DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 5/18/2026 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
-The claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 2 and 13 accordingly.
-The 102 rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 1 and 12 with limitations not disclosed by the prior art of record used in the rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-As to applicant’s argument “respectfully disagreeing with the assertion that the term "electronic control system" should be interpreted under section 112(f). A person of skill in the art reading the claim language in the context of the present disclosure would understand that an "electronic control system" broadly refers to a multiplicity of electronics and combinations of electronics, which are structural elements. The absence of the statutory terms "means" or "step" also raises a presumption against interpretation under section 112(f).” has been acknowledged. However, the limitation “electronic control system” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure (i.e., processor, computer, software, etc.) in which the word “system” does not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term “means” had been used.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/26/26 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Claim 1 recites the limitations “control the vehicle during the downhill route segment not to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit over a first portion of the downhill segment, determine during the downhill route segment a second target vehicle speed greater than the downhill vehicle speed limit effective to increase fuel economy of the vehicle, and control the vehicle during the downhill route segment to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit and accelerate toward the second target vehicle speed over a second portion of the downhill segment”. Please point out where support for the amended limitations can be found in the original disclosure as filed and in particular, what applicant considers the “first and second portions” of downhill segment is referring to (same issue for claim 12).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 1 recites the limitations “control the vehicle during the downhill route segment not to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit over a first portion of the downhill segment, determine during the downhill route segment a second target vehicle speed greater than the downhill vehicle speed limit effective to increase fuel economy of the vehicle, and control the vehicle during the downhill route segment to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit and accelerate toward the second target vehicle speed over a second portion of the downhill segment”. Please point out where support for the amended limitations can be found in the original disclosure as filed and in particular, what applicant considers the “first and second portions” of downhill segment is referring to (same issue for claim 12).
-Claim 7 recites the limitation “the second speed” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is the same as “a second target vehicle speed” as recited in claim 1, please clarify and amend accordingly (same issue for claim 18).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravella 20230311881 (previously cited) in view of Nakagawa et al 20180215360. As to claim 1. Ravella discloses a vehicle system, comprising: a powertrain including a prime mover and a transmission coupled to the prime mover ([0020], line 3); one or more ground engaging wheels coupled to the transmission and capable of being driven by the prime mover through the transmission ([0020], line 4); foundation brakes actuatable to slow the one or more ground engaging wheels (abstract, line 10); and an electronic control system (112) in operative communication with the prime mover, the transmission, and the foundation brakes, the electronic control system being configured to: determine, prior to reaching a downhill route segment, a pre-downhill target vehicle speed, a pre-downhill target transmission gear for the vehicle, and a downhill vehicle speed limit (110A; [0026]; Tables 1A, 1A, via speed setting, gear setting in which the speed setting provides speed limits, i.e, 25mph, 40mph), control the vehicle to achieve the pre-downhill target vehicle speed and the pre- downhill target transmission gear for the vehicle prior to or upon reaching the downhill route segment ([0026], lines 15-33), and control the vehicle during the downhill
route segment not to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit ([0016], lines 1-8 and [0026], lines 15-33) over a first portion of the downhill segment (any portion within t3). However, Ravella doesn’t disclose to determine during the downhill route segment a second target vehicle speed greater than the downhill vehicle speed limit effective to increase fuel economy of the vehicle, and control the vehicle during the downhill route segment to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit and accelerate toward the second target vehicle speed over a second portion of the downhill segment.
Nakagawa discloses a vehicle system, comprising: a powertrain including a prime mover and a transmission coupled to the prime mover (12); one or more ground engaging wheels coupled to the transmission and capable of being driven by the prime mover through the transmission (F, R); foundation brakes actuatable to slow the one or more ground engaging wheels (25); and an electronic control system (50) in operative communication with the prime mover, the transmission, and the foundation brakes. Nakagawa shows that it is well known in the art to control the vehicle during a downhill
route segment not to exceed a downhill vehicle speed limit (VSTrB/VSTr) over a first portion of the downhill segment (Figure 7, between t21-t22; [0061]; Figure 8, between t31-t33; [0067]), determine during the downhill route segment a second target vehicle speed greater than the downhill vehicle speed limit (Figure 7, between t22-t23; Figure 8 between t33-t35; VSTr plus Vp1, Vp2) effective to increase fuel economy of the vehicle (acceleration opening control which is used in Nakagawa is well known in art to improve fuel efficiency), and control the vehicle during the downhill route segment to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit and accelerate toward the second target vehicle speed over a second portion of the downhill segment (Figure 7, between t22-t23; Figure 8 between t33-t35; VSTr plus Vp1, Vp2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ravella with a downhill control speed limit increase in view of Nakagawa to prevent acceleration drag when exiting the downhill segment caused by remaining braking force to assist driver with smoother acceleration when transitioning to flat or uphill road segments.
Note: the use of the phrases "at least one of" and "to one of" indicates that the limitations following the phrases doesn't need to be met entirely and the recitations are in the form of "alternative" embodiments.
As to claim 2, Ravella discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to: prior to the downhill route segment, first control one or more components of the powertrain to provide at least one of controlling speed of the vehicle and maintaining speed of the vehicle to without applying the foundation brakes ([0017] via gear usage plan or retarder usage).
As to claim 3, Ravella discloses wherein the powertrain includes an engine and the maintaining speed of the vehicle comprises fueling the engine to maintain speed of the vehicle ([0021], lines 12-15; claim 7 via maximum engine rpm and range of engine rpm).
As to claim 4, Ravella discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to, prior to the downhill route segment, in response to a determination that the first control is not effective to achieve the pre-downhill target vehicle speed, operate the foundation brakes to one of control speed of the vehicle and maintain speed of the vehicle ([0023], [0029] via brake usage plan; [0026] lines 33-43 describes that one or more or any combinations of speed settings can be used and would be obvious to operate foundation brakes if other combinations aren't effective).
As to claim 5, Ravella discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to: prior to the downhill route segment, at least one of operate a powertrain retarder and downshift the transmission to a lower gear to contribute to at least one of the controlling speed of the vehicle and the maintaining speed of the vehicle (Table 1B at t2 with retarder at position 1 and Table 1A at t2 with downshift by one gear).
As to claim 6, Ravella discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to one of: during the downhill route segment and during downshifting of the transmission, operate the foundation brakes to contribute to at least one of the controlling speed of the vehicle and the maintaining speed of the vehicle, and prior to the downhill route segment and during downshifting of the transmission, operate the foundation brakes to contribute to at least one of the controlling speed of the vehicle and the maintaining speed of the vehicle ([0016], lines 1-8; [0026], lines 15-33 describes powertrain components can be controlled prior to and/or during downhill route).
As to claim 10, Ravella discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to, in response to driver operation of the foundation brakes, at least one of: operate a powertrain retarder to supplement the driver operation, decrease the downhill vehicle speed limit, and decrease the pre-downhill target vehicle speed (Table 1B; retarder position at 1 and 2 and reduce speed to 25mph).
As to claim 11, Ravella discloses wherein the electronic control system is configured to one of: first attempt to control vehicle speed to the pre-downhill target vehicle speed by operating the foundation brakes in combination with a powertrain retarder, and second, if the first attempt is not successful, operate the foundation brakes in combination with a transmission gear shift to control vehicle speed to the pre-downhill target vehicle speed ([0026], lines 33-43; Table 1A, 1B); first attempt to control or maintain vehicle speed below the downhill vehicle speed limit by operating the foundation brakes in combination with the powertrain retarder, and second, if the first attempt is not successful, operate the foundation brakes in combination with a transmission gear shift to control or maintain vehicle speed below the downhill vehicle speed limit (Table 1B, 50 lb force from brakes and position 2 for retarder brake); and supplement a powertrain retarder with foundation brakes to achieve a downhill vehicle speed limit ([0023], [0029] via brake usage plan; [0026] lines 33-43 describes that one or more or any combinations of speed settings can be used and would be obvious to operate foundation brakes if other combinations aren't effective).
As to claim 12, Ravella discloses a method, comprising: operating a vehicle including a prime mover in a motoring condition, the vehicle including a transmission coupled to the prime mover, one or more ground engaging wheels coupled to the transmission and capable of being driven by the prime mover through the transmission, and foundation brakes actuatable to slow the one or more ground engaging wheels ([0020], lines 3-4 and abstract, line 10); determining, prior to reaching a downhill route segment, a pre-downhill target vehicle speed, a pre-downhill target transmission gear for the vehicle, and a downhill vehicle speed limit (110A; [0026]; Tables 1A, 1A, via speed setting, gear setting in which the speed setting provides speed limits, i.e, 25mph, 40mph); controlling the vehicle to achieve the pre-downhill target vehicle speed and the pre- downhill target transmission gear for the vehicle prior to or upon reaching the downhill route segment; and controlling the vehicle during the downhill route segment
not to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit ([0026], lines 15-33), and controlling the vehicle during the downhill route segment not to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit ([0016], lines 1-8 and [0026], lines 15-33) over a first portion of the downhill segment (any portion within t3). However, Ravella doesn’t disclose determining during the downhill route segment a second target vehicle speed greater than the downhill vehicle speed limit effective to increase fuel economy of the vehicle, and controlling the vehicle during the downhill route segment to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit and accelerate toward the second target vehicle speed over a second portion of the downhill segment.
Nakagawa discloses a vehicle system, comprising: a powertrain including a prime mover and a transmission coupled to the prime mover (12); one or more ground engaging wheels coupled to the transmission and capable of being driven by the prime mover through the transmission (F, R); foundation brakes actuatable to slow the one or more ground engaging wheels (25); and an electronic control system (50) in operative communication with the prime mover, the transmission, and the foundation brakes. Nakagawa shows that it is well known in the art to control the vehicle during a downhill
route segment not to exceed a downhill vehicle speed limit (VSTrB/VSTr) over a first portion of the downhill segment (Figure 7, between t21-t22; [0061]; Figure 8, between t31-t33; [0067]), determine during the downhill route segment a second target vehicle speed greater than the downhill vehicle speed limit (Figure 7, between t22-t23; Figure 8 between t33-t35; VSTr plus Vp1, Vp2) effective to increase fuel economy of the vehicle (acceleration opening control which is used in Nakagawa is well known in art to improve fuel efficiency), and control the vehicle during the downhill route segment to exceed the downhill vehicle speed limit and accelerate toward the second target vehicle speed over a second portion of the downhill segment (Figure 7, between t22-t23; Figure 8 between t33-t35; VSTr plus Vp1, Vp2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ravella with a downhill control speed limit increase in view of Nakagawa to prevent acceleration drag when exiting the downhill segment caused by remaining braking force to assist driver with smoother acceleration when transitioning to flat or uphill road segments.
As to claim 13, Ravella discloses comprising: prior to the downhill route segment, first controlling one or more components of the powertrain to provide at least one of controlling speed of the vehicle and maintaining speed of the vehicle to without applying the foundation brakes ([0017] via gear usage plan or retarder usage).
As to claim 14, Ravella discloses wherein the powertrain includes an engine and the maintaining speed of the vehicle comprises fueling the engine to maintain speed of the vehicle ([0021], lines 12-15; claim 7 via maximum engine rpm and range of engine rpm).
As to claim 15, Ravella discloses comprising, prior to the downhill route segment, in response to a determination that the first controlling is not effective to achieve the pre-downhill target vehicle speed, operating the foundation brakes to one of control speed of the vehicle and maintain speed of the vehicle ([0023], [0029] via brake usage plan; [0026] lines 33- 43 describes that one or more or any combinations of speed settings can be used and would be obvious to operate foundation brakes if other combinations aren't effective).
As to claim 16, Ravella discloses comprising: prior to the downhill route segment, at least one of operating a powertrain retarder and downshifting the transmission to a lower gear to contribute to at least one of the controlling speed of the vehicle and the maintaining speed of the vehicle (Table 1B at t2 with retarder at position 1 and Table 1A at t2 with downshift by one gear).
As to claim 17, Ravella discloses comprising one of: during the downhill route segment and during downshifting of the transmission, operating the foundation brakes to contribute to at least one of the controlling speed of the vehicle and the maintaining speed of the vehicle, and prior to the downhill route segment and during downshifting of the transmission, operating the foundation brakes to contribute to at least one of the controlling speed of the vehicle and the maintaining speed of the vehicle ([0016], lines 1-8; [0026], lines 15-33 describes powertrain components can be controlled prior to and/or during downhill route).
As to claim 21, Ravella discloses comprising, in response to driver operation of the foundation brakes, at least one of: operating a powertrain retarder to supplement the driver operation, decreasing the downhill vehicle speed limit, and decreasing the pre-downhill target vehicle speed (Table 1B; retarder position at 1 and 2 and reduce speed to 25mph).
As to claim 22, Ravella discloses comprising one of: first attempting to control vehicle speed to the pre-downhill target vehicle speed by operating the foundation brakes in combination with a powertrain retarder, and second, if the first attempting is not successful, operating the foundation brakes in combination with a transmission gear shift to control vehicle speed to the pre-downhill target vehicle speed ([0026], lines 33-43; Table 1A, 1B); and first attempting to control or maintain vehicle speed below the downhill vehicle speed limit by operating the foundation brakes in combination with the powertrain retarder, and second, if the first attempt is not successful, operate the foundation brakes in combination with a transmission gear shift to control or maintain vehicle speed below the downhill vehicle speed limit (Table 1B, 50 lb force from brakes and position 2 for retarder brake); and supplementing a powertrain retarder with foundation brakes to achieve a downhill vehicle speed limit ([0023], [0029] via brake usage plan; [0026] lines 33-43 describes that one or more or any combinations of speed settings can be used and would be obvious to operate foundation brakes if other combinations aren't effective).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-(as to claim 7 in combination with the limitations in claim 1 exactly as written)…... wherein the second speed comprises a roll-out target speed determined in response to first information of a first posted speed limit of the first portion of the downhill segment and second information of a second posted speed limit of a second portion of the downhill segment.
-(as to claim 18 in combination with the limitations in claim 12 exactly as written) for same reasons as indicated in claim 7.
Conclusion
There is no additional prior art made of record and relied upon as the examiner considers the prior art used in the rejections above and previously cited the most pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
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 TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights