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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Applicant resolved the duplicate claim 16 issue, and thus the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant canceled the claims with the new matter, and thus the related 112 rejections are withdrawn.
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) and Snyder (US9916698B1).
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 three times]] 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; “occurs more than three times over a predetermined time period”, 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.
However, Gratz does not explicitly teach; occurs more than three times over a predetermined time period.
Snyder teaches; occurs more than three times over a predetermined time period (taught as classifying an event based on at least three triggers of a measured threshold being exceeded column 14 lines 1-9; while not more than three, such modification is merely a result of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the threshold condition taught by Nallapa with three trigger events as taught by Snyder in order to prevent false positives. As Nallapa already teaches a condition of one time, as noted above (column 3 lines 24-30), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the threshold number of actuations/triggers to be three or more in order to prevent false positives; while in the context of detecting a crash, the same logic of at least three triggers within a time window to determine an event/condition would be obvious to apply to the system in Nallapa to prevent false positives.
Regarding claim 4, Nallapa as modified by Gratz and Snyder 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 and Snyder 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 and Snyder 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 and Snyder 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 and Snyder 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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallapa (US8131441B2) as modified by Gratz (US20070158128A1) and Snyder (US9916698B1) and further in view of Fields (US10493994B1).
Regarding claim 6, Nallapa as modified by Gratz and Snyder teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). 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 Snyder (US9916698B1) and further in view of McClellan (US9129460B2).
Regarding claim 11, Nallapa as modified by Gratz and Snyder 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) and Snyder (US9916698B1), and further in view of Honda (What RPM Should You Ride a Car at, 2022).
Regarding claim 14, Nallapa as modified by Gratz and Snyder 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) and Snyder (US9916698B1), and further in view of Chen (US20210101610A1).
Regarding claim 16, Nallapa as modified by Gratz and Snyder 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).
However, Chen does not explicitly teach; more than 5 cm occurs more than three times over the predetermined time period of 30 seconds.
Snyder teaches; occurs more than three times over a predetermined time period (taught as classifying an event based on at least three triggers of a measured threshold being exceeded column 14 lines 1-9).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the threshold condition taught by Nallapa with three trigger events as taught by Snyder in order to prevent false positives. As Nallapa already teaches a condition of one time, as noted above (column 3 lines 24-30), one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the threshold number of actuations/triggers to be three or more in order to prevent false positives; while in the context of detecting a crash, the same logic of at least three triggers within a time window to determine an event/condition would be obvious to apply to the system in Nallapa to prevent false positives.
While the exact numbers of 5cm and a time period of 30 seconds are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 6-7 of the remarks that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous rejections by reciting elements not claimed in the recited prior art, specifically with regards to more than three actuations.
The examiner agrees that more than three times over a predetermined period is not explicitly taught in the previously recited art. However, the rejections are modified, in light of Snyder, to teach in multiple triggers in order to classify/enact an action. Furthermore, adjusting the specific number of triggers/actuations merely requires routine skill in the art, and would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try as a matter of simple experimentation/ optimization.
Applicant argues on page 7 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
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
Prosecution Insights