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 Office Action is in response to the claims filed on January 2, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, and 17 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, and 17 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0130612) in view of Muramatsu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161769).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0130612) in view of Muramatsu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161769), further in view of Nakai et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0043466).
Response to Argument
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant Remarks filed on January 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Watanabe does not teach or suggest a slope and change amount conditions for jerk detection and “does not mention jerk detection, the change in acceleration, or the slope analysis as recited in the claims” (see Applicant Remarks page 6). The Applicant further argues that Watanabe is silent with respect to specific conditions provided in the claims.
The Applicant’s arguments appear to be primarily directed to the amended language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 9-12, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the amendments introduce a new interpretation, which necessitates a restructured ground of rejection from the prior art of record.
Even so, the Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. The Applicant appears to describe how Watanabe mentions limits of lateral and longitudinal acceleration affecting the vehicle stability and merely concludes that Watanabe does not mention jerk detection, a change in acceleration, or the slope analysis required by the claim (see Applicant Remarks page 6). The Applicant does not appear to further explain how the limits of lateral and longitudinal acceleration affecting the vehicle stability of Watanabe could not derive jerk detection, a change in acceleration, or the recited slope analysis, nor does the Applicant appear to provide contrary evidence establishing that the reference being relied on would not enable a skilled artisan to produce the recited limitations. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, Watanabe expressly discloses a resultant acceleration information calculating section 101c and a resultant jerk calculating section 100c2 (Watanabe in at least ¶¶ 75 and 82), wherein the disclosed acceleration sensor is configured to detect a resultant acceleration based on a detected longitudinal acceleration and lateral acceleration. Watanabe further expressly discloses a change rate of a resultant acceleration of the vehicle with respect to time, see Watanabe in at least ¶ 75, wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a change rate is a slope; therefore, the change rate of an acceleration includes a slope of a wheel acceleration. Therefore, Watanabe does disclose “a slope of the wheel acceleration,” as claimed. Therefore, Watanabe, either taken alone or in combination with Muramatsu, disclose “wherein the processor determines whether an absolute value of the change amount satisfies a first condition, and whether an absolute value of the slope satisfies a second condition” and “wherein, when the first condition is satisfied a preset number of times during a preset time and the second condition is satisfied, the processor determines that the jerk occurred.”
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection. The prior art rejection has been restructured in view of the amended language.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0130612) in view of Muramatsu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161769).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a control device for a vehicle comprising:
a sensor unit detecting wheel acceleration based on a wheel speed of a wheel of the vehicle; (Watanabe ¶ 51 discloses “lateral acceleration Yg may be estimated from a vehicle body speed V derived from ... road wheel revolution speeds (road wheel speed sensors 11, 12, 13, 14)”)
a processor generating a wheel acceleration graph using the wheel acceleration detected by the sensor; (Watanabe ¶ 95 discloses “Jerk calculating section 102 [i.e., a filter unit] performs time differentiations for filtered longitudinal acceleration Xgf and filtered lateral acceleration Ygf, respectively,” wherein the accelerations are “wheel accelerations,” see ¶ 36, and “FIG. 7A shows time variations of longitudinal and lateral accelerations Xg, Yg”)
a storage system (Watanabe ¶ 95 “filter processing section 101,” wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a processing section would include a memory storing instructions to execute the processing) updating and storing a first reference point and a second reference point of the wheel acceleration on the wheel acceleration graph in real time, (Watanabe Fig. 9 depicts a reference point A on a graph depicting a longitudinal acceleration Xg and a lateral acceleration Yg, wherein the accelerations are “wheel accelerations,” see ¶ 36. Also see Fig. 7A-7D depicting the longitudinal and lateral accelerations [i.e., reference points] over time [i.e., updating in real time])
wherein the first reference point refers to a point at which the wheel acceleration measured at the predetermined time interval becomes a high point or a low point on the wheel acceleration graph, (Watanabe ¶ 42 discloses “Maximum lateral acceleration Yg.sub.max is a value of lateral acceleration [i.e., a reference point becomes a high point],” wherein the maximum lateral acceleration is a reference point because it provides a point on the wheel acceleration graph, also see the graph depicted in Fig. 6, such that the lateral acceleration Yg and the longitudinal acceleration Xg may be measured at a time duration before a time point [i.e., a predetermined time interval], see ¶ 45.)
wherein a processor calculates a slope of the wheel acceleration based on at least one reference point on the wheel acceleration graph and (Watanabe ¶ 75 discloses a resultant acceleration calculating section 100c1 [i.e., a slope calculation unit] that calculates a “change rate [i.e., a slope] of resultant acceleration G calculated by resultant acceleration calculating section 100c1 with respect to time,” see ¶ 58. See also Fig. 9 depicting the change rate [i.e., slope] dG/dt based on the reference point A.)
wherein the second reference point refers to a point at which the wheel acceleration measured at the predetermined time interval becomes a low point on the wheel acceleration graph, and (Watanabe Fig. 7A depicts points along the longitudinal acceleration graph including when the acceleration becomes a low point. See Fig. 7A provided below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
119
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determines whether a jerk occurred in the vehicle using a change amount between the first reference point and the second reference point within the predetermined time interval and the slope of the wheel acceleration; (Watanabe ¶ 91 discloses “resultant jerk calculating section 100c2 [i.e., a determination unit] configured to calculate resultant jerk dG/dt which is the change rate [i.e., slope] of calculated resultant acceleration G with respect to time” in addition to “the value of normal direction component dYg'/dt is also varied in accordance with the changes in Xg and Yg [i.e., a change amount],” see ¶ 80. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that calculating jerk indicates that jerk has occurred. Also see Fig. 7C depicting a change amount in the longitudinal acceleration and the lateral acceleration.)
wherein the high point refers to a first point where the measured wheel acceleration is greater than wheel acceleration measured immediately before or after the first point on the wheel acceleration graph in the predetermined time interval; (Watanabe ¶ 44 discloses longitudinal and lateral accelerations Xg, Yg, which are reference points because they provide a point on the wheel acceleration graph, also see the graph depicted in Fig. 6, such that the lateral acceleration Yg and the longitudinal acceleration Xg may be measured at a time duration before a time point [i.e., a predetermined time interval], see ¶ 45. Also see Fig. 7A depicting longitudinal acceleration Xg and lateral acceleration Yg over time t, such that the longitudinal acceleration reaches a high point depicted in Fig. 7A which is greater than the values immediately after the first point on the graph.)
wherein the low point refers to a second point where the measured wheel acceleration is smaller than wheel acceleration measured immediately before or after the second point in the predetermined time interval; (Watanabe Fig. 7A depicts a low point of the longitudinal acceleration wherein the low point is smaller in value than the acceleration measured immediately before the second point in the predetermined time intervals of the timing chart representing the time series)
the processor determines whether an absolute value of the change amount satisfies a first condition, and (Watanabe ¶ 36 discloses determining a lateral acceleration value whose absolute values are smaller than front and rear road wheel accelerations a.sub.yf0, a.sub.yr0 [i.e., satisfying a first condition] from among front and rear road wheel accelerations, see corresponding Fig. 2 which depicts an “In FIG. 2, one of a.sub.xf0 and a.sub.xr0 whose absolute value is smaller than the other is simply denoted by a.sub.y0,” see ¶ 37. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the slope at any a.sub.y point along boundary Ll would indicate an absolute value of a change amount between the high point a.sub.y0 and low point 0 based on having determined the absolute value of the acceleration values disclosed in ¶ 36.)
whether an absolute value of the slope satisfies a second condition, (Watanabe ¶ 35 discloses “front and rear road wheels whose absolute value is smaller than the other thereof exceeds the static wheel load at an earlier timing [i.e., satisfying a second condition].”)
when the first condition is satisfied a preset number of times during a preset time and the second condition is satisfied, the processor determines that the jerk occurred, (Watanabe ¶ 37 discloses “In FIG. 2, one of a.sub.xf0 and a.sub.xr0 whose absolute value is smaller than the other [i.e., first condition is satisfied] is simply denoted by a.sub.y0,” Fig. 2 further including the rear road wheels exceeding the static wheel load [i.e., second condition is satisfied]. Fig. 6 depicts at least time t2 having a time duration [i.e., a preset number of times during a preset time] wherein Fig. 6 corresponds to the absolute values of Fig. 2, see ¶¶ 44 and 45.)
Watanabe does not expressly disclose:
the device further comprising: in response to a determination that the jerk occurred, a controller controlling a Traction Control Valve (TCV) and a motor of the control device for the vehicle.
However, Muramatsu discloses:
the device further comprising: in response to a determination that the jerk occurred, a controller controlling a Traction Control Valve (TCV) and a motor of the control device for the vehicle. (Muramatsu ¶ 56 discloses “in consideration of the rate of change in deceleration (jerk), a favorable braking feeling for the occupant is achieved, and the vehicle is smoothly decelerated and stopped,” wherein the stopping includes a brake control apparatus SC [i.e., a control unit] including operation of a fluid unit HU, which includes an electric motor and electromagnetic valve, and performs traction control, see ¶ 27.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the brake control of Watanabe with controlling a traction control valve as disclosed by Muramatsu with reasonable expectation of success “in order to achieve a smooth braking feeling for an occupant (including driver) of the vehicle when the vehicle is automatically stopped,” see Muramatsu ¶ 4, rendering the limitation to be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe in combination with Muramatsu discloses the control device of claim 1, wherein:
the processor uses a low-pass filter. (Watanabe ¶ 31 discloses “a filtering calculation for each of the detection signals of the sensors in order to extract acceleration components of the vehicular motion by eliminating external disturbance components of the accelerations due to road surface noises”)
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe in combination with Muramatsu discloses the control device of claim 1, wherein:
the processor generates the wheel acceleration graph using a wheel acceleration which is discretely measured at a predetermined time interval. (Watanabe ¶ 45 discloses “At a time duration [i.e., discrete] before a time point steering wheel SW is in a neutral state, lateral acceleration Yg is substantially zero [i.e., measured], and longitudinal acceleration Xg is slightly reduced,” also see Fig. 6 depicting a coordinate system [i.e., a graph] of longitudinal acceleration Xg and lateral acceleration Yg generated from the time charts depicted in Fig. 7A-7D, see ¶ 44.)
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe does not expressly disclose the control device of claim 1, wherein:
the controller applies additional current to the TCV, when the processor determines that the jerk occurred in the vehicle.
However, Muramatsu discloses:
the controller applies additional current to the TCV, when the processor determines that the jerk occurred in the vehicle. (Muramatsu ¶ 56 discloses “in consideration of the rate of change in deceleration (jerk), a favorable braking feeling for the occupant is achieved, and the vehicle is smoothly decelerated and stopped,” wherein the stopping includes a brake control apparatus SC including rotation of an electric motor is converted into linear power [i.e., applies current].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the brake control of Watanabe with applying additional current to a traction control valve as disclosed by Muramatsu with reasonable expectation of success for “smoothly stopping a vehicle in consideration of jerk without increasing the stop distance,” see Muramatsu ¶ 6, rendering the limitation to be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Watanabe and Muramatsu discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claims 1 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Watanabe and Muramatsu discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
the detection step calculates the wheel acceleration by differentiating the wheel speed detected by a wheel speed sensor. (Watanabe ¶ 51 discloses a plurality of sensors including sensors 17 and 18 for detecting longitudinal and lateral accelerations Xg, Yg, wherein “lateral acceleration Yg may be estimated from a vehicle body speed V.” One having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that by definition, acceleration is the differential or derivative of speed, see “Derivatives in Science,” also see road wheel speed sensors 11 through 14 in ¶ 29.)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Watanabe and Muramatsu discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0130612) Muramatsu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161769), further in view of Nakai et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0043466).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Watanabe and Muramatsu does not expressly disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising:
applying additional current to the TCV.
However, Nakai discloses:
applying additional current to the TCV. (Nakai ¶ 37 discloses a vehicle control system that includes “controlling the current supply for the linear relief valve Vf” which includes increasing the amount of current supply, see ¶ 38.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the TCV of Nakai in place of the TCV of Muramatsu with reasonable expectation of success because the substitution would result in the TCV having additional current applied to it.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Watanabe and Muramatsu to apply additional current to the TCV as disclosed by Nakai with reasonable expectation of success to control actual acceleration with high accuracy (Nakai ¶ 67), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662