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 CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 7/25/2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 3 and 4; canceled claim 2; and added claim 5. Claims 1 and 3–5 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 7/25/2025 obviate said claim objections; accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 7/25/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited prior art, either alone or in combination, does not disclose at least “increase the torque outputted by the electric motor until rotation of the electric motor is detected.”
Applicant argues that the primary reference Fontvieille discloses the opposite concept of the claimed invention; namely, preventing rotation of an electric motor as opposed to detecting rotation of the electric motor.
Applicant argues that as there is no teaching to increase the torque outputted by the electric motor until rotation of the electric motor is detected, then the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art arrives at the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitation at issue. First, primary reference Fontvieille discloses the core inventive concept of increasing torque outputted by an electric motor to disengage a parking lock mechanism. (See ¶¶ 58, 59 and FIG. 8; see below for detailed mapping.) Fontivielle’s purpose of its disclosure is to prevent “oscillations of the electric motor, or any jolting when the parking brake device leaves its applied position in order to liberate the electric motor.” (Fontvieille, ¶ 12.) This follows the purpose of Applicant’s claimed invention of suppressing shock upon releasing of a parking gear. (See PGPUB ¶ 96.) Furthermore, Applicant’s description at PGPUB [0094] states: “since the parking lock mechanism 22 is placed in the parking lock state (parking lock ON), the electric motor MG can be rotated only by a rotational angle corresponding to a gap (backlash) between the parking gear 28 of the parking lock mechanism 22 and the lock tooth 30 of the parking pawl 3.” So while Fontvieille discloses that the electric motor does not typically rotate during engagement of the parking brake, this does not contradict Applicant’s claimed invention as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fontvieille’s structure would also have “space” for movement of the motor before complete release of a lock tooth due to the ordinary understanding of (1) engineering tolerances; (2) that a “perfect” fit of the lock tooth with a gear of the motor would completely inhibit rotation of said gear, thereby rendering Fontvieille as inoperable for its intended purpose; and (3) building upon (2), said gear would necessarily have to begin movement in order for the lock tooth to disengage. Therefore, Fontvieille does not go against the intended purpose of the claimed invention – in fact, Fontvieille aims to solve the same problem as the claimed invention in a similar fashion.
Now, Takuechi provides the teaching that the rotation of an electric motor may be detected during the transition of a parking lock active state to a disengaged state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Takuechi’s determination can serve as a useful starting point for performing Fontvieille’s processing of disengaging a parking brake as Takuechi’s determination would provide an accurate indication of a parking finger’s incipient movement as illustrated in Fontvieille’s FIG. 8. Such follows Applicant’s disclosure in at least FIG. 12 and associated discussion wherein an MG TORQUE is kept constant (e.g., such as Fontvieille’s torque is increased to a constant until “end of disengagement”) at the instant (t6) that a motor begins to rotate (e.g., begins to enter the non-meshing state as put forward by Takuechi). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Fornvieille’s increase of torque in response to Takuechi’s detection of rotation of the electric motor, thereby yielding the claim limitation at issue.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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, 4 and 5 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Fontvieille et al. (US20170080946A1; “Fontvieille”) in view of Weslati (US20130305863A1; “Weslati”) and in view of Takeuchi (US20180209534A1; “Takeuchi”).
As to claim 1, Fontvieille discloses a control apparatus for a vehicle, comprising:
a control unit including a processor and a memory (computer 5 (ECU) – see ¶ 32 and FIG. 1.),
wherein the vehicle comprises:
(i) drive wheels (Wheels 2, 2’ – see at least FIG. 1.), (ii) an electric motor serving as a drive power source (Electric motor 1 – see at least ¶ 31 and FIG. 1.) and (iii) a parking lock mechanism configured to mechanically stop rotation in a power transmission path between the electric motor and the drive wheels (Parking brake device 9 – see at least ¶ 34 and FIGS. 2 and 3. Continuing, “the parking brake device 9 may adopt an applied position, in which the electric motor 1 is immobilized, and a released position, in which the electric motor 1 may rotate. The electric motor 1 comprises a transmission shaft 14 forming a rotor and to which a toothed wheel 12 is connected coaxially.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 38 and FIGS. 2 and 3. Examiner Note: Via the transmission shaft 14, the parking brake device 9 is necessarily disposed between the electric motor 1 and the wheels 2, 2’ – otherwise, the disclosed invention would be inoperable for its intended purpose of keeping a parked vehicle stationary), wherein the parking lock mechanism includes (iii-1) a parking gear provided in the power transmission path (Toothed wheel 12 – see at least ¶ 39 and FIGS. 2 and 3.), (iii-2) a lock tooth that is to mesh with the parking gear (Blocking finger 11 – see at least ¶ 39 and FIGS. 2 and 3.) and (iii-3) a lock tooth configured to be actuated (“The blocking finger 11 is mobile along an axis X between a position of disengagement, in which the transmission shaft and the toothed wheel are liberated and are able to rotate, and a position of engagement, in which one extremity 13 of the blocking finger 11 is engaged in an interdental space 15 of the toothed wheel 12 in order to immobilize the vehicle 20 in the parking position.” See at least ¶ 39.), and wherein, when a shift operation position is switched to a parking position, the lock tooth is moved by the actuator to a meshing position to mesh with the parking gear whereby the parking lock mechanism is switched to a parking lock state in which rotation of the parking gear is inhibited by the lock tooth meshing with the parking gear (“In order to immobilize the vehicle in the parking position, the driver utilizes the parking brake device 9, which is actuated by a control means 10 …. The control means 10 may be mechanical, for example an operating lever.” See at least ¶¶ 36–37. Continuing: “The blocking finger 11 is mobile along an axis X between a position of disengagement, in which the transmission shaft and the toothed wheel are liberated and are able to rotate, and a position of engagement, in which one extremity 13 of the blocking finger 11 is engaged in an interdental space 15 of the toothed wheel 12 in order to immobilize the vehicle 20 in the parking position.” See at least ¶ 39. Examiner Note: From the above and through the ordinary understanding of vehicle control systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Fontvieille discloses that an operator may switch between engaged and disengaged parking lock states (e.g., between a P (PARK) position and a D (DRIVE) position, respectively) through the operation of the operating lever.),
wherein the control unit is configured, when the shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position in a state in which the vehicle is stopped, to cause the electric motor to output a torque acting in an opposite rotational direction opposite to a direction of rotation of the drive wheels due to a gradient of a road surface, and to increase the torque outputted by the electric motor to disengage a parking lock mechanism (“The parking brake device 9 may adopt an applied position, in which the electric motor 1 is immobilized, and a released position, in which the electric motor 1 may rotate. The electric motor 1 comprises a transmission shaft 14 forming a rotor and to which a toothed wheel 12 is connected coaxially.” See at least ¶ 38; see also ¶¶ 36–37 which disclose that an operator may switch between engaged and disengaged parking lock states via an operating lever.
Continuing: “Once the direction of and/or the data for the slope have been detected and stored, the computer 5 calculates the motor torque setpoint Cp to be applied to the electric motor 1 …. This motor torque setpoint Cp will enable the power train (GMP) to apply a force to the electric motor 1 allowing the cancellation of that [force] exerted on the parking brake device 9 in order to maintain the electric motor 1 in a position of equilibrium before the disengagement of the blocking finger 1.” See at least ¶ 56. “The sign of the motor torque setpoint Cp may be negative or positive, depending on the direction of the slope P.” See at least ¶ 57. “The value of the motor torque setpoint Cp is based on the data for the inclination or the angle of the slope P …. The motor torque setpoint Cp calculated in this way is applied to the electric motor in order to reduce, or even to suppress, the oscillations.” See at least ¶ 58. See also FIG. 8 which discloses that negative torque is provided because of positive stored slope.
Finally: “The motor torque setpoint Cp is maintained from the start of the transition from the applied position to the end of the transition to the released position, in such a way as to maintain the electric motor 1 in the position into which it or the means of driving the rotor has tilted. Jolts, oscillations, etc., are avoided in this way.” See at least ¶ 59. See also FIG. 8, which illustrates that the absolute value of motor torque is applied to a setpoint value (i.e., increased from zero) until the “end of disengagement,” wherein the torque is returned back to zero.),
wherein the control unit is configured to cause the actuator to move the lock tooth to a releasing position in which meshing of the lock tooth with the parking gear is released (“The blocking finger 11 is mobile along an axis X between a position of disengagement, in which the transmission shaft and the toothed wheel are liberated and are able to rotate, and a position of engagement, in which one extremity 13 of the blocking finger 11 is engaged in an interdental space 15 of the toothed wheel 12 in order to immobilize the vehicle 20 in the parking position.” See at least ¶ 39. “The motor torque setpoint Cp is maintained from the start of the transition from the applied position to the end of the transition to the released position, in such a way as to maintain the electric motor 1 in the position into which it or the means of driving the rotor has tilted. Jolts, oscillations, etc., are avoided in this way.” See at least ¶ 59. See also FIG. 8, which illustrates that the absolute value of motor torque is applied to a setpoint value (i.e., increased from zero) until the “end of disengagement,” wherein the position of the parking finger has been actuated to a released position.).
Fontvieille fails to explicitly disclose: an actuator configured to move the lock tooth.
Nevertheless, Weslati teaches: an actuator configured to move the lock tooth (“The actuator 24 may include a motor 32 and a drive member 34 driven by the motor 32 to move the pawl 26 from its disengaged position to its engaged position.” See at least ¶ 12. Examiner Note: As the pawl 26 comprises the lock tab 30, controlling the pawl 26 effectively serves to move the lock tab 30 (lock tooth) as well.).
Fontvieille discloses: a control apparatus for a vehicle comprising: (i) drive wheels, (ii) an electric motor and (iii) a parking lock mechanism, wherein the parking lock mechanism comprises: (iii-1) a parking gear and (iii-2) a lock tooth, wherein the lock tooth is actuatable to move; wherein upon a shift operation position being switched to a parking position, the lock tooth is moved to a meshing position to mesh with the parking gear whereby the parking lock mechanism is switched to a parking lock state in which rotation of the parking gear is inhibited by the lock tooth meshing with the parking gear; and wherein when the shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position, the electric motor outputs a torque acting in an opposite rotational direction to a direction of rotation of the drive wheels due to a gradient of a road surface, and to increase the torque outputted by the electric motor until rotation of the electric motor is enabled. Weslati teaches: an actuator configured to move the lock tooth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fontvieille to include the feature of: an actuator configured to move the lock tooth, as taught by Weslati, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is well-known and ordinary in the art for controlling the movement of a lock tooth in a parking brake.
The combination of Fontvieille and Weslati fails to explicitly disclose:
increase the torque outputted by the electric motor until rotation of the electric motor is detected; and
when the rotation of the electric motor is detected, cause the actuator to move the lock tooth to a releasing position in which meshing of the lock tooth with the parking gear is released
Nevertheless, Takuechi teaches: when a shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position in a state in which the vehicle is stopped, detecting rotation of an electric motor (“The rotation angle θgear of the parking gear 60 can be obtained based on the rotation angle θmg2 of the second electric motor MG2 …, and it can be determined whether the parking lock device 46 is in the meshing state or the non-meshing state, based on the rotation angle θgear of the parking gear 60.” See at least ¶ 72.).
Fontvieille discloses: a control apparatus for a vehicle comprising: (i) drive wheels, (ii) an electric motor and (iii) a parking lock mechanism, wherein the parking lock mechanism comprises: (iii-1) a parking gear and (iii-2) a lock tooth, wherein the lock tooth is actuatable to move; wherein upon a shift operation position being switched to a parking position, the lock tooth is moved to a meshing position to mesh with the parking gear whereby the parking lock mechanism is switched to a parking lock state in which rotation of the parking gear is inhibited by the lock tooth meshing with the parking gear; and wherein when the shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position, the electric motor outputs a torque acting in an opposite rotational direction to a direction of rotation of the drive wheels due to a gradient of a road surface, and to increase the torque outputted by the electric motor until rotation of the electric motor is enabled. Weslati teaches: an actuator configured to move the lock tooth. Takuechi teaches: when a shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position in a state in which the vehicle is stopped, detecting rotation of an electric motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fontvieille and Weslati to include the feature of: when a shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position in a state in which the vehicle is stopped, detecting rotation of an electric motor, as taught by Takuechi, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining whether a parking lock is in a meshing or non-meshing state and performing control accordingly. Against this backdrop, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Takuechi’s determination can serve as a useful starting point for performing Fontvieille’s processing of disengaging a parking brake as Takuechi’s determination would provide an accurate indication of a parking finger’s incipient movement as illustrated in Fontvieille’s FIG. 8. Such follows Applicant’s disclosure in at least FIG. 12 and associated discussion wherein an MG TORQUE is kept constant (e.g., such as Fontvieille’s torque is increased to a constant until “end of disengagement”) at the instant (t6) that a motor begins to rotate (e.g., begins to enter the non-meshing state as put forward by Takuechi). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Fornvieille’s increase of torque in response to Takuechi’s detection of rotation of the electric motor, thereby yielding the claim limitations at issue.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying Fontvieille with Takuechi would have a predictable and reasonable expectation of success due to the fact that Fontvieille’s structure would also have “space” for movement of the motor before complete release of a lock tooth according to the ordinary understanding of (1) engineering tolerances; (2) that a “perfect” fit of the lock tooth with a gear of the motor would completely inhibit rotation of said gear, thereby rendering Fontvieille as inoperable for its intended purpose; and (3) building upon (2), said gear would necessarily have to begin movement in order for the lock tooth to disengage.
As to claim 4, Fontvieille discloses: wherein the control unit is configured, when the shift operation position is switched from the parking position to the other position, to determine whether the road surface is sloped or not (“The parking brake device 9 may adopt an applied position, in which the electric motor 1 is immobilized, and a released position, in which the electric motor 1 may rotate. The electric motor 1 comprises a transmission shaft 14 forming a rotor and to which a toothed wheel 12 is connected coaxially.” See at least ¶ 38; see also ¶¶ 36–37 which disclose that an operator may switch between engaged and disengaged parking lock states via an operating lever. “The detection A of the direction of the slope is executed when it is detected, in step E, that the parking brake device 9 is in its applied position.” See at least ¶ 50 and FIG. 6.), and
wherein the control unit is configured, when the road surface is sloped, to cause the electric motor to output the torque acting in the opposite rotational direction opposite to the direction of the rotation of the drive wheels due to the gradient of the road surface (“The parking brake device 9 may adopt an applied position, in which the electric motor 1 is immobilized, and a released position, in which the electric motor 1 may rotate. The electric motor 1 comprises a transmission shaft 14 forming a rotor and to which a toothed wheel 12 is connected coaxially.” See at least ¶ 38; see also ¶¶ 36–37 which disclose that an operator may switch between engaged and disengaged parking lock states via an operating lever.
Continuing: “Once the direction of and/or the data for the slope have been detected and stored, the computer 5 calculates the motor torque setpoint Cp to be applied to the electric motor 1 …. This motor torque setpoint Cp will enable the power train (GMP) to apply a force to the electric motor 1 allowing the cancellation of that [force] exerted on the parking brake device 9 in order to maintain the electric motor 1 in a position of equilibrium before the disengagement of the blocking finger 1.” See at least ¶ 56. “The sign of the motor torque setpoint Cp may be negative or positive, depending on the direction of the slope P.” See at least ¶ 57. “The value of the motor torque setpoint Cp is based on the data for the inclination or the angle of the slope P …. The motor torque setpoint Cp calculated in this way is applied to the electric motor in order to reduce, or even to suppress, the oscillations.” See at least ¶ 58. See also FIG. 8 which discloses that negative torque is provided because of positive stored slope.
Finally: “The motor torque setpoint Cp is maintained from the start of the transition from the applied position to the end of the transition to the released position, in such a way as to maintain the electric motor 1 in the position into which it or the means of driving the rotor has tilted. Jolts, oscillations, etc., are avoided in this way.” See at least ¶ 59. See also FIG. 8, which illustrates that the absolute value of motor torque is applied to a setpoint value (i.e., increased from zero) until the “end of disengagement,” wherein the torque is returned back to zero.).
As to claim 5, Fontvieille discloses:
the vehicle comprises a brake pedal configured to be depressed to stop the vehicle (brake pedal – see at least ¶ 33), and
the control unit is configured, when the shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position in a state in which the vehicle is stopped and the brake pedal is depressed, to cause the electric motor to output a torque acting in an opposite rotational direction opposite to a direction of rotation of the drive wheels due to a gradient of a road surface, and to increase the torque outputted by the electric motor to disengage a parking lock mechanism until the depression of the brake pedal is released (“The parking brake device 9 may adopt an applied position, in which the electric motor 1 is immobilized, and a released position, in which the electric motor 1 may rotate. The electric motor 1 comprises a transmission shaft 14 forming a rotor and to which a toothed wheel 12 is connected coaxially.” See at least ¶ 38; see also ¶¶ 36–37 which disclose that an operator may switch between engaged and disengaged parking lock states via an operating lever.
Continuing: “Once the direction of and/or the data for the slope have been detected and stored, the computer 5 calculates the motor torque setpoint Cp to be applied to the electric motor 1 …. This motor torque setpoint Cp will enable the power train (GMP) to apply a force to the electric motor 1 allowing the cancellation of that [force] exerted on the parking brake device 9 in order to maintain the electric motor 1 in a position of equilibrium before the disengagement of the blocking finger 1.” See at least ¶ 56. “The sign of the motor torque setpoint Cp may be negative or positive, depending on the direction of the slope P.” See at least ¶ 57. “The value of the motor torque setpoint Cp is based on the data for the inclination or the angle of the slope P …. The motor torque setpoint Cp calculated in this way is applied to the electric motor in order to reduce, or even to suppress, the oscillations.” See at least ¶ 58. See also FIG. 8 which discloses that negative torque is provided because of positive stored slope.
Then: “The motor torque setpoint Cp is maintained from the start of the transition from the applied position to the end of the transition to the released position, in such a way as to maintain the electric motor 1 in the position into which it or the means of driving the rotor has tilted. Jolts, oscillations, etc., are avoided in this way.” See at least ¶ 59. See also FIG. 8, which illustrates that the absolute value of motor torque is applied to a setpoint value (i.e., increased from zero) until the “end of disengagement,” wherein the torque is returned back to zero.
Finally: Provided is a “a control unit 8, which actuates hydraulic actuating means (not illustrated) capable of reducing the speed (braking), or even of reducing the speed until the vehicle 20 has been brought to a halt. This control unit 8 generally comprises a brake pedal having the ability to be actuated by the foot 18 of the driver or occupant of the vehicle 20.” ¶ 33. “In order for the transition of the parking brake device into its applied position to take place, the program may verify in step G the position of engagement of the control unit 8. This guarantees that the rotor 14 will not rotate while the parking brake device 9 is actuated. When the end of the applied position of the parking brake device 9 is detected in G, the control unit 8 may be disengaged in step H.” ¶ 51. Examiner Note: Accordingly, the application and increase of torque begins when the brake pedal is depressed, and the cessation of such happens when the brake pedal is released.).
Claim 3 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Fontvieille in view of Weslati and in view of Takeuchi as applied to claim 1—further in view of Hada et al. (US6346064B1; “Hada”).
As to claim 3, Fontvieille discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to determine the opposite rotational direction in which the outputted torque is to act, based on a direction of the gradient of the road surface (“The program then verifies the data for the movement of the electric motor 1. In particular, the direction of and/or the data for the slope P are determined with the help of a step K for detecting a direction of tilting of the electric motor 1 in relation to the position of equilibrium (stable position, zero slope) of the electric motor 1. It is determined whether, in the course of tilting, the electric motor 1 rotates in a negative direction or in a positive direction in relation to the clockwise direction.” See at least ¶ 52. “The sign of the motor torque setpoint Cp may be negative or positive, depending on the direction of the slope P.” See at least ¶ 57. “The value of the motor torque setpoint Cp is based on the data for the inclination or the angle of the slope P …. The motor torque setpoint Cp calculated in this way is applied to the electric motor in order to reduce, or even to suppress, the oscillations.” See at least ¶ 58. See also FIG. 8 which discloses that negative torque is provided because of positive stored slope.), and
wherein the control unit is configured, after the parking lock mechanism is switched to the parking lock state in process of parking the vehicle, to determine the direction of the gradient of the road surface, based on a change of a rotational angle of the electric motor or a change of a rotational angle of a wheel of the vehicle (See above mapping in relation to at least ¶¶ 52, 57, 58 and FIG. 8.).
The combination of Fontvieille, Weslati and Takuechi fails to explicitly disclose: determining the direction of the gradient of the road surface, based on a change of a rotational angle of the electric motor or a change of a rotational angle of a wheel of the vehicle, which are caused upon release of depression of a brake pedal of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Hada teaches: determining the direction of the gradient of the road surface upon release of depression of a brake pedal of the vehicle (“If the releasing rate of the brake pedal BP is detected, it is possible to determine considerably reliably whether the stopping place is on an up slope or a down slope.” See at least col. 18, ll. 51–55.).
Fontvieille discloses: a control unit for a vehicle comprising: (i) drive wheels, (ii) an electric motor and (iii) a parking lock mechanism, wherein the parking lock mechanism comprises: (iii-1) a parking gear and (iii-2) a lock tooth, wherein the lock tooth is actuatable to move; wherein upon a shift operation position being switched to a parking position, the lock tooth is moved to a meshing position to mesh with the parking gear whereby the parking lock mechanism is switched to a parking lock state in which rotation of the parking gear is inhibited by the lock tooth meshing with the parking gear; and wherein when the shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position, the electric motor outputs a torque acting in an opposite rotational direction to a direction of rotation of the drive wheels due to a gradient of a road surface, and to increase the torque outputted by the electric motor until rotation of the electric motor is enabled. Weslati teaches: an actuator configured to move the lock tooth. Takuechi teaches: when a shift operation position is switched from the parking position to another position in a state in which the vehicle is stopped, detecting rotation of an electric motor. Hada teaches: determining the direction of the gradient of the road surface upon release of depression of a brake pedal of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Fontvieille, Weslati and Takuechi to include the feature of: determining the direction of the gradient of the road surface upon release of depression of a brake pedal of the vehicle, as taught by Hada, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for ensuring that the determination of a direction of the gradient of the road surface is accurate as performing the measurement of the slope before release of the brake pedal may result in an inaccurate determination given the ordinary understanding that a vehicle may change pitch during braking.
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon pertains to Applicant’s disclosure.
Nagamori (US20150175032A1) discloses: increasing torque outputted by the electric motor until rotation of the electric motor is detected (“When rotational torque is applied to the front motor 9 in the opposite direction of the direction of the torsional torque applied to the drive shaft, balancing torque is estimated to be torque when the rotational phase of the front motor 9 starts to change.” Emphasis added; ¶ 37. “As illustrated in (c) of FIG. 3, at a time t12, the parking lock mechanism 21 is brought into a non-operation state, and the mechanical locking of the axle 6 is released. As illustrated in (f) of FIG. 3, the balancing torque Tq is applied to the front motor 9 during a time period (from a time t11 to a time t12) from when the parking lock mechanism 21 is brought into a non-operation state to when the mechanical locking of the axle 6 is released.” ¶ 59; FIG. 3. FIG. 3 further illustrates that at t12 in (e) the electric motor begins its movement, and subsequently at (f) the increase of torque is ceased.).
This action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668