DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 11/17/2025 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 11-17, 19 and 20 are pending in the application. Claims 18, 21 and 22 are cancelled.
-Applicant’s arguments that “Insofar as these paragraphs mention (cited in examiner’s office action) any wheel drive force at all, they describe a wheel drive force in the form of a braking force, which contrary to the claim decreases wheel speed, not increases it. Therefore, nothing disclosed in these paragraphs from Hanchett satisfies the claim limitation "wherein the wheel drive force is exerted to increase the wheel speed to a speed that is no greater than a longitudinal speed of the vehicle." have been fully considered. While the examiner believes that Hanchett describing that the traction motor braking force can be used to accelerate vehicle wheel ([0026], lines 7-11 and [0068], lines 1-2) and it’s obvious that this acceleration can be used (in combination with friction braking force) to maintain linear wheel speed no greater than vehicle speed based on what is described in paragraphs [0069]-[0070], Hanchett doesn’t explicitly describe that traction motor braking force is exerted to increase wheel speed as recited. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment to claims 11 and 20.
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 11-17, 19 and 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.
-Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the wheel drive force is exerted to increase the wheel speed to a speed that is no greater than a longitudinal speed of the vehicle.” It is unclear as to what is determining when wheel drive force should be “exerted” to increase wheel speed, i.e. ABS controller, control unit and/or central computer, etc. Examiner suggest applicant amend claims 11 and 20 to recite the actual controllers used for performing the method/function limitations as recited to avoid any ambiguity as to how the limitations perform the support of anti-lock braking, i.e., “ascertaining, by an anti-lock braking system controller (or control unit), a presence of a locked or nearly locked wheel of the motor vehicle;….”.
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) 11, 14-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanchett et al 20220355671 (previously cited) in view of JP 2006333665 (with machine translation). As to claim 11, Hanchett discloses a method for supporting an anti-lock braking system in a motor vehicle, comprising: ascertaining a presence of a locked or nearly locked wheel of the motor vehicle (via 230, [0005], [0018], [0031]); and exerting, based on a locked or nearly locked wheel being present, a wheel drive force on the wheel in a targeted manner (Figure 8, via 222 between T1 and T2; [0068]), wherein the wheel drive force is exerted until a wheel speed (which is described as zero in [0070], last line) has reached a specified threshold value (wheel linear speed threshold within vehicle speed; [0069] describes that linear speed of wheel is a threshold amount of 0.1-5% greater or less than vehicle speed wherein if a wheel lock linear speed is determined to be zero, then it would be obvious that via drive force input via 222, the wheel linear speed would increase from zero to unlock wheel) in order so that the wheel reaches a range of static friction (up to 0.9 as shown in Figure 8) and can thereby transmit more braking force to a roadway (increase coefficient of friction as described in [0049]). However, Hanchett doesn’t explicitly disclose the wheel drive force is exerted to increase the wheel speed to a speed that is no greater than a longitudinal speed of the vehicle in response to the locked or nearly locked wheel being present.
JP discloses a method for supporting an anti-lock braking system in a motor vehicle, comprising: ascertaining a presence of a locked or nearly locked wheel of the motor vehicle (page 3, lines 31-35 in translation); and exerting, based on a locked or nearly locked wheel being present, a wheel drive force on the wheel in a targeted manner (page 3, lines 46-50) and shows that it is well known in the art to have the wheel drive force exerted to increase the wheel speed to a speed that is no greater than a speed of the vehicle (estimated vehicle speed) in response to the locked or nearly locked wheel being present (page 6, lines 24-30 and page 7, lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the traction motor braking force in Hanchett exerted to increase wheel speed no greater than longitudinal vehicle speed in view of JP when wheel lock is ascertained to avoid wheel speed recovery delay in locked state during ABS operation which improves stability and brake performance during operation of vehicle.
As to claim 14, Hanchett in view of JP discloses wherein the wheel drive force is exerted via a wheel drive motor (220 in Hanchett and 5 or 7 in JP) assigned to the locked or nearly locked wheel.
As to claim 15, Hanchett in view of JP discloses wherein a drive motor of the wheel is an electric motor (220 in Hanchett and 5 or 7 in JP).
As to claim 16, Hanchett discloses wherein, for each respective driven wheel of the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle has a wheel drive motor assigned to the respective driven wheel (as shown in Figure 1).
As to claim 19, Hanchett in view of JP discloses wherein the wheel drive force is exerted until a wheel speed has reached a value of the longitudinal speed of the motor vehicle ([0068]-[0070] describes that it is well known in the art to have wheel speed controlled via 222 to correspond to vehicle speed and estimated vehicle speed in JP, page 6, lines 24-30 and page 7, lines 29-33).
As to claim 20, Hanchett discloses a device configured to support an anti-lock braking system in a motor vehicle, the device configured to: ascertain a presence of a locked or nearly locked wheel of the motor vehicle (via 230, [0005], [0018], [0031]); and exert, based on a locked or nearly locked wheel being present, a wheel drive force on the wheel in a targeted manner (Figure 8, via 222 between T1 and T2; [0068]), wherein the wheel drive force is exerted until a wheel speed (which is described as zero in [0070], last line) has reached a specified threshold value (wheel linear speed threshold within vehicle speed; [0069] describes that linear speed of wheel is a threshold amount of 0.1-5% greater or less than vehicle speed wherein if a wheel lock linear speed is determined to be zero, then it would be obvious that via drive force input via 222, the wheel linear speed would increase from zero to unlock wheel) in order so that the wheel reaches a range of static friction (up to 0.9 as shown in Figure 8) and can thereby transmit more braking force to a roadway (increase coefficient of friction as described in [0049]). However, Hanchett doesn’t explicitly disclose the wheel drive force is exerted to increase the wheel speed to a speed that is no greater than a longitudinal speed of the vehicle in response to the locked or nearly locked wheel being present.
JP discloses a method for supporting an anti-lock braking system in a motor vehicle, comprising: ascertaining a presence of a locked or nearly locked wheel of the motor vehicle (page 3, lines 31-35 in translation); and exerting, based on a locked or nearly locked wheel being present, a wheel drive force on the wheel in a targeted manner (page 3, lines 46-50) and shows that it is well known in the art to have the wheel drive force exerted to increase the wheel speed to a speed that is no greater than a speed of the vehicle (estimated vehicle speed) in response to the locked or nearly locked wheel being present (page 6, lines 24-30 and page 7, lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the traction motor braking force in Hanchett exerted to increase wheel speed no greater than longitudinal vehicle speed in view of JP when wheel lock is ascertained to avoid wheel speed recovery delay in locked state during ABS operation which improves stability and brake performance during operation of vehicle.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanchett in view of JP as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Hommi 20060185914 (previously cited). Hanchett in view of JP disclose detecting the presence of wheel lock based on a difference between a current wheel speed and a longitudinal speed of vehicle ([0034] in Hanchett), however does not disclose comparing the difference to a specified threshold value as recited.
Hommi discloses a method for supporting an antilock braking system in a motor vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to determine a wheel lock presence (Figure 12, via S332) based on a current wheel speed and vehicle speed difference exceeding a specified threshold value (via S328) in which the threshold would be slightly lower than the speed of vehicle if locking or nearly locking is determined to be occurring.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a threshold value to further filter out the difference between the wheel speed and vehicle speed in Hanchett in view of JP for determining presence of wheel lock further in view of Hommi to obtain accurate wheel lock determination in case of unknown error in difference determination between wheel speed and vehicle speed (i.e., wheel speed determination may not be accurate if inputs used for determination are incorrect).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanchett in view of JP as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Okumura 20210122341 (previously cited). Hanchett in view of JP discloses ascertaining a presence of a locked or nearly locked wheel of the motor vehicle (via 230, [0005], [0018], [0031] in Hanchett and page 3, lines 31-35 in JP), but doesn’t disclose wherein, in the event that the ascertaining occurs for a wheel on an axle having a transverse differential, the wheel drive force is exerted by braking a wheel opposite the locked or nearly locked wheel. Note: the examiner is interpreting that the phrase “in the event that” as indicating that the present invention’s transverse differential is an additional embodiment.
Okumura discloses a method for supporting an anti-lock braking system in a motor vehicle, comprising: ascertaining a presence of a locked or nearly locked wheel of the motor vehicle (Figure 4, via S1, [(0035]); and shows that it is well known in the art to, in the event that the locked or nearly locked wheel is on a wheel axle having a transverse differential (4), the wheel drive force is exerted by braking a wheel opposite the locked or nearly locked wheel (via S5, [0046)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hanchett in view of JP with a braking drive force to a wheel opposite the locked wheel in the event that Hanchett in view of JP would have a transverse differential further in view of Okumura to avoid negatively interfering/impacting differential operation to wheels while controlling the wheel locking operation to maintain operating efficiency of differential and anti-lock braking system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
-In particular, applicant admitting that the previous limitations recited in cancelled claims 21 and 22 were “modified” to be amended to claims 11 and 20 (i.e., changing scope of limitation with addition of “the wheel drive force is exerted to increase…….” which wasn’t previously recited in claims 21 and 22.
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 TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 February 20, 2026