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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 04/21/2026 (claimed foreign priority date 05/04/2022):
Claims 1-14 have been examined.
Claims 1, 7 and 9-13 have been amended by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Response to Amendment
Drawings
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawings objections to from the previous Office Action.
Claim Objections
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claims 7 and 13 objections to from the previous Office Action.
Specification
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the specification objections to from the previous Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
1.1 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: “road classification module;” “speed information module;” “input for receiving signal from module;” “output for outputting signal for use in setting;” “powertrain control unit,” in claims 1, 6-7, 9, as currently amended.
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 § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1.1 Claims 1-14, as currently amended, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1.1.1 Claim limitations: “road classification module;” “speed information module;” “input for receiving signal from module;” “output for outputting signal for use in setting;” “powertrain control unit,” in claims 1, 6-7, 9, have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear whether the claimed limitations/features “road classification module;” “speed information module;” “input for receiving signal from module;” “output for outputting signal for use in setting;” “powertrain control unit,” are structure elements/components, or not, which renders the claims indefinite.
The specification DOES NOT specify or provide any explanation for whether the limitations listed above are structure(s), hardware, software, firmware, etc., the specification, in numerous paragraphs, presents what the limitations listed above are configured and/or capable to do or perform. The drawings also DO NOT provide any explanation for whether the limitations listed above are structure(s), hardware, software, firmware, etc., OR not.
Examiner finds that it is well known in the art that a software, as well as a hardware or firmware, can be configured or programmed to carry out or perform well-known in the art method steps, such as “sending/receiving information/data signal(s);” “being a part of a controller, or a computerized system;” “controlling speed vehicle.”
The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claimed “modules,” “unit” to be actual unit(s) or similar hardware devices, such as a CPU Control Processing Unit; thereby providing structure to the body of the claim.
1.1.2 Claims 2-8 and 10-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 101 rejections to claims 1-6 and 8-14 from the previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
1. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BELLE (US20220009487) in view of LIN (US20200156631).
As per claims 1 and 9, BELLE discloses through the invention (see entire document) an automatic speed controller for a vehicle/method for automatic speed control in a vehicle, the automatic speed controller/method comprising one or more controllers (Para [0023, 0044-0045], claim 9 – teaching computer controlling the regulation of the speed of the vehicle as a function of a speed setpoint, and, if a radius of curvature of the future position representative of a curve is detected, controlling the imposition on the vehicle of a deceleration phase down to a chosen speed of deceleration (or passing in a curve); speed regulation device DR, which for this purpose comprises at least one computer CA comprising at least one digital signal processor (or DSP), optionally associated with at least one memory), the automatic speed controller/method for automatic speed control in the vehicle, comprising:
an input for receiving a road classification signal from a road classification module, a vehicle speed information signal from a speed information module and a curvature signal, wherein the road classification signal comprises information relating to a road on which the vehicle may travel, the vehicle speed information signal comprises a target lateral acceleration, and the curvature signal comprises information relating to a curvature profile of the road (abstract, Para [0009-0014, 0022-0025, 0034, 0038, 0040-0042, 0050-0058, 0060, 0073-0076, 0080, 0082] – teaching obtaining/sensing/determining/analyzing environmental data, curvature/radius of road data, vehicle speed/acceleration data; maximum transverse acceleration at which the vehicle V can undergo in this curve determined as a function of the speed setpoint cv (possibly adapted as a function of the speed of another vehicle situated in front of the vehicle V); determining the maximum transverse acceleration at that the vehicle V that can undergo in the curve as a function not only of the speed setpoint cv (possibly adapted), but also a maximum reduction in speed rm authorized as a function of a current local context in the traffic lane VC2 which is used by its vehicle V);
an output for outputting a speed offset signal for use in setting a speed of the vehicle, the output configured to transmit the speed offset signal to a powertrain control unit (abstract, Para [0009, 0022-0025, 0027-0031, 0043-0044, 0047, 0049, 0063, 0072-0074, 0080-0082] – teaching commands for regulating speed) arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed offset signal (fig. 1-2, Para [0009-0023, 0027, 0032, 0042-0044] – teaching speed regulation device DR); and
a processor arranged to determine the speed offset signal comprising a speed offset value, in dependence on the road classification signal, the vehicle speed information signal, and the curvature signal (fig. 2-3, Para [0063, 0072-0074, 0080-0083] – teaching diagram that illustrates the first c1 and second c2 curves of temporal evolution (t) of the transverse acceleration at (in m.s.sup.−2) authorized for the vehicle V as a function of its speed v (in km/h) when it is subject to speed regulation by its regulation device DR and in the presence of low and high traffic, respectively. Curve c1 illustrates a so-called comfort situation in which the transverse comfort of the passengers is favored, while curve c2 illustrates a so-called degraded situation in which “efficiency” is sought so as not to disturb the flow of traffic; an algorithm implementing the step of the speed regulation method; speed regulation method implemented by a plurality of processors, random access memory, auxiliary storage, input interface, output interface and/or digital signal processor).
BELLE does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing road classification.
However, LIN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0008, 0011, 0017, 0031-0033, 0039-0041], claim 1 – teaching generating a plurality of target planned trajectory sets based on … a width of the road and a curvature of the road; calculating a plurality of path end points based on the information concerning the self-driving vehicle and a map of the road; calculating a plurality of path end points based on the information concerning … a map of the road that include additional information such as a number of lanes that constitute the road, the width of the road, the curvature of the road.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BELLE by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LINX, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to plan a trajectory for a self-driving vehicle on a road, which has improved accuracy and therefore may lower risk for the self-driving vehicle (see entire LIN document, particularly Para [0006]).
As per claim 2, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining a speed for the vehicle, in dependence on the speed offset signal (abstract, Para [0009, 0022-0025, 0027-0031, 0043-0044, 0047, 0049, 0063, 0072-0074, 0080-0082] – teaching speed of the vehicle regulated as a function of a speed setpoint; commands for regulating speed; controlling the regulation of the speed of the vehicle as a function of a speed setpoint).
As per claim 3, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining the speed for the vehicle further in dependence on the vehicle speed information signal (abstract, Para [0009, 0022-0025, 0027-0031, 0043-0044, 0047, 0049, 0063, 0072-0074, 0080-0082] – teaching speed of the vehicle regulated as a function of a speed setpoint; commands for regulating speed; controlling the regulation of the speed of the vehicle as a function of a speed setpoint).
As per claim 4, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) curvature profile that comprises a radius of a curve in the road (abstract, Para [0009-0014, 0022-0025, 0034, 0038, 0040-0042, 0050-0054, 0056-0057, 0067, 0073-0074, 0076]).
As per claims 5 and 12, BELLE does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing road classification signal derived from map information and sensor information.
However, LIN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0040-0041] – teaching each of the candidate planned trajectory sets that includes a candidate path from the current position of the self-driving vehicle to one of the path end points (i.e., each candidate path corresponds with a specific lane of the road), and a candidate speed curve indicating estimated change of the speed of the self-driving vehicle within a driving time period during which the self-driving vehicle moves along the candidate path; candidate paths of multiple candidate planned trajectory sets that may correspond with a same lane of the road; the width of the road and the curvature of the road that may be obtained from the road detecting device 13, while the width of the road and the curvature of the road that may be retrieved from the map of the road stored in the data storage unit of the trajectory calculating device 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BELLE by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LINX, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to plan a trajectory for a self-driving vehicle on a road, which has improved accuracy and therefore may lower risk for the self-driving vehicle (see entire LIN document, particularly Para [0006]).
As per claim 6, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) automatic speed controller according to claim 1; and the road classification module and the speed information module (Para [0023, 0044-0045], claim 9 – teaching computer controlling the regulation of the speed of the vehicle as a function of a speed setpoint, and, if a radius of curvature of the future position representative of a curve is detected, controlling the imposition on the vehicle of a deceleration phase down to a chosen speed of deceleration (or passing in a curve); speed regulation device DR, which for this purpose comprises at least one computer CA comprising at least one digital signal processor (or DSP), optionally associated with at least one memory).
As per claim 7, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed offset signal (fig. 1-2, Para [0009-0023, 0027, 0032, 0042-0044] – teaching speed regulation device DR).
As per claim 8, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) automatic speed controller according to claim 1 (Para [0023, 0044-0045], claim 9 – teaching computer controlling the regulation of the speed of the vehicle as a function of a speed setpoint, and, if a radius of curvature of the future position representative of a curve is detected, controlling the imposition on the vehicle of a deceleration phase down to a chosen speed of deceleration (or passing in a curve); speed regulation device DR, which for this purpose comprises at least one computer CA comprising at least one digital signal processor (or DSP), optionally associated with at least one memory).
As per claim 10, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining a speed for the vehicle, in dependence on the vehicle speed information signal and the speed offset signal (abstract, Para [0009, 0022-0025, 0027-0031, 0043-0044, 0047, 0049, 0063, 0072-0074, 0080-0082] – teaching speed of the vehicle regulated as a function of a speed setpoint; commands for regulating speed; controlling the regulation of the speed of the vehicle as a function of a speed setpoint).
As per claim 11, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) determining the speed for the vehicle by applying the speed offset value to the target lateral acceleration (abstract, Para [0009-0014, 0022-0025, 0034, 0038, 0040-0042, 0050-0058, 0060, 0073-0076, 0080, 0082]).
As per claim 13, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer readable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 9 (Para [0023, 0044-0045], claim 9).
As per claim 14, BELLE further discloses through the invention (see entire document) a vehicle comprising the automatic speed control system according to claim 6 (Para [0023, 0044-0045], claim 9 – teaching computer controlling the regulation of the speed of the vehicle as a function of a speed setpoint, and, if a radius of curvature of the future position representative of a curve is detected, controlling the imposition on the vehicle of a deceleration phase down to a chosen speed of deceleration (or passing in a curve); speed regulation device DR, which for this purpose comprises at least one computer CA comprising at least one digital signal processor (or DSP), optionally associated with at least one memory).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
JOKELA (US20210009128) – (see entire JOKELA document, particularly abstract – teaching a method of generating a target operational speed band for a host vehicle travelling along a route; a first time-dependent obstacle identified at a first location on the route; the first time-dependent obstacle identified as hindering progress of the host vehicle during a first time period; the first time-dependent obstacle defined in a two-dimensional speed against distance map; a first speed trajectory determined from a first point to a second point within the two-dimensional speed against distance map; the second point that represents the first location on the route and the determined first speed trajectory represents the host vehicle arriving at the first location at a first arrival time; the target operational speed band determined such that the first speed trajectory forms one of an upper limit and a lower limit of the target operational speed band; the first arrival time outside said first time period; the present disclosure that also relates to a controller for generating a target operational speed band; and to a vehicle).
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, claim rejections, Applicant argues, on pages 9-12 of 17 of the remarks filed 04/21/2026, that “… the terms that were being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, in the previous office action, recite sufficient structure to perform their respective functions;” that “… none of the identified claim limitations uses the word "means" or "step," and that accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply;” that “… inconclusive result on the question of whether 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies does not establish that the claim boundaries are ambiguous to one having ordinary skill in the automotive controls field;” that “… the terms "module," "unit," "input," and "output" are well understood by a person having ordinary skill in the automotive controls field to connote structure;” that “[i]n particular, "powertrain control unit" is an industry-standard term of art referring to a well-known electronic control unit (ECU) responsible for managing powertrain functions, a standard hardware component in modern vehicles;” that “… Office's own working interpretation confirms that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms to connote structure;” that “[a]pplicant's specification provides substantial structural context for each of these terms;” that “… descriptions, in paragraphs [0053, 0081] of the instant specification presented and cited by Applicant, go well beyond purely functional recitations and provide one having ordinary skill in the art with a clear understanding of the structural nature of each component,” BUT, HOWEVER, Applicant does not provide an evidence to or an explanation for WHY OR HOW the terms that were being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, in the previous office action, recite sufficient structure to perform their respective functions; OR WHY OR HOW a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to none of the identified claim limitations uses the word "means" or "step;" OR WHY OR HOW inconclusive result on the question of whether 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies does not establish that the claim boundaries are ambiguous to one having ordinary skill in the automotive controls field; OR WHY OR HOW the terms "module," "unit," "input," and "output" are well understood by a person having ordinary skill in the automotive controls field to connote structure; OR WHY OR HOW "powertrain control unit" is an industry-standard term of art referring to a well-known electronic control unit (ECU) responsible for managing powertrain functions, a standard hardware component in modern vehicles; OR WHY OR HOW the Office's own working interpretation confirms that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms to connote structure; OR WHY OR HOW Applicant's specification provides substantial structural context for each of these terms; OR WHY AND HOW descriptions, in paragraphs [0053, 0081] of the instant specification presented and cited by Applicant, go well beyond purely functional recitations and provide one having ordinary skill in the art with a clear understanding of the structural nature of each component.
In response to the above, Examiner respectfully presents that it is well known in the art that the term “module” is a very broad term that includes “a module as a self-contained, standardized, or independent unit that combines with others to form a larger, complex system, such as software, furniture, or education; that it acts as a reusable component designed to manage complexity, enabling easier construction, assembly, or study,” (see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/module last accessed on 05/04/2026) thereby meaning that “a module” can be a structure, hardware, software, firmware, etc., and that, as presented on pages 2-6 in the instant office action above, the instant specification, DOES NOT specify or provide any explanation for whether the limitations listed above are structure(s), hardware, software, firmware, etc., the specification, in numerous paragraphs, presents what the limitations listed above are configured and/or capable to do or perform. The drawings also DO NOT provide any explanation for whether the limitations listed above are structure(s), hardware, software, firmware, etc., OR not.
For the above reasons, it is believed that the claim interpretation/rejections should be maintained.
3. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections, Applicant argues, on pages 12-16 of 17 of the remarks filed 04/21/2026, that “… the cited references, even if combined as suggested by the Office, fail to disclose each and every element of the claims;” that “… the combination of Belle and Lin fails to teach or suggest at least the following elements of the amended independent claims: (1) a speed offset signal comprising a speed offset value; (2) receiving a vehicle speed information signal comprising a target lateral acceleration as an input from a speed information module; (3) a road classification signal from a road classification module; and (4) transmitting the speed offset signal to a powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed off set signal;” that “Belle, by contrast, does not determine or output a speed offset signal;” that “… deceleration target speed is not a speed offset value;” that “… Lin does not disclose a road classification signal as claimed;” that “Lin's raw road map data does not constitute a "road classification signal" in any meaningful sense, and Lin provides no motivation to derive such a classification value from multiple inputs for use in scaling a speed calculation;” that “… raw curvature data is not a road classification signal derived from "map information and sensor information;" that “Belle's retrieval of curvature data from a map database does not constitute deriving such a road classification signal;” that “Belle does not disclose transmitting the speed off set signal to a powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed off set signal;” that “Belle does not disclose outputting a speed offset signal to a separate powertrain control unit for controlling the speed of the vehicle based on that off set signal;” that “Lin likewise does not disclose this feature, as Lin is directed to trajectory planning for self-driving vehicles and does not address the transmission of a speed offset signal to a powertrain control unit,” BUT, HOWEVER, Applicant does not provide an evidence to or an explanation for WHY OR HOW the cited references, even if combined as suggested by the Office, fail to disclose each and every element of the claims; OR WHY OR HOW the combination of Belle and Lin fails to teach or suggest at least the following elements of the amended independent claims: (1) a speed offset signal comprising a speed offset value; (2) receiving a vehicle speed information signal comprising a target lateral acceleration as an input from a speed information module; (3) a road classification signal from a road classification module; and (4) transmitting the speed offset signal to a powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed off set signal; OR WHY OR HOW Belle, by contrast, does not determine or output a speed offset signal; OR WHY OR HOW deceleration target speed is not a speed offset value; OR WHY OR HOW Lin does not disclose a road classification signal as claimed; OR WHY OR HOW Lin's raw road map data does not constitute a "road classification signal" in any meaningful sense, and Lin provides no motivation to derive such a classification value from multiple inputs for use in scaling a speed calculation; OR WHY OR HOW raw curvature data is not a road classification signal derived from "map information and sensor information; OR WHY OR HOW Belle's retrieval of curvature data from a map database does not constitute deriving such a road classification signal; OR WHY OR HOW Belle does not disclose transmitting the speed off set signal to a powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed off set signal; OR WHY OR HOW Belle does not disclose outputting a speed offset signal to a separate powertrain control unit for controlling the speed of the vehicle based on that off set signal; OR WHY OR HOW Lin likewise does not disclose this feature, as Lin is directed to trajectory planning for self-driving vehicles and does not address the transmission of a speed offset signal to a powertrain control unit.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and kindly draws Applicant’s attention on pages 7-9 of the instant office action above, wherein it is discussed and presented how and why the combination of references (BELLE in view of LIN) teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations in independent claims 1 and 9.
4. In response to applicant's argument, on page 13 of 17 of the remarks filed 04/21/2026, that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “speed offset signal as a value used to adjust or scale a speed calculation;” “an offset value that adjusts a target speed or lateral acceleration;” “target lateral acceleration as an input to the controller, received from an external module;” “road classification signal as a processed signal comprising a road classification value (e.g., a scaling factor) derived from multiple inputs including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile;” “a road classification signal, which encompasses a processed classification value derived from multiple inputs including road class, number of lanes, form of way, lane width, lane markings, road visibility, road curvature, and acceleration profile”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
5. Applicant argues on pages 12-16 of 17 of the remarks that the combination of the BELLE and LIN references, in certain paragraphs, selected and/or cited by the Applicnat, but different from the paragraphs, cited by the Examiner (Emphasis Added), does not teach, suggest, or fully meet all the claimed elements, features, and limitations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 7-9 of the instant office action above,, where it is discussed how the combination of references (BELLE in view of LIN), in different from the paragraphs selected and/or cited by the Applicant (Emphasis Added), teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the combination of references (BELLE in view of LIN), as discussed in the paragraphs of the prior art references indicated in the office action above, teaches, suggests, and fully meets all the claimed elements, features, and limitations.
6. Regarding the applicant’s arguments on page 16 of 17 of the remarks with respect to claims 2-8 and 10-14 that “… the claims are likewise patentable at least by virtue of their dependency from amended claims 1 and 9, respectively, as well as for the additional features they recite,” the Examiner presents the same arguments regarding the rejection as presented for claims 1 and 9. For the above reason, it is believed that the rejections should be maintained.
7. The citations to claims 5 and 12 rejections have been revised. Due to administrative oversight Belle’s Para [0040-0041] were cited in the claim rejections but were not necessary to support the rejection to claims 5 and 12. Accordingly, new citation of LIN’s Para [0040-0041] have been added correctly reflecting that claims 5 and 12 are rejected under Belle in view of LIN.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571-270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights