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 .
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, the limitation “a forward radar; wherein the control device further exerts automatic control over a brake fluid pressure of the brake according to information obtained by the forward radar” is unclear. It is not clear if the claim requires both a camera and a radar or just a radar. Claim 5, from which claim 6 depends requires that “a control device exerting automatic control over a brake fluid pressure of a brake according to information obtained by the forward camera”. It is not clear if the controller exerts automatic control based on the camera, the radar, or both simultaneously.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US-20180265057) in view of Oshida (US-20200189536).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses a saddled vehicle, comprising: a control device (ECU 20) exerting automatic control over a brake fluid pressure of a brake (FB/RB); and pitch angular velocity detecting means (26/52) for detecting a pitch angular velocity (at least the GZ-axis acceleration Agz) of the vehicle according to an output of a pitch angular velocity detection unit (26/52), wherein when the pitch angular velocity becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (fig 9, 300) value while the control device is gradually increasing the brake fluid pressure of a front-wheel brake by the automatic control ([0058] during an ABS event), the control device (20) reduces a degree of increase in the brake fluid pressure (at least [0103]-[0105], fig 9 and [0111]-[0113], at least S4-S6) or maintains the brake fluid pressure at that time point ([0058], holding mode).
Hasegawa lacks wherein the control device automatically generates the brake fluid pressure when an automatic control condition is met. Oshida teaches wherein a brake system that includes a controller and control method wherein a control mode that makes the motorcycle execute an automatic braking operation is initiated in response to trigger information generated in accordance with peripheral environment of the motorcycle. In the control mode, distribution of an automatic braking force to a front wheel and a rear wheel is controlled in accordance with travel posture of the motorcycle, and the automatic braking force is a braking force that is applied to the wheels of the motorcycle by the automatic braking operation (Oshida, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the control device of Hasegawa with the automatic braking as taught by Oshida at least “in order to further improve the driver safety, it is considered to use a technique of avoiding a collision with the forward obstacle by making the motorcycle execute an automatic braking operation that is a decelerating operation to apply a braking force to wheels without relying on a driver's operation” (Oshida, [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa discloses a saddled vehicle, comprising: a control device (ECU 20) exerting automatic control over a brake fluid pressure of a brake (FB/RB); and pitch angular velocity detecting means (26/52) for detecting a pitch angular velocity (at least the GZ-axis acceleration Agz) of the vehicle according to an output of a pitch angular velocity detection unit (26/52), wherein when the pitch angular velocity becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (fig 9, 300) value while the control device is gradually increasing the brake fluid pressure of a front-wheel brake by the automatic control ([0058] during an ABS event), the control device (20) reduces a degree of increase in the brake fluid pressure (at least [0103]-[0105], fig 9 and [0111]-[0113], at least S4-S6) or maintains the brake fluid pressure at that time point ([0058], holding mode).
Hasegawa lacks a forward camera and wherein the control device exerts automatic control over the brake fluid pressure according to information obtained by the camera. Oshida teaches wherein a brake system that includes a controller and control method wherein a control mode that makes the motorcycle execute an automatic braking operation is initiated in response to trigger information generated in accordance with peripheral environment of the motorcycle. In the control mode, distribution of an automatic braking force to a front wheel and a rear wheel is controlled in accordance with travel posture of the motorcycle, and the automatic braking force is a braking force that is applied to the wheels of the motorcycle by the automatic braking operation (Oshida, Abstract).
Oshida also teaches camera (46, fig 1) providing trigger information is used to determine initiation of a control mode wherein peripheral environment sensor 46 detects peripheral environment of the motorcycle 100. For example, as the peripheral environment, the peripheral environment sensor 46 detects a distance from the motorcycle 100 to a forward obstacle (for example, a preceding vehicle). The peripheral environment sensor 46 may detect another physical quantity that can substantially be converted to the distance from the motorcycle 100 to the forward obstacle. More specifically, a camera that captures an image in front of the motorcycle 100 or a distance measurement sensor that can detect the distance from the motorcycle 100 to the forward obstacle is used as the peripheral environment sensor 46. The peripheral environment sensor 46 is provided in a front portion of the trunk 1 (Oshida, [0034] and [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the control device of Hasegawa with the automatic braking as taught by Oshida at least in order to further improve the driver safety, it is considered to use a technique of avoiding a collision with the forward obstacle by making the motorcycle execute an automatic braking operation that is a decelerating operation to apply a braking force to wheels without relying on a driver's operation (Oshida, [0004]).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a camera as a peripheral environment sensor at least in order to further improve the driver safety by providing additional trigger information used when initiating an automatic braking control mode (Oshida [0034-0035]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US-20180265057) in view of Oshida (US-20200189536) and Dagenais (US-20090084623).
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa discloses a brake system (10) as set forth above but lacks a seat sensor detecting a driver's seated state. Dagenais teaches a seat sensor (118) detecting a driver's seated state ([0079]), wherein a control device (ESS 140) reduces or increases a predetermined threshold depending on a load state of the vehicle ([0079]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the brake system of Hasegawa with the seat sensor of Dagenais at least in order to provide additional critical information regarding the weight distribution of the vehicle during automatic braking and provide maximum performance while preventing exceeding a safe handling threshold (Dagenais, [0079] and [0080]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US-20180265057) in view of Oshida (US-20200189536) and Dackermann et al. (US-20170182986).
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa discloses a brake system (10) as set forth above but lacks wherein a predetermined threshold is adjusted based on a downhill or up hill road surface. Dackermann et al. teaches wherein a distribution of brake force for a motorcycle is determined based one a downhill or uphill grade. For example, the brake force may be distributed more heavily on the front wheel as a function of a braking acceleration or a downhill grade, or for an uphill grade more brake force may be distributed on a rear wheel ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the brake system of Hasegawa with the method of brake distribution of Dackermann et al. at least in order to provide additional critical information wherein a braking operation may be flexibly adapted to events such as a changed base surface, changing traffic situations, or a changing course of the roadway, in particular with an uphill or downhill grade (Dackermann et al, [0020]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US-20180265057) in view of Oshida (US-20200189536), and Dagenais (US-20090084623), and Dackermann et al. (US-20170182986).
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa, Oshida, and Dagenais discloses a brake system (10) as set forth above but lacks wherein a predetermined threshold is adjusted based on a downhill or up hill road surface. Dackermann et al. teaches wherein a distribution of brake force for a motorcycle is determined based one a downhill or uphill grade. For example, the brake force may be distributed more heavily on the front wheel as a function of a braking acceleration or a downhill grade, or for an uphill grade more brake force may be distributed on a rear wheel ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the brake system of Hasegawa with the method of brake distribution of Dackermann et al. at least in order to provide additional critical information wherein a braking operation may be flexibly adapted to events such as a changed base surface, changing traffic situations, or a changing course of the roadway, in particular with an uphill or downhill grade (Dackermann et al, [0020]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US-20180265057) in view of Oshida (US-20200189536) and Matsuda (US20200171946).
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa and Oshida disclose a brake system (10) as set forth above but lacks a radar. Matsuda teaches a control apparatus for a motorcycle brake wherein forward detection can be achieved by either radar or camera (figs 3a and 3b and [0038] a millimeter-wave radar or a camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that forward facing cameras and radar devices are sufficiently equivalent devices capable of capturing the required information for improving the safety device.
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa discloses a saddled vehicle, comprising: a control device (ECU 20) exerting automatic control over a brake fluid pressure of a brake (FB/RB); and pitch angular velocity detecting means (26/52) for detecting a pitch angular velocity (at least the GZ-axis acceleration Agz) of the vehicle according to an output of a pitch angular velocity detection unit (26/52), wherein when the pitch angular velocity becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (fig 9, 300) value while the control device is gradually increasing the brake fluid pressure of a front-wheel brake by the automatic control ([0058] during an ABS event), the control device (20) reduces a degree of increase in the brake fluid pressure (at least [0103]-[0105], fig 9 and [0111]-[0113], at least S4-S6) or maintains the brake fluid pressure at that time point ([0058], holding mode).
Hasegawa lacks a forward radar and wherein the control device exerts automatic control over the brake fluid pressure according to information obtained by the radar. Oshida teaches wherein a brake system that includes a controller and control method wherein a control mode that makes the motorcycle execute an automatic braking operation is initiated in response to trigger information generated in accordance with peripheral environment of the motorcycle. In the control mode, distribution of an automatic braking force to a front wheel and a rear wheel is controlled in accordance with travel posture of the motorcycle, and the automatic braking force is a braking force that is applied to the wheels of the motorcycle by the automatic braking operation (Oshida, Abstract).
Oshida also teaches camera (46, fig 1) providing trigger information is used to determine initiation of a control mode wherein peripheral environment sensor 46 detects peripheral environment of the motorcycle 100. For example, as the peripheral environment, the peripheral environment sensor 46 detects a distance from the motorcycle 100 to a forward obstacle (for example, a preceding vehicle). The peripheral environment sensor 46 may detect another physical quantity that can substantially be converted to the distance from the motorcycle 100 to the forward obstacle. More specifically, a camera that captures an image in front of the motorcycle 100 or a distance measurement sensor that can detect the distance from the motorcycle 100 to the forward obstacle is used as the peripheral environment sensor 46. The peripheral environment sensor 46 is provided in a front portion of the trunk 1 (Oshida, [0034] and [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the control device of Hasegawa with the automatic braking as taught by Oshida at least in order to further improve the driver safety, it is considered to use a technique of avoiding a collision with the forward obstacle by making the motorcycle execute an automatic braking operation that is a decelerating operation to apply a braking force to wheels without relying on a driver's operation (Oshida, [0004]).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a camera as a peripheral environment sensor at least in order to further improve the driver safety by providing additional trigger information used when initiating an automatic braking control mode (Oshida [0034-0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa and Oshida disclose a brake system (10) as set forth above but lacks a radar. Matsuda teaches a control apparatus for a motorcycle brake wherein forward detection can be achieved by either radar or camera (figs 3a and 3b and [0038] a millimeter-wave radar or a camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that forward facing cameras and radar devices are sufficiently equivalent devices capable of capturing the required information for improving the safety device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/J.K.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights