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 Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 22 June 2026. The Applicant has canceled claim 13. Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Objection to Drawings:
Applicant’s amendment to the Drawings filed 22 June 2026 has overcome the Objections to Drawings previously set forth.
Claim Interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
In the amendment to claims filed 22 June 2026, Applicant canceled claim 13, therefore, the interpretation of “program code means” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been avoided.
Applicant further argues “the claimed features recite sufficient structure as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the claim should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)”. The argument amounts to a general allegation that “the claimed features recite sufficient structure” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims recite any structure for performing the corresponding function to support the statement. Therefore, the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 22 June 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/112(b) rejections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 22 June 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 22 June 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-12 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “Independent claim 1 recites…”controlling …” …The torque applications taught by Drako serve to re-orient the tractor and/or the trailer about a vertical axis, not to longitudinally accelerate the vehicle as a whole…Applicant produces a straightening effect on the trailer unit by the longitudinal acceleration of the tractor unit transmitted through the pivot coupling, which is neither disclosed nor suggested by either document…” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not recite longitudinal accelerating the vehicle as a whole or producing a straightening effect…by the longitudinal acceleration of the tractor unit transmitted through the pivot coupling…”. Claim 1 recites “controlling…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…”, which is not equivalent to “longitudinal acceleration”, i.e., simply applying a torque on one wheel will not produce longitudinal acceleration as stated in the argument, and even if torques are applied to different wheels, the result might not be a longitudinal acceleration. Drako is directed to a system averts catastrophic folding of an articulated vehicle. Drako teaches… …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), i.e. Drako discloses the claimed limitation of applying a propulsion torque on at least one wheel…for deviating from the demanded cruise control vehicle speed…Therefore, the prior art discloses the claim limitations as recited and the prior art and rejections have been maintained.
Claim 11 recites similar languages as claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
With respect to the dependent claims 2-10, 12, 14-15, the Applicant provides no additional arguments other than their dependency from the independent claims 1 and 11. Because independent claims 1 and 11 are not allowable, dependent claims 2-10 and 12, 14-15 are not allowable.
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:
“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 § 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, 10-12 and 14-15 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 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)).
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 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.
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