DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to the application received on 28 April 2025. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
The claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged. A certified copy of the priority application has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS received on 28 April 2025 has been considered, excepting foreign patent document 1. The copy of the document received with the IDS is missing text on several pages and was not considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected to because it does not provide a sufficient indication of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title "Vehicle traveling control apparatus to suppress unnecessary acceleration over gentle gradients" is offered for consideration by the applicant, but is not strictly required.
Interpretation of Claims Under 35 USC 112(f)
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
in claim 1:
"an information acquirer configured to acquire traveling environment information" where corresponding structure may be a CCD or CMOS image sensor that outputs a moving image or static image, and may include an optical sensor and/or a near-IR sensor, as disclosed on page 7;
"a detector configured to detect a gentle upward-gradient region" where corresponding structure may be an electronic control unit or an element of an ECU as disclosed on page 6 of the specification;
"a vehicle speed processor configured to suppress [...] unnecessary acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle" where corresponding structure may be an ECU or an element of an ECU as disclosed on page 8;
in claims 2 and 4:
"an acceleration processor configured to control the acceleration rate of the vehicle" where corresponding structure may be an ECU or an element of an ECU as disclosed on page 8; and
in claims 5-8:
"an estimator configured to estimate an upward gradient of the short-distance road" where corresponding structure may be an ECU or an element of an ECU as disclosed on page 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,052,896 B2 (Zebiak et al.).
Claim 1.
Zebiak discloses a traveling control apparatus configured to be applied to a vehicle, the traveling control apparatus comprising:
an information acquirer configured to acquire traveling environment information on a surrounding environment around the vehicle, the surrounding environment comprising an area ahead of the vehicle (col 5 ln 17-23 - "The sensor system 28 includes one or more sensing devices 40 that sense observable conditions of the exterior environment and/or the interior environment of the vehicle 10. The sensing devices 40 may include, but are not limited to, radars, lidars, global positioning systems, optical cameras, thermal cameras, ultrasonic sensors, clocks for measuring time, and/or other sensors");
a detector configured to detect a gentle upward-gradient region of a short-distance road, based on the traveling environment information acquired by the information acquirer (col 7 ln 54-57 - "the controller 34 receives and monitors the elevation data ED about the upcoming terrain Trr from the map database 35 and/or vehicle sensors/cameras"); and
a vehicle speed processor configured to suppress, in the gentle upward-gradient region of the short-distance road, unnecessary acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle caused based on an integrated value of a deviation between an acceleration rate of the vehicle and a target acceleration rate (col 9 ln 40-44 - "At block 110, the controller 34 compares each of the projected-speeds at each of the predetermined-upcoming locations with the allowed speed range 37 to determine whether any of the projected speeds is outside the allowed speed range 37", col 11 ln 14-25 - "After determining the required work input W to achieve the minimum allowed speed v.sub.min at the peak distance d.sub.peak, the acceleration control process 200 proceeds to block 214. At block 214, the controller 34 calculates the adjusted torque τ.sub.req required (if applied constantly) to achieve the minimum allowed speed v.sub.min at the peak distance d.sub.peak using the following equation: [the equation includes terms for summation of changes in vehicle velocity, and therefore is considered to meet the limitation for an integrated acceleration deviation]").
Claim 2.
Zebiak discloses the traveling control apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses the apparatus further comprising
an acceleration processor configured to control the acceleration rate of the vehicle by performing integral control that is based on the integrated value of the deviation between the acceleration rate of the vehicle and the target acceleration rate (col 9 ln 64-col 10 ln 1 - "In the acceleration control process 200, the controller 34 commands the propulsion system 20 of the vehicle 10 to adjust the commanded axle torque to maintain the actual speed of the vehicle 10 within the allowed speed range 37 at each of the predetermined-upcoming locations"),
wherein the vehicle speed processor is configured to perform control of clearing a component of the integral control performed by the acceleration processor, in the gentle upward-gradient region of the short-distance road (col 9 ln 48-51 - "If there are no projected speeds that are in violation of the maximum allowed speed v.sub.max and/or the minimum allowed speed v.sub.min, the method 100 returns to block 104").
Claim 3.
Zebiak discloses the traveling control apparatus according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the gentle upward-gradient region is defined in accordance with a distance from the vehicle to a crest area of the short-distance road, the distance being acquired by the information acquirer (col 7 ln 54-57, col 10 ln 28-31 - "At block 206, the controller 34 determines and stores the distance from the current location of the vehicle 10 to the local maximum elevation and its corresponding index i.sub.peak in the elevation look-ahead table EDT").
Claim 4.
Zebiak discloses the traveling control apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an acceleration processor configured to control the acceleration rate of the vehicle by performing integral control that is based on the integrated value of the deviation between the acceleration rate of the vehicle and the target acceleration rate (col 9 ln 64-col 10 ln 1),
wherein, the vehicle speed processor is configured to, when a difference between the acceleration rate of the vehicle and the target acceleration rate becomes less than or equal to zero, perform control of clearing a component of the integral control performed by the acceleration processor (col 9 ln 48-51).
Claim 9.
Claim 9 recites limitations that correspond to the limitations recited by claim 1, and therefore claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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. Alternatively, the present independent claims may be amended to recite subject matter indicated as allowable, including the limitations of any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose or teach all of the limitations recited by claims 5-8, including a cruise control apparatus that estimates an upward gradient of a road by filtering front and rear acceleration sensor outputs, using a primary delay time constant that is sequentially decreased in accordance with the distance from the vehicle to the road crest.
Conclusion
The additional prior art cited on Form 892 (Notice of References Cited) generally relates to vehicle cruise control systems which adapt the cruise control settings according to upcoming changes in road elevation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Todd Melton whose telephone number is (571)270-3871. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9:30am - 6:00pm (Eastern time). 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.
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights