DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/01/2025. Claims 4-6 and 12-14 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 07/01/2025 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding objections to specification and claims:
Applicant has argued that the objections to the specification and claims are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these objections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant has argued that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these rejections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant has argued that Van Deventer discloses some features of canceled claim 5, but “fails to disclose signals from the aircraft start sensor.” The examiner respectfully disagrees since Van Deventer ¶ 28 states that “The locked response preferably engages the brakes at a minimum parking level when the aircraft is unpowered.” Engaging the brakes in this way when the aircraft is unpowered implies the use of some sort of sensor that is capable of determining whether the aircraft is powered or unpowered. This implied sensor corresponds to the recited “aircraft start sensor.”
Applicant has also argued that the cited prior art references “disclose some respective features in the claims of the present invention, but they fail to disclose determination of whether an activation condition of a parking locking function is satisfied based on the data collected via the data input unit for collecting data indicative of the aircraft driving state from a plurality of sensors.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, because Kuramochi ¶¶ 21 and 25 teach to detect activation of the parking brake based on signals from a rotation angle sensor and a brake force sensor, and Kuramochi ¶ 72 discloses that “The parking brake is actuated when the speed of the vehicle is ‘O’ in data from the transmission 72, when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P’, or when the driver operates a parking brake switch (PKB SW) 71.” This teaches to determine whether the activation condition is satisfied based on data collected by the data input unit as claimed. Further, as explained in more detail later in this Office action, the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita teaches the activation condition being determined based on specific signals from a brake pedal position sensor, a parking lever sensor, an aircraft start sensor, a seat belt sensor, and a door sensor as required by the claims.
For the reasons explained above, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using new grounds of rejection that are necessitated by the filed amendment.
Request for interview:
The examiner attempted to contact applicant’s representative to discuss ways to resolve the remaining objections and rejections but was unable to reach applicant’s representative or leave a message. If applicant would agree to an interview to resolve these remaining issues, the examiner invites applicant’s representative to contact the examiner at (571)272-7205 or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 14, the phrase “aircraft control unit” should be changed to “the aircraft control unit.”
The last paragraph of claim 10 should be changed to “wherein the activation condition of the parking locking function is further determined by the aircraft control unit based on whether the seat belt sensor is OFF and the door sensor is ON for a predetermined period of time.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-11 and 15-20 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.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites a step of “outputting, by a motor controller, a parking control signal to a motor controller.” It is unclear whether each recitation of “a motor controller” refers to the same motor controller, and whether the motor controller is somehow configured to output the parking control signal to itself. For examination purposes, claim 10 is interpreted as if it instead recited “outputting, by a motor controller, a parking control signal
Regarding claims 11 and 15-20:
Claims 11 and 15-20 are rejected because of their dependency upon rejected claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramochi et al. (US 2006/0163939 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kuramochi, in view of Van Deventer et al. (US 2013/0112513 A1), hereinafter referred to as Van Deventer, and further in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 2013/0252785 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kinoshita.
Regarding claim 1:
Kuramochi discloses the following limitations:
“An apparatus of controlling a parking state of a brake for an aircraft, the apparatus comprising: a data input unit for collecting data indicative of an aircraft driving state.” (Kuramochi ¶ 71: “the amount of operation of the brake pedal 61 is detected by brake operation detecting means 62.” Also, Kuramochi ¶ 20 and 24 disclose “a rotation angle sensor detecting a rotation angle of the electrically powered actuator” and “a braking force sensor detecting the braking force of the brake pad.” Additionally, Kuramochi ¶ 148: “this electrically powered brake system may be mounted in place of the conventional hydraulic brake apparatus, air brake apparatus and the like, and may be applied for brakes of wheels of rail cars and aircrafts.”)
“an aircraft control unit determining whether a parking locking function is activated based on the data of the data input unit and outputting a parking control signal.” (Kuramochi ¶ 21: “the parking brake actuation determining section detects actuation of a parking brake by the locking mechanism based on the result of detection of the rotation angle sensor.” Further, Kuramochi ¶¶ 25 and 62 disclose “a parking brake actuation determining section detecting actuation of the parking brake by the locking mechanism based on the result of detection by the braking force sensor,” where “The braking force is sensed by a braking force sensor 8 and used as a signal for control of a braking force together with a motor rotation angle signal output from a rotation angle detecting sensor 9 detecting the rotation of the motor 2.” Further, Kuramochi ¶ 72: “The parking brake is actuated when the speed of the vehicle is ‘O’ in data from the transmission 72, when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P’, or when the driver operates a parking brake switch (PKB SW) 71.”)
“a motor controller outputting a parking locking signal for controlling an operation of an electric motor of a brake assembly according to the parking control signal of the aircraft control unit.” (Kuramochi ¶ 91: “When a braking force is generated by the parking brake, and reaches a braking force within a specified level, the braking force is mechanically retained by the locking mechanism 10.”)
“and a parking locking mechanism for stopping a rotation of the electric motor in response to the parking locking signal from the motor controller and locking a parking state of the brake assembly.” (Kuramochi ¶ 65 and FIG. 2 reproduced below: “The locking mechanism 10 is a mechanism retaining a braking force in a state in which the motor 2 rotates and the brake pads 3 and 4 hold the disc rotor 5 therebetween to generate the braking force, and when the solenoid 14 is driven to press the coupling claw 12 supported on the rocking arm 13 against the ratchet wheel 11 fixed to the rotor 2A of the motor 2, the rotation angle of the ratchet wheel 11 is retained, and the generated braking force is retained even if the current of the motor 2 is interrupted.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
573
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“wherein aircraft control unit is configured to determine whether an activation condition of a parking locking function is satisfied based on the data collected via the data input unit for collecting data indicative of the aircraft driving state from a plurality of sensors.” (Kuramochi ¶ 21: “the parking brake actuation determining section detects actuation of a parking brake by the locking mechanism based on the result of detection of the rotation angle sensor.” Also, Kuramochi ¶¶ 25 discloses “a parking brake actuation determining section detecting actuation of the parking brake by the locking mechanism based on the result of detection by the braking force sensor.” Additionally, Kuramochi ¶ 72: “The parking brake is actuated when the speed of the vehicle is ‘O’ in data from the transmission 72, when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P’, or when the driver operates a parking brake switch (PKB SW) 71.”)
“wherein the activation condition of the parking locking function is determined based on signals from … a parking lever (button) sensor.” (Kuramochi ¶ 72: “The parking brake is actuated … when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P.’”)
Kuramochi does not specifically disclose “wherein the activation condition of the parking locking function is determined based on signals from a brake pedal position sensor… and an aircraft start sensor.” However, Van Deventer does teach this limitation. (Van Deventer ¶ 7: “One type of parking brake mechanism known in the art includes a park brake lever module that includes a lever, two micro switches and a solenoid. The lever includes a stop tab for defining the full travel of the lever, a locking tab that keeps the lever from being inadvertently raised, and two switch actuator tabs that are used to acuate and keep actuated the two micro switches. One micro switch is referred to as the Not Release Switch that indicates ‘Release’ when not activated and ‘Not Release’ when actuated. The second micro switch is referred to as the Set Switch and indicates ‘Not Set’ when actuated and ‘Set’ when actuated. As the lever is moved it engages the ‘Not Release Switch.’ If the pilot then depresses the brake pedals, the combination of pedal input and actuation of the ‘Not Release Switch’ activates a solenoid, which allows the lever to continue to travel to its full extent. At full extent, the ‘Set Switch’ indicates that the parking brake is set. Releasing the pedals will allow the unlocking solenoid to lock the lever in the up position.” Also, Van Deventer ¶ 28: “The locked response preferably engages the brakes at a minimum parking level when the aircraft is unpowered.” Engaging the brakes in this way when the aircraft is unpowered implies the use of some sort of sensor that is capable of determining whether the aircraft is powered or unpowered. This implied sensor corresponds to the recited “aircraft start sensor.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kuramochi by considering the brake pedal position and vehicle start state as an activation condition for the parking locking function as taught by Van Deventer with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Van Deventer ¶¶ 2 and 10 teach that this can prevent the aircraft from accidentally rolling and also prevent accidental engagement of the parking brake system.
The combination of Kuramochi and Van Deventer does not specifically teach “wherein the activation condition of the parking locking function is determined by additionally including signals from a seat belt sensor and a door sensor.” However, Kinoshita does teach this limitation. (Kinoshita ¶¶ 46 and 112: “When the driver's door is open or the driver's seatbelt is not buckled and the vehicle start preparation is incomplete, the vehicle can be prevented from moving and safety can be increased by shifting to the N range or P range,” where the P range is “a state in which both the forward clutch and the reverse clutch are fastened and the parking lock mechanism is actuated.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi and Van Deventer by using signals from a seat belt sensor and a door sensor when determining the activation condition for the parking locking function as taught by Kinoshita with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kinoshita ¶ 11 teaches that it is unsafe for the vehicle to be driven when the seat belt is unbuckled or the door is open.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Kuramochi also teaches “wherein the data input unit for collecting data indicative of the aircraft driving state is configured to receive signals detected by the plurality of sensors.” (Kuramochi ¶¶ 71-72: “a vehicle 60 has a brake pedal 61, and for a brake operation by a driver, the amount of operation of the brake pedal 61 is detected by brake operation detecting means 62, converted into an electrical signal and input to braking force controlling means 68 through a communication line 63. … The parking brake is actuated when the speed of the vehicle is ‘O’ in data from the transmission 72, when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P’, or when the driver operates a parking brake switch (PKB SW) 71.”)
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita teaches “The apparatus of claim 2,” and Kuramochi also teaches “wherein the plurality of sensors includes the brake pedal position sensor, the parking lever (button) sensor.” (Kuramochi ¶ 71: “for a brake operation by a driver, the amount of operation of the brake pedal 61 is detected by brake operation detecting means 62.” Also, Kuramochi ¶ 72: “The parking brake is actuated … when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P.’”)
Kuramochi does not specifically disclose that “the plurality of sensors includes … the aircraft start sensor.” However, Van Deventer does teach this limitation. (Van Deventer ¶ 28: “The locked response preferably engages the brakes at a minimum parking level when the aircraft is unpowered.” Engaging the brakes in this way when the aircraft is unpowered implies the use of some sort of sensor that is capable of determining whether the aircraft is powered or unpowered. This implied sensor corresponds to the recited “aircraft start sensor.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi and Kinoshita by using a sensor to determine whether the aircraft is unpowered as taught by Van Deventer with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Van Deventer ¶¶ 2 and 10 teach that this can prevent the aircraft from accidentally rolling and also prevent accidental engagement of the parking brake system.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Kuramochi also teaches “wherein the parking locking mechanism is configured to perform a parking locking function by stopping a rotation of an electric motor shaft using a friction member or a one-way clutch operated by a solenoid according to the parking locking signal from the motor controller.” (Kuramochi ¶ 64 and FIG. 2: “The locking mechanism 10 has a ratchet wheel 11 fixed to the rotor 2A and a rocking arm 13 having a coupling claw 12 engaging with the ratchet wheel, and is configured to couple a rod 15 supported on a plunger slid by a solenoid 14 to the rocking arm 13.” Also, Kuramochi ¶ 147: “a conversion mechanism converting a rotary motion into a linear motion, and mechanical inverse input blocking means such as one-way clutch placed between the conversion mechanism and a motor, and transmitting a torque of the motor to the conversion mechanism when the torque is generated with a current passing through the motor but blocking the transmission of the torque from the conversion mechanism to the motor when no torque is generated with no current passing through the motor may be installed.” This at least teaches to perform the parking locking function by stopping a rotation of an electric motor shaft using a one-way clutch operated by a solenoid according to the parking locking signal from the motor controller as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 7, consistent with the specification, “using a friction member or a one-way clutch operated by a solenoid” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the one-way clutch has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramochi in view of Van Deventer and Kinoshita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakada et al. (US 2021/0179085 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nakada.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach that “the aircraft control unit further comprises a display unit for externally displaying a parking locking state by the parking locking mechanism.” However, Nakada does teach this limitation. (Nakada ¶¶ 65-66: “in this stationary state control, braking by the parking lock mechanism by changing the gear shift position to the park range is performed in addition to the braking by the brake device 10. In step S514, the control system 2 notifies the driver by displaying a message indicating the completion of the parking support control in the area 201 or the area 203 on the touch panel display.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita by displaying a parking locking state as taught by Nakada, because this modification is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Displaying a parking locking state would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the parking support system of Nakada or whether integrated into the vehicle braking system disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that displaying the parking locking state would allow a user (e.g., the pilot) to quickly confirm the parking locking state.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramochi in view of Van Deventer and Kinoshita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koyano (US 2005/0221805 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the aircraft control unit further comprises a communication unit for notifying a parking locking state by the parking locking mechanism to a pilot's mobile phone.” However, Koyano does teach this limitation. (Koyano ¶ 57: “If the user carrying the mobile telephone 100 rides into a vehicle and sets the ignition key in the accessory-ON state or the state of starting the engine and if the parking brake is set in the ON state or the user requests the information through the input unit 205, the information is read from the mobile telephone 100 in the radio communication and stored in the memory 207 of the information notification apparatus 200, under control of the information notification apparatus 200. The information notification apparatus 200 provides the user of the information stored in the memory 207 through the display unit 204 or the sound unit 206 (step 4d of FIG. 4).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita by using a mobile phone to notify a user of the parking state as taught by Koyano with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Koyano ¶ 58 teaches that this allows the user to easily and conveniently recognize this information.
Claims 10-11, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramochi et al. (US 2006/0163939 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kuramochi, in view of Van Deventer et al. (US 2013/0112513 A1), hereinafter referred to as Van Deventer, and further in view of the combination of Kinoshita et al. (US 2013/0252785 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kinoshita, and Ito et al. (US 2020/0231156 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ito.
Regarding claim 10:
Kuramochi discloses the following limitations:
“A method of controlling a parking state of a brake for an aircraft comprises steps of: inputting driving state data of an aircraft from a plurality of sensors.” (Kuramochi ¶ 71: “the amount of operation of the brake pedal 61 is detected by brake operation detecting means 62.” Also, Kuramochi ¶ 20 and 24 disclose “a rotation angle sensor detecting a rotation angle of the electrically powered actuator” and “a braking force sensor detecting the braking force of the brake pad.” Additionally, Kuramochi ¶ 148: “this electrically powered brake system may be mounted in place of the conventional hydraulic brake apparatus, air brake apparatus and the like, and may be applied for brakes of wheels of rail cars and aircrafts.”)
“determining, by an aircraft control unit, whether an activation condition of a parking locking function is satisfied by an aircraft control unit based on the input data.” (Kuramochi ¶ 21: “the parking brake actuation determining section detects actuation of a parking brake by the locking mechanism based on the result of detection of the rotation angle sensor.” Further, Kuramochi ¶¶ 25 and 62 disclose “a parking brake actuation determining section detecting actuation of the parking brake by the locking mechanism based on the result of detection by the braking force sensor,” where “The braking force is sensed by a braking force sensor 8 and used as a signal for control of a braking force together with a motor rotation angle signal output from a rotation angle detecting sensor 9 detecting the rotation of the motor 2.” Further, Kuramochi ¶ 72: “The parking brake is actuated when the speed of the vehicle is ‘O’ in data from the transmission 72, when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P’, or when the driver operates a parking brake switch (PKB SW) 71.”)
“outputting, by a motor controller, a parking control signal [] when the activation condition of the parking locking function is satisfied by the aircraft control unit.” (Note that this limitation is not required in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. This is a contingent limitation since it only applies based on “whether an activation condition of a parking locking function is satisfied” (see MPEP 2111.04(II)). Regardless, the examiner notes that this limitation is disclosed by Kuramochi ¶ 72: “The parking brake is actuated when the speed of the vehicle is ‘O’ in data from the transmission 72, when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P’, or when the driver operates a parking brake switch (PKB SW) 71.”)
“and locking a parking state where a rotation of an electric motor shaft is stopped via a parking locking mechanism according to a parking locking signal from the motor controller, and maintaining the locked parking state of the electric motor shaft.” (Kuramochi ¶ 65 and FIG. 2: “The locking mechanism 10 is a mechanism retaining a braking force in a state in which the motor 2 rotates and the brake pads 3 and 4 hold the disc rotor 5 therebetween to generate the braking force, and when the solenoid 14 is driven to press the coupling claw 12 supported on the rocking arm 13 against the ratchet wheel 11 fixed to the rotor 2A of the motor 2, the rotation angle of the ratchet wheel 11 is retained, and the generated braking force is retained even if the current of the motor 2 is interrupted.”)
“wherein the plurality of sensors includes a brake pedal position sensor, a parking lever (button) sensor.” (Kuramochi ¶ 71: “for a brake operation by a driver, the amount of operation of the brake pedal 61 is detected by brake operation detecting means 62.” Also, Kuramochi ¶ 72: “The parking brake is actuated … when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P.’”)
“wherein in the step of determining whether an activation condition of a parking locking function is satisfied, the aircraft control unit is configured to determine that the activation condition of the parking locking function is met when … the parking lever (button) sensor is ON.” (Kuramochi ¶ 72: “The parking brake is actuated … when the position of a shift lever of the shift control unit 70 is ‘P.’” The lever being in the “P” position reads on it being in an “ON” state as claimed. Note that the examiner interprets the parking lever (button) sensor being ON as the parking lever (button) being in an ON state rather than the sensor itself being turned on.)
Kuramochi does not explicitly disclose that “the plurality of sensors includes … an aircraft start sensor” and that “the activation condition of the parking locking function is met when the brake pedal position sensor is ON… and the aircraft start sensor is OFF.” However, Van Deventer does teach these limitations. (Van Deventer ¶ 7: “If the pilot then depresses the brake pedals, the combination of pedal input and actuation of the ‘Not Release Switch’ activates a solenoid, which allows the lever to continue to travel to its full extent. At full extent, the ‘Set Switch’ indicates that the parking brake is set. Releasing the pedals will allow the unlocking solenoid to lock the lever in the up position.” Also, Van Deventer ¶ 28: “The locked response preferably engages the brakes at a minimum parking level when the aircraft is unpowered.” Engaging the brakes in this way when the aircraft is unpowered implies the use of some sort of sensor that is capable of determining whether the aircraft is powered or unpowered. This implied sensor corresponds to the recited “aircraft start sensor.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kuramochi by activating the parking locking function based on the brake pedal being depressed and the aircraft being powered off as taught by Van Deventer with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Van Deventer ¶¶ 2 and 10 teach that this can prevent the aircraft from accidentally rolling and also prevent accidental engagement of the parking brake system.
The combination of Kuramochi and Van Deventer does not specifically teach that “the plurality of sensors includes … a seat belt sensor, and a door sensor” and “wherein the activation condition of the parking locking function is further determined by the aircraft control unit on whether the seat belt sensor is OFF and the door sensor is ON.” However, Kinoshita does teach this limitation. (Kinoshita ¶¶ 46 and 112: “When the driver's door is open or the driver's seatbelt is not buckled and the vehicle start preparation is incomplete, the vehicle can be prevented from moving and safety can be increased by shifting to the N range or P range,” where the P range is “a state in which both the forward clutch and the reverse clutch are fastened and the parking lock mechanism is actuated.” Note that the examiner interprets the seat belt sensor being OFF and the door sensor being ON as meaning that the sensors identify the seat belt being unbuckled and the door being open, rather than the sensors themselves being activated or deactivated.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi and Van Deventer by determining the activation condition for the parking locking function based on the seat belt being unbuckled and the door being open as taught by Kinoshita with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kinoshita ¶ 11 teaches that it is unsafe for the vehicle to be driven when the seat belt is unbuckled or the door is open.
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita does not specifically teach the activation condition being based on “whether the seat belt sensor is OFF and the door sensor is ON for a predetermined period of time.” However, Ito does teach this limitation. (Ito ¶ 48: “the roadway determination device 14 may determine that the vehicle 1 is in a parking lot (as a result of which, the vehicle 1 is not traveling on a roadway) if any or a combination of the following conditions is satisfied; for example, ‘a door of the vehicle 1 is open and/or the driver does not fasten a seatbelt’, ‘a shift position is in a D range and a state of being 0 km/h continues for a first predetermined time (e.g. several minutes) or longer’…”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita by determining that the vehicle is parked based on whether the seat belt is unfastened and/or the door is open for a predetermined period of time as taught by Ito, because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using a timer for detecting whether such a predetermined period of time has passed would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the driving assistance method of Ito or whether integrated into the vehicle brake system disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this would provide an objective measure for the activation condition which could be adjusted to balance locking the parking brake when necessary and reducing the frequency of false alarms.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 2 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito teaches “The method of claim 10,” and Ito also suggests “wherein the predetermined period of time is set to 3 minutes.” (Ito ¶ 48: “the roadway determination device 14 may determine that the vehicle 1 is in a parking lot (as a result of which, the vehicle 1 is not traveling on a roadway) if any or a combination of the following conditions is satisfied; for example, ‘a door of the vehicle 1 is open and/or the driver does not fasten a seatbelt’, ‘a shift position is in a D range and a state of being 0 km/h continues for a first predetermined time (e.g. several minutes) or longer’…” The predetermined time being “several minutes” suggests it being 3 minutes as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita by setting the predetermined period of time to be several minutes long as taught by Ito, because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Setting the predetermined period of time to be several minutes long would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the driving assistance method of Ito or whether integrated into the vehicle braking method disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, and Kinoshita. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that making the period of time too short would increase the frequency of false alarms, while making the period too long would prevent the vehicle from performing the parking procedure within a reasonable amount of time.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito teaches “The method of claim 10,” and Kuramochi further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein in a state where a rotation of a rotor disc is stopped via a pair of calipers by manipulation of the brake pedal or the parking lever (button) by the pilot, the parking locking step is performed.” (Kuramochi ¶ 61: “In FIGS. 1 and 2, the electrically powered brake apparatus B has a caliper 1 floatably supported on a carrier (not shown) fixed to a non-rotary section (knuckle, etc.) of the vehicle, and a motor 2 as a braking force generation source is placed in the caliper 1. Brake pads 3 and 4 are placed with a brake disc rotor 5 therebetween, the brake pad 3 is fixed to the caliper 1, and the brake pad 4 advances and retreats with respect to the disc rotor 5 by rotation of a rotor 2A of the motor 2.”)
“by applying a parking locking signal with a first current value to the electric motor by the motor controller, locking a parking state where a rotation of an electric motor shaft is stopped via a parking locking mechanism including a friction member or a one-way clutch which is operated by a solenoid according to the parking locking signal, and maintaining the locked parking state.” (Kuramochi ¶ 65 and FIG. 2: “The locking mechanism 10 is a mechanism retaining a braking force in a state in which the motor 2 rotates and the brake pads 3 and 4 hold the disc rotor 5 therebetween to generate the braking force, and when the solenoid 14 is driven to press the coupling claw 12 supported on the rocking arm 13 against the ratchet wheel 11 fixed to the rotor 2A of the motor 2, the rotation angle of the ratchet wheel 11 is retained, and the generated braking force is retained even if the current of the motor 2 is interrupted.” Further, Kuramochi ¶ 147: “In addition, a conversion mechanism converting a rotary motion into a linear motion, and mechanical inverse input blocking means such as one-way clutch placed between the conversion mechanism and a motor, and transmitting a torque of the motor to the conversion mechanism when the torque is generated with a current passing through the motor but blocking the transmission of the torque from the conversion mechanism to the motor when no torque is generated with no current passing through the motor may be installed, so that the electrically powered brake system is released if an abnormality occurs in the motor.”)
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito teaches “The method of claim 16,” and Kuramochi further teaches “wherein unlocking of the parking state is performed by applying a parking release signal with a second current value to the solenoid by the motor controller, and unlocking the parking state via the parking locking mechanism including the friction member or the one-way clutch operated by a solenoid to enable the electric motor shaft to rotate freely.” (Kuramochi ¶ 65 and FIG. 2: “By releasing the solenoid 14 to detach the coupling claw 12 from the ratchet wheel 11 in a state in which a braking force is retained, the retained braking force is released, and the parking brake mechanism is released.” Further, Kuramochi ¶ 147: “In addition, a conversion mechanism converting a rotary motion into a linear motion, and mechanical inverse input blocking means such as one-way clutch placed between the conversion mechanism and a motor, and transmitting a torque of the motor to the conversion mechanism when the torque is generated with a current passing through the motor but blocking the transmission of the torque from the conversion mechanism to the motor when no torque is generated with no current passing through the motor may be installed, so that the electrically powered brake system is released if an abnormality occurs in the motor.”)
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito teaches “The method of claim 16,” and Van Deventer further teaches “wherein the aircraft control unit is configured to indicate the locked parking state by sound or to display the locked parking state by lighting of a lamp.” (Van Deventer ¶ 11: “The system may also include an indicator lamp for indicating the state of the brakes.” This at least teaches to display the locked parking state by lighting of a lamp as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 3, consistent with the specification, the step to “indicate the locked parking state by sound or to display the locked parking state by lighting of a lamp” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only “lighting of a lamp” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Kinoshita, and Ito by using a display for indicating the state of the parking brake as taught by Van Deventer, because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using a lamp light as an indication of the parking state would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the electronic brake method of Van Deventer or whether integrated into the vehicle braking system disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Kinoshita, and Ito. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this would provide a convenient way for the vehicle user to quickly ascertain the state of the parking brakes.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramochi in view of Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Georgin et al. (US 2023/0249807 A1), hereinafter referred to as Georgin.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito teaches “The method of claim 10,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the motor controller is connected to the aircraft control unit through a Controller Area Network (CAN) communication to control the electric motor.” However, Georgin does teach this limitation. (Georgin ¶ 33: “the electric brake actuator controller 254 is coupled to the electric brake control unit 250 via a communication link 258. The communication link 258 may comprise, for example, a controller area network bus 260.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito by using a controller area network for the electric braking system as is taught by Georgin, because this modification is a combination of prior art elements according to known elements to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using a controller area network would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the hybrid brake aircraft method of Georgin or whether integrated into the vehicle braking method disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have use a controller area network to achieve the predictable result of providing an efficient communication link for the braking system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuramochi in view of Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Koyano (US 2005/0221805 A1).
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito teaches “The method of claim 16,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the aircraft control unit is configured to notify the locked parking state to the pilot's mobile phone as a push message.” However, Koyano does teach this limitation. (Koyano ¶ 57: “If the user carrying the mobile telephone 100 rides into a vehicle and sets the ignition key in the accessory-ON state or the state of starting the engine and if the parking brake is set in the ON state or the user requests the information through the input unit 205, the information is read from the mobile telephone 100 in the radio communication and stored in the memory 207 of the information notification apparatus 200, under control of the information notification apparatus 200. The information notification apparatus 200 provides the user of the information stored in the memory 207 through the display unit 204 or the sound unit 206.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Kuramochi, Van Deventer, Kinoshita, and Ito by using a mobile phone to notify the user of the parking brake state as taught by Koyano with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Koyano ¶ 58 teaches that this allows the user to easily and conveniently recognize this information.
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 Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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 at 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Examiner, Art Unit 3662