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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 7/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 16-30 remain pending in the application. The rejection under 35 USC 101 for claim 29 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments in regards to rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fairgrieve does not disclose the simultaneous determination of two types of limit speeds, Fairgrieve does not disclose a situation in which a roughness-based limit speed and a limit speed from another vehicle system are determined concurrently, placed into a common set, and the smallest of the two is selected and that if both limits coexisted at all times, the vehicle would always be constrained to the lower of the two, including on smooth terrain where the roughness-based off-road limit would unnecessarily restrict the vehicle's speed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fairgrieve teaches enabling one or more systems for restricting maximum speed (Fairgrieve [0034] and FIG. 3), each system has its own maximum speed such as the curvature/turning radius max speed (Fairgrieve [0030]) or the standing water detection mode (Fairgrieve [0032]) which limits the speed only in water and to the appropriate depth of water sensed. In the absence of water the vehicle would not be unnecessarily restricted to water/wading speed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-20, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160031444A1 (“Fairgrieve”).
As per claims 16, 27-30 Fairgrieve teaches the limitations of the method, vehicle control system, vehicle, computer program product, and computer readable medium:
A method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising: using a plurality of subsystems of the vehicle to determine a limit speed of a first type and a limit speed of a second type; selecting a smallest limit speed as a control parameter from a set of the determined limit speeds of the first type and limit speeds of the second type; and controlling a speed of the vehicle based on the selected control parameter. (Fairgrieve at least the abstract, [0018], FIG. 4, [0034], [0032], FIG. 3. [0037], [0080]).
Although Fairgrieve does not explicitly disclose selecting a smallest limit speed as a control parameter from the first type and second type limit speeds. Fairgrieve does teach the equivalent in [0032] by providing: “maximum speed control speed may be sensitive to detection of standing water, in particular wading, so as to ensure progress of the vehicle at a rate appropriate to the depth of water sensed”, while a simultaneous speed limit system is active (Fairgrieve [0034) such as the roughness or curvature/turning radius speed limit determinations. If at least two systems are actively seeking their own situations to limit speed, such possible scenarios would occur, for example: a roughness speed is further limited by a situation of a tight turning radius, or a roughness speed is limited further by the vehicle entering water. Thus the system taught by Fairgrieve does, by design, accomplish the limitation of selecting a smallest limit speed as a control parameter from a set of the determined limit speeds of the first type and limit speeds of the second type.
Claim 17, Fairgrieve teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Fairgrieve additionally teaches:
determining the limit speed of the second type by a subsystem of the vehicle for preventing damage to the subsystem. (Fairgrieve at least [0026]: “reducing temporarily the value of maximum set speed when it is detected that the vehicle has reached the bottom of a slope in order to allow a driver time to negotiate the change in gradient. This feature has the advantage that it may reduce a risk of damage to a vehicle”)
Claim 19, Fairgrieve teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Fairgrieve additionally teaches:
transmitting the limit speeds of the first type and limit speeds of the second type determined by the plurality of subsystems to a central control device for selecting the control parameter. (Fairgrieve at least [0010-0018])
Claim 20, Fairgrieve teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Fairgrieve additionally teaches:
using a central control device to control the speed of the vehicle based on the selected control parameter. (Fairgrieve at least [0010-0018])
Claim 26, Fairgrieve teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Fairgrieve additionally teaches:
taking a control parameter constituted by a smallest limit speed of the first type, as well as a smallest limit speed of the second type, into account for speed control of the vehicle. (Fairgrieve at least [0080], [0090], FIGs 4 &5)
Claim(s) 18, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairgrieve in view of US20150217767A1 (“Kelly”).
Regarding claim 18, Fairgrieve in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Fairgrieve does not disclose:
determining the limit speed of the first type by a subsystem of the vehicle for reducing wear.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least the abstract: " application of a retarding torque to one or more of the wheels of the vehicle to counteract the effect of an overrun condition in the powertrain subsystem from increasing the speed of the vehicle"). *Examiner’s note: overrun can cause engine block or component cracks/bearing failure due to over speeding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fairgrieve with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to minimize wear and tear on a vehicle (Kelly [0026]).
Regarding claim 21, Fairgrieve teaches the invention as described above. Fairgrieve does not disclose:
upon exceeding a predetermined limit speed of the second type specified by a subsystem of the vehicle, using the subsystem to request braking of the vehicle by utilizing a braking system of the vehicle.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fairgrieve with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 18.
Regarding claim 22, Fairgrieve teaches the invention as described above. Fairgrieve teaches determining a first threshold value based on the control parameter (Fairgrieve at least [0084]). Fairgrieve does not disclose:
outputting at least one of an audible or visual signal upon an actual speed of the vehicle exceeding the first threshold value.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fairgrieve with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 18.
Regarding claim 23, Fairgrieve in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Fairgrieve additionally teaches:
determining a second threshold value based on the control parameter; and providing a drive lockout upon the actual speed of the vehicle exceeding the second threshold value. (Fairgrieve at least [0080-0084])
Regarding claim 24, Fairgrieve teaches the invention as described above. Fairgrieve does not disclose:
determining a limit value based on the control parameter; and braking the vehicle by using a braking system of the vehicle upon an actual speed of the vehicle exceeding the limit value.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least [0055-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fairgrieve with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 18.
Regarding claim 25, Fairgrieve in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. While Fairgrieve teaches preventing damage ([0026]) it does not teach doing so with a braking system:
determining the limit speed of the second type by a subsystem of the vehicle for preventing damage to the subsystem; and determining the limit value based on a control parameter selected as the limit speed of the second type.
Kelly teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kelly at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Fairgrieve with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 18.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights