DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Y The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is made in response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 4/23/2026. Claims 1-15 have been cancelled. Claims 31-33 have been added. Claims 16-33 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 112 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been considered, however, they are not found persuasive. Accordingly, these rejections are maintained.
First, Applicant asserts that “means-plus-function analysis is insufficient” because “none of the claim language uses the word “means,” (Remarks at pg. 6). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “speed control system configured to: receive … receive … determine … output … cresting.”
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.
Second, Applicant asserts that portions of the claims “clearly implicate structure,” arguing, for example, “the speed control system comprising one or more controllers, the speed control system configured to,” and that “controllers [are] commonly recognized as a structure, not a nonce word,” (Remarks at pg. 7). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
Again, using a broadest reasonable interpretation of Applicant’s claim language, “controllers” may be interpreted as software modules or abstract algorithms that are intended to receive input, perform analysis, and output responses including “control instructions.”
Third, Applicant asserts that the claims do not recite intended use because the claim language recites terms such as “receive” and “determine” which “are operative limitations that define what the recited ‘speed control system comprising one or more controllers" must be capable of doing in order to carry out the claimed control” (Remarks at pg. 7). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
While the terms “receive” and “determine” might suggest function, the interpretation of the combined term “means intended to receive/determine” suggests intended use. For example, Applicant in their Remarks does not assert that the controllers require specific performance of the claim limitation, but rather suggests that the controllers merely “must be capable of doing in order to carry out the claimed control.” The distinction of claim scope articulated by the Applicant is the difference between a controller that is merely intended to, e.g. “receive” and “determine”, versus a controller that expressly performs a specific function, e.g. “receive” and “determine”.
In conclusion, rather than amend the language of the claim to expressly require specific performance of an unambiguous structure (e.g. amending the language of the claim to be directed to a processor configured to: receive … determine …), Applicant appears to intentionally maintain the format of the claim language to be broadly directed towards an ambiguously (non)structural controller capable of (but not necessarily required to) perform intended functions such as “receive” and “determine”.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 101 have been considered and are accepted in view of the issues raised in the previous action, but are not persuasive. These rejections are accordingly maintained.
First, Applicant suggests that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind because “the claimed speed control system must (1) receive pitch rate signals and driving surface gradient signals [e.g., from sensors] while the vehicle is moving, (2) simultaneously evaluate the dual conditions (pitch rate> predetermined value AND gradient< predetermined value), and (3) output a speed reduction signal that actuates the braking system and/or drive-torque controllers” (Remarks at pg. 8-9). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
Applicant merely describes receiving, analyzing, and outputting information. Notably, Applicant does not claim sensors as part of the claimed invention itself, but merely obtaining signals “[e.g. from sensors].” Likewise, although Applicant’s preamble suggests the invention is directed to a “speed control system,” the claim does not actually contain language that expressly performs the function of “controlling a speed of a vehicle.”
Second, Applicant asserts that the claims are “an improvement to … another technology or technical field” because the claims “solve a specific technical problem in the field of vehicle control: automatically reducing vehicle speed precisely when the vehicle nose lowers over a crest (pitch rate + gradient dual condition),” (Remarks at pg. 9). However, as discussed above, the claim does not actually reduce or otherwise control vehicle speed.
Third, Applicant asserts that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, because “specific control of brake torque and drive torque reduction in response to the cresting determination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the prior art” (Remarks at pg. 9-10). This argument, however, is directed to the state of prior art, and not relevant to the abstract nature of the invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejections, generally, Applicant does not seem to suggest that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed invention, but rather asserts that the combination of references used to teach Applicant’s invention is improper. For example, Applicant asserts that the “proposed combination impermissibly changes the principle of operation of the primary reference, Kelly ‘682," (Remarks at pg. 10). Namely, Applicant characterizes the invention of Kelly ‘682 as being uniquely and specifically directed to avoidance of false positives, because the specification recites: “"a combination of two or more tests ... to confirm the detection of cresting, to reduce the chances of a false detection of cresting which may inconvenience a user by an unnecessary reduction in vehicle speed," (Remarks at pg. 10). Applicant thus suggests that Kelly ‘682 would then be incompatible with the language of Kelly ‘350, that recites: “Cresting may be detected in some embodiments by monitoring one or more vehicle parameters such as vehicle pitch or pitch rate ... " (Remarks at pg. 10 reciting Kelly ‘350 at ¶ 101). Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees.
Namely, while Kelly ‘350 might introduce the possibility of false positives, Kelly ‘682 would still viably maintain the functionality of automatically causing a vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value upon combination with Kelly ‘682.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 16-30 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites: "A speed control system for a vehicle, the speed control system configured to cause the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value, the speed control system comprising one or more controllers, the speed control system configured to:
receive a pitch rate signal indicative of a rate of change of pitch of a vehicle;
receive a driving surface gradient signal indicative of a gradient of a driving surface upon which the vehicle is being driven; and
determine if the vehicle is cresting in dependence on:
the rate of change of pitch exceeding a predetermined value; and
the gradient value of the driving surface being below a predetermined value, wherein the speed control system is configured to output a speed reduction signal to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting."
This language rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“the speed control system configured to: receive … receive … determine …”
“the speed control system is configured to output …”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“the speed control system configured to: receive … receive … determine …”
“the speed control system is configured to output …”
“output a speed reduction signal to reduce …”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system for a vehicle, the speed control system configured to cause the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value, the speed control system comprising one or more controllers, the speed control system [intended to:
receive a pitch rate signal indicative of a rate of change of pitch of a vehicle;
receive a driving surface gradient signal indicative of a gradient of a driving surface upon which the vehicle is being driven; and
determine if the vehicle is cresting in dependence on:
the rate of change of pitch exceeding a predetermined value; and
the gradient value of the driving surface being below a predetermined value, wherein the speed control system is [intended to output a speed reduction signal [intended to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting]]]."
Claims 17-28 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 17 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 16 configured to cause the reduction in speed in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting by at least one of:
application of brake torque by means of a vehicle braking system; and
reducing an amount of positive drive torque applied to one or more wheels of the vehicle."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 16 [intended to cause the reduction in speed in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting by at least one of:
application of brake torque by means of a vehicle braking system; and
reducing an amount of positive drive torque applied to one or more wheels of the vehicle]."
Claim 18 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 16 configured wherein the amount by which speed is reduced is selected in dependence on the driving surface gradient."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above. Moreover this language is further rejected for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the amount by which speed is reduced”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 16 [intended wherein an amount by which speed is reduced is selected in dependence on the driving surface gradient]."
Claim 19 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 19 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 18 wherein the amount by which speed is reduced is selected in dependence on the substantially instantaneous driving surface gradient."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 16 and 18 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 18 wherein [it is intended that an amount by which speed is reduced is [intended to be selected in dependence on a substantially instantaneous driving surface gradient]]."
Claim 20 recites: "A speed control system according to a claim 16 configured to calculate an estimated driving surface gradient value based on the driving surface gradient signal, the speed control system being configured to cause a reduction in vehicle speed in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting in further dependence on the estimated driving surface gradient value."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to a claim 16 [intended to calculate an estimated driving surface gradient value based on the driving surface gradient signal, the speed control system being [intended to cause a reduction in vehicle speed in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting in further dependence on the estimated driving surface gradient value]]."
Claim 21 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 16 configured to cause the reduction in speed of the vehicle in response to a determination that the vehicle is cresting for at least one of:
a predetermined speed reduction period following the determination that the vehicle is cresting; and
a predetermined speed reduction distance following the determination that the vehicle is cresting."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 16 [intended to cause the reduction in speed of the vehicle in response to a determination that the vehicle is cresting for at least one of:
a predetermined speed reduction period following the determination that the vehicle is cresting; and
a predetermined speed reduction distance following the determination that the vehicle is cresting]."
Claim 22 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 16 configured wherein when a reduction in speed of the vehicle has been made in response to a first determination that the vehicle is cresting, the speed control system will not subsequently cause a further reduction in speed of the vehicle in response to a second, subsequent determination that the vehicle is cresting, unless the second determination occurs no less than:
a predetermined crest detection period following the first determination that the vehicle is cresting; and/or
a predetermined crest detection distance following the first determination that the vehicle is cresting."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 16 [it is intended that when a reduction in speed of the vehicle has been made in response to a first determination that the vehicle is cresting, the speed control system will not subsequently cause a further reduction in speed of the vehicle in response to a second, subsequent determination that the vehicle is cresting, unless the second determination occurs no less than:
a predetermined crest detection period following the first determination that the vehicle is cresting; and/or
a predetermined crest detection distance following the first determination that the vehicle is cresting]."
Claim 23 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 16 wherein the speed control system being configured to output a speed reduction signal to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting comprises the speed control system being configured to output a vehicle deceleration request corresponding to a required rate of deceleration of the vehicle."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 16 wherein [it is intended that the speed control system being [intended to output a speed reduction signal [intended to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting comprises the speed control system being [intended to output a vehicle deceleration request corresponding to a required rate of deceleration of the vehicle]]]]."
Claims 24-25 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 24 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 23 configured wherein the vehicle deceleration request is dependent at least in part on the driving surface gradient."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 23 [it is intended that the vehicle deceleration request is dependent at least in part on the driving surface gradient]."
Claim 25 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 25 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 24 configured wherein the magnitude of the deceleration request increases as a function of increasing driving surface gradient."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 16 and 18 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 24 [it is intended thata magnitude of the deceleration request increases as a function of increasing driving surface gradient]."
Claim 26 recites: "A speed control system according to claim 23 wherein the vehicle deceleration request is dependent at least in part on a user-selectable input indicative of a desired level of occupant comfort."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A speed control system according to claim 23 wherein [it is intended that the vehicle deceleration request is dependent at least in part on a user-selectable input indicative of a desired level of occupant comfort]."
Claim 29 recites: "A method of controlling a speed of a vehicle implemented by a speed control system, the method comprising causing the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value, the method further comprising:
receiving a pitch rate signal indicative of a rate of change of pitch attitude of a vehicle;
receiving a driving surface gradient signal indicative of a gradient of a driving surface upon which the vehicle is being driven; and
determining if the vehicle is cresting in dependence on:
the rate of change of pitch attitude exceeding a predetermined value; and
the gradient value of the driving surface being below a predetermined value, the method comprising outputting a speed reduction signal to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A method of controlling a speed of a vehicle implemented by a speed control system, the method comprising causing the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value, the method further comprising:
receiving a pitch rate signal indicative of a rate of change of pitch attitude of a vehicle;
receiving a driving surface gradient signal indicative of a gradient of a driving surface upon which the vehicle is being driven; and
determining if the vehicle is cresting in dependence on:
the rate of change of pitch attitude exceeding a predetermined value; and
the gradient value of the driving surface being below a predetermined value, the method comprising outputting a speed reduction signal [intended to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting].”
Claim 30 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16 and 18 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 16-30 are directed to the abstract idea of an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities as explained in detail below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Independent claim(s) 16 and 29 recite a speed control system (and corresponding method) comprising controllers configured to performing operations including, receive a pitch rate signal, receive a driving surface gradient signal, analyzing these signals to determine if the vehicle is cresting, and outputting a speed reduction signal. These steps relate to an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts such as “collecting information (e.g. receiving pitch rate and gradient signals), analyzing it (e.g. determining whether a vehicle is cresting based on the signals), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. outputting a speed reduction signal)," as described in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350. As such, the description in claims 16, 2, 9, and 16-18 of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is an abstract idea (Note: The fact that the recited claims does not expressly display information is not determinative to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the abstract idea is identified in the step of analyzing information. If the claim as a whole, is limited to, “collecting, analyzing, and displaying information,” without “significantly more” the claim is an abstract idea as held by the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350).
Moreover, the specification does not provide any particulars of the claim elements that would alter the claims from being interpreted as directed to an abstraction of “collecting information (e.g. receiving pitch rate and gradient signals), analyzing it (e.g. determining whether a vehicle is cresting based on the signals), and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. outputting a speed reduction signal)." As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of a controller, sensors, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These claim elements, however, are recited at such a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, including an email server, telephone network, telephone unit and general purpose computers performing generic computer functions do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement, but is merely routine and conventional and that implementation of the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of the computer itself). See also e.g. at least Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional).
The use of generic computer components to store, process and transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the recited elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 18-28 and 30 are dependent on claims 16 and 29 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 18-28 and 30 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
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 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.
Claims 16-18 and 20-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly ‘682 (US 2017/0113682 A1) in view of Kelly ‘350 (US 2016/0185350 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kelly ‘682 discloses a speed control system for a vehicle (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 2, and related text), the speed control system configured to cause the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value (id.), the speed control system comprising one or more controllers (id.), the speed control system [intended to:
receive a pitch rate signal indicative of a rate of change of pitch of a vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 22-23, 106, 144, 150, 154, Fig. 5-6, and related text);
receive a driving surface gradient signal indicative of a gradient of a driving surface upon which the vehicle is being driven (see e.g. at least ¶ 24, 144, 150, 168, Fig. 5-6, 8, and related text); and
determine if the vehicle is cresting (see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text) in dependence on:
the pitch exceeding a predetermined value (id.); and
the gradient value of the driving surface being below a predetermined value, wherein the speed control system is [intended to output a speed reduction signal [intended to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting]]] (id., upon detecting cresting, based upon a combination of tests of whether the gradient falls below a prescribed value and/or a change in pitch exceeding a prescribed value, prescribing speed reduction via the LSP control system 12).
Additionally, Kelly ‘350 teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Kelly ‘682 including namely: [determining if a vehicle is cresting in dependence on a rate of change of [pitch] (see e.g. at least ¶ 101, detecting cresting by monitoring vehicle pitch rate).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Kelly ‘682 by [determining if a vehicle is cresting in dependence on a rate of change of [pitch] as taught by Kelly ‘350 in order to improve the safety of the vehicle by detecting and managing loss of traction due to cresting (Kelly ‘350: ¶ 64, 101).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to claim 16 [intended to cause the reduction in speed in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text) by at least one of:
application of brake torque by means of a vehicle braking system (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 116, 125, 130-133, Fig. 3, 5, and related text); and
reducing an amount of positive drive torque applied to one or more wheels of the vehicle] (Kelly ‘682: id.).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to claim 16 [intended wherein an amount by which speed is reduced is selected in dependence on the driving surface gradient] (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to a claim 16 [intended to calculate an estimated driving surface gradient value based on the driving surface gradient signal, the speed control system being [intended to cause a reduction in vehicle speed in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting in further dependence on the estimated driving surface gradient value]] (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 21, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to claim 16 [intended to cause the reduction in speed of the vehicle in response to a determination that the vehicle is cresting for at least one of:
a predetermined speed reduction period following the determination that the vehicle is cresting (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text); and
a predetermined speed reduction distance following the determination that the vehicle is cresting] (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 22, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to claim 16 wherein [it is intended that when a reduction in speed of the vehicle has been made in response to a first determination that the vehicle is cresting, the speed control system will not subsequently cause a further reduction in speed of the vehicle in response to a second, subsequent determination that the vehicle is cresting, unless the second determination occurs no less than:
a predetermined crest detection period following the first determination that the vehicle is cresting (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text); and/or
a predetermined crest detection distance following the first determination that the vehicle is cresting] (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to claim 16 wherein [it is intended that the speed control system being [intended to output a speed reduction signal [intended to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting comprises the speed control system being [intended to output a vehicle deceleration request corresponding to a required rate of deceleration of the vehicle]]]] (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 116, 125, 130-133, 180-185, Fig. 3, 5, 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to claim 23 wherein [it is intended that the vehicle deceleration request is dependent at least in part on the driving surface gradient] (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 24, 116, 125, 130-133, 144, 150, 168, 180-185, Fig. 3, 5, 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 25, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to claim 24 wherein [it is intended that a magnitude of the deceleration request increases as a function of increasing driving surface gradient] (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 24, 28, 49, 61, 116, 125, 130-133, 144, 150, 168, 180-185, Fig. 3, 5, 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a speed control system according to claim 23 wherein [it is intended that the vehicle deceleration request is dependent at least in part on a user-selectable input indicative of a desired level of occupant comfort] (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 75, 77, 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 27, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a system for controlling a speed of a vehicle (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 2, and related text) comprising:
a speed control system as claimed in claim 16 (see rejection of cl. 16 above); and
one or more sensors configured to output a signal or signals (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 144, Fig. 5, and related text) indicative of:
vehicle pitch and/or rate of change of vehicle pitch (id.); and
driving surface gradient (id.).
Regarding claim 28, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a vehicle comprising the speed control system of claim 16 (see rejection of cl. 16 above).
Regarding claim 29, Kelly ‘682 discloses a method of controlling a speed of a vehicle implemented by a speed control system (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 56-74), the method comprising causing the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value (id.), the method further comprising:
receiving a pitch rate signal indicative of a rate of change of pitch attitude of a vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 22-23, 106, 144, 150, 154, Fig. 5-6, and related text);
receiving a driving surface gradient signal indicative of a gradient of a driving surface upon which the vehicle is being driven (see e.g. at least ¶ 24, 144, 150, 168, Fig. 5-6, 8, and related text); and
determining if the vehicle is cresting (see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text) in dependence on:
the change of pitch attitude exceeding a predetermined value (id.); and
the gradient value of the driving surface being below a predetermined value, the method comprising outputting a speed reduction signal [intended to reduce the speed of the vehicle in dependence on the determination that the vehicle is cresting] (id., upon detecting cresting, based upon a combination of tests of whether the gradient falls below a prescribed value and/or a change in pitch exceeding a prescribed value, prescribing speed reduction via the LSP control system 12).
Additionally, Kelly ‘350 teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Kelly ‘682 including namely: [determining if a vehicle is cresting in dependence on a rate of change of [pitch attitude] (see e.g. at least ¶ 101, detecting cresting by monitoring vehicle pitch rate).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Kelly ‘682 by [determining if a vehicle is cresting in dependence on a rate of change of [pitch attitude] as taught by Kelly ‘350 in order to improve the safety of the vehicle by detecting and managing loss of traction due to cresting (Kelly ‘350: ¶ 64, 101).
Regarding claim 30, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more electronic processors, causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 29 (see rejection of cl. 29 above; see also e.g. at least Kelly ‘682 at ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 31, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches that the amount by which speed is reduced is selected such that the speed is further reduced for a lower grip driving surface than for a higher grip driving surface (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 129, 151, 166, Fig. 5-6, and related text; Kelly ‘350: see e.g. at least ¶ 78, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 32, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches that the predetermined crest detection period is greater than the predetermined speed reduction period (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 180-185, Fig. 8, and related text).
Regarding claim 33, Modified Kelly ‘682 teaches that cresting corresponds to a lowering of vehicle pitch (Kelly ‘682: see e.g. at least ¶ 170, 187, Fig. 6-7, and related text; Kelly ‘350: see e.g. at least ¶ 180, Fig. 7, and related text).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly ‘682 (US 2017/0113682 A1) in view of Kelly ‘350 (US 2016/0185350 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Fairgrieve (US 2019/0161082 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Fairgrieve teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Kelly ‘682 including namely: that an amount by which speed is reduced is [intended to be selected in dependence on a substantially instantaneous driving surface gradient] (see e.g. at least ¶ 21-24, 144-145, Fig. 5, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Kelly ‘682 by configuring that an amount by which speed is reduced is [intended to be selected in dependence on a substantially instantaneous driving surface gradient] as taught by Fairgrieve in order to improve the safety of the vehicle by detecting and managing loss of traction or steering control (Fairgrieve: ¶ 92).
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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 900-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights