DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18863696 in view of US20170088135 because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. This modification of Application No. 18863696 in light of the secondary reference(s) is proper because the applied reference(s) is/are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).
The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of the reference application are listed in the table below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application
Application 18863696
US20170088135
claim 1
claim 6
n/a
claim 2
claim 6
n/a
claim 3
claim 7
n/a
claim 4
claim 8
n/a
claim 5
claim 8
n/a
claim 6
claim 8
n/a
claim 7
claim 9
n/a
claim 10
n/a
paragraph 0207
claim 11
claim 10
n/a
claim 12
claim 6
n/a
claim 13
claim 6
n/a
claim 14
claim 6
n/a
claim 15
claim 6
n/a
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US20170088135 (“Kelly”) in view of US20090062985 (“Ohashi”).
Claim 1
Kelly discloses a speed control system for a vehicle (0199 LSP control system 12 is configured to determine the speed at which the vehicle 100 is to be caused to operate at a given moment in time, LSP_set-speed, in dependence on the value of user_set-speed and a number of parameters associated with the vehicle 100), the speed control system configured to cause the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value (0199 LSP control system 12 is configured to determine the speed at which the vehicle 100 is to be caused to operate at a given moment in time, LSP_set-speed, in dependence on the value of user_set-speed and a number of parameters associated with the vehicle 100), the speed control system comprising one or more controllers (0199 LSP control system), the speed control system configured to:
receive articulation information indicative of an amount of articulation of front and rear wheels of the vehicle (0194 The sensors on the vehicle 100 include sensors which provide continuous sensor outputs to the VCU 10, including wheel speed sensors, as mentioned previously and as shown in FIG. 1, and other sensors (not shown) such as an ambient temperature sensor, an atmospheric pressure sensor, tire pressure sensors, wheel articulation sensors,);
determine a cross-articulation, indicative of an amount of cross-articulation of the wheels of the vehicle in dependence on the articulation information (0199 a maximum speed warp_v or warp speed that is set in dependence on vehicle suspension articulation, also referred to as suspension warp.); and
limit vehicle speed in dependence at least in part on the cross-articulation (0199 LSP control system 12 is configured to determine the speed at which the vehicle 100 is to be caused to operate at a given moment in time, LSP_set-speed, in dependence on the value of user_set-speed and a number of parameters associated with the vehicle 100... a maximum speed warp_v or warp speed that is set in dependence on vehicle suspension articulation, also referred to as suspension warp.) Examiner notes that the term “suspension warp”, or just “warp”, refers to the quality of cross-articulation as claimed, and as seen below in the Ohashi reference.
Kelly fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cross-articulation is a specific cross-articulation value, CrossArtc_L. However, Kelly does disclose generally determining the cross-articulation and limiting the speed based on the cross-articulation (0199). Furthermore, Ohashi teaches a system of determining cross-articulation of a vehicle (0058-0060),
wherein the cross-articulation is a specific cross-articulation value, CrossArtc_L (0058 When the warp calculation portion 60 receives the calculation request, it calculates a warp value that indicates the condition of the road surface over which the vehicle is traveling based on a comparison of the detected vehicle height at each wheel 14. The warp calculation portion 60 calculates the sum of vehicle height values detected at each diagonally opposite pair of wheels 14 of the vehicle 10. The warp calculation portion 60 calculates the difference between this sum of the vehicle height values and a subsequently obtained sum of vehicle height values corresponding to the other two wheels 14 arranged on the other diagonal line of the vehicle 10, and the difference obtained between the two sums is the warp., 0060 if the vehicle height value at the front-left wheel, the front-right wheel, the rear-left wheel is, and the rear-right wheel are is H[FL], H[FR], H[RL], and H[RR], respectively, a warp value Warp may be expressed by an expression: Warp=(H[FL]+H[RR])-(H[FR]+H[RL]).).
Kelly and Ohashi both disclose vehicle control systems based on a determined cross-articulation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Kelly to include the teaching of Ohashi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more precise control and limiting of the speed by using specific measured values of the cross-articulation to achieve consistent speed limiting across various cross-articulation values.
