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 .
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
The original claims filed 15 December 2024 are 1-51, however the amended claims are numbered 25-51, with claims 1-24, 26-27, and 47-51 being canceled.
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.
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.
Claims 25, 28, and 31-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisset et al. (US 2018/0065481).
Regarding claim 25, Morisset teaches a method of decelerating a vehicle upon entering a halt zone, comprising
determining a location of a vehicle at routine intervals while the vehicle is traveling along a road (see at least [0207] which teaches reporting location data every 5 minutes),
determining when the vehicle enters a halt zone (see at least figure 16 “Inside Geofence”), and
upon determining that the vehicle has entered a halt zone, limiting a speed of the vehicle to a nominal speed (see at least [0158, 0170] and figure 16 at “Begin Deceleration Control”),
wherein the halt zone comprises a geofenced area defined by GPS coordinates (see at least [0134, 0158, 0170+] which teaches a geofenced area with reduced speed requirements and determining location using STM. Per at least [0134], STM, which is referred to throughout Morisset, can be GPS or any other satellite tracking system available),
wherein the location of the vehicle is determined based on GPS coordinates of the vehicle (see again at least [0170+]), and
wherein the vehicle is determined to enter a halt zone when the GPS coordinates of the vehicle are within the geofenced area (see at least [0172]. Halt zones are equivalent to geofences of Morisset.
However, Morisset does not appear to explicitly disclose the method is performed by an intelligent speed adaptor (ISA) system. However, the office contends that the throttle speed control system of Morisset, while not explicitly named an ISA, appears to carry out the same or similar functions of an ISA, just without the naming designation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide the speed control system of Morisset with the governing approval authority and/or certification required to be able to name the system an ISA system in order to legally and effectively apply the system to vehicles where an ISA system is encouraged or even required by law.
Regarding claim 28, Morisset teaches the method is performed for a plurality of different halt zones (at least [0172] teaches multiple geofences can exist in the system of Morisset).
Regarding claim 31, Morisset teaches the halt zone comprises an area comprising a vehicular path located adjacent a government building (see at least [0176]).
Regarding claim 32, Morisset teaches the halt zone comprises an area of an airport (see at least [0176]).
Regarding claim 33, Morisset teaches the halt zone comprises an area of a military base (see at least [0176] “sensitive government buildings”).
Regarding claim 34, Morisset teaches the equivalent ISA limits the speed of the vehicle to a nominal speed by disengaging the accelerator of the vehicle (see at least [0011]).
Regarding claims 35 and 36, Morisset does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the nominal speed is 1 kilometer per hour or 1 MPH (see at least [0011, 0026] which teaches forced deceleration of the vehicle. Although an exact nominal speed of either 1km/hr or 1 MPH is not explicitly disclosed as Morisset does not mention a specific moving speed at this level. However, the Examiner contends it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide a low speed output of the vehicle when prompted to do so by the throttle control system when inside a geofenced area in order to safely and slowly move through slow traffic areas like construction zones or bad weather areas).
Regarding claim 37, Morisset teaches the nominal speed is 5 miles per hour or less (see at least [0176] which teaches a max speed of 0 is possible).
Regarding claim 38, Morisset teaches the equivalent ISA limits the speed of the vehicle to a nominal speed by preventing signals indicating an acceleration from being sent to a main control module comprising an engine control unit of the vehicle (see at least [0007, 0097, 0148] which teaches vehicle deceleration is forced, thus a throttle pedal input would not be sent to the controller as it would already be overridden in a geofence zone during forced deceleration which removes the driver from control).
Regarding claim 39, Morisset teaches the equivalent ISA limits the speed of the vehicle to a nominal speed by preventing signals sent in response to depression of an acceleration pedal from being received by an engine control unit of the vehicle (see at least [0007, 0097, 0148, 0152] which teaches vehicle deceleration is forced, thus a throttle pedal input would not be sent to the ECM of Morisset as it would already be overridden in a geofence zone during forced deceleration).
Regarding claim 40, Morisset teaches the equivalent ISA limits the speed of the vehicle to a nominal speed by modifying signals that are sent in response to depression of an acceleration pedal to an engine control unit of the vehicle (see at least [0007, 0097, 0148, 0152] which teaches vehicle deceleration is forced, thus a throttle pedal input would not be sent to the ECM of Morisset as it would already be overridden in a geofence zone during forced deceleration. See also at least [0132] which also teaches overriding input signals from a driver).
Regarding claim 41, Morisset teaches the equivalent ISA limits the speed of the vehicle to a nominal speed by preventing signals sent by a throttle position sensor from being received by an engine control unit of the vehicle (see at least [0160, 0170, 0175, etc.]).
Regarding claim 42, Morisset teaches the equivalent ISA limits the speed of the vehicle to a nominal speed by modifying signals sent by a throttle position sensor to an engine control unit of the vehicle (see at least [0160, 0170, 0175, etc.]. It is noted it appears the claimed “modifying signals” and “preventing signals” have the same scope in that any accelerator pedal inputs are modified in a way that they are not carried out in a geofenced reduced speed zone).
Regarding claim 43, Morisset teaches the equivalent ISA limits the speed of the vehicle to a nominal speed by signaling an engine control module of the vehicle that the accelerator is not depressed (see again at least [0160, 0170, 0175, etc.]. It is noted it appears the claimed “modifying signals” and “preventing signals” have the same scope in that any accelerator pedal inputs are modified in a way that they are not carried out in a geofenced reduced speed zone. It is noted that the absence of a press of the accelerator would appear to have the same results as pressing the accelerator, since the throttle control system of Morisset takes over speed control when in geofenced areas).
Regarding claim 44, Morisset teaches actuating brakes of the vehicle for active braking of the vehicle after entering the halt zone (via forced deceleration in geofenced zones, see at least 0175, 0176, 0180]).
Regarding claim 45, Morisset teaches sending a notification that the vehicle has entered the halt zone upon determining that the vehicle has entered the halt zone (see at least [0218]).
Regarding claim 46, Morisset teaches the notification comprises a text message or an email (see again at least [0218] “The internet service 792 may notify the driver by a message communicated to the throttle control system 710, to a cellular phone or other device via any available messaging platform, or to any suitable mobile data terminal.”).
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisset et al. (US 2018/0065481) in view of Jones (US 10,593,205).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Morisset teaches a throttle control system which can force a vehicle to slow down or stop in certain scenarios, however, Morisset does not appear to explicitly disclose the real world use scenario wherein a halt zone comprises an area of a road leading up to an overpass or a tunnel which the vehicle is unable to traverse, whereby damage or injury from a collision of the vehicle with the overpass may be prevented. Jones teaches a vehicle warning system wherein including a GPS based system which warns drivers of tall vehicles when they are about to enter a location having a bridge, tunnel, or overpass in which the vehicle does not have sufficient clearance (see at least claim 1 and column 4 line 40 to column 5 line 12). Therefore, from the teaching of Jones, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide the system of Morisset with logistical information including height restrictions of the vehicle in order to implement the forced deceleration and stopping of vehicles when there is a height restriction danger ahead of the vehicle, similar to that of the teaching of Jones, in order to provide a safe stop for the vehicle prior to a collision with a structure that is too low for the vehicle to safely pass under.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658