DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 4/15/2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Objections to Drawings
Due to the amendment to the drawings filed 4/15/2026, the objection to the drawings have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations
Due to the amendment filed 4/15/2026, the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) no longer apply.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On page 8 of the Remarks filed 4/15/2026, the Applicant contends that the claims have been amended to specify the computational method by which the speed offset signal is determined, which is no longer susceptible to the characterization as a simple cognitive process. The Applicant further contends that the claimed method involves the synthesis of eight separate road parameters into a single numerical value and the application of that value within a mathematical formula to determine a cornering speed, which goes well beyond the “simple evaluation” identified by the Office in the unamended claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. As discussed in detail in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below, the limitation of “determine a cornering speed for the vehicle by applying the road classification value as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration” is merely determining generally recited data (i.e. cornering speed) using a mathematical equation (i.e. cornering speed calculation) applied to other generally recited data (i.e. road classification value, radius of curvature, and target lateral acceleration). Specifically, the equation may be written as: cornering speed = f(radius of curvature, target lateral acceleration) x road classification; therefore, the limitation recites a mathematical equation which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The Courts have repeatedly held that mathematical formulas and algorithms are abstract ideas, regardless of how many variables or parameters are plugged into them. For example, see Gottschalk v. Benson or Parker v. Flook.
While the limitation of “road classification value” is defined as “derived from a plurality of road parameters including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile,” this feature does not take the claim out of the mathematical concept grouping. Specifically, a multi-variable mathematical equation is still a mathematical equation.
Additionally, the limitation of “determine a cornering speed for the vehicle by applying the road classification value as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration” may be interpreted as a simple cognitive process that can be practically covered in the human mind or by a human using a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper or slide rule (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), as discussed in detail in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below. For example, a human may reasonably write down values representing road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile on a piece of paper to derive a numerical “road classification value.” The human may then plug the derived “road classification value” and values representing “radius of curvature” and “target lateral acceleration” into a “cornering speed calculation” and solve the calculation using a pen and paper. No details regarding the “cornering speed calculation” are claimed that prevent its broadest reasonable interpretation from being performed in the human mind.
On pages 8-9 of the Remarks, the Applicant contends that even if the amended claims were found to recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application, given that the amended claims are directed to automatic speed control of a vehicle, and the specific cornering speed calculation using the road classification value as a multiplicative scaling factor represents a concrete technical implementation that improves upon prior art approaches to vehicle speed control.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 below (and additionally indicated in the claim objections), the claim simply gathers data and performs a calculation. The “output” step does not provide actualized control of the vehicle. For an abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application, it must improve a technology or technical field, effect a meaningful transformation of a particular machine, and/or be applied to a particular machine, as described in MPEP 2106.05. The claim merely “determine[s] the speed offset signal” and “determine[s] a cornering speed.” The claim does not apply either of the determined speeds to control the vehicle, actuate a braking system, adjust a steering system, or change the physical state of any hardware. Simply calculating a more complex data value is not a practical application. Applicant should note that claim 7 has not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the present Office Action and in the Office Action mailed 1/16/2026.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Due to the amendment filed 4/15/2026, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn. See the reasons for allowable subject matter below.
Drawings
The amendment to the drawings filed 4/15/2026 has been entered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the road classification value in the seventeenth line of claim 1. In order to maintain consistent claim language, it is recommended to amend this limitation to correspond to the “numerical road classification value” to clearly distinguish from the “road classification signal.” Claim 9 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 1 recites An automatic speed controller for a vehicle; however, the body of the claim lacks speed control functions. The boundaries of the claim are unclear, because the claim purports to be a “automatic speed controller” but fails to recite any limitation that controls speed.
Claim 9 recites A method for automatic speed control in a vehicle; however, the body of the claim lacks speed control functions. The boundaries of the claim are unclear, because the claim purports to be for “automatic speed control” but fails to recite any limitation that controls speed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 electrical 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, the road classification signal comprising a numerical road classification value derived from a plurality of road parameters including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile, and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road;
an electrical 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, wherein the processor is further arranged to determine a cornering speed for the vehicle by applying the road classification value as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration.
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 and Mathematical concepts
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.
The claim recites the limitation of determine a cornering speed for the vehicle by applying the road classification value as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “cornering speed” is data representative of a speed value associated with a corner. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “radius of curvature,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of a road radius, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “target lateral acceleration” is data representative of a desired lateral acceleration. No particular sensors or control operations are claimed. Generally recited data is merely determined based on other generally recited data.
The use of the road classification value as a “multiplicative scaling factor” within a generally recited calculation based on additional generally recited data is a mathematical concept, expressed as a mathematical equation, e.g., cornering speed = f(radius of curvature, target lateral acceleration) x road classification value. Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, this limitation, as drafted, may also be interpreted as 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 value, radius of curvature, target lateral acceleration, and cornering speed calculation) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a corning 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 “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 electrical 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, the road classification signal comprising a numerical road classification value derived from a plurality of road parameters including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile, and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road;
an electrical output for outputting a speed offset signal for use in setting a speed of the vehicle.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant’s disclosure, the limitations of “information relating to a road on which the vehicle may travel,” “a numerical road classification value,” “a plurality of road parameters,” “road class,” “number of lanes,” “form of way,” “lane width,” “lane markings,” “road visibility,” “road curvature,” and “acceleration profile” are merely generally recited data used to describe the “road classification signal,” and the limitation of “speed limit value for the road” is merely generally recited data used to describe the “vehicle speed information signal.”
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 “electrical input” is merely claimed as a source of the generally recited data, and therefore, the “electrical input” does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(III).
Further limiting the “road classification signal” to include “information relating to a road on which the vehicle may travel” and to include “a numerical road classification value derived from a plurality of road parameters including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile, and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road” does not require particular vehicle-related sensors for acquiring the data or controlled operations of the vehicle. Further limiting the “vehicle speed information signal” to include “a speed limit value for the road” does not require any particular vehicle-related sensors for acquiring the data or controlled operations of the vehicle. Thus, these limitations represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea and do 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). No technological details are recited with respect to the “electrical output” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “electrical output” is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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” steps, 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, the road classification signal comprising a numerical road classification value derived from a plurality of road parameters including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile, 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;
wherein the method further comprises determining a cornering speed for the vehicle by applying the road classification value as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration.
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 and Mathematical concepts
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 correspond in scope to claims 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 7 is allowed for incorporating limitations that render the claimed subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Per MPEP 2106.05(I), the novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, Andersson et al. (WO 2015/178841 A1), hereinafter Andersson, Lee et al. (US 2009/0037062 A1), hereinafter Lee, and Gunnarsson et al. (US 2022/0410876 A1), hereinafter Gunnarsson, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed method and automatic speed controller for a vehicle, the automatic speed controller comprising one or more controllers, the automatic speed controller comprising:
an electrical 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, the road classification signal comprising a numerical road classification value derived from a plurality of road parameters including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile, and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road;
an electrical 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, wherein the processor is further arranged to determine a cornering speed for the vehicle by applying the road classification value as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration.
Specifically, as discussed in detail in the Office Action mailed 1/16/2026, Andersson teaches a similar automatic speed controller for a vehicle (see page 7, lines 23-25, with respect to Figure 2), comprising an electrical 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), 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), and the vehicle speed information signal comprises a speed limit value for the road (see page 8, line 12-page 9, line 23), an electrical 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), 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; page 6, line 29-page 7, line 3; page 6, lines 17-27; page 18, lines 11-26), as claimed. However, Andersson does not further teach “the road classification signal comprising a numerical road classification value derived from a plurality of road parameters including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile,” as claimed, nor does Andersson teach “determin[ing] a cornering speed for the vehicle by applying the road classification value as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration,” as claimed.
