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 .
Status of the Claims
This 1st non-final action is in response to applicant's filing on Oct. 29, 2024. Claims 1-11 have been cancelled. Claims 12-30 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Drawing Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Figs. 3a-3b should include labels for both the x-axis and y-axis.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12-30 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.
Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 12-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 21-23, 27-30, 32 of co-pending Application No. 18/848,952 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims of present application can directly mapped to claim/claims of co-pending Application No. 18/848,952. See chart below.
Claims of current application
Mapped claims for co-pending Application No. 18/848,952
12,30
17
13
18
14, 15
23
16,17
21
18,19
22
20,21
27
22,23
28
24,25
29
26,27
30
28,29
32
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh (US 2018149212) in view of Ito (WO2019097896A1) in view of Plianos (US 20190100208 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Hue teaches a device for controlling a coasting mode of a vehicle in a context of a distance and/or 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”),
wherein the device is configured to: predict a distance profile of the vehicle in the coasting mode proceeding from a current driving progression of the vehicle, (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 see Para. [0022], [0065], discloses “calculating an estimated speed and distance when the vehicle enters costing operation control mode”);
compare the predicted distance profile of the vehicle to a target distance of the distance and/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 dependence on the comparison to start or end the coasting mode (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”).
While Huh teaches wherein the predicted distance profile indicates a temporal and/or spatial distance of the vehicle to an adjacent lane object driving in front of the vehicle on a neighboring lane as a function of the driving progression (Huh [0022] the determining of the first time point at which the subject vehicle enters the coasting operation control mode may include: calculating a third time point at which the subject vehicle arrives at a front vehicle using a difference between the 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 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), Huh does not explicitly teach but Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the predicted distance profile indicates a temporal and/or spatial distance of the vehicle to an adjacent lane object driving in front of the vehicle on a neighboring lane as a function of the driving progression (The surrounding vehicles include a preceding vehicle traveling in front of the vehicle 10 in the lane in which the vehicle 10 is traveling, and an adjacent traveling vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane adjacent to the lane in which the vehicle 10 is traveling. The state quantities detected by the periphery monitoring device 34 include the relative position, relative distance, relative velocity, relative acceleration, and the like of the surrounding vehicle with respect to the host vehicle 10).
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 an adjacent lane object driving in front of the vehicle on a neighboring lane as taught by Ito in order to further improve vehicle safety.
Finally, Huh as modified by Ito does not explicitly teach but Plianos teaches the 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 as modified by Ito with coasting profile, i.e., predicted speed/distance profile as taught by Plianos in order to further improve fuel efficiency.
Examiner notes: distance profile is convertible to a speed profile because Distance is Speed times Time.
Regarding claim 30, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Hue teaches wherein the device is configured, while the vehicle is not operated in the coasting mode (Huh 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: determine whether the predicted distance profile of the vehicle will reach the target distance at an upcoming driving progression or not (Huh 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 progression of the vehicle only in a case in which a determination is made that the predicted distance profile of the vehicle will reach the target distance ( Huh, 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.”)
Regarding claim 14, Hue teaches wherein the device is configured, while the vehicle is operated in the coasting mode, to: ascertain an upcoming intersection driving progression, at which the predicted distance profile of the vehicle will reach the target distance (See Para. [0077]);
ascertain an exit driving progression in dependence on the ascertained upcoming intersection driving progression; and end the coasting mode at the ascertained exit driving progression ([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”).
Regarding claim 15, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Hue teaches wherein the device is configured to ascertain an exit driving progression, which lies at a predefined offset value before the ascertained upcoming intersection driving progression. (Huh, 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”).
Regarding claim 17, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Hue 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 ascertain whether the predicted distance profile falls below the target distance or below a predefined penetration depth of the target distance or not (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 only in a case in which it is ascertained that the predicted distance profile falls below the target distance or below 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”).
Regarding claim 19, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Hue teaches wherein the device is configured to repeatedly, at a sequence of successive driving progressions: predict a distance profile of the vehicle in the coasting mode proceeding from the respective current driving progression (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 predicted distance profile of the vehicle to the target distance of the distance and/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 to start or end the coasting mode at the respective current driving progression in dependence 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).
Regarding claim 21, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 20.
Regarding claim 22, Hue as modified by Ito teaches wherein the device is configured to: ascertain an upcoming gradient profile of a roadway traveled 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 distance profile of the vehicle in the coasting mode based on 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 as modified by Ito 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.
Regarding claim 23, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 22.
Regarding claim 24, Hue teaches wherein the device is configured to: ascertain status data with respect to a status of the vehicle and/or with respect to a status of the adjacent lane object driving in front of the vehicle on the neighboring lane(See Huh, Para. [0010], “determine a first time point at which a subject vehicle enters a coasting operation control mode”); and
predict the distance profile of the vehicle in the coasting mode based on the status 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”).
Regarding claim 25, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 24.
Regarding claim 26, Hue teaches wherein the predicted distance profile extends proceeding from the current driving progression via a predefined prediction horizon; and/or the driving progression comprises a position of the vehicle along a roadway traveled by the vehicle; and/or a time during a journey of the vehicle (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).
Regarding claim 27, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 26.
Regarding claim 28, Hue as modified by Ito does not explicitly teach but Plianos teaches wherein the device is configured to: decouple a drive motor of the vehicle from a drivetrain of the vehicle in order to start the coasting mode; and/or couple the drive motor with the drivetrain of the vehicle in order to end 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 as modified by Ito 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.
Regarding claim 29, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights