Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC § 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the applicant’s arguments.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US-20130282253-A1) in view of Yasutake (US-20070112498-A1) and STROPH (CN-102712305-A; Examiner relied on English translation attached herein).
Regarding claim 1, ONO discloses:
a method for operating a brake system of a motor vehicle that includes at least two brakable wheels ([0001]; [0006]),
the at least a first brakable wheel and a second brakable wheel arranged at opposite ends of an axle, and a rollover protection system that causes braking of the brakable wheels to prevent a rollover situation (Fig. 1, Front and rear wheel arrangement, [0020]; [0029]; [0051]), the method comprising:
a) causing automatic braking of the first brakable wheel during a first time interval, wherein the first brakable wheel comprises a load greater than a load of the second brakable wheel due to a cornering event of the double-track motor vehicle ([0041]-[0044]; [0050]), and subsequently,
b) during a second time interval that is immediately after the first time interval, detecting a directional change of the steering movement corresponding to a straight-ahead driving phase of the double- track motor vehicle ([0060]; [0062]), and, thereupon,
c) causing automatic braking of both the first brakable wheel and the second brakable wheel during a third time interval that is immediately after the second time interval, wherein during the third time interval (i) a brake force applied to the first brakable wheel is maintained, and (ii) a brake force applied to the second brakable wheel is gradually increased to a predetermined brake force value that is less than a maximum possible brake force value ([0045]-[0049]; [0050];[0051]).
However, Ono does not explicitly state a double-track motor vehicle, wherein detecting the directional change comprises detecting at least one of: (i) a reduction in steering lock angle compared to the cornering event, (ii) a change in sign of lateral acceleration, or (iii) a yaw rate indication counter-steering, and wherein the automatic braking in step a) is initiated when the rollover protection system detects at least one of: (i) a roll angle exceeding a predetermined threshold, (ii) a lateral acceleration indicating imminent rollover risk, or (iii) a combination of vehicle speed and steering angle indicating rollover potential.
On the other hand, Yasutake teaches detecting the directional change comprises detecting at least one of: (i) a reduction in steering lock angle compared to the cornering event, (ii) a change in sign of lateral acceleration, or (iii) a yaw rate indication counter-steering, and wherein the automatic braking in step a) is initiated when the rollover protection system detects at least one of: (i) a roll angle exceeding a predetermined threshold, (ii) a lateral acceleration indicating imminent rollover risk, or (iii) a combination of vehicle speed and steering angle indicating rollover potential ([0013]; [0023]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Ono reference and include features from the Yasutake reference with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system in Ono and include the determinations in Yasutake. Doing so suppresses an increase in roll angle that more effectively prevents the generation of excessive rolling, as disclosed in Yasutake ([0025]).
Furthermore, STROPH teaches a double-track motor vehicle (Page 1, Lines 30-43).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to apply the system of the Ono reference to the double track motor of the STROPH reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so suppresses an increase in roll angle that more effectively prevents the generation of excessive rolling of the double track motor, as disclosed in Yasutake ([0025]).
Regarding claim 2, ONO discloses wherein it is determined during step b) or between steps b) and c) to what extent, as a result of a change in the steering movement, the motor vehicle motor vehicle yaws in an opposite direction about its longitudinal direction, and the first brakable wheel and the second brakable wheel being braked in a manner which is dependent thereon ([0034]-[0037]).
Furthermore, STROPH teaches a double-track motor vehicle (Page 1, Lines 30-43).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to apply the system of the Ono reference to the double track motor of the STROPH reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so suppresses an increase in roll angle that more effectively prevents the generation of excessive rolling of the double track motor, as disclosed in Yasutake ([0025]).
Regarding claim 3, ONO discloses the axle comprises a front axle of the motor vehicle motor vehicle (Fig. 1; [0007]; [0009]).
Furthermore, STROPH teaches a double-track motor vehicle (Page 1, Lines 30-43).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to apply the system of the Ono reference to the double track motor of the STROPH reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so suppresses an increase in roll angle that more effectively prevents the generation of excessive rolling of the double track motor, as disclosed in Yasutake ([0025]).
Regarding claim 4, ONO discloses an extent of the braking of the first brakable wheel and the second brakable wheel in step c) being dependent on determined values ([0044]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 5, ONO discloses a steering wheel angle, a wheel lock angle, a yaw rate of the motor vehicle, a roll angle of the motor vehicle, a vehicle speed and/or a lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle are determined ([0037]: Lean angle is broadly interpreted as the roll angle of the vehicle; BRI of the claim-using the “or” to select one of the parameters mentioned to be determined).
Regarding claim 6, ONO discloses a change in an algebraic sign of the lateral acceleration, the yaw angle or the roll angle, a detection of a counter-steering movement and/or the detection of a change in the wheel which is loaded more greatly is taken into consideration in causing braking of the first brakable wheel and the second brakable wheel ([0037]-[0041]: Lean angle signal, i.e. change).
Regarding claim 7, ONO discloses a braking of the first brakable wheel is ended when a predetermined rise in the lateral acceleration after a change in an algebraic sign or a predefined rise in the yaw rate is detected (Note: By virtue of its dependency on claim 5 which recites alternative language [using “or”] claim 7 further limits terms that were not required and thus not incorporated in the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 , and is thus considered to be met by the teachings of the ONO reference accordingly).
Furthermore, STROPH teaches a double-track motor vehicle (Page 1, Lines 30-43).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to apply the system of the Ono reference to the double track motor of the STROPH reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so suppresses an increase in roll angle that more effectively prevents the generation of excessive rolling of the double track motor, as disclosed in Yasutake ([0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666