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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on August 5th, 2025. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Amendment
In response to applicant’s Arguments filed August 5th, 2025, Examiner maintains the previous claim interpretations; withdraws the previous 112 rejections; and withdraws the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 5th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-20160341139 (hereinafter, “Yagi”).
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
a. …the control unit being configured to… in claim 1. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at Specification Paragraph’s [0005]-[0008] of the instant specification. Examiner will interpret the ‘control unit’ structure as a controller (computer) capable of setting ‘a target acceleration’, ‘a target jerk’, ‘torque…based on the target acceleration and the target jerk’, a rate of change in ‘the target acceleration’ and ‘the target jerk’, and ‘an operating speed of the accelerator pedal’;
b. …wherein the control unit is further configured to…in claim 17. Structure for this limitation may be found at least at Specification Paragraph’s [0005]-[0008] of the instant specification. Examiner will interpret the ‘control unit’ structure as a controller (computer) capable of setting ‘a target acceleration’, ‘a target jerk’, ‘torque…based on the target acceleration and the target jerk’, a rate of change in ‘the target acceleration’ and ‘the target jerk’, and ‘an operating speed of the accelerator pedal’;
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 (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 § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over US-20140180554 (hereinafter, “Takahashi”) in view of US-20160341139 (hereinafter, “Yagi”).
Regarding claim 1 Takahashi discloses a control device for a vehicle (see at least [0008]; “it is an object of the present invention to propose a vehicle motion control apparatus and a vehicle motion control system providing good operability for a driver and capable of reducing the pedal operation”) comprising:
a power source that generates torque for driving or braking the vehicle (see at least [0084]; “a motor configured to generate longitudinal acceleration by controlling the drive torque of the motor”);
an accelerator pedal sensor that detects an operating amount of an accelerator pedal (see at least [0066]; “the vehicle motion control apparatus 1 of this embodiment is to be mounted on a vehicle, and includes…an accelerator pedal operating amount acquiring means 4”); and
a control unit that controls the power source (see at least [0066]; “The vehicle motion control apparatus 1 of this embodiment is to be mounted on a vehicle, and includes an acceleration and jerk information acquiring means 2, a vehicle speed acquiring means 3, an accelerator pedal operating amount acquiring means 4, a brake pedal operating amount acquiring means 5, a longitudinal acceleration control switch 6, and a vehicle motion control command calculating means 7, and performs signal output to a longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 and a longitudinal acceleration control state display means 9.”), the control unit being configured to:
set a target acceleration based on the accelerator pedal operating amount detected by the accelerator pedal sensor (see at least [0070]; “a method of estimating the longitudinal acceleration and longitudinal jerk from the accelerator pedal operating amount obtained by the accelerator pedal operating amount acquiring means 4 or from the brake pedal operating amount obtained by the brake pedal operating amount obtained by the brake pedal operating amount acquiring means 5 may be employed instead of the above-described method”);
set a target jerk based on the target acceleration (see at least [0144]; “when the longitudinal acceleration command value becomes 0 as shown at T18a2 in fig. 18(A), the longitudinal jerk required value (brake) is set to 0”);
…set torque to be outputted or regenerated by the power source, based on the target acceleration and the target jerk (see at least [0182]; “when the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 is the engine and performs the longitudinal acceleration control by transmitting an engine torque command value to the engine controller, the engine torque command value is created on the basis of the longitudinal acceleration command value Gxcmd and the created engine torque command value is transmitted as a control command value. Accordingly, the longitudinal acceleration on the basis of the longitudinal acceleration command value Gxcmd is generated in the vehicle,” and [0103]; “In S305, the longitudinal jerk command value Jxcmd is calculated on the basis of the target longitudinal jerk Jxtgt, the target longitudinal acceleration Gxtgt,” the torque is generated based on the command value which is calculated based on the target longitudinal acceleration and target longitudinal jerk).
Takahashi does not disclose when an absolute value of an accelerator pedal operating speed is above a predetermined value set the target jerk so that an absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as the target acceleration decreases toward 0 from a value above 0 (see at least Fig. 11- A21 and [0089]; “first the jerk swiftly reaches a lowest value as the accelerator opening reduces (see the arrow A21”);
when the absolute value of the accelerator pedal operating speed is below the predetermined value, the target jerk is constant regardless of the target acceleration.
Yagi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches when an absolute value of an accelerator pedal operating speed is above a predetermined value set the target jerk so that an absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as the target acceleration decreases toward 0 from a value above 0 (see at least Fig. 11- A21 and [0089]; “first the jerk swiftly reaches a lowest value as the accelerator opening reduces (see the arrow A21” during at least a portion of the acceleration the target jerk decreases as the target acceleration decreases, Applicant does not specify that the relationship between the two is linear and it continues to decrease until the target acceleration reaches zero);
when the absolute value of the accelerator pedal operating speed is below the predetermined value, the target jerk is constant regardless of the target acceleration (see at least Fig. 11 when the accelerator opening percentage is constant the pedal operating speed is zero, and the jerk is constant as shown by G16 and G13 to the left of the dashed line, in other words when the operating speed is below a non-zero value the target jerk is constant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control of Takahashi with the pedal speed dependent jerk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving unity between the vehicle and the driver (see at least Yagi; [0007]).
Regarding claim 2 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yagi, in the same field of endeavor does not teach wherein the control unit sets the target jerk so that a rate of change in the target jerk according to the change in the target acceleration when the target acceleration decreases from a value below 0 becomes smaller than the rate of the change in the target jerk according to the change in the target acceleration when the target acceleration decreases toward 0 from the value above 0 (see at least fig. 11 A22, as the acceleration opening decreases (meaning the target acceleration decreases) the slope of the Jerk during A22 remains mainly constant and then slowly decreases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control of Takahashi with the pedal speed dependent jerk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving unity between the vehicle and the driver (see at least Yagi; [0007]).
Regarding claim 3 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the control unit acquires the accelerator pedal operating speed based on the accelerator pedal operating amount (see at least [0040]; the operating speed of the accelerator pedal is determined in part on the accelerator pedal operating amount), and
wherein when the accelerator pedal operating amount decreases, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes larger as an absolute value of the accelerator pedal operating speed becomes larger (see at least [0048]; “as illustrated in figs. 2A and 2B, when the accelerator pedal operating amount is increased by the change, the longitudinal jerk required value (acceleration) having a positive value is created. Here, the longitudinal jerk required value (acceleration) increases with an increase of the accelerator pedal operating speed,” and fig. 2A and 2B, while the example shows that when the accelerator pedal operating amount increases, a correlation between the target jerk and operating speed is positively proportional, the accelerator pedal operating amount increasing merely effects whether the jerk is positive or negative, and the effect of the operating speed on the jerk remains the same regardless of the state of the operating amount).
Regarding claim 6 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the control unit acquires the accelerator pedal operating speed based on the accelerator pedal operating amount (see at least [0040]; the operating speed of the accelerator pedal is determined in part on the accelerator pedal operating amount), and
wherein when the accelerator pedal operating amount decreases, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes larger as the absolute value of the accelerator pedal operating speed becomes larger (see at least [0048]; “as illustrated in figs. 2A and 2B, when the accelerator pedal operating amount is increased by the change, the longitudinal jerk required value (acceleration) having a positive value is created. Here, the longitudinal jerk required value (acceleration) increases with an increase of the accelerator pedal operating speed,” and fig. 2A and 2B, while the example shows that when the accelerator pedal operating amount increases, a correlation between the target jerk and operating speed is positively proportional, the accelerator pedal operating amount increasing merely effects whether the jerk is positive or negative, and the effect of the operating speed on the jerk remains the same regardless of the state of the operating amount).
Regarding claim 8 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the power source is an electric motor (see at least [0089]; “For example, in a case where the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 includes a regenerative brake configured to generate deceleration in the own vehicle by using a regenerative torque of the motor and the hydraulic friction brake, a regenerative torque command value and a hydraulic pressure command value may be transmitted to the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake respectively so as to change the drive ratio between the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake depending on the relationship of a charged state of a battery or a maximum deceleration which can be generated by the regenerative brake with respect to the longitudinal acceleration command value,” a motor capable of generating regenerative torque is well known in the art to be an electric motor).
Regarding claim 10 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the power source is an electric motor (see at least [0089]; “For example, in a case where the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 includes a regenerative brake configured to generate deceleration in the own vehicle by using a regenerative torque of the motor and the hydraulic friction brake, a regenerative torque command value and a hydraulic pressure command value may be transmitted to the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake respectively so as to change the drive ratio between the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake depending on the relationship of a charged state of a battery or a maximum deceleration which can be generated by the regenerative brake with respect to the longitudinal acceleration command value,” a motor capable of generating regenerative torque is well known in the art to be an electric motor).
Regarding claim 11 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the power source is an electric motor (see at least [0089]; “For example, in a case where the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 includes a regenerative brake configured to generate deceleration in the own vehicle by using a regenerative torque of the motor and the hydraulic friction brake, a regenerative torque command value and a hydraulic pressure command value may be transmitted to the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake respectively so as to change the drive ratio between the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake depending on the relationship of a charged state of a battery or a maximum deceleration which can be generated by the regenerative brake with respect to the longitudinal acceleration command value,” a motor capable of generating regenerative torque is well known in the art to be an electric motor).
Regarding claim 13 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the power source is an electric motor (see at least [0089]; “For example, in a case where the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 includes a regenerative brake configured to generate deceleration in the own vehicle by using a regenerative torque of the motor and the hydraulic friction brake, a regenerative torque command value and a hydraulic pressure command value may be transmitted to the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake respectively so as to change the drive ratio between the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake depending on the relationship of a charged state of a battery or a maximum deceleration which can be generated by the regenerative brake with respect to the longitudinal acceleration command value,” a motor capable of generating regenerative torque is well known in the art to be an electric motor).
Regarding claim 17 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to:
store a target jerk map indicative of a relationship between the target acceleration and the target jerk when the accelerator pedal is depressed (see at least fig. 11; fig. 11 displays a relationship between target acceleration and target jerk, this includes the relationship when the accelerator pedal is depressed (i.e., user is increasing acceleration), additionally [0083]; “The vehicle motion control command calculating means 7 is a calculating apparatus having a storage area, a calculation processing performance, and signal input and output means, and is configured to calculate a command value of a longitudinal acceleration to be generated in the vehicle, and send a signal to the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 and the longitudinal acceleration control state display means 9,” the calculating means having a storage area would include storage of the relationship between acceleration and jerk); and
set the target jerk by comparing the accelerator pedal operating speed and the target acceleration set based on the accelerator pedal operating amount with the jerk map (see at least [0144]; “when the longitudinal acceleration command value becomes 0 as shown at T18a2 in fig. 18(A), the longitudinal jerk required value (brake) is set to 0,” and [0048]; “as illustrated in figs. 2A and 2B, when the accelerator pedal operating amount is increased by the change, the longitudinal jerk required value (acceleration) having a positive value is created. Here, the longitudinal jerk required value (acceleration) increases with an increase of the accelerator pedal operating speed,” and fig. 2A and 2B, while the example shows that when the accelerator pedal operating amount increases, a correlation between the target jerk and operating speed is positively proportional, the accelerator pedal operating amount increasing merely effects whether the jerk is positive or negative, and the effect of the operating speed on the jerk remains the same regardless of the state of the operating amount, the jerk is set based on the accelerator pedal operating amount as it relates to the acceleration and the jerk map of fig.11), and
wherein the jerk map is configured so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as the target acceleration decreases toward 0 from the value above 0 (see at least Fig. 11; as the target longitudinal acceleration approaches 0 from a value above 0, the target jerk also approaches 0).
Claims 4, 5, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Yagi, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of US-20090030574 (hereinafter, “Yamakado”).
Regarding claim 4 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Takahashi does not disclose wherein when the target acceleration decreases from the value below 0, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as an absolute value of the target acceleration becomes larger.
Yamakado, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when the target acceleration decreases from the value below 0, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as an absolute value of the target acceleration becomes larger (see at least Fig. 5A and 5B, as the lateral acceleration becomes larger (more negative, and therefore decreasing), the lateral jerk approaches zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Takahashi as modified by Yagi with the acceleration and jerk correlation of Yamakado. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of smoother driving to increase occupant comfort (see at least Yamakado; [0037]).
Regarding claim 5 Takashi in view of Yagi and Yamakado renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the power source is an electric motor (see at least [0089]; “For example, in a case where the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 includes a regenerative brake configured to generate deceleration in the own vehicle by using a regenerative torque of the motor and the hydraulic friction brake, a regenerative torque command value and a hydraulic pressure command value may be transmitted to the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake respectively so as to change the drive ratio between the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake depending on the relationship of a charged state of a battery or a maximum deceleration which can be generated by the regenerative brake with respect to the longitudinal acceleration command value,” a motor capable of generating regenerative torque is well known in the art to be an electric motor).
Regarding claim 9 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 2. Takahashi does not disclose wherein when the target acceleration decreases from the value below 0, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as an absolute value of the target acceleration becomes larger.
Yamakado, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when the target acceleration decreases from the value below 0, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as an absolute value of the target acceleration becomes larger (see at least Fig. 5A and 5B, as the lateral acceleration becomes larger (more negative), the lateral jerk approaches zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Takahashi as modified by Yagi with the acceleration and jerk correlation of Yamakado. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of smoother driving to increase occupant comfort (see at least Yamakado; [0037]).
Regarding claim 15 Takahashi in view of Yagi and Yamakado renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the power source is an electric motor (see at least [0089]; “For example, in a case where the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 includes a regenerative brake configured to generate deceleration in the own vehicle by using a regenerative torque of the motor and the hydraulic friction brake, a regenerative torque command value and a hydraulic pressure command value may be transmitted to the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake respectively so as to change the drive ratio between the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake depending on the relationship of a charged state of a battery or a maximum deceleration which can be generated by the regenerative brake with respect to the longitudinal acceleration command value,” a motor capable of generating regenerative torque is well known in the art to be an electric motor).
Claims 7, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi and Yagi, as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, in view of US-20090030574 (hereinafter, “Yamakado”).
Regarding claim 7 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Takahashi does not disclose
wherein when the target acceleration decreases from a value below 0, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as an absolute value of the target acceleration becomes larger.
Yamakado, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when the target acceleration decreases from a value below 0, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as an absolute value of the target acceleration becomes larger (see at least Fig. 5A and 5B, as the lateral acceleration becomes larger (more negative), the lateral jerk approaches zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Takahashi as modified by Yagi with the acceleration and jerk correlation of Yamakado. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of smoother driving to increase occupant comfort (see at least Yamakado; [0037]).
Regarding claim 12 Takahashi in view of Yagi renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Takahashi does not disclose wherein when the target acceleration decreases from a value below 0, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as an absolute value of the target acceleration becomes larger.
Yamakado, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein when the target acceleration decreases from a value below 0, the control unit sets the target jerk so that the absolute value of the target jerk becomes smaller as an absolute value of the target acceleration becomes larger (see at least Fig. 5A and 5B, as the lateral acceleration becomes larger (more negative), the lateral jerk approaches zero).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Takahashi as modified by Yagi with the acceleration and jerk correlation of Yamakado. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of smoother driving to increase occupant comfort (see at least Yamakado; [0037]).
Regarding claim 14 Takahashi in view of Yagi and Yamakado renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the power source is an electric motor (see at least [0089]; “For example, in a case where the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 includes a regenerative brake configured to generate deceleration in the own vehicle by using a regenerative torque of the motor and the hydraulic friction brake, a regenerative torque command value and a hydraulic pressure command value may be transmitted to the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake respectively so as to change the drive ratio between the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake depending on the relationship of a charged state of a battery or a maximum deceleration which can be generated by the regenerative brake with respect to the longitudinal acceleration command value,” a motor capable of generating regenerative torque is well known in the art to be an electric motor).
Regarding claim 16 Takahashi in view of Yagi and Yamakado renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Takahashi discloses wherein the power source is an electric motor (see at least [0089]; “For example, in a case where the longitudinal acceleration generating means 8 includes a regenerative brake configured to generate deceleration in the own vehicle by using a regenerative torque of the motor and the hydraulic friction brake, a regenerative torque command value and a hydraulic pressure command value may be transmitted to the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake respectively so as to change the drive ratio between the regenerative brake and the hydraulic friction brake depending on the relationship of a charged state of a battery or a maximum deceleration which can be generated by the regenerative brake with respect to the longitudinal acceleration command value,” a motor capable of generating regenerative torque is well known in the art to be an electric motor).
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 ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights