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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 2- 14 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. R egarding claim 2, the phrase “the control unit reduces the reduction rate of the brake force against the vehicle as a vehicle body speed of the vehicle upon determination that the reduction in the operation amount has been started is smaller” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “as a vehicle body speed.” For example, it is unclear how the reduction rate is reduced “as a vehicle body speed.” Furthermore, it is unclear relative to which reference point that “is smaller” is determined. 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al. (US – 2004/0231951 A1) . As per claim 1 , Hasegawa discloses a device for controlling braking of a vehicle that controls a braking force against the vehicle due to an operation of a braking device ( see FIG. 4; ¶ 0024) comprising: a control unit ( 1030 ) that controls a braking force against the vehicle ( see ¶¶ 0024, 0101) in accordance with an operation amount of a braking operation member (2200) ( see ¶ 0024, 0085, 0101) ; and a braking determination unit (1020) that determines whether or not a reduction in the operation amount has been started when a braking force is applied to the vehicle due to an operation of the braking operation member ( see ¶¶ 0089, 0090) , wherein in a case where a reduction rate of the operation amount upon determination that the reduction in the operation amount has been started is equal to or larger than a reduction rate determination value, the control unit starts limitation processing of limiting a reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle ( see ¶¶ 0024, 0089, 0090; FIG. 5; ). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 2-14 would 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 include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art fails to disclose in the limitation processing, the control unit reduces the reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle as longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle increases (Claim 3), in the limitation processing, when it is determined that steering has been started or it is determined that steering has been predicted to be started, the control unit sets a period in which the reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle is made smaller than that before the determination is made, and after a lapse of the period, the control unit makes the reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle larger than that during the period (Claim 7), when the operation of the braking operation member is canceled during execution of the limitation processing, the control unit ends the limitation processing and executes fall back processing of making the reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle larger than that at the time of execution of the limitation processing (Claim 8), in the limitation processing, the control unit reduces the reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle as longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle increases (Claim 9) , when the operation of the braking operation member is canceled during execution of the limitation processing, the control unit ends the limitation processing and executes fall back processing of making the reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle larger than that at the time of execution of the limitation processing (Claim 12) and in the limitation processing, when it is determined that steering has been started or it is determined that steering has been predicted to be started, the control unit sets a period in which the reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle is made smaller than that before the determination is made, and after a lapse of the period, the control unit makes the reduction rate of the braking force against the vehicle larger than that during the period (Claim 14). Claims 4-6 depend on claim 3 , claim 13 depends on claim 12 and claims 10-11 depend on claim 9. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A: TSUJI et al. (US – 2020/0307642 A1), B: SASADE et al. (US – 2020/0070852 A1), C: Niibo et al. (US – 2019/0384305 A1) and D; Ohta et al. (US – 2018/0319397 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5792 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Robert Siconolfi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /SAN M AUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616 /NICHOLAS J LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616