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 § 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 2 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. Examiner is unsure as to what “than a normal state” means in the claim, the claim is indefinite due to the lack of explanation as to what exactly the control unit is doing or is increasing the magnitude of the constraint is” the normal state”, is the control unit increasing the constraining in the normal state or is the normal state being described as predetermined input. The claims seems to be missing a phrase or words to define what the normal state is and to explain what the control unit is doing by increasing the constraining.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno (US 2014/0088833) in view of Burt (US 10160316). Regarding claim 1, Matsuno discloses a vehicle behavior control device provided in a vehicle, the vehicle comprising:
a front and rear wheel differential rotation constraining member (15) configured to constrain differential rotation between a front wheel driving force transmission mechanism (11) configured to transmit a driving force to front wheels (14fl,14fr) and a rear wheel driving force transmission mechanism (7) configured to transmit a driving force to rear wheels (14rr,14rl)—{{additionally see Para. 0018,0019}}--
the vehicle behavior control device comprising: a front and rear wheel differential rotation constraining control unit (30) configured to increase a constraining force of the front and rear wheel differential rotation constraining member in response to occurrence of a pitching behavior of the vehicle body (see Par. 0032 to 0034,0019 and 0066).
Matsuno does not mention a suspension device, however, Burt discloses a suspension device (Col. 5, line 28) supporting a wheel (12-15) so as to allow a stroke in a bound direction and a rebound direction with respect to a vehicle body (as suspensions are built to support a stroke from a bump on the road and rebound or reset back), and having a geometry in which a center of the wheel is displaced in a direction in which a wheelbase stretches and contracts due to the stroke (wherein suspension work in such a way that when the vehicle hits a bump, the wheel retracts upwards and towards the rear of the vehicle and then it retracts to the original position before hitting said bump. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsuno by adding a suspension such as the one disclosed by Burt, in order to produce a vehicle that is able to safely ride with comfort and is able to steer comfortably and is able to utilize the drive system: additionally, the combination of Matsuno and Burt can be seen as the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way or, as a way to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matsuno and Burt do not mention “when the straight traveling state is not determined, the front and rear wheel differential rotation constraining control unit sets a turning constraining force depending on a turning state of the vehicle”.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-6 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 4, The art of record did not include a vehicle behavior control device comprising “ a braking and driving force difference output member configured to output a braking and driving force difference between the front wheels and the rear wheels depending on a pitching behavior of the vehicle body”, wherein “pitching behavior on a vehicle body refers to the rotational motion around the transverse axis, which can occur during acceleration and braking”.
Since the prior art such as Matsuno (US 2014/0088833) teaches a vehicle control device that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611