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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 12 December 2024. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Figures 4-5 are missing labelling for diagrams or flowcharts that require text for understanding.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“program code means” in claim 13;
The structure of the program code means is not disclosed in the specification.
“control unit” in claim 15;
The structure of the program code means is described in the specification as “…the control unit 120 comprises a cruise control system 402. The cruise control system 402 comprises processing circuitry configured to control at least the actuator 112 of the tractor unit 102 to operate the vehicle at a demanded cruise control vehicle speed. The control unit 112 may, for example, be implemented on one or more vehicle unit computers (VUC)”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “…program code means for performing the method…”. The “program code means” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the program code means to perform the recited function. The specification lacks detailed description of the program code means. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the program code means is, what the advantages of using a program code means are and how the recited function is performed by the program code means, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of the program code means.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 limitation “program code means” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “program code means” is recited in the claim as having the function of performing the method of claim 1. However, the specification 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.
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.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recite “a computer program”, while the broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer program includes products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. Software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US20220388510) in view of Drako (US20160318493).
As to claim 1, Miller teaches a computer implemented method of controlling a cruise control system of a vehicle comprising a tractor unit and at least one trailer unit pivotably coupled to each other, wherein the tractor unit comprises an actuator configured to apply a torque on at least one wheel of the tractor unit during propulsion, the cruise control system comprising processing circuitry operable to control operation of the actuator (Miller para 0014-0017; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to operate the vehicle at a demanded cruise control vehicle speed (Miller para 0014-0017: a cruise control controller…executes a program…for operation of the vehicle’s powertrain…includes an engine, transmission and drive axles and wheels…).
Miller does not teach …the actuator configured to generate electric power during braking… determining, by the processing circuitry, a swing out condition of the at least one trailer unit, in which swing out condition a parameter indicative of a relative rotation between the tractor unit and the at least one trailer unit exceeds a predetermined threshold limit; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to apply a propulsion torque on the at least one wheel of the tractor unit for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed in response to the determined swing out condition of the at least one trailer unit.
Drako is directed to a system averts catastrophic folding of an articulated vehicle. Drako teaches…A battery is regeneratively charged during normal braking operation of the vehicle and discharged when the AC motor apply torque to wheels… (Drako abstract, para 0040-0041, para 0057-0058, Fig. 1, Fig. 5) …sensing 710 from vehicle movement, wheel rotation, and orientation a condition of imminent jackknifing movement; determining 720 a desired angular moment to apply to a vehicle component to forestall a folding of the articulated vehicle… generating positive torque 770 at the electric motors of the tractor interior to the jackknifing movement of the articulated vehicle; generating negative torque 780 at the electric motors of the trailer interior to the jackknifing movement of the articulated vehicle; and generating positive torque 790 at the electric motors of the trailer exterior to the jackknifing movement of the articulated vehicle (Drako para 0070-0071, para 0085, Fig. 4, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include teach …the actuator configured to generate electric power during braking… determining, by the processing circuitry, a swing out condition of the at least one trailer unit, in which swing out condition a parameter indicative of a relative rotation between the tractor unit and the at least one trailer unit exceeds a predetermined threshold limit; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to apply a propulsion torque on the at least one wheel of the tractor unit for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed in response to the determined swing out condition of the at least one trailer unit in view of Drako et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Drako could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Drako because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 2, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Miller further teaches a demand for operating the cruise control system to resume a target vehicle speed… (Miller claim 1).
Drako further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the actuator to apply the propulsion torque for a predetermined time period, and subsequently control the actuator to reduce the applied propulsion torque for operating the vehicle at the demanded cruise control vehicle speed (Drako para 0070-0071, para 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the actuator to apply the propulsion torque for a predetermined time period, and subsequently control the actuator to reduce the applied propulsion torque for operating the vehicle at the demanded cruise control vehicle speed in view of Drako et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Drako could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Drako because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 3, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Miller further teaches a demand for operating the cruise control system to resume a target vehicle speed… (Miller claim 1).
Drako further teaches:
determining, by the processing circuitry, that the relative rotation falls below the predetermined threshold limit after the actuator applies the propulsion torque; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to reduce the applied propulsion torque for operating the vehicle at the demanded cruise control vehicle speed in response to the relative rotation falling below the predetermined threshold limit (Drako para 0070-0071, para 0030, para 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … determining, by the processing circuitry, that the relative rotation falls below the predetermined threshold limit after the actuator applies the propulsion torque; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to reduce the applied propulsion torque for operating the vehicle at the demanded cruise control vehicle speed in response to the relative rotation falling below the predetermined threshold limit in view of Drako et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Drako could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Drako because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 4, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Drako further teaches wherein the swing out condition is further based on a detected rotation rate of the at least one trailer unit relative to the tractor unit (Drako para 0018, para 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … wherein the swing out condition is further based on a detected rotation rate of the at least one trailer unit relative to the tractor unit in view of Drako et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Drako could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Drako because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 10, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Drako further teaches wherein the swing out condition is detected by at least one of an articulation angle sensor and a camera arranged on one of the tractor unit and the at least one trailer unit (Drako para 0018, para 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … wherein the swing out condition is detected by at least one of an articulation angle sensor and a camera arranged on one of the tractor unit and the at least one trailer unit in view of Drako et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Drako could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Drako because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 11,
Claim 11 an apparatus claim (cruise control system) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim (computer implemented method). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in combination with Drako.
As to claim 12,
Claim 12 an apparatus claim (vehicle) includes limitations analogous to claim 11, an apparatus claim (cruise control system). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 11, claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in combination with Drako.
As to claim 13,
Claim 13 an apparatus claim (computer program) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim (computer implemented method). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in combination with Drako.
As to claim 14,
Claim 14 an apparatus claim (non-transitory computer readable medium) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim (computer implemented method). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in combination with Drako.
As to claim 15,
Claim 15 an apparatus claim (control unit) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim (computer implemented method). Miller further teaches the control unit (para 0015: The cruise control controller 115 may be a standalone electronic control unit having its own processor, memory and related hardware for processing of cruise control logic stored in the controller, or may be integrated with other vehicle controllers, such as a powertrain controller). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in combination with Drako.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Drako as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueyama (US20140229068).
As to claim 5, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Miller in view of Drako does not explicitly teach determining, by the processing circuitry, an oncoming traffic situation for the vehicle; and setting, by the processing circuitry, the predetermined threshold limit based on the oncoming traffic situation.
Ueyama is directed to a vehicle drive-control device. Ueyama teaches …in a situation where the width of the lane is small or depending on the situations of the crowded conditions of the lane, existence or nonexistence of an oncoming vehicle, conditions of the road surface, vehicle speed and the curvature of the lane… the amounts by which the operational position of the steering input means, the yaw angle of the vehicle and the lateral position of the vehicle relative to the lane are altered are variably set in accordance with the running safety of the vehicle so that the amounts decreases in a situation where the running safety of the vehicle is low as compared to where the running safety of the vehicle is high. The running safety of the vehicle may be decided on the basis of such indexes as width of the lane, the situations of the crowded conditions of the lane, existence or nonexistence of an oncoming vehicle, conditions of the road surface, vehicle speed and the curvature of the lane (Ueyama para 0215-0216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … determining, by the processing circuitry, an oncoming traffic situation for the vehicle; and setting, by the processing circuitry, the predetermined threshold limit based on the oncoming traffic situation in view of Ueyama et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Ueyama could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Ueyama because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 6, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1.
Drako further teaches sensors detect if the wheels are skidding or sliding (Drako para 0044).
Miller in view of Drako does not explicitly teach determining, by the processing circuitry, a current road friction between a tire surface of a wheel of the trailer unit and a road surface operated by the vehicle; and setting, by the processing circuitry, the predetermined threshold limit based on the current road friction.
Ueyama is directed to a vehicle drive-control device. Ueyama teaches …in a situation where the width of the lane is small or depending on the situations of the crowded conditions of the lane, existence or nonexistence of an oncoming vehicle, conditions of the road surface, vehicle speed and the curvature of the lane… the amounts by which the operational position of the steering input means, the yaw angle of the vehicle and the lateral position of the vehicle relative to the lane are altered are variably set in accordance with the running safety of the vehicle so that the amounts decreases in a situation where the running safety of the vehicle is low as compared to where the running safety of the vehicle is high. The running safety of the vehicle may be decided on the basis of such indexes as width of the lane, the situations of the crowded conditions of the lane, existence or nonexistence of an oncoming vehicle, conditions of the road surface, vehicle speed and the curvature of the lane (Ueyama para 0215-0216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … determining, by the processing circuitry, a current road friction between a tire surface of a wheel of the trailer unit and a road surface operated by the vehicle; and setting, by the processing circuitry, the predetermined threshold limit based on the current road friction in view of Ueyama et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Ueyama could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Ueyama because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Drako as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biondo (US20100204896).
As to claim 7, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computed implemented method of claim 1.
Miller in view of Drako does not explicitly teach determining, by the processing circuitry, an upcoming driving situation for the vehicle; identifying, by the processing circuitry, the upcoming driving situation as allowing for a temporarily increased vehicle speed; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to apply a propulsion torque on the at least one wheel of the tractor unit for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed only when the upcoming driving situation allows for the temporarily increased vehicle speed.
Biondo is directed to methods and apparatus for performing cruise control in a motor vehicle. Biondo teaches … determine whether or not to accelerate or decelerate (and if so, a plan for implementing the acceleration or deceleration) toward a target speed based on the geographical location of the motor vehicle and information relating to features of a route which the motor vehicle is following (or potential routes which the motor vehicle may follow)… cause the motor vehicle to avoid accelerating toward a slower-moving motor vehicle traveling ahead of the motor vehicle and within a pre-determined distance from the motor vehicle… avoid accelerating into a portion of a roadway having a speed limit that is lower than the target speed, into a curve or turn at which a speed lower than the target speed is warranted, into a construction Zone, into an area in which an accident or other transient anomaly is present, into an area of inclement weather or hazardous driving conditions (e.g., roadway ice), and/or toward a stop sign or a traffic light that is predicted to be red upon arrival… (Biondo para 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … determining, by the processing circuitry, an upcoming driving situation for the vehicle; identifying, by the processing circuitry, the upcoming driving situation as allowing for a temporarily increased vehicle speed; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to apply a propulsion torque on the at least one wheel of the tractor unit for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed only when the upcoming driving situation allows for the temporarily increased vehicle speed in view of Biondo et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Biondo could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Biondo because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 8, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computed implemented method of claim 1.
Miller modified by Drako does not explicitly teach determining, by the processing circuitry, a curvature of an upcoming road path operable by the vehicle; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to apply a propulsion torque on the at least one wheel of the tractor unit for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed only when a curve radius of the curvature of the upcoming road path is above a predetermined threshold radius.
Biondo is directed to methods and apparatus for performing cruise control in a motor vehicle. Biondo teaches … determine whether or not to accelerate or decelerate (and if so, a plan for implementing the acceleration or deceleration) toward a target speed based on the geographical location of the motor vehicle and information relating to features of a route which the motor vehicle is following (or potential routes which the motor vehicle may follow)… cause the motor vehicle to avoid accelerating toward a slower-moving motor vehicle traveling ahead of the motor vehicle and within a pre-determined distance from the motor vehicle… avoid accelerating into a portion of a roadway having a speed limit that is lower than the target speed, into a curve or turn at which a speed lower than the target speed is warranted, into a construction Zone, into an area in which an accident or other transient anomaly is present, into an area of inclement weather or hazardous driving conditions (e.g., roadway ice), and/or toward a stop sign or a traffic light that is predicted to be red upon arrival… (Biondo para 0080, para 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … determining, by the processing circuitry, a curvature of an upcoming road path operable by the vehicle; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to apply a propulsion torque on the at least one wheel of the tractor unit for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed only when a curve radius of the curvature of the upcoming road path is above a predetermined threshold radius in view of Biondo et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Biondo could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Biondo because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Drako as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US20200290612).
As to claim 9, Miller in view of Drako teaches the computer implement method of claim 1.
Miller modified by Drako does not explicitly teach determining, by the processing circuitry, a width of an ego lane operated by the vehicle; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to apply a propulsion torque on the at least one wheel of the tractor unit for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed only when the width of the ego lane is larger than a predetermined threshold width.
Yamaguchi is directed to a vehicle control device. Yamaguchi teaches … determines whether or not a difference between the lane width of a road after passing through an ETC toll gate and the width of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (step 150B)… If the difference is smaller than the predetermined value, the lane width of the road after passing through the ETC toll gate is determined to be narrow, the cruise control mode ON/OFF signal is switched to OFF, the target speed is set to an invalid value, and the vehicle is switched to a manual traveling state that is based on an acceleration/brake operation by the driver (step 170). … (Yamaguchi para 0046, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller so as to include … determining, by the processing circuitry, a width of an ego lane operated by the vehicle; and controlling, by the processing circuitry, the actuator to apply a propulsion torque on the at least one wheel of the tractor unit for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed only when the width of the ego lane is larger than a predetermined threshold width in view of Yamaguchi et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Yamaguchi could be used in Miller, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Miller and Yamaguchi because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights