DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-11, 14, 15, 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,284. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 include all the limitations of the Patent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terada et al. (WO 2020158585 A1).
Re claims 1 and 10, Terada et al. disclose a system for controlling vehicle braking, comprising: a braking system (1) included in a vehicle and including a primary brake controller (6), a secondary brake controller (11), a primary vehicle control unit (VCU) (3), and a secondary VCU (8), the braking system configured to operate brakes by generating multiple sets of commands based on different combinations of the primary brake controller, the secondary brake controller, the primary VCU, and the secondary VCU; and a processor (Translation - Page 2, 3rd Paragraph “CPU”) configured to operate the braking system based on one of the multiple sets of commands.
Re claims 2, 10 and 20, Terada et al. disclose wherein the processor is further configured to select, based on an arbitration logic, the one of the multiple sets of commands. See arbitration control unit 3C, Translation - Page 5, 2nd Paragraph.
Re claim 3, Terada et al. disclose wherein at least one of the primary VCU (3) or the secondary VCU (8) include multiple processors (3A, 3C, 8A, 8C).
Re claims 4 and 11, Terada et al. disclose wherein the multiple sets of commands are generated by the different combinations including i) one of the primary brake controller (6) and the secondary brake controller (11) and ii) one of the primary VCU (3) and the secondary VCU (8).
Re claims 5 and 12, Terada et al. disclose wherein the multiple sets of commands include:
a first set of commands generated by a primary brake controller (6) and a primary vehicle control unit (VCU) (3) comprising multiple processors ((3A, 3C), (Translation – Pg. 9, 5th Par.)
a second set of commands generated by the primary VCU (3) and a secondary brake controller (11), (Translation – Pg. 5, 3rd Par.)
a third set of commands generated by the primary brake controller (6) and a secondary VCU (8) comprising multiple processors (8A, 8C), (Translation – Pg. 4, 6th Par.)
and a fourth set of commands generated by the secondary VCU (8) and the secondary brake controller (11). (Translation – Pg. 14, 5th Par. – Pg. 15, 1st Par.)
Re claim 6, Terada et al. disclose wherein the primary VCU (3) and the secondary VCU (8) are coupled using a first communication protocol (31), and wherein the primary brake controller (6) and the secondary brake controller (11) are coupled using a second communication protocol (12).
Re claims 13 and 19, Terada et al. disclose wherein the arbitration logic selects the one of the multiple sets of commands based on an indication of a failure in the primary VCU, the secondary VCU, the primary brake controller, or the secondary brake controller. (Translation – Pg. 4, 6th Par.)
Re claim 14, Terada et al. disclose wherein detecting the failure in the primary VCU; and configuring, based on the detecting, the arbitration logic to select either the third set of commands or the fourth set of commands. (Translation – Pg. 4, 6th Par.)
Re claim 15, Terada et al. disclose wherein computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereupon, the instructions, upon execution by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to implement a method comprising: operating brakes included in a vehicle by generating multiple sets of commands based on different combinations of two of a primary brake controller (6), a secondary brake controller (11), a primary VCU (3), or a secondary VCU (8); and wherein at least one of the multiple sets of commands is generated further based on an output of at least one sensor (7, “wheel speed sensor” – not shown) coupled to the primary brake controller or the secondary brake controller. (Translation – Pg. 4, 4th Par.)
Re claim 16, Terada et al. disclose wherein the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of passive wheel speed sensors coupled to the primary brake controller. (Translation – Pg. 4, 4th Par.)
Re claim 17, Terada et al. disclose wherein the at least one sensor comprises a steering angle sensor, a yaw rate sensor, and a plurality of passive wheel speed sensors coupled to the secondary brake controller. (Translation – Pg. 4, 4th Par.)
Re claim 18, Terada et al. disclose wherein the at least one sensor comprises a radar unit or a camera module coupled to the secondary brake controller. (Translation – Pg. 2, 4th Par.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henriques et al. teach a similar system for controlling vehicle braking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTW
April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights