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 .
The Amendment, filed on 06/04/2026, has been received and made ofrecord. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated 02/05/2026, Claims 1-16 are previously canceled claims, Claims 17-19, 24, 27-31and 33 are amended, claims 17-34 are pending in current application.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/04/2026 have been fully considered.
In the Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Claim Objection
Claim objections have been withdrawn in view of amendments. However, some amendments in the claims cause new informalities in the claims, set forth below.
Re: Drawing/Specification Objections
Drawing objection has been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s remarks filed on June 4th, 2026.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) and 112(b)
Rejections made under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn in view of claim amendments and the applicant’s remarks filed on June 4th, 2026.
Re: Claim interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been maintained.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or moot in view of new ground of rejection for the amended claimed feature.
With regard to independent claim 17, the Applicant argues on page 9 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “there is no teaching or suggestion of a device configured to predict at least one of a distance or a speed of the vehicle in the coasting mode based on a current driving progress point of the vehicle, wherein the driving progress indicates a position of the vehicle along a road”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejections below are based on a combination of Huh and Plianos. Huh already presents a scenario where, predict distance or speed in coasting mode; and compare predicted distance or speed of the vehicle (see Para. [0023], [0050] and [0065]). Plianos teaches the amended claimed feature, “predict at least one of a distance or a speed of the vehicle in the coasting mode based on a current driving progress point of the vehicle, wherein the driving progress indicates a position of the vehicle along a road” (See Abstract, Para. [0031], [0068], discloses “A plurality of coasting profiles are generated for the vehicle, each having an initial speed and a starting point on a predicted vehicle path. Each coasting profile represents a predicted vehicle speed over a time and/or distance from the starting point and is generated based on a geometry of at least a portion of the predicted vehicle path. At least one of the coasting profiles that maintains the speed of the vehicle within the target speed range is identified”).
Furthermore, the applicant argues on page 9 of the applicant’s remarks that the cited reference, Huh, Fig. 2 and Para. [0023], [0065], doesn’t appear “calculating an estimated speed and distance when the vehicle enters coasting operation control mode”. The argument is moot. The rejections below are based on a combination of Huh and Plianos. The cited reference, Huh teaches the argues claimed feature (See Fig. 2, discloses “vehicle speed vs. distance plot and estimated speed at target distance and the subject vehicle is in costing operation control mode”, and/or Para. [0065], discloses “costing operation control [which constitutes coasting operation control mode], and calculating an estimated speed or an operation distance”. Furthermore, see Huh, Para. [0010], “a coasting operation control mode entrance time point determination unit configured to determine a first time point at which a subject vehicle enters a coasting operation control mode; a target vehicle speed reach time point calculation unit configured to calculate a target vehicle speed of the subject vehicle”).
Based on the above explanation, the teaching of Hug in view of the teaching of Pilanos teaches or suggests the features to those of argued above for independent claim 17. Independent claim 33 recite similar features to those of argued above. Therefore, the above discussion and same rejections are applied.
The same reasoning as applied to the independent claims above also apply to their corresponding dependent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the driving progress” on lines 4-5 to be corrected as “the driving progress point”. Otherwise, the claim would lack sufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the driving progress” because the phrase “driving progress” is not cited in the previous line of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
b) Claim 33 is amended claim. Currently, the claim is labeled with “Previously Presented”. It is to be corrected with a label “Currently Amended”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “device” in Claims 1-32 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the original specification, filed 09/20/2024, Page 9, cited “The SW program can be configured to be executed on a processor (for example on a control unit of a vehicle) and to thereby carry out the method described in this document” and in Page 10, cited “A further aspect describes a storage medium. The storage medium may comprise a SW program which is configured to be executed on a processor and to thereby carry out the method described in this document”. Therefore, the examiner interpreted the phrase “device” as a hardware (processor, storage medium) and software program (executed by the processor) in combination to execute all the claimed functions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 17-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2018/0149212) (hereinafter Huh) in view of Plianos et al. (US 20190100208, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Plianos).
Claim 17. Huh et al. (US 2018/0149212) (hereinafter Huh) teaches device for controlling a coasting mode of a vehicle in an open-loop manner as part of at least one of closed-loop distance or a speed control of the vehicle (See Abstract, Para. [0010], discloses “An apparatus and a method for controlling a coasting operation”, and see Para. [0013], [0023]-[0024], “calculating the target vehicle speed using the present vehicle speed of the front vehicle; and calculating the second time point using the present vehicle speed of the front vehicle and the distance between the front vehicle and the subject vehicle, and the calculating of the second time point may use a coast down value, an uphill load, a downhill load, and creep torque of the subject vehicle”, which constitutes an open-loop manner as part of close-loop distance), wherein the device is configured to:
predict at least one of a distance profile or a speed
compare the at least one of the predicted distance profile or speed
control the coasting mode in an open-loop manner to at least one of start or end the coasting mode based on the comparison (See Para. [0050], [0067], discloses “the apparatus 100 may enter the coasting operation control mode when the subject vehicle has a sufficient distance and sufficient time until arriving at the front vehicle”).
Nevertheless, Huh fails to explicitly spell out predict speed/distance profile, and wherein the driving progress indicates a position of the vehicle along a road.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Plianos et al. (US 2019/0100208) teaches, speed profile (See Para. [0064], “coasting profile represents a predicted vehicle speed over a time and/or distance from the starting point and is generated based on a geometry of at least a portion of the predicted vehicle path”), and wherein the driving progress indicates a position of the vehicle along a road” (See Abstract, Para. [0031], [0068], discloses “A plurality of coasting profiles are generated for the vehicle, each having an initial speed and a starting point on a predicted vehicle path. Each coasting profile represents a predicted vehicle speed over a time and/or distance from the starting point and is generated based on a geometry of at least a portion of the predicted vehicle path. At least one of the coasting profiles that maintains the speed of the vehicle within the target speed range is identified”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Huh with coasting profile, i.e., predicted speed/distance profile as taught by Plianos in order to further improve fuel efficiency.
Claim 18. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein Hue teaches the device is configured, while the vehicle is not operated in the coasting mode, to:
determine whether or not the at least one of the predicted distance profile or speed profile of the vehicle will reach at least one of the target distance or the target speed at an upcoming driving progress point (See Para. [0068], “calculates a target vehicle speed and a time point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed”, and/or Para. [0077], “determines whether the subject vehicle arrives at a point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed”); and
start the coasting mode at the current driving progress point of the vehicle to start the coasting mode when it is determined that the at least one of the predicted distance profile or speed profile of the vehicle will reach the at least one of the target distance or the target speed (See Fig. 2, Para. [0068], discloses “the subject vehicle starts controlling a coasting operation”, and see Para. [0077], “determines whether the subject vehicle arrives at a point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed (step S413), and terminates the coasting operation control mode when the subject vehicle arrives at the point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed.”).
Claim 19. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, where Huh teaches, wherein the device is configured, while the vehicle is operated in the coasting mode, to:
determine an upcoming driving progress point at which the at least one of the predicted distance profile or the speed profile of the vehicle will reach the at least one of the target distance or the target speed (See Para. [0077];
determine an exit driving progress point based on the determined upcoming driving progress point; and end the coasting mode at the determined exit driving progress point (See Para. [0083], “the apparatus 100 for controlling the coasting operation in the hybrid vehicle terminates the coasting operation control when the time point, at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed, comes”).
Claim 20. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 19, where Huh teaches, wherein the device is further configured to determine an exit driving progress point which is before the determined upcoming driving progress point (See Para. [0077], [0081], [0016], “terminates the coasting operation control mode when the subject vehicle arrives at the point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed”).
Claim 21. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 20, where Huh teaches, wherein the determined exit driving progress point is before the determined upcoming driving progress point by a predefined offset value (See Para. [0011], “a distance between the subject vehicle and the front vehicle and may enter the coasting operation control mode when the third time point, at which the subject vehicle arrives at the front vehicle, is within a preset threshold value”, and Para. [0016], “terminate the coasting operation control mode when the subject vehicle arrives at the second point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed”).
Claim 22. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, where Huh teaches, wherein the device is configured, while the vehicle is not operated in the coasting mode (See Para. [0016], “terminate the coasting operation control mode when the subject vehicle arrives at the second point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed”), to:
predict a distance profile of a distance between the vehicle and a leading vehicle driving in front of the vehicle in the coasting mode (See Para. [0023], “the distance between the front vehicle and the subject vehicle”);
determine whether or not the predicted distance profile falls below the target distance by at least a predefined penetration depth (See Para. [0011], [0022], “calculate a distance between the subject vehicle and the front vehicle and may enter the coasting operation control mode when the third time point, at which the subject vehicle arrives at the front vehicle, is within a preset threshold value“); and
start the coasting mode when it is determined that the predicted distance profile falls below the target distance by precisely or at least the predefined penetration depth (See Para. [0022], [0050], “entering the coasting operation control mode when the third time point, at which the subject vehicle arrives at the front vehicle, within a preset threshold value”).
Claim 23. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, where Huh teaches, wherein the device is configured, while the vehicle is operated in the coasting mode, to:
predict a distance profile of a distance between the vehicle and a leading vehicle driving in front of the vehicle during the coasting mode (See Para. [0085], “estimated distance”, and see Para. [0067], “calculate distance between the front vehicle and the subject vehicle”);
determine an upcoming driving progress point at which the predicted distance profile of the vehicle will reach the target distance (See Para. [0023], “calculating the second time point using the present vehicle speed of the front vehicle and the distance between the front vehicle and the subject vehicle”; and
end the coasting mode at an exit driving progress point that is dependent on the determined upcoming driving progress point (See Para. [0016], “terminate the coasting operation control mode when the subject vehicle arrives at the second point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed”). Additionally, see Plianos, Para. [0177], “an instruction to exit the coasting mode may be issued at the point on the current path of the vehicle corresponding with the end point of the selected coasting profile”.
Claim 24. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the device is configured, while the vehicle is not operated in the coasting mode, to:
predict a speed profile of the driving speed of the vehicle during the coasting mode (See Huh, Fig. 2, discloses “estimated speed during coasting operation”);
determine a contiguous driving progress section, starting from the current driving progress point, in which the driving speed of the vehicle remains within a predefined tolerance range around the target speed (See Huh, Fig. 3. Additionally, see Plianos, Fig. 3-5); and
start the coasting mode when at least one of a temporal or spatial length of the contiguous driving progress section is greater than or equal to at least one of a temporal or spatial minimum length (See Plianos, Para. [0029], “the vehicle may have at least a first speed range that is used in the identifying of the coasting profile, and a second speed range for when the vehicle is not in the coasting mode, wherein the first speed range is wider than the second speed range. The wider first speed range may allow the vehicle to coast further and/or improve its overall fuel efficiency”, and see Para. [0147], “where two or more coasting periods have the same or a similar length, the one with the highest terminal speed may be selected for implementation. In the example shown in FIG. 5, the fifth coasting profile 140 and sixth coasting profile 142 offer the longest coasting duration. However, the sixth coasting profile 142 has the highest speed at the end of the coasting event, and may therefore be chosen for implementation”).
Claim 25. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 24, wherein the device is configured to determine the contiguous driving progress section in such a manner that the predicted speed profile has the target speed at the end of the contiguous driving progress section (See Huh, Fig. 2, “target speed” in continuous driving progress section as claimed. Additionally, see Plianos, Para. [0108], “second and third coasting profiles will maintain the speed of the vehicle within the target speed range for at least some of the predicted path”).
Claim 26. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the device is configured, while the vehicle is operated in the coasting mode, to:
predict a speed profile of the driving speed of the vehicle during the coasting mode (See Para. [0133], “coasting profile 138, 140 and 142 represents a predicted speed of the vehicle 100 over a distance from the starting point.”, and see Para. [0138], “a prime mover of the vehicle 100 may be controlled to place the vehicle into a coasting mode in accordance with the fifth coasting profile 140”);
determine an upcoming driving progress point at which the predicted speed profile of the vehicle will reach the target speed; and end the coasting mode at an exit driving progress point that is dependent on the determined upcoming driving progress point (See Huh, Para. [0016], “determine whether the subject vehicle arrives at the second time point at which the subject vehicle reaches the target vehicle speed”. Additionally, see Plianos, Para. [0064], “coasting profile represents a predicted vehicle speed over a time and/or distance from the starting point and is generated based on a geometry of at least a portion of the predicted vehicle path;”, and/or see Para. [0138], “estimating coasting profiles”, and See Para. [0064], “coasting profile represents a predicted vehicle speed over a time and/or distance from the starting point and is generated based on a geometry of at least a portion of the predicted vehicle path”).
Claim 27. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the device is configured to repeatedly, at a sequence of successive driving progress points (See Huh, Fig. 2):
predict at least one of a distance profile or a speed profile of the vehicle in the coasting mode on the basis of the respective current driving progress point (See Huh, See Fig. 2, Para. [0023], [0065], discloses “calculating an estimated speed and distance when the vehicle enters costing operation control mode”, Additionally, see Plianos, Para. [0064], “coasting profile represents a predicted vehicle speed over a time and/or distance from the starting point and is generated based on a geometry of at least a portion of the predicted vehicle path);
compare the respectively predicted at least one of the distance profile or speed profile of the vehicle with the target at least one of distance or target speed from the at least one of closed- loop distance or speed control of the vehicle (See Para. [0050], “the difference between a present vehicle speed of the subject vehicle and a present vehicle speed of the front vehicle, and a distance between the subject vehicle and the front vehicle”); and
control the coasting mode in an open-loop manner to at least one of start or end the coasting mode at the respective current driving progress point on the basis of the comparison (See Para. [0050], [0067], discloses “the apparatus 100 may enter the coasting operation control mode when the subject vehicle has a sufficient distance and sufficient time until arriving at the front vehicle”).
Claim 28. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the device is configured to:
determine an upcoming gradient profile of the road used by the vehicle (See Huh, Para. [0083], “vehicle runs on an uphill road, uphill/downhill driving”, and see Plianos, para. [0158, “The lower graph 156 shows the gradient of the route (in %) while the upper graph 158 shows the car's speed at each point on the route”, and Para. [0170], “The coasting control module 180 also receives as inputs road gradient and curvature from a digital road map 182”); and
predict the at least one of distance profile or speed profile of the vehicle in the coasting mode on the basis of the upcoming gradient profile (See Plianos, Para. [0104], [0106]-[0107], [0136], [0143], “As the vehicle 100 passes the crest of the hill shown in the terrain map 124, its speed increases. Over halfway down the hill, the speed is predicted to exceed the current speed of the vehicle 100. Near the end of the hill, the speed is predicted to exceed the upper speed limit represented by upper horizontal line 118”, and see Para. [0127], “using knowledge of local gradient (e.g. using e-horizon data) the vehicle maintains a current speed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Huh with gradient of the road as taught by Plianos and predict speed based on the gradient in order to maintain the vehicle speed within the target speed range for at least some portion of the predicted path.
Claim 29. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the device is configured to:
determine state data relating to at least one of a state of the vehicle or a state of a leading vehicle driving in front of the vehicle (See Huh, Para. [0010], “determine a first time point at which a subject vehicle enters a coasting operation control mode”); and
predict the at least one of distance profile or speed profile of the vehicle in the coasting mode on the basis of the state data (See Huh, Para. [0085], “calculating an estimated speed or an operation distance”. Additionally, see Plianos, Para. [0031], “coasting profile represents a predicted vehicle speed over a time and/or distance from the starting point and is generated based on a geometry of at least a portion of the predicted vehicle path”, and Para. [0133], “Each coasting profile 138, 140 and 142 represents a predicted speed of the vehicle 100 over a distance from the starting point”, and/or see claim 1, “identifying at least one of the coasting profiles that maintains the speed of the vehicle within the target speed range; and outputting a coasting signal for either: controlling a prime mover of the vehicle to place the vehicle into a coasting mode in accordance with the at least one identified coasting profile; or providing feedback to a vehicle user to place the vehicle into a coasting mode, such that the vehicle if placed in the coasting mode by the user will coast in accordance with the at least one identified coasting profile”).
Claim 30. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein at least one of:
the at least one of predicted distance profile or speed profile indicates at least one of a temporal or spatial distance between the vehicle and a leading vehicle driving in front of the vehicle or a driving speed of the vehicle as a function of the driving progress (See Huh, Para. [0011], “calculate a distance between the subject vehicle and the front vehicle and may enter the coasting operation control mode when the third time point, at which the subject vehicle arrives at the front vehicle, is within a preset threshold value”); or the at least one of predicted distance profile or speed profile extends over a predefined prediction horizon starting from the current driving progress point (Examiner note: This limitation is alternative/optional feature and is not given patentable weight as the examiner considered other limitation for prior art citation).
Claim 31. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the driving progress further comprises:
a time during a journey of the vehicle (See Huh, See Huh, Fig. 2, discloses “estimated speed at time point and or at target distance”. Additionally, see Plianos, Para. [0031], “where each coasting profile represents a predicted vehicle speed over a time and/or distance from the starting point and is generated based on a geometry of at least a portion of the predicted vehicle path”, and Para. [0138], “the coasting profiles the current position of the vehicle 100, or at least only a relatively short distance from the current position. Processing time may be a factor in choosing how far ahead of the current position to start estimating coasting profiles.”).
Claim 32. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the device according to claim 17, wherein the device is configured to at least one of:
decouple a drive motor of the vehicle from a drive train of the vehicle in order to start the coasting mode (See Plianos, Para. [0174], “shut down the IC motor, in which case the coasting signal to enter the coasting mode may be sent that number of seconds before the vehicle is expected to arrive at the point on the current path of the vehicle corresponding with the starting point of the selected coasting profile”); or couple the drive motor to the drive train of the vehicle in order to end the coasting mode (See Plianos, Para. [0177], “shut down the IC motor, in which case the coasting signal to enter the coasting mode may be sent that number of seconds before the vehicle is expected to arrive at the point on the current path of the vehicle corresponding with the starting point of the selected coasting profile”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Huh with a motor coupling/decoupling as taught by Plianos in order to start and/or exit costal mode, and ensure that the vehicle has time to take any other steps necessary to ensure consistent drivability and safety.
Claim 33 is a method claim corresponding to the device claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 33 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim 34. The teaching of Huh as modified by Plianos teaches the method of claim 33, controlling the costing mode in an open-loop manner comprises controlling at least one of a starting or ending of the coasting mode on the basis of the comparison (See Hue, Para. [0050], [0067], discloses “the apparatus 100 may enter the coasting operation control mode when the subject vehicle has a sufficient distance and sufficient time until arriving at the front vehicle).
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 B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights