DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to preliminary amendments filed 11/1/2024.
Claims 1-13 have been amended.
Claim 14 is a new claim.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/1/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 11/1/2024 have been entered by the examiner.
The drawings are objected to because components 102, 104, 106, 114, 118, 122, and 124 of Figures 1-4 and steps 502, 504, and 506 of Figure 5 require labels. Specifically, MPEP 1.84(o) reads “Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.” In this particular case, the Examiner has required legends for the blank numbered blocks in Figures 1-5, due to one of ordinary skill in the art not being able to interpret these figures without manually labeling these components with guidance from the specification.
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:
an input in claim 1, and
an output in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. An automatic speed controller for a vehicle, the automatic speed controller comprising one or more controllers, the automatic speed controller comprising:
an input for receiving a road classification signal from a road classification module and a vehicle speed information signal from a speed information module, wherein the road classification signal comprises information relating to a road on which the vehicle may travel, and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road;
an output for outputting a speed offset signal for use in setting a speed of the vehicle; and
a processor arranged to determine the speed offset signal comprising an offset value, in dependence on the road classification signal and the vehicle speed information signal.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of determine the speed offset signal comprising an offset value, in dependence on the road classification signal and the vehicle speed information signal. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “speed offset signal” is data representative of a speed value. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “road classification signal,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a road classification, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “vehicle speed information signal” is data representative of a vehicle speed. No particular sensors or control operations are claimed. Generally recited data is merely determined based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “a processor.” That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. road classification signal and vehicle speed information signal) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a speed offset signal). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processor”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “a processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
an input for receiving a road classification signal from a road classification module and a vehicle speed information signal from a speed information module, wherein the road classification signal comprises information relating to a road on which the vehicle may travel, and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road;
an output for outputting a speed offset signal for use in setting a speed of the vehicle.
The “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of a road classification signal and a vehicle speed information signal) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “an input” interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation is a generic input port of a general purpose computing module, which merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Further limiting the “road classification signal” to include “information relating to a road on which the vehicle may travel” merely describes the type of generally recited data and does not require controlled operations of the vehicle. Further limiting the “vehicle speed information signal” to include “a speed limit value for the road” merely describes the type of generally recited data and does not require any particular vehicle-related sensors for acquiring the data. Thus, these limitations represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The “outputting” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general outputting a speed offset signal) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “an output” interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation is a generic output port of a general purpose computing module, which merely acts in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to transmit data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The limitation of “for use in setting a speed of the vehicle” does not require the vehicle speed to be set or controlled and merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle.
Further, the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “determine” step, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the already identified abstract exception using generic computer components (i.e. “processor” and “one or more controllers”) when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving and outputting steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites input used to control common adaptive cruise control systems in vehicles is known, and the specification does not provide any indication that the controllers are anything other than conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that mere storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-6, 8, and 14
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of wherein the processor is arranged to determine a speed for the vehicle, in dependence on the speed offset signal.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “the processor.” That is, other than reciting “the processor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. speed offset signal) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a speed). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processor”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “the processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The limitation of “for the vehicle” merely describes an intended use for the generally recited data and does not require any controlled operations of the vehicle.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of wherein the processor is arranged to determine the speed for the vehicle by applying the offset value to the speed limit speed value.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “the processor.” That is, other than reciting “the processor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. offset value and speed limit value) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine the speed). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “processor”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “the processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The limitation of “for the vehicle” merely describes an intended use for the generally recited data and does not require any controlled operations of the vehicle.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of wherein the vehicle speed information signal includes a speed at which the vehicle is travelling.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a speed at which the vehicle is travelling,” in light of the overall claim Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a vehicle speed. No particular sensors or controlled vehicle operations are claimed.
Further limiting the “vehicle speed information signal” to include a speed at which the vehicle is travelling represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the vehicle speed information signal to include a speed at which the vehicle is travelling does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of wherein the road classification signal is derived from map information and sensor information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “map information” and “sensor information,” in light of the overall claim Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of map information and sensor information, respectively. No particular vehicle-related sensors are claimed.
Further limiting the “road classification signal” to be derived from map information and sensor information represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the vehicle speed information signal to include a speed at which the vehicle is travelling does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of an automatic speed control system, comprising:
the automatic speed controller according to any preceding claim 1; and
the road classification module and the speed information module.
Further limiting the automatic speed controller, road classification module, and speed information module to be included in an automatic speed control system represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the automatic speed controller, road classification module, and speed information module to be included in an automatic speed control system does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Further, the “automatic speed control system” is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the processes which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3. Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a vehicle comprising the automatic speed controller according to claim 1.
The mere nominal recitation of a vehicle as being an object upon which the automatic speed controller of claim 1 is applied does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The vehicle merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle. The vehicle is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of a vehicle comprising the automatic speed control system according to claim 6.
The mere nominal recitation of a vehicle as being an object upon which the automatic speed controller of claim 6 is applied does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The vehicle merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle. The vehicle is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the claimed steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent 2-6, 8, and 14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 9
Claim 9. A method for automatic speed control in a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a road classification signal from a road classification module and a vehicle speed information signal from a speed information module, wherein the road classification signal comprises information relating to a road on which the vehicle may travel, and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road;
determining a speed offset signal comprising an offset value, in dependence on the road classification signal and the vehicle speed information signal; and
outputting the speed offset signal for use in setting a speed of the vehicle.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 9, with respect to step 2A prong one.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 9, with respect to step 2A prong two.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 9, with respect to step 2B.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 10-13
Dependent claims 10-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Specifically, claims 10-12 are similar to claim 2, 3, and 5, respectively, and therefore, the limitations of claims 10-12 represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) with no additional computer-based elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B) using analyses similar to those discussed in the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, and 5, above.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of computer readable instructions which, when executed by a computer, are arranged to perform the method according to claim 9. Further limiting the method of claim 9 to be performed by computer readable instructions represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the method of claim 9 to be performed by computer readable instructions does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Further, mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent 10-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 9.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Due to its claim structure, claim 13 is tested as a separate statutory category from method claim 9, from which claim 13 depends.
The claimed invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because (1) in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer readable instructions,” instructions readable by a computer encompasses forms of non-transitory tangible media as well as transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory per se (In re Nuijten), and (2) Applicant’s specification fails to limit the term “computer readable instructions” to only non-transitory tangible media. Per MPEP 2106.03(I), “[p]roducts that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitation” are not directed to any of the statutory categories. Therefore, the claim as a whole is non-statutory.
The examiner suggests amending the claimed “computer readable instructions” to recite "a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions" which would serve to exclude non-statutory subject matter from the claim's scope.
Key to Interpreting the following Prior Art Rejections
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andersson et al. (WO 2015/178841 A1), hereinafter Andersson.
Claim 1
Andersson discloses the claimed automatic speed controller for a vehicle (see page 7, lines 23-25, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that system 1 adapts the velocity of a vehicle during driving the vehicle along a route of travel), the automatic speed controller comprising one or more controllers (see Figure 2, depicting means 110, 140, 130, 150, 160, 170, 180, and electronic control unit 100, described on pages 7-19 as performing determinations and control), the automatic speed controller comprising:
an input for receiving a road classification signal from a road classification module and a vehicle speed information signal from a speed information module (see page 14, lines 22-27, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that electronic control unit 100 receives a signal from means 110 via link 10 representing data for velocity-limiting factors such as curvature and changes in velocity limitation, which is sent to means 152 via link 52a, as described on page 17, lines 2-6), wherein the road classification signal comprises information relating to a road on which the vehicle may travel (see page 8, line 12-page 9, line 23, regarding means 110 includes a cartographic information unit 112 containing cartographic data including velocity-limiting factors in the form of characteristics of the roadway, such as curvature and topography along the route of travel of the vehicle, and camera element 116 arranged to detect characteristics of the roadway, including velocity-limiting factors in the form of curvature, widening of the road, and/or road marking in the roadway along which the vehicle is traveling), and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road (see page 8, line 12-page 9, line 23, regarding means 110 includes cartographic information unit 112 containing cartographic data including velocity-limiting factors in the form of changes in velocity limitation along the route of travel and camera element 116 arranged to detect speed limit signs, so as to determine changes in velocity limitation along the route of travel of the vehicle);
an output for outputting a speed offset signal for use in setting a speed of the vehicle (see page 16, line 20-page 17, line 15, regarding electronic control unit 100 controls vehicle velocity so that a velocity associated with a target velocity is permitted to be higher than the target velocity by a given offset, output by means 152 via link 52b); and
a processor arranged to determine the speed offset signal comprising an offset value, in dependence on the road classification signal and the vehicle speed information signal (see page 14, lines 5-21, regarding means 152 adapts offset so that a larger offset is permitted in connection with non-safety-critical velocity-limiting factors, defined as including speed limits along the route of travel of the vehicle on page 6, line 29-page 7, line 3, and safety-critical velocity-limiting factors, defined as including curvature, narrowing road, roadwork, obstacles, degraded road surface, and increased traffic density along the route of travel of the vehicle on page 6, lines 17-27; page 18, lines 11-26, with respect to Figures 3a and 3b, regarding examples in which the offset is adapted according to non-safety-critical velocity-limiting factors and safety-critical velocity-limiting factors).
Claim 2
Andersson further discloses that the processor is arranged to determine a speed for the vehicle, in dependence on the speed offset signal (see page 14, lines 1-4, with respect to the equation, regarding means 150 controls the vehicle velocity so that the velocity is permitted to be higher than the target velocity by a given offset).
