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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment of 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 11-19 are currently pending in the application.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOU (CN 112248818) in view of SUZUKI (WO 2012/070104, provided by Applicant on 03/19/2025 IDS; English language equivalent in EP 2 644 434).
Regarding claim 15, YOU discloses a control unit, comprising:
a processor (lines 282-284) configured to operate a brake-support system for an electric vehicle, the processor configured to:
determine a total braking torque required to brake the electric vehicle (required braking force, line 484);
determine a motor torque to be generated using an electric motor (power distribution coefficient, lines 489 and 495-496) of the electric vehicle, based on the total braking torque (required braking torque, line 489) and a maximum braking torque that can be generated using a brake system of the electric vehicle (lines 489-490); and
generate a control command for controlling the electric motor so that the motor torque is generated together with the friction braking torque (line 618).
YOU discloses generating control commands for controlling the motor torque with the friction braking torque (lines 618-619) to increase driving range (i.a. line 371) but fails to explicitly disclose generating the control command for controlling the motor torque including when the maximum braking torque is generated.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the control command for controlling the motor torque in YOU including when the maximum braking torque is generated to increase driving range of the electric vehicle. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in generating the motor control command including when the maximum braking torque is generated (n.b. exemplary language, i.a. throughout pg. 4 lines 19-27).
YOU discloses the control unit applied to an electric vehicle (line 27) but does not disclose the electric vehicle is an electric motorcycle.
SUZUKI teaches an electric motorcycle (col. 1 lines 5-6) having both regenerative braking (col. 1 lines 54-56) and mechanical braking (col. 9 lines 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the control unit of YOU to an electric motorcycle as taught by SUZUKI to increase the driving range.
Regarding claim 19, YOU discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (line 282) on which is stored a computer program for operating a brake-support system for an electric vehicle, the computer program, when executed by a processor (line 284), causing the processor to perform the following steps:
determining a total braking torque required to brake the electric vehicle (required braking force, line 484);
determining a motor torque to be generated using an electric motor (power distribution coefficient, lines 489 and 495-496) of the electric vehicle, based on the total braking torque (required braking torque, line 489) and a maximum braking torque that can be generated using a brake system of the electric vehicle (lines 489-490); and
generating, when the maximum braking torque is generated, a control command for controlling the electric motor so that the motor torque is generated together with the maximum braking torque (line 618).
YOU discloses generating control commands for controlling the motor torque with the friction braking torque (lines 618-619) to increase driving range (i.a. line 371) but fails to explicitly disclose generating the control command for controlling the motor torque including when the maximum braking torque is generated.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the control command for controlling the motor torque in YOU including when the maximum braking torque is generated to increase driving range of the electric vehicle. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in generating the motor control command including when the maximum braking torque is generated (n.b. exemplary language, i.a. throughout pg. 4 lines 19-27).
YOU discloses the brake-support system applied to an electric vehicle (line 27) but does not disclose the electric vehicle is an electric motorcycle.
SUZUKI teaches an electric motorcycle (col. 1 lines 5-6) having both regenerative braking (col. 1 lines 54-56) and mechanical braking (col. 9 lines 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the brake-support system of YOU to an electric motorcycle as taught by SUZUKI to increase the driving range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 16-18 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
YOU (CN 112248818) in view of SUZUKI (WO 2012/070104, provided by Applicant on 03/19/2025 IDS; English language equivalent in EP 2 644 434) are the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11, YOU discloses a method for operating a brake-support system for an electric vehicle, the method comprising:
determining a total braking torque required to brake the electric vehicle (required braking force, line 484);
determining a motor torque to be generated using an electric motor (power distribution coefficient, lines 489 and 495-496) of the electric vehicle, based on the total braking torque (required braking torque, line 489) and a maximum braking torque that can be generated using a brake system (lines 489-490) of the electric vehicle; and
generating a control command for controlling the electric motor so that the motor torque is generated together with the friction braking torque (line 618).
SUZUKI teaches an electric motorcycle (col. 1 lines 5-6) having both regenerative braking (col. 1 lines 54-56) and mechanical braking (col. 9 lines 40-41).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “generating a control command for controlling the electric motor in response to the brake system generating a maximum braking torque, such that the motor torque is generated in addition to the maximum braking torque” in the manner defined in claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, YOU discloses a brake-support system for an electric vehicle, wherein the brake-support system comprises:
an electric motor (i.a. line 34) for accelerating and/or braking the electric vehicle (implied by “electric vehicle”, i.a. line 27); and
a control unit (lines 288-289), including:
a processor (lines 282-284) configured to operate the brake-support system, the processor configured to:
determine a total braking torque required to brake the electric vehicle (required braking force, line 484);
determine a motor torque to be generated using the electric motor (power distribution coefficient, lines 489 and 495-496) of the electric vehicle, based on the total braking torque (required braking torque, line 489) and a maximum braking torque that can be generated using a brake system of the electric vehicle (lines 489-490); and
generate a control command for controlling the electric motor so that the motor torque is generated together with the friction braking torque (line 618).
SUZUKI teaches an electric motorcycle (col. 1 lines 5-6) having both regenerative braking (col. 1 lines 54-56) and mechanical braking (col. 9 lines 40-41).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claim limitation “generate a control command for controlling the electric motor in response to the brake system generating a maximum braking torque, such that the motor torque is generated in addition to the maximum braking torque” in the manner defined in claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 01/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments on pg. 5 regarding claims 15 and 19 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive because the claims have not been amended in the manner stated.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747