improve safety. Restrictions based on user/situations, as suggested by Gratz, can limit functions of the vehicle based on sensory input (paragraph 0038) and ensure that a user complies with certain rules/behaviors (paragraph 0044). Nallapa already desires to address undesirable vehicle use (column 1 lines 28-39), which one would find obvious to extend with the practices of Gratz. To reiterate, one would take the system taught by Nallapa, which detects driver behavior and already adjusts/provides limits on certain functions of a vehicle in response to such behavior/situations, and further apply the teachings of Gratz to limit a maximum speed limit.
Regarding claim 4, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; further comprising preventing controlling (300) an operation of the motor vehicle (80) if a driving stage is changed.
Gratz teaches; further comprising preventing controlling (300) an operation of the motor vehicle (80) if a driving stage [interpreted to mean detecting a certain change in driving conditions, such as for passing or collision avoidance] is changed (taught as an overriding function that stops the restrictions in the case of an emergency, paragraph 0054).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement overriding of restriction functions as suggested by Gratz in the system taught by Nallapa in order to improve safety. Restrictions based on user/situations, as suggested by Gratz, can limit functions of the vehicle based on sensory input (paragraph 0038) and ensure that a user complies with certain rules/behaviors (paragraph 0044). However, conditions where other values take precedence, such as collision avoidance, may dictate that it is overall safer to break the rules than to follow them. To that end, Gratz teaches that during emergency conditions, the overriding function can override a restriction if there’s an emergency, such as danger of collision (paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 5, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Nallapa further teaches; wherein the at least one sensor unit (20) further comprises a temperature sensor (indicated in the consideration of ambient temperature and engine coolant temperature in detecting environmental conditions, column 3 lines 33-35), and detecting (100) data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of a driver of the motor vehicle (80) comprises using the temperature sensor (taught as factoring in driving conditions corresponding to environmental conditions, including ambient temperature and engine coolant temperature, column 3 lines 24-35).
Regarding claim 7, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Nallapa further teaches; wherein the at least one sensor unit (20) further comprises a pressure sensor (indicated as a sensor to detect accelerator position by detecting a desired amount of accelerator torque based on the position of the acceleration pedal, column 4 lines 22-24), and detecting (100) data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of a driver of the motor vehicle (80) comprises using the pressure sensor (taught as using the desired amount of accelerator torque in determining the actual delivered torque by modifying the signal to reduce the resultant accelerator torque, column 4 lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 9, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Nallapa further teaches; wherein controlling (300) an operation of the motor vehicle (80) takes place with consideration (taught as adjusting the toque response based on driver conditions and driver modes, column 3 line 62-column 4 line 4) of at least [interpreted to indicate that only one of the following conditions are needed to be considered] one of: a current driving situation, a current vehicle speed (taught as basing the driver condition signal on conditions on speed, such as based on a speed limit, column 3 lines 24-31), a current traffic volume (taught as considering driving mode based on the type of driving, column 3 lines 39-43), a current road condition (taught as considering environmental characteristics, such as slippery road conditions or cold weather conditions, column 3 lines 27-31), characteristics of the sensor unit (20), and characteristics of the processing unit (22).
Regarding claim 10, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; wherein reducing the maximum speed available for operation of the motor vehicle (80) when an improper acceleration behavior is detected comprises reducing the speed to < 1500m/min.
Gratz teaches; wherein reducing the maximum speed available for operation of the motor vehicle (80) [[when the improper acceleration behavior is detected]] comprises reducing the speed to less than 1500m/min (taught as setting a maximum operating speed to be 55 mph for highways; 1500 m/min is roughly 56 mph, and while it is not exactly the same, such variation of a specific, “optimal” value would fall into routine and simple experimentation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a maximum speed limit as suggested by Gratz in the system taught by Nallapa in order to improve safety. Restrictions based on user/situations, as suggested by Gratz, can limit functions of the vehicle based on sensory input (paragraph 0038) and ensure that a user complies with certain rules/behaviors (paragraph 0044). Nallapa already desires to address undesirable vehicle use (column 1 lines 28-39), which one would find obvious to extend with the practices of Gratz. To reiterate, one would take the system taught by Nallapa, which detects driver behavior and already adjusts/provides limits on certain functions of a vehicle in response to such behavior/situations, and further apply the teachings of Gratz to limit a maximum speed limit.
Regarding claim 12-13, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12-13 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallapa (US8131441B2) in view of Gratz (US20070158128A1) and Cummins (WO2023230344A1) and evidenced by Wikipedia (Exhaust Gas Analyzer, 2021).