Claims 3 and 11
Andersson further discloses that the processor is arranged to determine the speed for the vehicle by applying the offset value to the speed limit value (see page 14, lines 1-4, with respect to the equation, regarding means 150 controls the vehicle velocity so that the velocity is permitted to be higher than the target velocity by a given offset, where the offset is applied to the non-safety-critical velocity limiting factor, e.g. an offset of 20 km/h is applied to a speed limit of 70 km/h and an offset of 8 km/h is applied to a speed limit of 30 km/h, as described on page 14, lines 10-18).
Claim 4
Andersson further discloses that the vehicle speed information signal includes a speed at which the vehicle is travelling (see page 15, lines 13-17, regarding electronic control unit 100 receives the current vehicle velocity via link 20, where the current velocity is used to calculate the retardation over a particular distance to reach a target velocity associated with a velocity-limiting factor, as described on page 10, line 14-col. 11, line 4).
Claim 5 and 12
Andersson further discloses that the road classification signal is derived from map information and sensor information (see page 8, line 12-page 9, line 23, regarding means 110 includes a cartographic information unit 112 containing cartographic data including velocity-limiting factors in the form of characteristics of the roadway, such as curvature and topography along the route of travel of the vehicle, and camera element 116 arranged to detect characteristics of the roadway, including velocity-limiting factors in the form of curvature, widening of the road, and/or road marking in the roadway along which the vehicle is traveling).
Claim 6
Andersson further discloses the claimed automatic speed control system (see page 7, lines 23-25, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that system 1 adapts the velocity of a vehicle during driving the vehicle along a route of travel), comprising:
the automatic speed controller according to claim 1; and
the road classification module and the speed information module (see Figure 2, depicting system 1 including means 110), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8
Andersson discloses the claimed vehicle comprising the automatic speed controller (see page 7, lines 18-22, with respect to Figure 1, regarding the vehicle contains system 1 according to the present invention) according to claim 1, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9
Andersson discloses the claimed method for automatic speed control in a vehicle (see Figure 4), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10
Andersson further discloses determining a speed for the vehicle, in dependence on the vehicle speed information signal and the speed offset signal (see page 14, lines 1-4, with respect to the equation, regarding means 150 controls the vehicle velocity so that the velocity is permitted to be higher than the target velocity by a given offset, where the offset is adapted based on non-safety-critical velocity-limiting factors, as described on page 14, lines 5-21, defined as including speed limits along the route of travel of the vehicle on page 6, line 29-page 7, line 3).
Claim 13
Andersson further discloses computer readable instructions which, when executed by a computer, are arranged to perform the method according to claim 9 (see page 20, lines 14-28), as discussed in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 14
Andersson further discloses the claimed vehicle comprising the automatic speed control system (see page 7, lines 18-22, with respect to Figure 1, regarding vehicle 1 contains system 1 according to the present invention) according to claim 6, as described in the rejection of claim 6.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0067226 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Claim 7
Andersson further discloses controlling the vehicle velocity (see page 11, lines 20-22) so as to enable fuel-efficient driving of the vehicle in connection with velocity-limiting factors (see page 2, lines 13-16); therefore, a powertrain control unit may be reasonably gleaned from the disclosure of Andersson, such that Andersson further discloses a powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed offset signal.
In case a powertrain control unit cannot be reasonably gleaned from the disclosure of Andersson, Lee is applied in combination with Andersson to teach the well-known use of a powertrain control unit for similar speed control operations.
Specifically, Lee teaches a similar system in which a travel speed of a vehicle is generated based on an offset speed (similar to the speed offset signal taught by Andersson) for upcoming road segments (see ¶0057-0065, with respect to step 821 of Figure 8). Lee further teaches a powertrain control unit (i.e. engine control module 413) arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the offset speed (see ¶0033, regarding that speed-command-generator 408 supplies speed command 408A to ACC 411 and outputs appropriate acceleration and torque commands 411A to engine control module 413, where the speed-command-generator that implements the method of Figure 8 outputs the speed command based on the offset speed, as described in ¶0057-0065).
Since the systems of Andersson and Lee are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling a vehicle speed based on an offset speed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Andersson to include a powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed offset signal, in the same manner that an engine control unit module of Lee controls a vehicle speed based on an offset speed, with the predictable result of using a known engine control module conventionally installed in vehicles for responding to speed commands (¶0033, ¶0029 of Lee) generated by similar anticipatory cruise systems that enhance cruise capability (¶0001-0002 of Lee).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Pilkington (US 2016/0176401 A1) teaches controlling a vehicle speed at a posted speed limit plus an offset speed, where the offset speed is changed based on the current environment (see ¶0014), Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0232965 A1) teaches limiting a speed of a vehicle based on a speed limit associated with map information (see ¶0050) and road surface conditions (see ¶0085), and Ediger et al. (US 2017/0072955 A1) teaches determining an active setpoint acceleration profile based on the speed limit, current speed of the vehicle, and the type of road currently being traveled on by the vehicle (see ¶0024).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661