Claim 2
Kelly discloses:
determining a maximum allowable vehicle speed, CA_set-speed, in dependence at least in part on the cross-articulation, and to limit vehicle speed such that vehicle speed does not exceed the value of CA_set-speed (0199 the LSP control system 12 is configured to determine the speed at which the vehicle 100 is to be caused to operate at a given moment in time, LSP_set-speed, in dependence on the value of user_set-speed and a number of parameters associated with the vehicle 100. In particular, the LSP control system 12 is configured to cause the vehicle 100 to operate in accordance with the lowest of six values of vehicle set speed unless the driver overrides control of vehicle speed by depressing the accelerator pedal 161 by a sufficient amount. That is, provided the driver does not override vehicle speed control by means of the accelerator pedal 161, the LSP control system 12 sets the value of target_speed to the lowest of six values of speed. The six speed values are (a) a value of target speed requested by a user, user_set-speed, described above; (b) a maximum vehicle speed Psng_Excit_v calculated in dependence on the value of an occupant excitation parameter Psng_Excit, the value of Psng_Excit being set in dependence on vehicle pitch acceleration, roll acceleration and heave acceleration; (c) a maximum speed steering_angle_v that is set in dependence on steering angle and vehicle speed; (d) a maximum speed sideslope_v that is set in dependence on a value of surface side slope; (e) a maximum speed grad_v that is set in dependence on surface gradient; and (f) a maximum speed warp_v or warp speed that is set in dependence on vehicle suspension articulation, also referred to as suspension warp.).
Kelly fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cross-articulation is a specific cross-articulation value, CrossArtc_L. However, Kelly does disclose generally determining the cross-articulation and limiting the speed based on the cross-articulation (0199). Furthermore, Ohashi teaches a system of determining cross-articulation of a vehicle (0058-0060),
wherein the cross-articulation is a specific cross-articulation value, CrossArtc_L (0058 When the warp calculation portion 60 receives the calculation request, it calculates a warp value that indicates the condition of the road surface over which the vehicle is traveling based on a comparison of the detected vehicle height at each wheel 14. The warp calculation portion 60 calculates the sum of vehicle height values detected at each diagonally opposite pair of wheels 14 of the vehicle 10. The warp calculation portion 60 calculates the difference between this sum of the vehicle height values and a subsequently obtained sum of vehicle height values corresponding to the other two wheels 14 arranged on the other diagonal line of the vehicle 10, and the difference obtained between the two sums is the warp., 0060 if the vehicle height value at the front-left wheel, the front-right wheel, the rear-left wheel is, and the rear-right wheel are is H[FL], H[FR], H[RL], and H[RR], respectively, a warp value Warp may be expressed by an expression: Warp=(H[FL]+H[RR])-(H[FR]+H[RL]).).
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 5
Kelly fails to explicitly disclose receiving wheel articulation signals S_FL, S_FR, S_RL, S_RR, where S_FL is a signal indicative of the front left suspension height FL, S_FR is a signal indicative of the front right suspension height FR, S_RL is a signal indicative of the rear left suspension height RL and S_RR is a signal indicative of the rear right suspension height RR. However, Kelly does disclose receiving some wheel articulation signals (0194 wheel articulation sensors). Furthermore, Ohashi teaches a system of determining wheel articulation (0058), including:
receiving wheel articulation signals S_FL, S_FR, S_RL, S_RR, where S_FL is a signal indicative of the front left suspension height FL, S_FR is a signal indicative of the front right suspension height FR, S_RL is a signal indicative of the rear left suspension height RL and S_RR is a signal indicative of the rear right suspension height RR (0058 When the warp calculation portion 60 receives the calculation request, it calculates a warp value that indicates the condition of the road surface over which the vehicle is traveling based on a comparison of the detected vehicle height at each wheel 14. The warp calculation portion 60 calculates the sum of vehicle height values detected at each diagonally opposite pair of wheels 14 of the vehicle 10. The warp calculation portion 60 calculates the difference between this sum of the vehicle height values and a subsequently obtained sum of vehicle height values corresponding to the other two wheels 14 arranged on the other diagonal line of the vehicle 10, and the difference obtained between the two sums is the warp., 0060 if the vehicle height value at the front-left wheel, the front-right wheel, the rear-left wheel is, and the rear-right wheel are is H[FL], H[FR], H[RL], and H[RR], respectively, a warp value Warp may be expressed by an expression: Warp=(H[FL]+H[RR])-(H[FR]+H[RL]).).
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 7
Kelly discloses:
receiving a signal indicative of vehicle speed, VREF, the speed control system being configured to limit vehicle speed in further dependence on the value of VREF (0199 In the present embodiment, the LSP control system 12 is configured to determine the speed at which the vehicle 100 is to be caused to operate at a given moment in time, LSP_set-speed, in dependence on the value of user_set-speed and a number of parameters associated with the vehicle 100. In particular, the LSP control system 12 is configured to cause the vehicle 100 to operate in accordance with the lowest of six values of vehicle set speed unless the driver overrides control of vehicle speed by depressing the accelerator pedal 161 by a sufficient amount. That is, provided the driver does not override vehicle speed control by means of the accelerator pedal 161, the LSP control system 12 sets the value of target_speed to the lowest of six values of speed. The six speed values are (a) a value of target speed requested by a user, user_set-speed, described above; (b) a maximum vehicle speed Psng_Excit_v calculated in dependence on the value of an occupant excitation parameter Psng_Excit, the value of Psng_Excit being set in dependence on vehicle pitch acceleration, roll acceleration and heave acceleration; (c) a maximum speed steering_angle_v that is set in dependence on steering angle and vehicle speed; (d) a maximum speed sideslope_v that is set in dependence on a value of surface side slope; (e) a maximum speed grad_v that is set in dependence on surface gradient; and (f) a maximum speed warp_v or warp speed that is set in dependence on vehicle suspension articulation, also referred to as suspension warp.).
Claim 10
Kelly discloses:
receiving one or both of the following signals: a signal TRmode indicative of the driving mode, TR mode, in which the vehicle is currently operating; and a comfort signal S_comfort indicative of a level of comfort required by an occupant of the vehicle (0207 FIG. 7 is a schematic illustration of the manner in which the LSP control system 12 causes the vehicle 100 to operate in accordance with the value of LSP_set-speed when the LSP control system 12 is in the active mode.)
wherein the speed control system is configured to limit vehicle speed in further dependence at least in part on the signal TRmode and/or signal S_comfort (0207 FIG. 7 is a schematic illustration of the manner in which the LSP control system 12 causes the vehicle 100 to operate in accordance with the value of LSP_set-speed when the LSP control system 12 is in the active mode.).
Claim 11
Kelly in view of Ohashi discloses:
a system for controlling a speed of a vehicle (Kelly: 0199) comprising:
a speed control system as claimed in claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1); and
one or more sensors configured to output information indicative of an amount of articulation of front and rear wheels of the vehicle (Kelly: 0194 wheel articulation sensors).
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 12
Kelly in view of Ohashi discloses:
a vehicle comprising the speed control system of claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1).
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 15
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 15 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 1, 2, and 1, respectively, and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s). The closest prior art of record is US20170088135 (“Kelly”) and US20090062985 (“Ohashi”), which both disclose systems of determining wheel cross articulation. However, the aforementioned claims recite subject matter directed towards at least the following subject matter: wherein the value of CA_set- speed is lower for higher values of cross-articulation value, CrossArtc_L.; as well as wherein the cross-articulation value is dependent on: a first articulation value indicative of an extent to which the wheels of a first diagonal wheel pair are articulated in a positive or negative direction with respect to a baseline value, and the extent to which the wheels are articulated in phase with one another; a second articulation value indicative of an extent to which the wheels of a second diagonal wheel pair different from the first are articulated in a positive or negative direction with respect to a baseline value, and the extent to which the wheels are articulated in phase with one another; and an extent to which the first and second articulation values correspond to antiphase movement of respective pairs with respect to one another; as well as wherein the cross-articulation value, CrossArtc_L, is calculated according to the formula: CrossArtc_L = abs(FL-FR) + abs(RL-RR) + abs(FL-RL) + abs(FR-RR) - abs(FL-RR) - abs(FR-RL); as well as if VREF exceeds a predetermined upper limit value, the speed control system does not limit vehicle speed in dependence on cross-articulation value and wherein the speed control system is inoperable above a predetermined speed control system inoperable value, the predetermined upper limit value being less than the predetermined speed control system inoperable value. While relevant to the claims, the prior art does not provide an adequate basis for rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 because the prior art found does not sufficiently teach nor suggest the limitations as claimed, hence the allowability of the claims. Examiner notes that amendment to the claims resulting in a change of scope may result in requirement of an updated search.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663