DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/864,449 filed on 11/08/2024,
and the amendments and arguments filed on 05/12/2026.
Claim 1-3, 5-9, and 13-14 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119
(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2206822.5, filed on 05/10/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 have been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/12/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-10 filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 10-15 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Additionally with respect to the rejections(s) of claim(s) 5 and 9 under 35 USC 103 have also been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new grounds for rejection as necessitated by
amendment is made over 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable by Fairgrieve (WO 2018007535 A1) in view of Burford (US 20180126987 A1) further in view of Yamashita (US 20180298837 A1) further in view of Shah (US 11897506 B1) and further in view of Kelly (WO 2015059235 A2).
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.
6. Claim 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 12-15 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Fairgrieve (WO 2018007535 A1) and in view of (US 20180126987 A1) to Burford et al. (hereinafter Burford).
Regarding claim 1, Fairgrieve discloses 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: determine when the vehicle is cresting and cause a reduction in speed of the vehicle in dependence on a determination that the vehicle is cresting, (Fairgrieve Page 9, Line number 17-28: “wherein the controller causes application of positive and/or negative torque to one or more wheels of a vehicle to: cause a vehicle to travel in accordance with the target speed value; and to adjust automatically a speed of the vehicle to a predetermined crest speed value when a crest of a slope is detected ahead of the vehicle, wherein the predetermined crest speed value is determined in dependence at least in part on signal indicative of terrain gradient information in respect of terrain prior to the crest. The control system may be configured to cause vehicle speed to begin to reduce to the predetermined crest speed value when the vehicle is at a control location, the control location being a distance ahead of the predetermined speed location which is dependent on an amount of rolling resistance experienced by the vehicle.”) and receive a driving surface gradient signal indicative of a gradient of a driving surface upon which the vehicle is being driven, (Fairgrieve Page 15, line number 15-20: “Other inputs to the LSP control system 12 include an input from the cruise control HMI 18 which is representative of the status (ON/OFF) of the cruise control system 16, an input from the LSP control HMI 20, and an input from a gradient sensor 45 indicative of the gradient of the driving surface over which the vehicle 100 is driving. In the present embodiment the gradient sensor 45 is a gyroscopic sensor.”) wherein when it is determined that a reduction in vehicle speed is required in response to the determination that the vehicle is cresting, (Fairgrieve Page 28, Line number 23-27: “Provided the downhill crest line maximum speed value is less than the value of LSP_set- speed, the LSP control system 12 is configured to cause the vehicle to slow as it approaches the downhill crest line such that the speed of the vehicle is substantially equal to the downhill crest line maximum speed value 12 at a predetermined speed location that is a predetermined speed distance SD before the vehicle 100 reaches the downhill crest line.”) the speed control system is configured to limit a value of jerk associated with the reduction in speed, the value of jerk being a rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle, such that the value of jerk does not exceed a jerk limit value, (Fairgrieve Page 16, Line number 35-Page 17, Line number 4: “In order to prevent or at least reduce passenger discomfort due to rapid changes in acceleration rate (jerk) when the LSP control system 12 is controlling vehicle speed, the LSP control system 12 limits the rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle 100 such that it does not exceed a prescribed maximum value. The maximum allowable rate of change of acceleration or maximum allowable jerk value is provided by parameter LSP_J_MAX. The LSP control system 12 also limits the maximum value of rate of acceleration to a value LSP_A_MAX.”)
Fairgrieve does not disclose […] and wherein the jerk limit value is set in dependence at least in part on the gradient of the driving surface.
However, Burford does teach […] and wherein the jerk limit value is set in dependence at least in part on the gradient of the driving surface. (Burford Paragraph 0046: “The control system may be operable to control a rate of change of vehicle speed so as not to exceed a prescribed jerk value.”) (Burford Paragraph 0047: “Optionally, the prescribed jerk value is set in dependence on the gradient of the driving surface.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Farigrieve to include […] and wherein the jerk limit value is set in dependence at least in part on the gradient of the driving surface taught by Burford. This would have been for the benefit to control a rate of change of speed of a vehicle by application of positive and negative torque to one or more wheels may be configured to apply positive torque when required, for example when it is desirable to maintain a current value of vehicle speed and an external force opposes the maintaining of that speed, or when it is required to accelerate the vehicle, and to apply negative torque when required, for example when it is required to maintain a current speed in the presence of a force accelerating the vehicle such as gravity, or decrease vehicle speed. Thus, in order to provide low-speed cruise control for such vehicles so as to permit progress to be maintained over rough terrain. [Burford Paragraph 0008 and 0016]
Regarding claim 2, Fairgrieve in view of Burford teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Fairgrieve does not disclose The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to continually adjust the jerk limit value in response to changes in the gradient of the driving surface as determined by reference to the driving surface gradient signal.