Regarding claim 3, Nallapa teaches;
using at least one sensor unit (20) for detecting data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of a driver of the motor vehicle (80) (taught as an acceleration torque module, element 22, which determines acceleration operation by the driver, column 4 lines 14-16) by detecting an actuation of an accelerator pedal of the motor vehicle (taught as an accelerator pedal position, column 4 lines 32-40);
using a processing unit (22) for determining (200) the current acceleration behavior of the driver of the motor vehicle (80) based on the data indicative of the current acceleration behavior of a driver of the motor vehicle (80) (taught as a driving mode/condition controller, element 16, which evaluates the conditions such as whether acceleration is over a set threshold, column 3 lines 13-23);
using a control unit (24) (taught as a powertrain control module [PCM], element 12, including a torque and pedal feel controller, element 20) for controlling (300) an operation of the motor vehicle (80) based on the determined current acceleration behavior determined by the processing unit (22) (taught as the PCM transmitting signals regarding torque, column 3 lines 57-62); and
reducing a [[maximum]] speed available for operation of the motor vehicle (80) when an improper acceleration behavior of the motor vehicle is detected (taught as adjusting the toque response based on driver conditions and driver modes, column 3 line 62-column 4 line 4, such as by determining a compensation value to reduce acceleration torque requested by a driver, column 4 lines 41-54).
However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; wherein the at least one sensor unit (20) comprises a lambda sensor, and detecting (100) data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of the driver of the motor vehicle (80) takes place at an exhaust gas system of the motor vehicle (80) and includes using the lambda sensor for detecting a current exhaust gas composition, and
reducing a maximum speed available for operation of the motor vehicle (80).
wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when the detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds a threshold value more than a predetermined number of times over a predetermined time period.
Gratz teaches; reducing a maximum speed available for operation of the motor vehicle (80) (taught as limiting the maximum vehicle operating speed, based on user and the current situation that the driver is in, paragraph 0035).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a maximum speed limit as suggested by Gratz in the system taught by Nallapa in order to improve safety. Restrictions based on user/situations, as suggested by Gratz, can limit functions of the vehicle based on sensory input (paragraph 0038) and ensure that a user complies with certain rules/behaviors (paragraph 0044). Nallapa already desires to address undesirable vehicle use (column 1 lines 28-39), which one would find obvious to extend with the practices of Gratz. To reiterate, one would take the system taught by Nallapa, which detects driver behavior and already adjusts/provides limits on certain functions of a vehicle in response to such behavior/situations, and further apply the teachings of Gratz to limit a maximum speed limit.
However, Gratz does not explicitly teach; wherein the at least one sensor unit (20) comprises a lambda sensor, and detecting (100) data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of the driver of the motor vehicle (80) takes place at an exhaust gas system of the motor vehicle (80) and includes using the lambda sensor for detecting a current exhaust gas composition,
wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when the detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds a threshold value more than a predetermined number of times over a predetermined time period.
Cummins teaches; wherein the at least one sensor unit (20) comprises a lambda sensor (taught as a NOx sensor, which measures the exhaust composition in an internal combustion engine system, paragraph 0032, and a lambda sensor in the exhaust cylinder, paragraph 0057), and detecting (100) data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of the driver of the motor vehicle (80) takes place at an exhaust gas system of the motor vehicle (80) and includes using the lambda sensor for detecting a current exhaust gas composition (taught as adjusting operational parameters based on the exhaust, such as limiting speed, paragraph 0074).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate exhaust gas composition considerations as taught by Cummins in the system taught by Nallapa in order to improve safety. Such gas exhaust [and temperature] considerations are used to detect engine performance, in particular conditions like incomplete combustion, such as taught by Cummins (paragraph 0056). Nallapa already teaches the consideration of environmental factors, and even aspects of engine performance [such as engine coolant temperature, column 3 lines 33-35]. One would then find it obvious to extend such considerations to other engine functions in determining allowable performance.
While, Cummins does not explicitly teach; wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when the detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds a threshold value more than a predetermined number of times [examiner notes that a predetermined number of times still includes one time, and thus responding to an overaccelerating operation once would fulfill the requirements in this language] over a predetermined time period [examiner notes that, as recited a predetermined time period is broad enough to include any size time period], such requirements are well known within the field of lambda sensors for vehicles, as evidenced by Wikipedia. Wikipedia teaches that lambda sensors detect a problem in operation when a value of lambda is different from 1, where lambda>1 indicates a problem with incomplete combustion (page 2)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of the lambda sensor as taught in Cummins to include a detection threshold based on a lambda value to indicate improper operations, such as incomplete combustion.
Regarding claim 17, Nallapa as modified by Gratz and Cummins as evidenced by Wikipedia teaches;
The method of claim 3 (see claim 3 rejection). However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach;, wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when the detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds the threshold value more than three times over the predetermined time period of 30 seconds.
