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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No additional information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted for consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 03/04/2024.
Status of Application
Claims 1-13, and 15 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
Claims 1-13, and 15 will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Amended Claims” and “Applicant Arguments/Remarks” dated 07/31/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 07/31/2026, with respect to claims 1-15, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Objection to Title, the applicant’s response and amended title has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Title is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, he applicant’s response and cancelled claim 14 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the remarks, “Doering nor Yamazaki, alone or in combination, discloses the claimed dynamic assignment of an initial creep speed based on the vehicle's actual travelling speed at the moment of pedal release,” the Office respectfully disagrees. The prior art Doering discloses/teaches “assignment of an initial creep speed based on the vehicle's actual travelling speed at the moment of pedal release,” within ¶¶ [0054-0055], in response to a driver releasing an accelerator pedal, and ¶¶ [0063], [0140], in response to the driver releasing his foot from a brake pedal, wherein both responses are received by vehicle controller 12, and ¶¶ [0100], (e.g., the output of look-up table 453 when the accelerator pedal position is zero) is determined from vehicle speed and zero accelerator pedal position (e.g., position of the accelerator pedal when it is not applied), Vehicle speed is input look-up table 453 and look-up table 453 contains empirically determined values of zero accelerator pedal torque. Therefore, the vehicle speed is known (table 453) at the time of driver releasing his foot from a brake pedal and zero accelerator pedal position, and speed is relative to torque within look-up table 453.
It remains the Offices stance that the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious this claimed subject matter.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOERING et al., US 20180251131, herein further known as Doering, in view of YAMAZAKI et al., US 20130012355, herein further known as Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 1, Doering discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry (¶ [0051]) configured to: detect at least a partial release of at least one of an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal of a vehicle (¶¶ [0055], driver releasing an accelerator pedal, [0063], driver releasing his foot from a brake pedal, [0140]); determine that an initial travelling speed is within a predetermined creep activation threshold (¶ [0100], a minimum torque to be output via the transmission, such as a creep torque to propel the vehicle at less than 5 Kph on flat ground); determine the brake pedal is not depressed (¶¶ [0084], [0114], [0139-0140], [0145]) and the accelerator pedal is not sufficiently depressed to accelerate the vehicle beyond the initial travelling speed (¶¶ [0084], [0114], [0139-0140], [0145]); set an initial creep speed based on the initial travelling speed of the vehicle (¶ [0100], Vehicle speed is input look-up table).
However, Doering does not explicitly state maintain the vehicle at the creep speed.
Yamazaki teaches maintain the vehicle at the creep speed (¶¶ [0010], maintain vehicle speed, [0021], vehicle creep speed is maintained, [0024-0025], maintain the desired vehicle creep speed, [0037-0038], maintain vehicle creep).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering maintain the vehicle at the creep speed as taught by Yamazaki.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Yamazaki for the reasons stated in Yamazaki paragraph [0010], a more robust method and system to provide smooth transitions between creeping in speed control and driving in torque control and address two footed driving as well as change-of-mind events which occur with frequent brake and accelerator movement.
Furthermore, Yamazaki teaches computer system comprising processing circuitry (¶ [0020], algorithm 50 is run is run on controller 42 which receives input signals from accelerator pedal and brake pedal); detect at least a partial release of at least one of an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal of a vehicle (¶¶ [0022-0027], [0034], driver releases the brake pedal 44, driver releases the accelerator pedal 43).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering detect at least a partial release of at least one of an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal of a vehicle as taught by Yamazaki.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Yamazaki for the reasons stated in Yamazaki paragraph [0010], a more robust method and system to provide smooth transitions between creeping in speed control and driving in torque control and address two footed driving as well as change-of-mind events which occur with frequent brake and accelerator movement.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, disclose all limitation of claim 1 above.
Doering discloses further a vehicle computer system (¶ [0040], Controller 12 may comprise a portion of a control system 14, and controller 12 which may be a single controller of the vehicle 100, see also FIG. 1C).
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 1. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, disclose all limitation of claim 12 above.
Doering discloses further non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (¶ [0051], [0083], executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory), which is executed by the processing circuitry (¶ [0040]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, in view of MILLER, US 20170144661, herein further known as Miller.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, disclose all limitation of claim 1 above.
Doering discloses detect a release of at least one of the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal (¶¶ [0055], driver releasing an accelerator pedal, [0063], driver releasing his foot from a brake pedal, [0140]).
However, Doering does not explicitly state detect a release by at least 95%.
Miller teaches detect a release by at least 95% (¶ [0038], driver releases the accelerator pedal to 0% travel, [0040], driver request for low acceleration (e.g., accelerator pedal position (APP) equals 5% pedal travel (equates to 95% release)), driver request for low deceleration (e.g., braker pedal position (BPP) equals 5% pedal travel (equates to 95% release), [0045], driver partially releases the brake pedal to 5% pedal travel).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering the detect a release by at least 95% as taught by Miller.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Miller for the reasons stated in Miller paragraph [0007], more robust method and system by automatically limiting the maximum vehicle speed during low-speed maneuvering for increased sensitivity over systems that consider fewer inputs.
It is the Office's stance that the specification of a threshold value of 95%, without any explanation of any well-known benefit of a 95% threshold over other threshold values is a mere design choice. By choosing a detection of a release by at least 95%, over any other detection measurement, without the recitation of a known and understood benefit, does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing a threshold value would have been obvious and the design choice would have produced predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, in view of SATO, US 20200071911, herein further known as Sato.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, disclose all limitation of claim 1 above.
However, Doering does not explicitly state assign the initial creep speed as the initial travelling speed of the vehicle.
Sato teaches assign the initial creep speed as the initial travelling speed of the vehicle (¶ [0026], see also FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering the assign the initial creep speed as the initial travelling speed of the vehicle as taught by Sato.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Sato for the reasons stated in Sato paragraph [0007],[0015], more robust method and system capable of controlling a traveling mechanism taking into consideration operation contents, thereby improving an automatic straight traveling function.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, in view of MATTHIAS et al., DE 102007043586, herein further known as Matthias.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Doering and Yamazaki disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Doering does not explicitly state obtain creep speed increase data corresponding to the accelerator pedal of the vehicle being temporarily depressed; assign an updated creep speed based on the creep speed increase data; and maintain the vehicle at the assigned updated creep speed.
Matthias teaches obtain creep speed increase data corresponding to the accelerator pedal of the vehicle being temporarily depressed; assign an updated creep speed based on the creep speed increase data; and maintain the vehicle at the assigned updated creep speed (page 2, operation of an accelerator pedal, creep speed increased, acceleration request (or later non-operation or when releasing the accelerator pedal) is the last set Maintain creep speed).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering the obtain creep speed increase data corresponding to the accelerator pedal of the vehicle being temporarily depressed; assign an updated creep speed based on the creep speed increase data; and maintain the vehicle at the assigned updated creep speed as taught by Matthias.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Matthias for the reasons stated in Matthias, more robust method and system wherein creep operation of a motor vehicle in terms of driving and ease of use becomes improved.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Doering, Yamazaki, and Matthias, in view of HYODO et al., US 20140379243, herein further known as Hyodo.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Doering and Yamazaki disclose all elements of claim 5 above.
However, Doering does not explicitly state obtain the creep speed increase data based on the depression amount of the accelerator pedal.
Hyodo teaches obtain the creep speed increase data based on the depression amount of the accelerator pedal (¶ [0083], pedal operation amount…).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering the obtain the creep speed increase data based on the depression amount of the accelerator pedal as taught by Hyodo.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Hyodo for the reasons stated in Hyodo paragraph [0006-0007], more robust method to control vehicle creep safely based upon the accelerator pedal input so the vehicle does not stall.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, in view of AIZAWA et al., JP 4039184, herein further known as Aizawa.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Doering and Yamazaki disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Doering does not explicitly state obtain creep speed decrease data corresponding to the brake pedal of the vehicle being temporarily depressed; assign an updated creep speed based on the creep speed decrease data; and maintain the vehicle at the assigned updated creep speed.
Aizawa teaches obtain creep speed decrease data corresponding to the brake pedal of the vehicle being temporarily depressed; assign an updated creep speed based on the creep speed decrease data; and maintain the vehicle at the assigned updated creep speed (¶ [0123], braking force continues to be equal to or greater than the predetermined value… applying the braking force necessary to maintain the target creep speed).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering the obtain creep speed decrease data corresponding to the brake pedal of the vehicle being temporarily depressed; assign an updated creep speed based on the creep speed decrease data; and maintain the vehicle at the assigned updated creep speed as taught by Aizawa.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Aizawa for the reasons stated in Aizawa paragraph [0004], more robust method and system for a vehicle to safely travel at a low speed, such as a creep speed, on any slope, whether uphill or downhill, thereby facilitating safely starting on a slope.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Doering, Yamazaki, and Aizawa, in view of UEOKA, US 20100076637, herein further known as Ueoka.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Doering, Yamazaki, and Aizawa, disclose all elements of claim 7 above.
However, Doering does not explicitly state obtain the creep speed decrease data based on the depression amount of the brake pedal.
Aizawa teaches obtain the creep speed decrease data based on the depression amount of the brake pedal (¶ [0057], method of calculating a creep torque reflection ratio based on the amount by which the brake pedal is operated).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering obtain the creep speed decrease data based on the depression amount of the brake pedal as taught by Aizawa.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Aizawa for the reasons stated in Aizawa, a more robust method and system to improve drivability and suppressing a creep torque to reduce wasteful energy consumption in a vehicle that may maintain braking force while the brake pedal is not operated.
Claim(s) 9, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Doering, and Yamazaki, in view of KUSHNER et al., US 20230044841, herein further known as Kushner.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Doering and Yamazaki disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Doering discloses selecting the creep activation threshold (¶ [0100], a minimum torque to be output via the transmission, such as a creep torque to propel the vehicle at less than 5 Kph on flat ground).
However, Doering does not explicitly state obtain vehicle motion data corresponding to the vehicle moving forward or reverse.
Kushner teaches obtain vehicle motion data corresponding to the vehicle moving forward or reverse (¶¶ [0026], work direction may include a forward direction, a reverse direction, [0037], [0045], activate the auto creep control command) .
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Doering the obtain vehicle motion data corresponding to the vehicle moving forward or reverse as taught by Kushner.
One would be motivated to modify Doering in view of Kushner for the reasons stated in Kushner paragraph [0002], more robust method and system to operate the implement in an optimal creep operating range for improving the performance of the implement.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 9. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 9. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, and 10 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record attached PTO 892 form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as described below. Prior Art ZHANG et al., CN 112644294, discloses vehicle creep conditions include: the vehicle is in the D gear or the R gear; the brake pedal and the accelerator pedal are released and the vehicle speed are lower than the first preset speed threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights