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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/14/25 has been entered.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US PG Pub No. 2019/0276025) in view of Byeon (US PG Pub No. 2022/0258704)
Regarding claim 1, Asano teaches A method for controlling a vehicle comprising:
detecting whether the vehicle rolls, (figure 4 paragraph 60 rollback detection see speed chart. S100 figure 5 rollback detected?)
detecting to which direction the vehicle rolls, (figure 4 paragraph 60)
detecting the gear position of the vehicle, (figure 4 paragraph 60)
comparing the gear position of the vehicle and the direction, (figure 4 paragraph 60)
determining that the vehicle rolls to an incorrect direction depending on the detected gear position and depending on the detected direction, and (figure 4 paragraph 60; S100 figure 5 paragraph 73-74)
upon determining that the vehicle rolls to an incorrect direction, bringing the vehicle to standstill (S400 figure 5 paragraph 76 FD1 and FB1 requested force to stop vehicle).
Asano does not explicitly teach however Byeon teaches
Detecting direction the vehicle rolls is forward,
detecting a gear position of the vehicle is in reverse,
bringing the vehicle to standstill upon determining that the vehicle rolls to an incorrect direction (paragraph 26; when detected that driver opposite to direction of current gear state due to driver misjudgment; driver is warned and EPB is engagement is transmitted to transmission. S203 figure 2 and S210 figure 3 paragparh 45-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Asano based on the teachings of Byeon to teach Detecting direction the vehicle rolls is forward, detecting a gear position of the vehicle is in reverse, bringing the vehicle to standstill upon determining that the vehicle rolls to an incorrect direction. The motivation would be to reduce an accident (Byeon paragraph 26)
Regarding claim 2, Asano teaches wherein the detecting whether the vehicle rolls, comprises detecting a wheel speed of at least one wheel of the vehicle (paragraph 61 wheel speed sensor).
Regarding claim 3, Asano teaches wherein the detecting whether the vehicle rolls, comprises detecting a wheel speed of at least one wheel of the vehicle with a wheel speed sensor of the car (paragraph 61 wheel speed sensor).
Regarding claim 4, Asano teaches wherein the determining that the vehicle rolls to an incorrect direction comprises comparing the detected gear position and the detected direction, and determining that the vehicle rolls to an incorrect direction, if the detected gear position and the detected direction are different (paragraph 60 figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Asano teaches wherein the bringing the vehicle to standstill comprises activating one or more brakes of the vehicle (S400 figure 5 paragraph 76 FB1; paragraph 68 Fb1 is referred to as system braking force; system request braking force based on speed).
Regarding claim 6, Asano teaches wherein the bringing the vehicle to standstill comprises the vehicle increasing idle torque of the vehicle's engine (S500 figure 5 paragraph 76 Fd1 request driving force paragraph 76 paragraph 67 FD1 is driving force for roll back suppression).
Regarding claim 7, Asano teaches wherein the bringing the vehicle to standstill comprises the vehicle increasing the brake torque of at least one brake of the vehicle (FB1 S400 figure 5 paragraph 76 and 77 system brake torque FB1 paragraph 68 FB1 force to prevent roll back).
Regarding claim 8, Asano teaches wherein vehicle moving to an incorrect direction means the vehicle moving to a direction different to the direction indicated by the gear position of the vehicle (figure 4 paragraph 60 and 61).
Regarding claim 9, Asano teaches wherein the method is activated only or also, when a hill-start assist HSA not active) system is not active or is deactivated in the vehicle (figure 4 paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 10 and 13, See the rejection to claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Regarding claim 11-12, see the rejection to claim 7 and 6 as the limitations are substantially similar
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747