While the exact numbers of detecting a current gas composition exceeding a threshold three times within a time period of 30 seconds is not explicitly taught, specifying such would merely be a matter of optimization via simple experimentation. Having a threshold number of times of activation is obvious to prevent anomalous/sensor fluctuations from inappropriately triggering responses, the threshold number being a matter of simple experimentation to determine the optimal amount. Thus, the system presented in the combination of Nallapa, Gratz and Cummins as evidenced by Wikipedia would be easily modified to incorporate conditions for a number and a rate of threshold exceeding events before determining/triggering a response, in order to prevent sensor blips/fluctuations from inappropriately causing a response.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallapa (US8131441B2) as modified by Gratz (US20070158128A1) and further in view of Fields (US10493994B1).
Regarding claim 6, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; wherein the sensor unit (20) comprises a wind sensor, and detecting (100) data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of a driver of the motor vehicle (80) comprises using the wind sensor.
Fields teaches; wherein the sensor unit (20) comprises a wind sensor, and detecting (100) data indicative of a current acceleration behavior of a driver of the motor vehicle (80) comprises using the wind sensor (taught as considering weather conditions, including wind, column 6 lines 46-60, to determine the performance of the driver to, for example, receive rewards , column 23 lines 18-28).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate broader weather conditions like wind in evaluating driver performance as taught by Fields in the system taught by Nallapa as modified by Gratz in order to accurately rate driver performance. One would not want to be restricted or punished, for example, based on extenuating circumstances, where compensatory actions that are irregular for normal driving but are appropriate for the current circumstances are taken. Such proper evaluation allows for more proper feedback to the use for potential suggestions, as suggested in Gratz (column 22 line 64-column 23 line 6).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallapa (US8131441B2) as modified by Gratz (US20070158128A1) and further in view of McClellan (US9129460B2).
Regarding claim 11, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; further comprising emitting an alert when an improper acceleration behavior is determined.
McClellan teaches; further comprising emitting an alert when an improper acceleration behavior is determined (taught as issuing a warning when the driver violates a rule, such as in regards to speed or acceleration, column 5 lines 38-43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an explicit warning to the driver as taught by McClellan in the system taught by Nallapa in order to improve feedback. As suggested in McClellan, using parameters such as speed and acceleration, with warnings, provides driver mentoring (column 6 lines 51-56), and with such a system, help improve driver behavior (column 1 lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallapa (US8131441B2) as modified by Gratz (US20070158128A1) in view of Honda (What RPM Should You Ride a Car at, 2022).
Regarding claim 14, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; wherein actuation of the accelerator pedal by more than the predetermined travel amount causes a motor of the motor vehicle to operate at greater than 3000 rpm.
Honda teaches; wherein actuation of the accelerator pedal by more than the predetermined travel amount causes a motor of the motor vehicle to operate at greater than 3000 rpm (taught as regarding RPM to average, for a typical car, between 1500-2000 rpm, and driving above/below the ideal range can be dangerous for the vehicle and its passengers, page 2, What RPM Is Best For Driving).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a threshold for RPM as taught by Honda in the system taught by Nallapa in order to improve safety. As taught in Honda, driving above/below the ideal range can be dangerous for the vehicle and its passengers, (page 2, What RPM Is Best For Driving). While the exact number/range is different than what is claimed, Honda further goes on to detail that the optimal RPM for autos is determined by the specific engine, and thus should be optimized as such. In other words, the specific threshold that RPM should be considered dangerous would merely be a matter of optimization through simple experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 14. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 14.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallapa (US8131441B2) as modified by Gratz (US20070158128A1) in view of Chen (US20210101610A1).
Regarding claim 16, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when actuation of the accelerator pedal by more than 5 cm occurs more than three times over the predetermined time period of 30 seconds.
Chen teaches; wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when actuation of the accelerator pedal by more than 5 cm occurs more than three times over the predetermined time period of 30 seconds (taught as determining a pedal misapplication event when a set of conditions occurs, including that the accelerator operation amount is no less than a pedal misapplication determination amount, paragraph 0049, and an accelerator operation speed is no less than a pedal misapplication determination operation speed, paragraph 0050, creating a threshold amount [actuation amount] of an acceleration operation by a pedal and a rate of change, paragraph 0051).
While the exact numbers of 5cm, three times, and a time period of 30 seconds is not explicitly taught, specifying a threshold of depressing a pedal by more than 5cm over three+ times within a period of 30 seconds would merely be a matter of optimization via simple experimentation. Chen does not explicitly suggest a specific value for the pedal misapplication operation amount, but identifies it as being set beforehand (paragraph 0051). The specific rate, or number of times within a time period is similarly set beforehand without a specific value (paragraph 0051). However, having a threshold number of times of activation is obvious to prevent anomalous/sensor fluctuations from inappropriately triggering responses, the threshold number being a matter of simple experimentation to determine the optimal amount.
As noted above, there are two claims labeled as claim 16; one dependent on claim 1, and one dependent on claim 12. The version dependent on claim 12 covers the same material as the one dependent on claim 1, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallapa (US8131441B2) in view of Gratz (US20070158128A1) as modified by Cummins (WO2023230344A1) as evidenced by Wikipedia (Exhaust Gas Analyzer, 2021) in view of Chen (US20210101610A1).
Regarding claim 18, Nallapa as modified by Gratz teaches; The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Nallapa does not explicitly teach; wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when (i) actuation of the accelerator pedal by more than the predetermined travel amount, as detected by the at least one sensor unit, occurs more than the predetermined number of times over the predetermined time period and (ii) a detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds an exhaust gas composition threshold value more than the predetermined number of times over the predetermined time period.
Chen teaches; wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when (i) actuation of the accelerator pedal by more than the predetermined travel amount, as detected by the at least one sensor unit, occurs more than the predetermined number of times over the predetermined time period (taught as determining a pedal misapplication event when a set of conditions occurs, including that the accelerator operation amount is no less than a pedal misapplication determination amount, paragraph 0049, and an accelerator operation speed is no less than a pedal misapplication determination operation speed, paragraph 0050, creating a threshold amount [actuation amount] of an acceleration operation by a pedal and a rate of change, paragraph 0051).
While the exact numbers of 5cm, three times, and a time period of 30 seconds is not explicitly taught, specifying a threshold of depressing a pedal by more than 5cm over three+ times within a period of 30 seconds would merely be a matter of optimization via simple experimentation. Chen does not explicitly suggest a specific value for the pedal misapplication operation amount, but identifies it as being set beforehand (paragraph 0051). The specific rate, or number of times within a time period is similarly set beforehand without a specific value (paragraph 0051). However, having a threshold number of times of activation is obvious to prevent anomalous/sensor fluctuations from inappropriately triggering responses, the threshold number being a matter of simple experimentation to determine the optimal amount.
However, Chen does not explicitly teach; (ii) a detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds an exhaust gas composition threshold value more than the predetermined number of times over the predetermined time period.
Cummins teaches; (ii) a detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds an exhaust gas composition threshold value more than the predetermined number of times over the predetermined time period (taught as adjusting operational parameters based on the exhaust, such as limiting speed, paragraph 0074, detected using a lambda sensor, paragraph 0057).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate exhaust gas composition considerations as taught by Cummins in the system taught by Nallapa in order to improve safety. Such gas exhaust [and temperature] considerations are used to detect engine performance, in particular conditions like incomplete combustion, such as taught by Cummins (paragraph 0056). Nallapa already teaches the consideration of environmental factors, and even aspects of engine performance [such as engine coolant temperature, column 3 lines 33-35]. One would then find it obvious to extend such considerations to other engine functions in determining allowable performance.
While, Cummins does not explicitly teach; wherein the improper acceleration behavior is determined when the detected current exhaust gas composition exceeds a threshold value more than a predetermined number of times [examiner notes that a predetermined number of times still includes one time, and thus responding to an overaccelerating operation once would fulfill the requirements in this language] over a predetermined time period [examiner notes that, as recited a predetermined time period is broad enough to include any size time period], such requirements are well known within the field of lambda sensors for vehicles, as evidenced by Wikipedia. Wikipedia teaches that lambda sensors detect a problem in operation when a value of lambda is different from 1, where lambda>1 indicates a problem with incomplete combustion). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of the lambda sensor as taught in Cummins to include a detection threshold based on a lambda value to indicate improper operations, such as incomplete combustion.
Regarding claims 19-20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 18. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous rejections by reciting elements not claimed in the recited prior art.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In claims 1 and 12, the amended material is directed to detecting the accelerator pedal position/acceleration exceeding a threshold a predetermined number of times within a predetermined time threshold. However, the current language is inclusive of the detection of a singular event [over any period of time when driving], and thus the detection of over accelerations over a set max threshold as taught in Nallapa (e.g. column 3 line 24-30) sufficiently teaches the claimed scope. The amended material of claim 3 merely incorporates claim 1, and thus similar rationale applies.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that, based on the allowability of the independent claims, dependent claims are also allowable.
In light of the above arguments and rejections, this argument is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further driver performance monitoring; US20090281695A1, US20130173111A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662