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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the replacement drawing sheets are accepted by the examiner.
Second, the previous claim objections are overcome by applicant’s amendments; however, a new claim objection is made herein.
Third, the claim amendments substantially overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); however, new rejections in this respect are made herein based on the claim amendments, with the examiner making suggestions below for overcoming the indefiniteness rejections of the independent claims. (The examiner is unable to make any suggestion for overcoming the previous/current issues in claim 18.)
In this respect, that the examiner, upon reconsideration, finds the language in amended claim 4 to be clear and definite. With regard to amended claim 8, the examiner understands that the “vehicle speed according to the braking command” may be the current vehicle speed (filed specification paragraph [0110]).
Fourth, the applicant’s amendments (including controlling of the motor) and arguments overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, which are withdrawn.
Fifth, applicant’s claim amendments overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, which is withdrawn, e.g., for the reasons asserted by applicant concerning the applied prior art.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 23 December 2025. These drawings1 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because in line 3, it appears that “a motor performing regenerative braking; and” should instead read, “a motor configured to perform
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 13, lines 4ff, “a acceleration position sensor” should read, “an acceleration position sensor” for grammatical correctness.
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 1, 3 to 6, 8, 9, 11 to 14, and 16 to 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.
In claim 1, line 8, and in claim 20, line 6, due to the amendment deleting the relationship, “a first threshold value” is now indefinite without any metes and bounds to restrict it (e.g., a first threshold value of what, particularly?), and could be changed to, “a first threshold value of the brake pedal input value and” or “a first threshold value related to the brake pedal input value and”, if such be applicant’s intent.
In claim 18, lines 1ff, “wherein the controller does not enter the operation standby state based on an activation request for the virtual brake signal-based control being not inputted or a failure signal” is indefinite and cannot be understood by the examiner and apparently contradicts the specification at filed paragraphs [0116] and [0117], with “the virtual brake signal-based control” (e.g., not the virtual brake signal-based control condition or the virtual brake signal of claim 1) also having insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3 to 6, 8, 9, 11 to 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 would apparently 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 overcome the claim objections. (The examiner has suggested above language for overcoming both the indefiniteness rejections of the independent claims and the claim objections. Since the examiner does not understand claim 18 and believes it may contradict the specification, the examiner makes no statement regarding possible allowability of claim 18 at this time.)
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 David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 Correcting, in FIG. 4 at S409 a less than symbol to be a greater than symbol, per filed
paragraph [0122 ] in the specification.