Upon further search and consideration of the amendment filed 4/15/2026, Lee and Gunnarsson have been identified as most relevant prior art.
Specifically, Lee teaches an automatic speed controller for a vehicle that determines a cornering speed (i.e. desired comfort speed) for the vehicle by applying a numerical road classification value (i.e. Kr) as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation (i.e. equation (5)) based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration (see ¶0025, regarding the calculation of a desired comfort speed for traveling a desired curve based on factors that include factor Kr related to a road type, e.g., highway, local street, gravel road, etc., and maximum lateral acceleration, defined with respect to the radius of curvature of the curve in ¶0023). While Lee teaches the “numerical road classification value” as derived from a road parameter including road class, Lee does not teach this numerical road classification value as additionally derived from road parameters that include number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile, as claimed.
Gunnarsson teaches an automatic speed controller for a vehicle that determines a cornering speed (i.e. safety speed) for the vehicle by applying a numerical road classification value (i.e. composite curvature data R) as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a target lateral acceleration (see ¶0044-0046, regarding the calculation of a safety speed for a safe operational profile that maintains lateral acceleration values for the vehicle below defined threshold values while traversing the curve), where the numerical road classification value is derived from a plurality of road parameters including a number of lanes, lane markings, and road curvature (see ¶0026, regarding the composite curvature data R is generated using digital map data and lane marker data, defined as including geometry of roads, number of lanes, and road radius data in ¶0033). However, Gunnarsson does not teach this road classification value as additionally derived from road parameters that include road class, form of way, lane width, road visibility, and acceleration profile, as claimed.
Additional relevant prior art that include Yasui et al. (US 2011/0178689 A1), hereinafter Yasui, Hayakawa et al. (US 2021/0276561 A1), hereinafter Hayakawa, and Mizoguchi (US 2019/0375405 A1), hereinafter Mizoguchi, have been identified upon further search of the amendment filed 4/15/2026 and are discussed below.
Specifically, Yasui teaches an automatic speed controller for a vehicle that determines a cornering speed (i.e. proper vehicle speed Vqo) for the vehicle using a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration (see ¶0115, regarding proper speed Vqo is calculated based on curvature radius Rm and a constant lateral acceleration). Yasui further teaches that the proper vehicle speed Vqo is adjusted based on a combination of road parameters such as uphill/downhill grade Kud, road width Wrd, front visibility Msk, and road surface friction coefficient µmax (see ¶0116-0117); however, these adjustments occur individually and are not combined into a single composite “numerical road classification value” that is additionally derived based on road parameters that include road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane markings, and acceleration profile, as claimed.
Hayakawa teaches the well-known feature of storing a plurality of road parameters including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, road visibility, and road curvature (see ¶0035; ¶0069) for vehicle speed control applications (see abstract); however, a composite “numerical road classification value” is not derived based on the plurality of road parameters, so as to be applied as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration, as claimed.
Mizoguchi teaches determining a cornering speed (i.e. curve-traveling speed VcV) based on a radius of curvature of the road and a lane width (see ¶0040) and storing traveling control data that further includes type of lane line and number of lane lines (see ¶0029); however, Mizoguchi fails to derive a “numerical road classification value” from a plurality of road parameters that include road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile, so as to be applied as a multiplicative scaling factor within a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration, as claimed.
In general, the claimed “cornering speed calculation” defined as being “based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target acceleration” is well-known in the art. For example, see Lee et al. (US 2014/0067226 A1) that recites this equation in ¶0050, and Nakamura (US 2009/0037070 A1) that recites this equation in ¶0043.
While combinations of “road parameters” are known to form a basis for speed calculations directed to a vehicle traversing a curve, as discussed above, no reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach deriving a single “numerical road classification value” from a combination of road parameters that include road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile, such that the “numerical road classification value” is applied as a multiplicative scaling factor in a cornering speed calculation based on a radius of curvature of the road and a target lateral acceleration, in addition to being a basis of the determination of the speed offset signal, as claimed. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights