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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/15/2026, 5/29/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, Fig. 3, are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels, “1. In bracket 1, insert the reason for the objection, for example the drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims-- or --the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels” [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
As to claim 13, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is software per se and does not fall in one of the eligible subject matter categories. Applicant should consider drafting the claim such that a memory has the program stored upon it.
Alice type rejection – Abstract Idea Mental Process
As to claim 1-9, 13, and 15-17 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim(s) 1-9, 13, and 15-17 is/are directed to a mental process of determining a motion trajectory (Process claims 1-9 and apparatus for claim 13 and 15-17).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea – mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method of outputting a notification in a driver environment of a vehicle, wherein the method is performed by a control arrangement, and wherein the vehicle comprises wheel brakes,
wherein the method comprises the steps of, when the vehicle is travelling on a road:
obtaining topographic data representative of the topography of an upcoming road segment of the road;
identifying an upcoming downhill slope in the upcoming road segment;
obtaining, based on the topographic data, a speed estimate representative of a maximum allowable speed of the vehicle upon reaching the upcoming downhill slope for keeping the speed of the vehicle below a threshold speed in the upcoming downhill slope while using a predetermined braking amount of the wheel brakes; and
outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope.
(where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, obtaining a speed estimate in the context of this claim encompasses a person (navigator) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea – mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”) See above.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes a processing apparatus. Regarding the additional limitations of “processor” that merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose processing environment. The processing is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining process steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the mental process into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering and transmitting) in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of processing with a processing apparatus are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processing apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely add to the mental processing. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 15-16.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-9, 13, and 15-17 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Examiner recommends a controlling step. Of note claims 10-12 overcome Alice in controlling the vehicle via reducing the speed of the vehicle.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 3-7, 13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel US 20210237728 A1 in view of Averbuch US 20160223343 A1.
As to claim 1, Wessel suggests a method of wherein the method is performed by a control arrangement, [Wessel: #6] and wherein the vehicle [Wessel: #1] comprises wheel brakes [Wessel: 0057],
wherein the method comprises the steps of, when the vehicle is travelling on a road: [Wessel: 0057]
obtaining [Wessel: 0057] topographic data representative of the topography of an upcoming road segment of the road; [Wessel: #2 downhill slope]
identifying [Wessel: 0057] an upcoming downhill slope in the upcoming road segment; [Wessel: #2 downhill slope]
obtaining, [Wessel: 0057-0058] based on the topographic data, a speed estimate representative of a maximum allowable speed [Wessel: vref, 0057]of the vehicle upon reaching the upcoming downhill slope for keeping the speed of the vehicle below a threshold speed [Wessel: fig. 1 here 90 km/h] in the upcoming downhill slope while using a predetermined braking amount of the wheel brakes; and [Wessel: “"However, the braking power of the auxiliary brakes would be insufficient for maintaining the vehicle speed V, which would consequently continue to increase above 90 km/h. The driver would therefore have to brake the motor vehicle manually using the wheel brake"”]
Wessel does not explicitly discloses outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. However, Averbuch suggests outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. [Averbuch: 0037 “… it is also contemplated that the approaches described herein as related to curve notifications may also be generalized to other notifications for dangerous or problematic travel areas. Such travel areas may include dangerous slopes, … The system 100 may determine these problem areas, notify the user, … It is also contemplated that the approaches described herein as related to notifications may be integrated with other operational configuration parameters such as speed rate, acceleration rate, braking rate, steering rate, cornering forces, and the like, such that the vehicle takes into account an appropriate operational configuration consistent with dangerous curves, road hazards, or other like problem areas.”] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the end result/output of Wessel to be a notification as suggested in Averbuch as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of displaying information on the road ahead for safety.
As to claim 3, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests wherein the vehicle comprises a wheel brake system comprising the wheel brakes, and wherein the vehicle comprises an additional system controllable to brake the vehicle, the additional system being separate from the wheel brake system, and wherein the step of obtaining the speed estimate comprises: obtaining the speed estimate based on an available braking power of the additional system. [Wessel: 0057]
As to claim 4, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests wherein the step of obtaining the speed estimate comprises: obtaining the speed estimate based on an inclination of the upcoming downhill slope. [Wessel: 0057. Fig. 2]
As to claim 5, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests wherein the step of obtaining the speed estimate comprises: obtaining the speed estimate based on a length of the upcoming downhill slope. [Wessel: 0057. Fig. 2]
As to claim 6, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests comprises: outputting the notification when the vehicle is a predetermined time or a predetermined distance from the upcoming downhill slope. [Wessel: 0057. Fig. 2]
As to claim 7, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests wherein the method comprises: adapting the predetermined time or the predetermined distance based on a difference between a current speed of the vehicle and the speed estimate. [Wessel: 0043-0044]
As to claim 13, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests a computer program product stored on anon-transitory computer-readable medium, [Wessel: 0059] wherein the vehicle comprises wheel brakes, [Wessel: 0057] wherein said computer program product comprising computer instructions to cause one or more computer processors to perform the following operations: [Wessel: 0059]
when the vehicle is travelling on a road: [Wessel: 0057]
obtaining [Wessel: 0057] topographic data representative of the topography of an upcoming road segment of the road; [Wessel: #2 downhill slope]
identifying [Wessel: 0057] an upcoming downhill slope in the upcoming road segment; [Wessel: #2 downhill slope]
obtaining, [Wessel: 0057-0058] based on the topographic data, a speed estimate representative of a maximum allowable speed [Wessel: vref, 0057]of the vehicle upon reaching the upcoming downhill slope for keeping the speed of the vehicle below a threshold speed [Wessel: fig. 1 here 90 km/h] in the upcoming downhill slope while using a predetermined braking amount of the wheel brakes; and [Wessel: “"However, the braking power of the auxiliary brakes would be insufficient for maintaining the vehicle speed V, which would consequently continue to increase above 90 km/h. The driver would therefore have to brake the motor vehicle manually using the wheel brake"”]
Wessel does not explicitly discloses outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. However, Averbuch suggests outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. [Averbuch: 0037 “… it is also contemplated that the approaches described herein as related to curve notifications may also be generalized to other notifications for dangerous or problematic travel areas. Such travel areas may include dangerous slopes, … The system 100 may determine these problem areas, notify the user, … It is also contemplated that the approaches described herein as related to notifications may be integrated with other operational configuration parameters such as speed rate, acceleration rate, braking rate, steering rate, cornering forces, and the like, such that the vehicle takes into account an appropriate operational configuration consistent with dangerous curves, road hazards, or other like problem areas.”] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the end result/output of Wessel to be a notification as suggested in Averbuch as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of displaying information on the road ahead for safety.
As to claim 15, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests a control arrangement [Wessel: #6] , wherein the control arrangement is configured to, when the vehicle is travelling on a road: [Wessel: 0057]
obtaining [Wessel: 0057] topographic data representative of the topography of an upcoming road segment of the road; [Wessel: #2 downhill slope]
identifying [Wessel: 0057] an upcoming downhill slope in the upcoming road segment; [Wessel: #2 downhill slope]
obtaining, [Wessel: 0057-0058] based on the topographic data, a speed estimate representative of a maximum allowable speed [Wessel: vref, 0057]of the vehicle upon reaching the upcoming downhill slope for keeping the speed of the vehicle below a threshold speed [Wessel: fig. 1 here 90 km/h] in the upcoming downhill slope while using a predetermined braking amount of the wheel brakes; and [Wessel: “"However, the braking power of the auxiliary brakes would be insufficient for maintaining the vehicle speed V, which would consequently continue to increase above 90 km/h. The driver would therefore have to brake the motor vehicle manually using the wheel brake"”]
Wessel does not explicitly discloses outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. However, Averbuch suggests outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. [Averbuch: 0037 “… it is also contemplated that the approaches described herein as related to curve notifications may also be generalized to other notifications for dangerous or problematic travel areas. Such travel areas may include dangerous slopes, … The system 100 may determine these problem areas, notify the user, … It is also contemplated that the approaches described herein as related to notifications may be integrated with other operational configuration parameters such as speed rate, acceleration rate, braking rate, steering rate, cornering forces, and the like, such that the vehicle takes into account an appropriate operational configuration consistent with dangerous curves, road hazards, or other like problem areas.”] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the end result/output of Wessel to be a notification as suggested in Averbuch as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of displaying information on the road ahead for safety.
As to claim 16, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests a vehicle [Wessel: #1] comprising wheel brakes and control arrangement [Wessel: #6] when the vehicle is travelling on a road: [Wessel: 0057]
obtaining [Wessel: 0057] topographic data representative of the topography of an upcoming road segment of the road; [Wessel: #2 downhill slope]
identifying [Wessel: 0057] an upcoming downhill slope in the upcoming road segment; [Wessel: #2 downhill slope]
obtaining, [Wessel: 0057-0058] based on the topographic data, a speed estimate representative of a maximum allowable speed [Wessel: vref, 0057]of the vehicle upon reaching the upcoming downhill slope for keeping the speed of the vehicle below a threshold speed [Wessel: fig. 1 here 90 km/h] in the upcoming downhill slope while using a predetermined braking amount of the wheel brakes; and [Wessel: “"However, the braking power of the auxiliary brakes would be insufficient for maintaining the vehicle speed V, which would consequently continue to increase above 90 km/h. The driver would therefore have to brake the motor vehicle manually using the wheel brake"”]
Wessel does not explicitly discloses outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. However, Averbuch suggests outputting a notification indicating the speed estimate in the driver environment before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. [Averbuch: 0037 “… it is also contemplated that the approaches described herein as related to curve notifications may also be generalized to other notifications for dangerous or problematic travel areas. Such travel areas may include dangerous slopes, … The system 100 may determine these problem areas, notify the user, … It is also contemplated that the approaches described herein as related to notifications may be integrated with other operational configuration parameters such as speed rate, acceleration rate, braking rate, steering rate, cornering forces, and the like, such that the vehicle takes into account an appropriate operational configuration consistent with dangerous curves, road hazards, or other like problem areas.”] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the end result/output of Wessel to be a notification as suggested in Averbuch as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of displaying information on the road ahead for safety.
As to claim 17, Wessel in view of Averbuch suggests wherein the vehicle is a heavy road vehicle, such as a truck or a bus. [Wessel: 0020]
Claim 2 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel in view of Averbuch in view of Luo US 20250065894 A1.
As to claim 2, Wessel in view of Averbuch in view of Luo wherein the predetermined braking amount of the wheel brakes is set to limit at least one of wear of the wheel brakes and temperature development in the wheel brakes obtained in the upcoming downhill slope. [Lou: 0598 wear-and-tear]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the slope based speed notification of Wessel in view of Averbuch to include the considering wear and tear when setting a speed of Luo as they are similar fields of invention and it merely involves using a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of reducing wear and cost.
As to claim 8, Wessel in view of Averbuch in view of Luo wherein the method comprises: adapting the predetermined braking amount based on input from a user interface assembly of the vehicle. [Luo: 0065 the recommendations are adapted based on user interface input from past driving ] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the slope based speed notification of Wessel in view of Averbuch to user input of Luo as they are similar fields of invention and it merely involves using a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of user preferences.
As to claim 9, Wessel in view of Averbuch in view of Luo setting the threshold speed based on a regulatory speed limit of the upcoming downhill slope. [Luo: 0065] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the slope based speed notification of Wessel in view of Averbuch to include the considering speed limits when setting a speed of Luo as they are similar fields of invention and it merely involves using a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of regulation conformity.
As to claim 10, Wessel in view of Averbuch in view of Luo wherein the method comprises: reducing the speed of the vehicle to the maximum allowable speed before the vehicle reaches the upcoming downhill slope. [Luo: 0419-0423] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the slope based speed notification of Wessel in view of Averbuch to account for before the slope of Luo as they are similar fields of invention and it merely involves using a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of reducing wear and cost.
As to claim 11, Wessel in view of Averbuch in view of Luo wherein the method comprises: generating a speed reduction prompt based on the speed estimate; [Luo: 0409-0411] and outputting the speed reduction prompt in the driver environment of the vehicle, [Luo: 0416 recommended driving speed] and wherein the step of reducing the speed of the vehicle is contingent upon receiving a confirmation of the speed reduction prompt via a user interface assembly of the vehicle. [Luo: 0020 may alert to brake in unsafe and initiate brake]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the slope based speed notification of Wessel in view of Averbuch to include user input of Luo as they are similar fields of invention and it merely involves using a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of user preference.
As to claim 12, Wessel in view of Averbuch in view of Luo wherein the outputted speed reduction prompt comprises the notification. [Luo: 0409-0411]. See claim 11 for motivation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7400961 B2 a method of controlling a driveline retarder of a powertrain including a transmission having a rotatable input shaft connected to an engine and an output shaft connected to the driveline retarder is provided. The method includes determining a set speed value and comparing the set speed value plus a customer modifiable constant value to a current rotational speed value of the output shaft. A driveline retarder cruise modulation torque request value is then calculated when the current rotational speed value of the output shaft is greater than or equal to the set speed value plus the customer modifiable constant value. The driveline retarder is controlled as a function of the driveline retarder cruise modulation torque request value. A powertrain configured to implement the aforementioned method is also disclosed.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights