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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. JP 2011057134 to Tanaka in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 06-305404 to Seni et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka discloses an emergency driving stop system 1 (see Figure 1) having most all the features of the instant invention including: a switch 5 to be operated when an abnormality occurs in a driver (see paragraph 0018 of the examiner provided translation), an electronically controlled braking system capable of performing automatic braking (see paragraph 0020 of the examiner provided translation), an externally output section 6,7 configured to notify an outside of the vehicle that the emergency driving stop system is in operation (see paragraph 0019 of the examiner provided translation), and a control section 8/20 configured to turn on the electronically controlled braking system and the externally output section 6,7 to perform an “ON” operation at least when the switch 5 is operated (see paragraphs 0020 and 0021 of the examiner provided translation).
However, Tanaka does not disclose that the control section maintains the “ON” operation of the electronically controlled braking system when a portion related to the emergency driving stop system breaks down during the operation of the emergency driving stop system.
Seni et al are relied upon merely for their teachings of a braking system having a control section 45/110 that maintains an “ON” operation of an electronically controlled braking system when a portion related to an emergency driving stop system breaks down during the operation of the emergency driving stop system (see paragraphs 0012 and 0014 of the examiner provided translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the emergency driving stop system of Tanaka so that the control section maintains the “ON” operation of the electronically controlled braking system when a portion related to the emergency driving stop system breaks down during the operation of the emergency driving stop system as taught by Seni et al to always maintain braking control, even when a part of the emergency driving stop system may fail.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. JP 2011057134 to Tanaka in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 06-305404 to Seni et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent No. JP 2020019320 to Ono.
Tanaka, as modified, discloses most all the features of the instant invention as applied above, except for the control section outputting a control signal that instructs the electronically controlled braking system to generate a larger brake pressure after the vehicle is stopped than during deceleration, the vehicle being a vehicle equipped with the emergency driving stop system.
Ono is relied upon merely for his teachings of an emergency driving stop system 20 with a control section 10 that outputs a control signal that instructs an electronically controlled braking system to generate a larger brake pressure after the vehicle is stopped than during deceleration (i.e., via parking brake 30, such as when the vehicle may be parked on an incline), the vehicle being a vehicle equipped with the emergency driving stop system 20 (see paragraphs 0048 and 0049 of the examiner provided translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the emergency driving stop system of Tanaka, as modified, so that the control section outputs a control signal that instructs the electronically controlled braking system to generate a larger brake pressure after the vehicle is stopped than during deceleration, the vehicle being a vehicle equipped with the emergency driving stop system as taught by Ono so that braking can be maintained when the vehicle is on an incline or when the vehicle weight may cause unintentional movement of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PG Publication No. 2021/0179037 to Heller et al, Chinese Patent No. CN 102971175 to Kobana et al., WO document no. WO 2015/080655 to Claesson and German Patent No. DE 102005016001 to Jaeger all disclose emergency driving stop systems similar to applicant’s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, 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.
PAMELA RODRIGUEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAMELA RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 12/22/25