DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Intended Use
2. Process claim 11 contains the embodiment “…thereby controlling said at least one device as a function of the changed target value.” While this embodiment has been afforded its full patentable weight, thereby clauses may not be afforded patentable weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. See MPEP at 2111.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Aoyama (US 2022/0089023).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Aoyama discloses a motor vehicle and control process of a motor vehicle (motor vehicle hill descent controller and associated method; Aoyama at 0030), comprising:
A propulsion device controllable to accelerate the motor vehicle (vehicle powertrain includes drive source; Aoyama at 0031).
A braking device controllable to brake the motor vehicle (brake device 210 decelerates vehicle; Aoyama at 0048).
An accelerator pedal depressible to control an acceleration of the motor vehicle via the propulsion device (accelerator pedal; Aoyama at 0041).
A brake pedal depressible to control a braking of the motor vehicle via the braking device; (brake pedal; Aoyama at 0041).
An activation controller operable by a driver to trigger an activation of a hill descent control function (hill descent function operable by driver for hill descent control; Aoyama at 0056).
A control unit configured to start the hill descent control function in response to said activation by setting a target value for a speed of the motor vehicle and controlling at least one device of the braking device and the propulsion device as a function of the set target value (driving support device configured to set target speed for vehicle in accordance with hill slope or driver input, and control the vehicle via braking or propulsion device according to the target speed; Aoyama at 0009, 0044, 0048).
Wherein the control unit is further configured to perform a change of the set target value based on the use of at least one pedal of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal and to restart the hill descent control function at the finalization of the change by controlling said at least one device as a function of the changed target value (driver can suspend operation of hill descent control function to adjust the target speed via pedals, and when either pedal is released, the vehicle will be controlled according to the new target speed; Aoyama at 0048, 0090-0093).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Aoyama discloses wherein the control unit is configured to
temporarily suspend the hill descent control function during a depressing of the said at least one
pedal, such that the depressing causes the motor vehicle to accelerate or brake accordingly (driver can suspend operation of hill descent control to adjust the target speed via pedals, and when either pedal is released, the vehicle will be controlled according to the new target speed; Aoyama at 0048).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Aoyama discloses wherein the control unit is configured to finalize the change at a release of said at least one pedal, thereby restarting the hill descent control function at said release (at the release of the pedal, the new target speed will be finalized, and hill descent control resumed; Aoyama at 0048, 0091-0093).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Aoyama discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine a first actual value of the speed at said release and to finalize the change by bringing the target value to be equal to the first actual value (at the release of the pedal, the new target speed will be finalized at the current vehicle speed, and hill descent control resumed; Aoyama at 0048).
Regarding claim 8, the Aoyama discloses wherein the control unit is configured to
determine a second actual speed value in response to said activation and to set the target value
equal to the second actual value in response to said activation (user deflects pedals to alter vehicle speed, new target speed is altered vehicle speed, hill descent control resumed; Aoyama at 0048).
Regarding claim 9, Aoyama discloses wherein the control unit is configured to
determine speed-related information and to stop the hill descent control function if the
information indicates that the speed exceeds a first threshold (based on hill data and excessive vehicle speed hill descent will be turned off; Aoyama at 0078).
Regarding claim 10, Aoyama discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine information related to the speed and a slope of the road travelled by the motor vehicle,
the control unit being further configured to start the hill descent control function in response
to said activation only if the information indicates that the speed and the slope fall within
respective ranges of compatibility with the hill descent control function (allowable speed range of vehicle a function of vehicle type and hill angle, hill descent will be inactive at excessive speed; Aoyama at 0037, 0078).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama, as applied above, and further in view of Fairgrieve (US 2018/0297595).
Regarding claim 2, while Aoyama as cited above discloses altering the target speed during hill descent control via pedals, Aoyama is silent as to a setting controller manipulable by the driver and distinct from said at least one pedal, wherein the control unit is configured to perform said change also based on the use of the setting controller as an alternative to the use of said at least one pedal.
Fairgrieve, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches altering the target speed via pedals or in the alternative increment/decrement buttons (Fairgrieve at 0050, 0059, 0064).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the hill descent control of Aoyama with the increment/decrement buttons as taught by Fairgrieve. Doing so would provide an additional path of interpreting driver intent and desired vehicle control.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the control unit is configured to perform said change based on the use of the setting controller in the case of simultaneous use of the setting controller and said at least one pedal (preventing erroneous changes in set speed via only allowing use of one changing device at a time; Fairgrieve at 0064).
Claim Objections
5. Claim 6 remains 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.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s contention (see page 5 filed 07 July 2026) with respect to the objection to claims 1 and 11 has been fully considered and is persuasive in view of the amendments provided. Therefore, the objection to claims 1 and 11 has been withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s contention (see pages 5-6 filed 07 July 2026) with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
Applicant has contended (see page 6 filed 07 July 2026) that Aoyama does not disclose the final embodiment of claim 1, specifically that claim 1 requires that the restart of the control function is performed at the finalization of the change to the target vehicle speed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; said contested embodiment is not explicitly stating that the hill descent control is automatically restarted upon release of pedal after the new target speed1 is set. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the contested embodiment, the user updating the target speed and manually restarting the hill descent control function is within the scope of the embodiment. Aoyama discloses setting the target speed for hill descent control and toggling the driving support switch to restart the control (Aoyama at 0048, 0059, 0063).
However, when examining an application, personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Thus, the examiner maintains the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
8. Applicant’s contention (see page 6, last paragraph filed 07 July 2026) with respect to the rejection of claim 4 has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
Applicant has contended that Aoyama does not disclose placing the control unit into a standby state via operation of the brake or accelerator pedals.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; Aoyama at Fig. 9, 0090-0093 discloses that depressing of either pedal places the control unit into a standby state (t3d-t3e) so that the set speed can be changed. When the pedals are released, hill descent control is resumed (t3g).
9. Although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds/rationales and applicable prior art for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 15 September 2026
1 This automatic resume of hill descent control is further clarified into amended claim 5 and not read into claim 1.
Prosecution Insights