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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um et al. (US 2014/0163837 A1) in view of Haug (US 2008/0015743 A1), Lu et al. (US 2008/0059021 A1) and Che et al. (US 2015/0084755 A1).
As to claim 1, Um discloses a vehicle, comprising: one or more controllers (control unit 50), comprising: memory (para. 0046); and processor circuitry forming one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is to operate by: automatically monitoring a path in proximity to the vehicle to detect an abrupt grade change along the path and ahead of the vehicle (Fig. 3, S301), upon receiving indication that an abrupt grade change exists, determining a time or distance or both from a position of the vehicle to the abrupt grade change (Fig. 3, S303), determining a target speed the vehicle is to use to travel over the abrupt grade change using predetermined correlations between a target speed of the vehicle and an indicator of expected comfort of an occupant of the vehicle as the vehicle travels over the abrupt grade change (para. 0032-0033), determining whether a current speed of the vehicle is below the target speed (para. 0048), and automatically decelerating the vehicle so that the vehicle travels over the abrupt grade change at or below the target speed when the current speed is above the target speed (para. 0048). Um does not explicitly disclose wherein the grade change is determined to be abrupt depending on a predetermined threshold of a minimum change in grade height; monitoring ahead in a direction of motion of the vehicle using at least one camera, obtaining data from monitoring a pitch and roll of the vehicle when the vehicle contacts the grade change and using at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU), and in response to the IMU detecting a grade change, confirming the grade change by using suspension sensors to measure a change in height of a wheel of the vehicle; displaying an alert to the occupant on a display of the vehicle when the abrupt grade change is detected or when the automatic deceleration is to be performed or both, wherein the alert includes the word "curb" or phrase "curb detected".
Haug teaches the grade change is determined to be abrupt depending on a predetermined threshold of a minimum change in grade height (para. 0018) and monitoring ahead in a direction of motion of the vehicle using at least one camera. Therefore, given the teaching of Haug, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle/method/device of Um, by incorporating the feature of grade change is determined to be abrupt depending on a predetermined threshold of a minimum change in grade height, to detect speed bump and control vehicle with a safe speed to pass the speed bump.
Lu teaches obtaining data from monitoring a pitch and roll of the vehicle when the vehicle contacts the grade change and using at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU), and suspension sensors to measure a change in height of a wheel of the vehicle (para. 0181). And the use of a different type of sensor to confirm a sensor measurement is well known in the art. Therefore, given the teaching of Lu, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle/method/device of Um, by incorporating the feature of IMU and suspension sensors to detect a change in height of a suspension, to detect road surface height change.
Chen teaches displaying an alert to the occupant on a display of the vehicle when the abrupt grade change is detected (para. 0016), and the alert includes the word “curb” or phrase “curb detected” is just a design choice to show the occupant a curb is detected near the vehicle. Therefore, given the teaching of Chen, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle/method/device of Um, by incorporating the feature of display an alert when a curb is detected near the vehicle to notify the occupant to pay special attention to the curb.
As to claims 2-3, the use of force sensor/dummies/person on seat in the vehicle to test comfort levels at different target speed are well known and widely use in vehicle development and testing.
As to claim 5, Haug further teaches comprising detecting the abrupt grade change by using one or more cameras or an advanced driver assistance system (para. 0020).
As to claim 6, Lu further teaches Lu teaches detecting the abrupt grade change by using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and suspension sensors that measure a change in height of a suspension at a wheel of the vehicle (para. 0181), wherein the suspension sensors (suspension position height sensor 40) are linked to the suspensions of the vehicle.
As to claim 7, Haug further teaches automatically maintaining the current speed of the vehicle when the current speed is below the target speed (para. 0014, 0043).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um, Haug, Lu, and Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Schraga (US 2009/0040037 A1).
As to claim 8, Um, Haug, Lu, and Chen do not explicitly disclose displaying an alert to the occupant of the vehicle when the abrupt grade change is detected or when the automatic deceleration is to be performed. However, Schraga teaches displaying an alert to the occupant of the vehicle when automatically decelerate (para. 0049), and the phrase “auto slow” is just a design. Therefore, given the teaching of Schraga, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle/method/device of Um, by incorporating the feature of displaying an alert, to inform the occupant automatic deceleration is being perform.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um, Haug, Lu, and Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lubbers (US 2008/0100129 A1).
As to claim 9, Um, Haug, Lu, and Chen do not explicitly disclose setting and executing a brake blend deceleration between a current speed of the vehicle and the target speed sufficient to attempt to provide a smooth transition from the current vehicle position to a vehicle position over the abrupt grade change. However, Lubbers teaches setting and executing a brake blend deceleration between a current speed of the vehicle and the target speed sufficient to attempt to provide a smooth transition from the current vehicle position to a vehicle position over the abrupt grade change (para. 0016, 0041-0042). Therefore, given the teaching of Lubbers, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle/method/device of Um, by incorporating the feature of brake blend deceleration, to provide smooth deceleration.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um, Haug, Lu, and Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Poepperl et al. (US 2024/0427015 A1).
As to claim 15, Um, Haug, Lu, and Chen do not explicitly disclose determining the target speed or decelerating the vehicle includes factoring a position of the underbody of the vehicle: and comparing a detected change in grade height to a height of an underbody of the vehicle, and in response to the comparison, either (a) automatically stopping the vehicle or (b) providing an alert to avoid travel over the grade change on a display on the vehicle to show to an occupant in the vehicle. However, Poepperl teaches determining the target speed or decelerating the vehicle includes factoring a position of the underbody of the vehicle: and comparing a detected change in grade height to a height of an underbody of the vehicle, and in response to the comparison, either (a) automatically stopping the vehicle or (b) providing an alert to avoid travel over the grade change on a display on the vehicle to show to an occupant in the vehicle (para. 0043-0046). Therefore, given the teaching of Poepperl, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle/method/device of Um, by incorporating the feature of factoring position of the underbody of the vehicle with target speed, to prevent damage to the vehicle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um and Haug, Lu, Chen and Poepperl, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0130686 A1).
As to claim 16, Um and Haug, Lu, Chen and Poepperl do not explicitly disclose the decelerating comprises automatically generating a deceleration profile set to be a uniform deceleration rate from the current speed of the vehicle to the target speed. However, Kim teaches the decelerating comprises automatically generating a deceleration profile set to be a uniform deceleration rate from the current speed of the vehicle to the target speed (para. 0041). Therefore, given the teaching of Kim, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle/method/device of Um, by incorporating the feature of uniform deceleration profile, to provide environmentally friendly vehicle speed.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um and Haug, Lu, Chen and Poepperl, as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Kang et al. (US 2021/0179147 A1).
As to claim 17, Um and Haug, Lu, Chen and Poepperl do not explicitly disclose the decelerating includes automatically generating a deceleration profile varied to attempt to avoid sudden stops and jolts of the vehicle. However, Kang teaches the decelerating includes automatically generating a deceleration profile varied to attempt to avoid sudden stops and jolts of the vehicle (Fig. 3A-3B, para. 0049). Therefore, given the teaching of Kang, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle/method/device of Um, by incorporating the feature of varied deceleration profile, to avoid a sudden stop.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 14 and 22-23 are allowed.
Claims 4, 21 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661