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 communications filed 11/01/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 05/04/2022):
Claims 1-14 have been examined.
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.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the structural details, i.e. the interconnections of the steps, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP §608.02(b), MPEP §608.02(d).
With regard to fig. 5, the figure(s) merely show(s) flow charts using generic symbols, but lack(s) any relevant text that would provide a proper understanding of the interconnections between the generic symbols, i.e. what is being determined in the decision/step blocks and what values are being set in the other blocks. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be capable of viewing the drawings and properly understanding the methods.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “speed offset signal 102” as described in the specification, Para [0041] at least as published. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
3. 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 Objections
1. Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to correct grammatical errors/typo as the following: “7. The automatic speed control system as claimed in claim 6, further comprising a powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed offset signal.” Appropriate correction is required.
2. Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to correct an error/typo as the following: “13. Computer readable instructions which, when executed by a computer, are arranged to perform the method according to claim 9.” Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification, in Para [0041] at least as published, presents the limitation/feature ”speed offset signal 102,” which, as it is believed, is a typo, because anywhere else the specification specifies ”processor” under the character “102.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 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
1.1 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.
1.1.1 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 – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a method for automatic speed control in a vehicle (i.e., a process). Claim 1 is directed to an automatic speed controller for a vehicle (i.e., machine, manufacture). Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
9. A method for automatic speed control in a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a road classification signal from a road classification module, a vehicle speed information signal from a vehicle 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 module comprises a target lateral acceleration, and the curvature signal comprises information relating to a curvature profile of the road;
determining a speed offset signal comprising a speed offset value, in dependence on the road classification signal, the vehicle speed information signal and the curvature signal; and
outputting the speed offset signal for use in setting a speed of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining,” in the context of this claim encompass a person (driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data collected (from sensors, LIDAR, cameras) and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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 portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
9. A method for automatic speed control in a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a road classification signal from a road classification module, a vehicle speed information signal from a vehicle 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 module comprises a target lateral acceleration, and the curvature signal comprises information relating to a curvature profile of the road;
determining a speed offset signal comprising a speed offset value, in dependence on the road classification signal, the vehicle speed information signal and the curvature signal; and
outputting the speed offset signal for use in setting a speed of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving;’ “outputting,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle speed controller/processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving, outputting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, outputting/informing/presenting about derived data from determining step(s)), and amount to mere pre solution receiving and post solution outputting/informing/presenting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities.
Lastly, the “vehicle speed controller/processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle speed controller/processor to perform the determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving, outputting,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving, outputting” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle speed controller/processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8 and 10-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in dependent claims 2-6, 8 and 10-14, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8 and 10-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
1.1.2 Dependent claim 7, however, appear to recite further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The Examiner finds that the limitations of dependent claim 7 that are directed toward to “powertrain control unit arranged to control the speed of the vehicle according to the speed offset signal” appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claim 7 appear to be patent eligible.
1.1.3 Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Regarding claim 13, the claim does not satisfy the STEP 1 requirement of the 2019 PEG because the claim is directed toward “computer readable instructions,” i.e. “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed as a product without any structure limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form and, therefore, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. While a claim directed to “software per se” does not recite patent eligible subject matter, a claim directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising the software does recite patent eligible subject matter because it is considered an article of manufacture. If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim to “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform: [the claimed functions, e.g., the method according to claim 9]”, or equivalent language.
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 (abstract, Para [0009, 0022-0025, 0027-0031, 0043-0044, 0047, 0049, 0063, 0072-0074, 0080-0082] – teaching commands for regulating speed); 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 Para [0040-0041] – teaching road information (defining each segment of the road R taken) that comes from a database defining a very precise road map, on board the vehicle V or else accessible via electromagnetic, or air, waves by the vehicle V; geographical position of the future segment which the vehicle V is about to take along the second traffic lane VC2 precisely determined, for example by means of an on-board navigation assistance device (possibly temporarily) in the vehicle V, then the radius of curvature (or the curvature) which is associated with this future position is determined in the database.
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) computer readable instructions which, when executed by a computer, are arranged to perform the method according to any of 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).
Conclusion
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