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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, it appears Applicant intended “the method comprising: a target speed is set…, with at least one sensor at least a distance and a relative speed… is detected, …” to read --the method comprising: setting a target speed …, detecting, with at least one sensor, at least a distance and a relative speed…--. In other words, Applicant is encouraged to recite method steps (a)-(f) in an active voice. Claims 2-5 include similar issues.
In claim 6, line 3, it appears Applicant intended “Means for setting” to read --means for setting--
In claim 6, line 14, it appears Applicant intended “the control” to read --the controller--
In claim 8, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “wherein it comprises” to read --wherein it further comprises--
In claim 9, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “wherein the controller is configured to” to read --wherein the controller is further configured to--
In claim 10, line 3, it appears Applicant intended “wherein the controller is configured to” to read --wherein the controller is further configured to--
In claim 11, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “wherein the controller is configured to” to read --wherein the controller is further configured to--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the object speed" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 2-5 depend(s) from claim(s) 1, (respectively,) fail(s) to cure said indefiniteness issues, and is/are thereby similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the object speed" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim(s) 7-12 depend(s) from claim(s) 6, (respectively,) fail(s) to cure said indefiniteness issues, and is/are thereby similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US PGPub. No. 2019/0351903) in view of Ahmed-Zaid et al. (US Patent No. 6,968,266).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 12, Zhao teaches a method for adaptive control of a speed of a motor vehicle [Zhao 101] with an aid of an adaptive cruise control system [Zhao 130], the method comprising:
a target speed is set or defined for the motor vehicle (Zhao ¶0002, ¶0030, ¶0034),
with at least one sensor [Zhao 110, 115] at least a distance [Zhao d] and a relative speed with respect to an object [Zhao 100] driving ahead of the motor vehicle is detected (Zhao ¶0002, ¶0032, ¶0034),
the speed in the motor vehicle to be controlled is set according to the object speed of the object if the object speed is smaller than the set speed (Zhao ¶0002, ¶0032, ¶0034),
and
an automatic acceleration of the motor vehicle to be controlled particularly to the target speed is prevented in event of a loss of detection of the object (Zhao ¶0031, ¶0033-0034),
but appears to be silent on the method further comprising a lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle is detected and wherein the automatic acceleration of the motor vehicle to be controlled particularly to the target speed is prevented in case of the detection loss of the object only for those journeys or rides in which the detected lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle corresponds to a non-zero lateral acceleration limit or exceeds this lateral acceleration limit.
Ahmed-Zaid, however, teaches a method for object detection in an adaptive cruise control system, specifically including detecting relative distance and relative speed of a detected object (Ahmed-Zaid Col. 3, lines 47-57) and applying ACC to a preceding vehicle (Ahmed-Zaid Col. 4, lines 14-21) and when an object is dropped, preventing a resumption of a set speed until a lateral acceleration reading falls below a threshold (Ahmed-Zaid Col. 5, lines 13-44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Zhao in view of Ahmed-Zaid. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Zhao, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include a lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle is detected and wherein the automatic acceleration of the motor vehicle to be controlled particularly to the target speed is prevented in case of the detection loss of the object only for those journeys or rides in which the detected lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle corresponds to a non-zero lateral acceleration limit or exceeds this lateral acceleration limit, as doing so was a known way of suppressing a dangerous resumption of vehicle set speed in a case of a dropped object during high lateral acceleration situations, as recognized by Ahmed-Zaid (Ahmed-Zaid Col. 3, lines 47-57; Col. 4, lines 14-21; Col. 5, lines 13-44).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Zhao in view of Ahmed-Zaid teaches the method according to claims 1 and 6, respectively, wherein the automatic acceleration of the motor vehicle to be controlled particularly to the target speed is prevented, in particular, only within a hold period, which starts with a loss time of the detection loss of the object and ends at an end time which
corresponds to a first end time point at which the lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle has fallen below the lateral acceleration limit (Ahmed-Zaid Col. 5, lines 13-44), or which
corresponds to a second end time point, which is a sum of the first end time point and a predetermined or parameterizable time interval.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao in view of Ahmed-Zaid teaches the method according to claim 2, respectively, wherein the prevention of the automatic acceleration of the motor vehicle particularly to the target speed is cancelled if, within the hold period, a resume actuator of the adaptive cruise control system is actuated, the actuation of which is intended to cause the motor vehicle to resume a last set target speed (Ahmed-Zaid Col. 1, lines 39-44).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Zhao in view of Ahmed-Zaid teaches the method according to claims 2 and 7, respectively, wherein the prevention of automatic acceleration of the motor vehicle particularly to the target speed is continued at least until the end time of the holding period (Zhao ¶0040), even if a resumption actuator of the adaptive cruise control system is actuated within the holding period (Zhao ¶0038), the actuation of which actuator is intended to bring about a resumption of a most recently determined set speed by the motor vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao in view of Ahmed-Zaid teaches the method according to claim 1, respectively, wherein the target speed is determined depending on
a) an actuation of a set speed actuator of the adaptive cruise control system (Zhao ¶0002, ¶0030, ¶0034; Ahmed-Zaid Col. 3, lines 47-57), and/or depending on
b) the detected lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Zhao in view of Ahmed-Zaid teaches the adaptive cruise control system according to claim 7, wherein it comprises a resume actuator, the actuation of which is intended to cause the motor vehicle to resume a last set target speed (Ahmed-Zaid Col. 1, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao in view of Ahmed-Zaid teaches the adaptive cruise speed control system according to claim 6, further comprising a target speed actuator, wherein the controller is configured to set the target speed depending on an actuation of the target speed actuator (Zhao ¶0034).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao in view of Ahmed-Zaid teaches the adaptive cruise control system according to claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to define the target speed as a function of the detected lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle (Ahmed-Zaid Col. 5, lines 13-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664