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 office action is in response to application number 18/420,194 filed on 01/23/2024, in which the amendments and arguments filed on 10/10/2025.
No claims has been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No.JP2023-011006, filed on 01/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 01/23/2024 has been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. For purpose of examination the first and second controller used in DU (WO 2020135470 A1) are flipped, and the numbers are non-limiting. Therefore, Examiner is using the first controller as the second controller and the second controller as the first controller in DU (WO 2020135470 A1). See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome the rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/11/2025. Applicants arguments, see page 2-7 filed on 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1-5 under USC 103 is persuasive. Therefore, a new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 102 as necessitated by amendment as being clearly anticipated by DU (WO 2020135470 A1). Also a new grounds for rejection under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment being unpatentable over Du (WO 2020135470 A1) in view of (Zhou (CN 104301243 A) and in view of Tarandek (US 20220194339 A1).
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by DU (WO 2020135470 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses A control device for a vehicle, the control device comprising: a first controller; (Du Paragraph 0021: “The vehicle may include a first group of components, a second group of components, a control assembly configured to control the vehicle. The control assembly may include a first controller mounted on a front part of the vehicle and configured to communicate with at least one component of the first group of components. The control assembly may include a second controller mounted on a rear part of the vehicle and configured to communicate with at least one component of the second group of components.”) (Du Paragraph 0061: “In some embodiments, the vehicle 100 may include an electric car,”) and a second controller controlled by the first controller (Du Paragraph 0113: “In some embodiments, the first controller 551 may be used as a master controller, while the second controller 552 may be used as a slave controller.”) (Note: The master controller controls the slave controller) wherein the first controller is configured to transmit information used for first processing necessary for travel control of the vehicle to the second controller, (Du Paragraph 0113: “The first controller 551 may generate an instruction and transmit the instruction to the second controller 552 to unlock the lock 5545 and/or activate the motor 5541.”) the second controller is configured to perform the first processing based on the information received from the first controller, and transmit a result of the first processing to the first controller, (Du Paragraph 0113: “As another example, the second controller 552 may control the charging or discharging of the power source 5542 based on the instruction of the first controller 551.In some embodiments, the second controller 552 may receive feedback information and/or signal (s) form at least one component of the second group of components 554, and transmit the feedback information and/or signal (s) to the first controller 551”) and the first controller is configured to perform travel control of the vehicle based on the result received from the second controller. (Du Paragraph 0027: “The method may further include controlling a first component of the vehicle operably coupled to the second controller by the second controller based on the instruction.”)
Regarding claim 3, Du discloses The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the second controller includes a first device connected to the first controller, and a second device connected to the first device (Du Paragraph 0121: “As shown in FIG. 6, a carrier device 6101 may be disposed in the first controller 610, and/or a carrier device 6201 may be disposed in the second controller 620. In some embodiments, the first controller 610, the second controller 620, and components of the vehicle (e.g., other in-vehicle devices) may be equipped with a respective carrier device.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
401
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Du discloses The control device for a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the first controller and the second controller is configured to operate with electric power from a first battery mounted on the vehicle. (Du Paragraph 0141: “For example, the first controller may receive a communication signal (indicating an electrical quantity) sent from the second controller and a power signal sent from the battery.”) (Du Paragraph 0147: “For example, the second controller may obtain electric power from the battery.”)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Du (WO 2020135470 A1) in view of (Zhou (CN 104301243 A).
Regarding claim 2, Du discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Du does not disclose The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the information to the second controller when a processing load of the first controller exceeds a threshold.
However, Zhou does teach The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the information to the second controller when a processing load of the first controller exceeds a threshold. (Zhou Paragraph 0057: "As can be seen, when the load ratio of the first controller exceeds the predetermined threshold value, if the load ratio of the second controller is less than the load ratio of the first controller, the first controller may transmit own current partial load transfer to the second controller, to reduce the processing load of the first controller, the first controller can automatically adjust its load when the load is too large, and the reliability is improved.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Du to include The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the information to the second controller when a processing load of the first controller exceeds a threshold taught by Zhou. This would have been for the benefit to provide a load control method and device, the controller itself has function of judging whether to load transfer and improves the reliability. [Zhou Paragraph 0005]
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Du (WO 2020135470 A1) in view of (US 20220194339 A1) to Tarandek et al. (hereinafter Tarandek).
Regarding claim 5, Du discloses claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Du does not disclose The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is equipped with a first battery and a second battery, the first controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, and a device operating with electric power from the second battery, and the second controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, and a device operating with electric power from the second battery.
However, Tarandek teaches The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is equipped with a first battery and a second battery, the first controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, (Tarandek Paragraph 0166: “However, the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 are not limited to receiving power from different batteries B1, B2, and the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 may receive power from the same battery through different power lines.”) and a device operating with electric power from the second battery, (Tarandek Paragraph 0166: “However, the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 are not limited to receiving power from different batteries B1, B2, and the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 may receive power from the same battery through different power lines.”)
and the second controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, (Tarandek Paragraph 0046: “The main device 100 may receive power from the first battery B1 through the first power line, and the auxiliary device 200 may receive power from the first battery B1 through the second power line.”) (Tarandek Paragraph 0166: “However, the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 are not limited to receiving power from different batteries B1, B2, and the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 may receive power from the same battery through different power lines.”) and a device operating with electric power from the second battery.
PNG
media_image2.png
533
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Du to include The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is equipped with a first battery and a second battery, the first controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, and a device operating with electric power from the second battery, and the second controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, and a device operating with electric power from the second battery taught by Tarandek. This would have been for the benefit to provide an electric brake system including an auxiliary device capable of auxiliary generating the hydraulic pressure required for braking when a main device fails or is out of control. [Tarandek Paragraph 0005]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664