However, Burford does teach The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to continually adjust the jerk limit value in response to changes in the gradient of the driving surface as determined by reference to the driving surface gradient signal. (Burford Paragraph 0046: “The control system may be operable to control a rate of change of vehicle speed so as not to exceed a prescribed jerk value.”) (Burford Paragraph 0047: “Optionally, the prescribed jerk value is set in dependence on the gradient of the driving surface.”) (Burford Paragraph 0048: “Optionally, the prescribed jerk value during a decrease in vehicle speed towards the target speed is higher for lower values of positive driving surface gradient and lower for higher values of positive driving surface gradient.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fairgrieve to include The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to continually adjust the jerk limit value in response to changes in the gradient of the driving surface as determined by reference to the driving surface gradient signal taught by Burford. This would have been for the benefit to control a rate of change of speed of a vehicle by application of positive and negative torque to one or more wheels may be configured to apply positive torque when required, for example when it is desirable to maintain a current value of vehicle speed and an external force opposes the maintaining of that speed, or when it is required to accelerate the vehicle, and to apply negative torque when required, for example when it is required to maintain a current speed in the presence of a force accelerating the vehicle such as gravity, or decrease vehicle speed. Thus, in order to provide low-speed cruise control for such vehicles so as to permit progress to be maintained over rough terrain. [Burford Paragraph 0008 and 0016]
Regarding claim 3, Fairgrieve discloses The speed control system according to claim 2, further configured to set the jerk limit value in dependence at least in part on at least one further vehicle parameter. (Fairgrieve Page 17, Line number 1-4: “The maximum allowable rate of change of acceleration or maximum allowable jerk value is provided by parameter LSP_J_MAX. The LSP control system 12 also limits the maximum value of rate of acceleration to a value LSP_A_MAX.”) (Fairgrieve Page 17, Line number 6-7: “The values of LSP_A_MAX and LSP_J_MAX are set in dependence at least in part on TR mode and vehicle speed.”) (Note: Rate of change of acceleration = Jerk)
Regarding claim 5, Fairgrieve in view of Burford teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Fairgrieve does not disclose The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to determine the jerk limit value by means of a look-up table.
However, Burford does teach The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to determine the jerk limit value by means of a look-up table. (Burford Paragraph 0138: “The value of each of these parameters is input to a look-up table which generates the values of LSP_V_T and LSP_A_T.”) (Burford Paragraph 0153: “In order to prevent or at least reduce passenger discomfort due to rapid changes in acceleration rate (jerk), the LSP control system 12 limits the rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle 100, LSP_A_T,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fairgrieve to include The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to determine the jerk limit value by means of a look-up table taught by Burford. This would have been for the benefit to control a rate of change of speed of a vehicle by application of positive and negative torque to one or more wheels may be configured to apply positive torque when required, for example when it is desirable to maintain a current value of vehicle speed and an external force opposes the maintaining of that speed, or when it is required to accelerate the vehicle, and to apply negative torque when required, for example when it is required to maintain a current speed in the presence of a force accelerating the vehicle such as gravity, or decrease vehicle speed. Thus, in order to provide low-speed cruise control for such vehicles so as to permit progress to be maintained over rough terrain. [Burford Paragraph 0008 and 0016]
Regarding claim 8, Fairgrieve discloses The speed control system according to claim 3, further configured to set the jerk limit value in dependence at least in part on at least one of: a terrain indicator parameter indicative of the nature of terrain over which the vehicle is driving; (Fairgrieve Page 17, Line number 6-7: “The values of LSP_A_MAX and LSP_J_MAX are set in dependence at least in part on TR mode and vehicle speed.”) (Fairgrieve Page 19, Line number 12-16: “In the present embodiment, the VCU 10 evaluates the various sensor inputs to determine the probability that each of the plurality of different TR modes (control modes or driving modes) for the vehicle subsystems is appropriate, with each control mode corresponding to a particular terrain type over which the vehicle is travelling (for example, mud and ruts, sand, grass/gravel/snow) as described above.”) an occupancy parameter indicative of a number of occupants of the vehicle; a vehicle ride height parameter indicating selected vehicle ride height; and a cross-articulation parameter indicative of an amount of cross-articulation experienced by the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Fairgrieve discloses The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to cause the reduction in speed when it is determined 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. (Fairgrieve Page 6, Line number 27-30: “Optionally, the control system may be configured to cause vehicle speed to begin to reduce to the predetermined crest speed value when the vehicle is at a predetermined control location, the predetermined control location being a predetermined control distance ahead of the predetermined speed location.”) (Fairgrieve Page 17, Line number 16-20: “In order to cause application of the necessary positive or negative torque to the wheels, the VCU 10 may command that positive or negative torque is applied to the vehicle wheels by the powertrain 129 and/or that a braking force is applied to the vehicle wheels by the braking system 22, either or both of which may be used to implement the change in torque that is necessary to attain and maintain a required vehicle speed.”)
Regarding claim 12, Fairgrieve discloses A vehicle comprising the speed control system of claim 1. (Fairgrieve Page 3, Line number 23-24: “In one aspect of the invention for which protection is sought there is provided a speed control system for a vehicle,”)
PNG
media_image1.png
297
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Fairgrieve discloses A method of controlling a speed of a vehicle implemented by a speed control system, comprising: receive a driving surface gradient signal indicative of a gradient of a driving surface upon which the vehicle is being driven; (Fairgrieve “Other inputs to the LSP control system 12 include an input from the cruise control HMI 18 which is representative of the status (ON/OFF) of the cruise control system 16, an input from the LSP control HMI 20, and an input from a gradient sensor 45 indicative of the gradient of the driving surface over which the vehicle 100 is driving. In the present embodiment the gradient sensor 45 is a gyroscopic sensor”) causing the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed value; and determining when the vehicle is cresting, the method comprising causing a reduction in speed of the vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle is cresting, (Fairgrieve Page 3, Line number 17-19: “Embodiments of the invention may provide an apparatus, a method or a vehicle which addresses the above problems.”) (Fairgrieve Page 9, Line number 17-28: “wherein the controller causes application of positive and/or negative torque to one or more wheels of a vehicle to: cause a vehicle to travel in accordance with the target speed value; and to adjust automatically a speed of the vehicle to a predetermined crest speed value when a crest of a slope is detected ahead of the vehicle, wherein the predetermined crest speed value is determined in dependence at least in part on signal indicative of terrain gradient information in respect of terrain prior to the crest. The control system may be configured to cause vehicle speed to begin to reduce to the predetermined crest speed value when the vehicle is at a control location, the control location being a distance ahead of the predetermined speed location which is dependent on an amount of rolling resistance experienced by the vehicle.”) whereby when it is determined that a reduction in vehicle speed is required in response to a determination that the vehicle is cresting, (Fairgrieve Page 28, Line number 23-27: “Provided the downhill crest line maximum speed value is less than the value of LSP_set- speed, the LSP control system 12 is configured to cause the vehicle to slow as it approaches the downhill crest line such that the speed of the vehicle is substantially equal to the downhill crest line maximum speed value 12 at a predetermined speed location that is a predetermined speed distance SD before the vehicle 100 reaches the downhill crest line.”) the method comprises limiting a value of jerk associated with the reduction in speed, the value of jerk providing an indication of a rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle, such that the value of the jerk does not exceed a jerk limit value, (Fairgrieve Page 16, Line number 35-Page 17, Line number 4: “In order to prevent or at least reduce passenger discomfort due to rapid changes in acceleration rate (jerk) when the LSP control system 12 is controlling vehicle speed, the LSP control system 12 limits the rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle 100 such that it does not exceed a prescribed maximum value. The maximum allowable rate of change of acceleration or maximum allowable jerk value is provided by parameter LSP_J_MAX. The LSP control system 12 also limits the maximum value of rate of acceleration to a value LSP_A_MAX.”)
Fairgrieve does not disclose […] wherein the jerk limit value is set in dependence at least in part on the gradient of the driving surface.
However, Burford does teach […] wherein the jerk limit value is set in dependence at least in part on the gradient of the driving surface. (Burford Paragraph 0046: “The control system may be operable to control a rate of change of vehicle speed so as not to exceed a prescribed jerk value.”) (Burford Paragraph 0047: “Optionally, the prescribed jerk value is set in dependence on the gradient of the driving surface.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fairgrieve to include […] wherein the jerk limit value is set in dependence at least in part on the gradient of the driving surface taught by Burford. This would have been for the benefit to control a rate of change of speed of a vehicle by application of positive and negative torque to one or more wheels may be configured to apply positive torque when required, for example when it is desirable to maintain a current value of vehicle speed and an external force opposes the maintaining of that speed, or when it is required to accelerate the vehicle, and to apply negative torque when required, for example when it is required to maintain a current speed in the presence of a force accelerating the vehicle such as gravity, or decrease vehicle speed. Thus, in order to provide low-speed cruise control for such vehicles so as to permit progress to be maintained over rough terrain. [Burford Paragraph 0008 and 0016]
Regarding claim 14, Fairgrieve discloses The method according to claim 13, further comprising: setting the jerk limit value in dependence at least in part on at least one vehicle parameter. (Fairgrieve Page 16, Line number 35-Page 17, Line number 4: “In order to prevent or at least reduce passenger discomfort due to rapid changes in acceleration rate (jerk) when the LSP control system 12 is controlling vehicle speed, the LSP control system 12 limits the rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle 100 such that it does not exceed a prescribed maximum value. The maximum allowable rate of change of acceleration or maximum allowable jerk value is provided by parameter LSP_J_MAX. The LSP control system 12 also limits the maximum value of rate of acceleration to a value LSP_A_MAX.”) (Fairgrieve Page 17, Line number 6-7: “The values of LSP_A_MAX and LSP_J_MAX are set in dependence at least in part on TR mode and vehicle speed.”) (Fairgrieve Page 18, Line number 28-29: “The sensors (not shown) on the vehicle 100 include, but are not limited to, sensors which provide continuous sensor outputs to the VCU 10, including wheel speed sensors,”)
Regarding claim 15, Fairgrieve discloses 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 13. (Fairgrieve Page 10, Line number 11-13: “In an aspect of the invention for which protection is sought there is provided a non-transitory carrier medium carrying a computer readable code for controlling a vehicle to carry out the method of another aspect.”)
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Fairgrieve (WO 2018007535 A1) in view of Burford (US 20180126987 A1) and further in view of Yamashita (US 20180298837 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fairgrieve in view of Burford teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Fairgrieve in view of Burford does not teach The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to reduce the jerk limit value as a function of increasingly negative driving surface gradient.
However, Yamashita does teach The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to reduce the jerk limit value as a function of increasingly negative driving surface gradient. (Yamashita Paragraph 0102: “Further, the target acceleration setting part 32, as shown in FIG. 12 by the two-dot chain line, may reduce the rate of change of the target acceleration with respect to the slope when the slope of the driven road is negative.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fairgrieve in view of Burford to include The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to reduce the jerk limit value as a function of increasingly negative driving surface gradient taught by Yamashita. This would have been for the benefit to provide a control system of a vehicle able to improve the drivability of a vehicle provided with an internal combustion engine where fuel cut control is performed. [Yamashita Paragraph 0007]
8. Claim 7 and 11 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Fairgrieve (WO 2018007535 A1) in view of Burford (US 20180126987 A1) and further in view of Shah (US 11897506 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Fairgrieve in view of Burford teaches claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated above.
Fairgrieve in view of Burford does not teach The speed control system according to claim 3, further configured to set the jerk limit value in dependence at least in part on an occupant comfort parameter indicative of a desired value of occupant comfort, wherein the occupant comfort parameter is set in response to a user input of desired occupant comfort, via a user interface.
However, Shah does teach The speed control system according to claim 3, further configured to set the jerk limit value in dependence at least in part on an occupant comfort parameter indicative of a desired value of occupant comfort, wherein the occupant comfort parameter is set in response to a user input of desired occupant comfort, via a user interface. (Shah Column 2, line number 7-12: “In an additional or alternate example, some interruptions to ride smoothness may not result in a jerk that meets or exceeds the jerk threshold but may interrupt ride smoothness anyway. In such an example, user input (e.g., a passenger) may be used to indicate an interruption to ride smoothness.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fairgrieve in view of Burford to include The speed control system according to claim 3, further configured to set the jerk limit value in dependence at least in part on an occupant comfort parameter indicative of a desired value of occupant comfort, wherein the occupant comfort parameter is set in response to a user input of desired occupant comfort, via a user interface taught by Shah. This would have been for the benefit to provide Techniques for actively tuning an autonomous vehicle to increase ride comfortability may include detecting a transient interruption to ride smoothness of the vehicle and determining a subcomponent that caused or contributed to the interruption in order to decrease fluctuations of ride smoothness. [Shah Column 1, line number 53- 57]
Regarding claim 11, Fairgrieve in view of Burford teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Fairgrieve in view of Burford does not teach A system for controlling a speed of a vehicle comprising: the speed control system as claimed in claim 1; and one or more sensors configured to output information indicative of vehicle jerk.
However, Shah does teach A system for controlling a speed of a vehicle comprising: the speed control system as claimed in claim 1; and one or more sensors configured to output information indicative of vehicle jerk. (Shah Column 18, line number 38-42: “For example, the vehicle may determine, based at least in part on sensor data, that an acceleration and/or jerk associated with the sensor data meets or exceeds an acceleration threshold and/or jerk threshold.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fairgrieve in view of Burford to include A system for controlling a speed of a vehicle comprising: the speed control system as claimed in claim 1; and one or more sensors configured to output information indicative of vehicle jerk taught by Shah. This would have been for the benefit to provide Techniques for actively tuning an autonomous vehicle to increase ride comfortability may include detecting a transient interruption to ride smoothness of the vehicle and determining a subcomponent that caused or contributed to the interruption in order to decrease fluctuations of ride smoothness. [Shah Column 1, line number 53- 57]
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Fairgrieve (WO 2018007535 A1) in view of Burford (US 20180126987 A1) and further in view of Kelly (WO 2015059235 A2).
Regarding claim 9, Fairgrieve discloses The speed control system according to claim 1, further configured to receive a pitch rate signal indicative of a rate of change of pitch attitude of the vehicle, (Fairgrieve Page 35, Line number 3-5: “Furthermore, the IMU 23 may be employed to determine when the vehicle 100 begins to negotiate a crest, at least in part by reference to a change in pitch attitude of the vehicle 100 as the vehicle crests.”) […] and the driving surface gradient signal indicates that a gradient value of the driving surface is below a limit value. (Fairgrieve Page 33, Line number 19-21: “If the slope is less than or substantially equal to 7 degrees, and the number of empty cells meets the criterion described above for crest detection, the processing unit 19 determines the crest line is a downhill crest line”)
Fairgrieve in view of Burford does not teach […] the speed control system being configured to determine that the vehicle is cresting when the pitch rate signal indicates that a change of vehicle pitch attitude exceeds a predetermine rate in a direction corresponding to a lowering of pitch attitude,
However, Kelly does teach […] the speed control system being configured to determine that the vehicle is cresting when the pitch rate signal indicates that a change of vehicle pitch attitude exceeds a predetermine rate in a direction corresponding to a lowering of pitch attitude, (Kelly Page 30, Line number 30-33: “Cresting may be detected for example when vehicle pitch attitude moves from a pitch up attitude exceeding a prescribed value (such as a value exceeding 15 degrees) through an angle of more than (say) 5 degrees towards a level attitude within a prescribed distance.”) (Kelly Page 30, Line number 33- Page 31, Line number 4: “Alternatively the system may monitor rate of change of gradient towards a level attitude. A sustained drop of (say) an average of 3 degrees per second, over a prescribed period such as a period of 2-4s, may be sufficient to trigger the detection of cresting. In some embodiments the LSP control system 12 may determine that cresting is occurring when the gradient of the driving surface falls below a prescribed value from a value above the prescribed value, for example below a gradient of 10 degrees after being above this gradient for a prescribed distance or period of time whilst moving.”) (Note: When the vehicle is traveling when the pitch attitude moves from a pitch up attitude exceeding a value to a value below the prescribed value, the rate of change of pitch is determined and cresting occurs while the vehicle travels downhill) (Kelly Page 31, Line number 7-9: “It is to be understood that if the rate of change of gradient is too low, even though the vehicle may be cresting, the LSP control system 12 may not detect cresting in some embodiments.”) (Note: Cresting must occur at or above a certain value for rate of change of a gradient) (Kelly Page 31, Line number 11-12: “In some embodiments the VCU 10 may be configured to determine the gradient of the driving surface based on vehicle pitch attitude.”) (Kelly Page 33, Line number 1-3: “Similarly, as the vehicle begins to descend a slope following cresting, the value of cresting v will begin to increase once the vehicle has travelled a prescribed distance or a prescribed time period has elapsed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fairgrieve in view of Burford to include […] the speed control system being configured to determine that the vehicle is cresting when the pitch rate signal indicates that a change of vehicle pitch attitude exceeds a predetermine rate in a direction corresponding to a lowering of pitch attitude, taught by Kelly. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient and effective speed control system that can apply positive torque aligning with a speed value and controls a jerk of a vehicle when a specific terrain mode for the vehicle is configured and an amount of drag is used. [Kelly Page 3, Line number 11-22]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/SHARDUL D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights