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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 12/13/2024 (claimed priority date 06/15/2022):
Claims 1-8 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. For this examination, the Examiner is using the drawings from the published application, published on 12/04/2025, because other originally filed drawings are part of the WIPO Publication - Non-English version, filed on 12/13/2024. No other filed drawings have been found.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “speed measuring means,” recited in claim 2, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “speed measuring means,” as described in Para [0015] of the specification, at least as published. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the structural details, i.e. the interconnections of the steps, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP §608.02(b), MPEP §608.02(d).
4.1 With regard to fig. 1-4, at least as published, the figures merely show flow charts using generic symbols, but lack any relevant text that would provide a proper understanding of the interconnections between the generic symbols, i.e. what is being determined in the decision/step blocks and what values are being set in the other blocks. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be capable of viewing the drawings and properly understanding the methods.
5. 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
1. 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.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “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) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detection means;” “odometry means;” “measuring means,” in claims 1-2.
Per fig. 1, Para [0044-0054] of the specification, at least as published, the claimed/specified “means” appear to be structure elements/components (e.g., GPS sensor; speed sensor; front camera; lidar) of a bigger structure(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
1.2 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “speed measuring means,” in claim 2.
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.
1.3 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: “target following module,” in claim 6.
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
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 1-8 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.
1.1.1 Claim 1 recites the limitation/feature “longitudinal speed,” in the claim preamble, which is not supported or described in the specification. The specification merely repeats the claim language, in numerous paragraphs, BUT, HOWEVER, is silent about what the claimed/specified limitation/feature “longitudinal speed” is, and/or WHY the claimed/specified “speed” is defined as “longitudinal.” Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the claimed/specified “longitudinal speed" is not given a patentable weight, and, hence, will be interpreted as a well-known in the art “road speed of a vehicle.”
1.1.2 Claims 2-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, because of their dependency on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2. 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.
2.1 Claims 1-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
2.1.1 Claim 1 recites the limitation/feature “longitudinal speed,” which is unclear whether the claimed/specified “longitudinal speed" is a forward or backward velocity of a vehicle along its primary axis of motion, OR it is a speed of a vehicle in direction of a travel of a vehicle, perpendicular to axles of the vehicle, OR it is a speed of a vehicle that is just distinct from lateral (side-to-side) speed, OR WHAT, OR HOW, and WHY the claimed/specified “speed” is defined as “longitudinal,” which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
Additionally, the limitation/feature “longitudinal speed” is neither supported or described in the specification, nor is limited down in the dependent claims, which renders the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the claimed/specified “longitudinal speed" is not given a patentable weight, and, hence, will be interpreted as a well-known in the art “road speed of a vehicle.”
2.1.2 Claim 1 recites the limitations "the trajectory," in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
2.1.3 Claims 1-2 and 5-6 recite the limitation "the vehicle," in both preambles and bodies of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
2.1.4 Claims 2-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependency on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2.1.5 Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependency on rejected dependent claim 5, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2.1.6 Claim 2 recites the limitations "the first filter;” “the second filer;" "the speed measuring means," in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
2.1.7 Claim 2 recites the limitations "the speed measuring means," which is unclear what it is, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claimed/specified “speed measuring means" is the same as the claimed/specified “measuring means” for measuring instantaneous speed of the claimed/specified vehicle, OR the claimed/specified “speed measuring means" is different from, NOT the same as the claimed/specified “measuring means” for measuring instantaneous speed of the claimed/specified vehicle, and is for measuring another speed of the vehicle, different from the ”instantaneous speed” of the vehicle, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the claimed/specified “speed measuring means" will be interpreted as the same as the claimed/specified “measuring means” for measuring instantaneous speed of the claimed/specified vehicle.
2.1.8 Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependency on rejected dependent claim 2, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
2.1.9 Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sum [of a first and a second speed component]" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
2.1.10 Claim 4 recites the limitations "the first phase advance filter;" “the first phase delay filter,” in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
2.1.11 Claim 6 recites limitation the “target following module” that has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear, as claimed and as specified, whether the “target following module” is a structure, or a firmware, or a software. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
2.1.12 Claims 5-6 recite the limitation " the minimum [out of the second speed setpoint]," in the bodies of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
2.1.13 Claim 8 recites the limitation "said program," in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
2. Claims 2-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
3. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In performing initial search, the Examiner was able to find the closest prior art of record, which is Bando (US8005602) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of LAITSAARI (US20220266691), who describe a vehicle speed control device for controlling a speed of a vehicle that includes a current location error estimation section for extracting area attribute information from the map information, for producing a location error probability distribution, a target speed calculation section for receiving the target speed correction instruction, for accessing preset data that shows an acceleration or a gradient of an acceleration which allows a driver not to feel uncomfortable, and for computing target speed values at nodes over the distance in such a way that the target speed values create a continuous curve, and a speed control section for sensing a speed of a vehicle, and for controlling a driving torque of the vehicle so that the sensed speed traces the continuous curve composed of the target speed values.
In regards to claims 1-8, Bando (US8005602) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fail to teach or render obvious the following feature(s) / limitation(s):
a second step of computing a first speed setpoint for the motor vehicle, as a function of the limit speed and of a first distance separating the motor vehicle from the speed change point, the first distance being computed as a function of a planned speed profile, the first distance having a distance margin of error with respect to a second distance determined by the odometry means between the motor vehicle and the speed change point,
a third step of determining a second speed setpoint that compensates for the distance margin of error generated in the second step and that anticipates a phase delay generated in a fourth step of controlling a movement of the motor vehicle, and
the fourth step of controlling the movement of the motor vehicle in accordance with the second speed setpoint so as to reach the speed change point with a speed equal to the limit speed, the fourth step generating the phase delay between the reception of the second speed setpoint and the movement of the vehicle in accordance with the second speed setpoint.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Uestuenel (US20230041499) – (see entire Uestuenel document, particularly abstract – teaching a method for determining the current angle of lateral inclination (a) of a roadway by means of a vehicle, at least comprising the steps of: a) determining the current radius of curvature (K) of the roadway; b) measuring the current velocities v(1,2) of at least two different wheels of the vehicle, one of the wheels with the velocity v(1) lying closer to the current curve center point of the roadway; c) calculating the current radius of lateral inclination (Q) of the roadway using the current wheel velocity v(1), the wheel distance (d) and the difference between the wheel velocities measured in method step b); d) calculating the current angle of inclination (a) of the vehicle on the roadway using the quotient of the radius of curvature (K) determined in method step a) and the current radius of lateral inclination (Q) calculated in method step c); use of the method to monitor and/or control a vehicle, a driver assistance system designed to carry out the method according to the invention, and a vehicle having such a driver assistance system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662