DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-8, 10, and 11-13 remain pending.
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 Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 12/08/2025. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
To begin, the Applicant argues that the claims recite limitations that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the Applicant contends that the claimed correction of a control command based on a physical quantity relating to the behavior of the vehicle under a state in which friction braking force is being generated sufficiently limits the claim to anti-jerk vehicle control. Applicant further argues that this correction improves smoothness when the vehicle stops, reduces front-rear jerk, and therefore is analogous to the practical application. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184, 187 (1981).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner continues to find that the claim does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because the claim remains directed to acquiring information, namely a physical quantity relating to vehicle behavior, and then using that information to correct a control command. Stated differently, the claim simply inputs information and, based on that information, adjusts an output command, which is similar to Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., where information is collected, analyzed, and then used as a result of that analysis. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited vehicle components, braking state, and driving device merely provide a technological environment for performing that data-based correction and do not impose a meaningful limit that physically transforms the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. The Examiner suggests amending the claim such that the correction is a physical attribute, such as, “correct, based on the physical quantity relating to the behavior of the vehicle, a command to generate the driving force by the driving device under a state in which the friction braking force is being generated.”
Moreover, the Applicant argues that Nakatsu and Sawada fail to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of acquiring a physical quantity relating to a behavior of the vehicle at a time when the vehicle speed falls below a predetermined speed when the vehicle is to be decelerated based on the target braking force. Applicant acknowledges that Nakatsu teaches control for distributing and adjusting friction braking force and regenerative braking force based on the target braking force, and that Sawada teaches estimating disturbance torque and correcting brake torque, but contends that neither reference teaches the claimed anti-jerk control in which driving force is generated by the driving device while friction braking force is being generated. Applicant therefore concludes that the cited prior art fails to teach the claimed limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sawada teaches operation when “the accelerator operation amount is equal to or less than the predetermined value” and further explains that this occurs when the vehicle travels at a sufficiently low speed, “for example, a speed of 15 km/h or less,” just before stop (Sawada, Paragraph 0100). Sawada also teaches that, under those conditions, “the motor torque command value converges to the corrected disturbance torque estimated value in conjunction with the reduction of the rotation speed of the motor” (Sawada, Paragraph 0099). Further, Sawada teaches detecting or estimating resistance information “from the vehicle state,” including “the braking amount, the air resistance, the rolling resistance, and the turning resistance,” which are physical quantities relating to vehicle behavior (Sawada, Paragraph 0099). Sawada additionally teaches that “even if the braking force other than the regenerative braking by the motor is applied to the vehicle, the braking amount can be canceled from the disturbance torque estimated value,” which shows correction while friction braking is being generated (Sawada, Paragraph 0101). Sawada further teaches that “the brake operation amount by the driver is detected,” and that correction may be based on values detected by “a brake fluid pressure sensor, a brake pedal stroke sensor, or a similar device,” or alternatively on “the command value regarding the brake operation” (Sawada, Paragraphs 0102-0103). Thus, the Examiner finds Sawada teaches acquiring a physical quantity relating to vehicle behavior at low speed during deceleration and using that information to correct the motor control command while friction braking is being generated, which does help in avoiding anti-jerking of the vehicle (Sawada, Paragraphs 0099-0103).
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a speed acquisition unit configured to acquire a speed of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 11.
“a target braking force calculation unit configured to obtain a target braking force,” as recited in claim 11.
“a vehicle behavior acquisition unit configured to acquire a jerk and an acceleration of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 11.
“a driving force calculation unit configured to obtain a driving force,” as recited in claim 11.
“a determination unit configured to determine that an actual braking force is larger than the target braking force,” as recited in claim 11.
“a driving force correction unit configured to correct the driving force toward a direction,” as recited in claim 11.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.1 Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1, 12, and 13:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 are directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Each of the independent claims is directed to acquiring certain physical quantities and using that information to modify a control command. Specifically, claim 1 recites “acquire a physical quantity relating to a speed of the vehicle,” “acquire a physical quantity relating to a target braking force required to decelerate the vehicle,” “acquire a physical quantity relating to a behavior of the vehicle,” and “correct...a control command.” Similarly, claims 12 and 13 include comparable language, reciting steps for acquiring physical quantities relating to speed, braking force, and behavior, and then modifying a control command based on that acquired data.
The claim language is focused entirely on collecting data, evaluating said data, and generating an output based on that evaluation. The analysis performed by the control unit (i.e., determining how to adjust the control command based on the acquired information) constitutes a form of logical reasoning or decision-making that can be carried out mentally or with basic tools. Such reasoning does not require any specific machine or transformation and instead reflects a mental process, which is a recognized category of judicial exception under the guidance of MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Moreover, the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., found claims ineligible when the focus was on “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results.” Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similar to Electric Power Group, the present claims recite no more than acquiring information (vehicle speed, braking force, vehicle behavior), evaluating it, and then issuing a modified output command. These steps can all be conceptualized in the human mind or performed using pen and paper, and thus fall squarely within the mental process category. Id.
Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 13 each recite a judicial exception in the form of a mental process involving data acquisition, evaluation, and decision-making.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 recite, in general, generic components (i.e., a control unit (or control device), a friction braking device, and a driving device). The Examiner finds these elements are recited at a high level of generality, without any technological improvement to their structure or operation. Thus, these components merely invoke said tools to perform abstract ideas, namely, acquiring data, analyzing that data, and modifying a control command based on the result of the analysis.
For example, claim 1 recites that the control unit acquires various physical quantities (e.g., speed, target braking force, and vehicle behavior) and issues a corrected control command during braking. However, the claim does not improve the operation of the control unit itself, nor does it provide a specific technological solution for how to generate the control command in a manner different from conventional vehicle control systems. The friction braking device and the driving device are not modified or improved (i.e., they are simply the context in which the abstract processing occurs).
Similarly, claims 12 and 13 limit the behavior acquisition to when the vehicle’s speed falls below a predetermined threshold. However, this condition is a conventional decision rule that does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract process. Merely triggering data evaluation based on a threshold condition is a common and well-understood control technique. It does not transform the nature of the claim into a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claims also do not affect any meaningful transformation of a particular article or recite any interaction with a specialized machine in a way that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The control command that is “corrected” is not applied in any non-conventional or technological way beyond standard vehicle control. The claims are silent as to any improved braking behavior, control stability, safety, or any other measurable improvement in vehicle operation. There is no disclosed improvement to any computing technology or control architecture.
Thus, the additional elements (i.e., namely, the control device, friction braking device, and driving device) are merely generic components used in their conventional capacities. These elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract mental process and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(f). Accordingly, the claims fail Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Turning to the additional elements recited in the claims, there is no element, or combination of elements, that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of acquiring and evaluating vehicle-related data to generate a modified control command.
Claim 1, in general, recites a control unit that outputs a result based on input information, and specifically acquires a vehicle speed, a target braking force, and a vehicle behavior, then corrects a control command to the driving device during friction braking. However, the control unit is described generically and performs no more than routine data acquisition and adjustment of a control signal. The claim does not recite any novel hardware, specific algorithm, or unconventional control scheme that would constitute an inventive concept. The claimed functions (i.e., acquiring data, processing it, and outputting a control command) are well-known and commonly performed by control units in conventional vehicle systems.
Claim 12, in general, recites the same high-level control logic as a method, including the condition that vehicle behavior is acquired when speed falls below a predetermined threshold. However, conditioning data acquisition on a threshold value is a routine and conventional control practice, and does not add any meaningful limitation. The method steps are purely functional, lacking any technical implementation details or improvement to the operation of the vehicle systems. The method is implemented using generic vehicle components and a conventional control unit operating in its ordinary capacity.
Claim 13, in general, recites a system that includes a friction braking device, a driving device, and a control device. However, each of these components is recited in a conventional manner, with generic implementation and without structural modification. The control device performs the same abstract logic as described above, using standard input-output processing to adjust a command. The system, as a whole, reflects a routine application of control theory in an automotive context and does not introduce any inventive concept.
Moreover, when considered individually, none of the additional elements in the claims is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered in combination, the elements merely implement the abstract mental process using generic vehicle components and conventional control architecture. There is no particular arrangement, no novel interaction among the components, and no specific improvement to vehicle braking, control responsiveness, or computational performance. The claims are drafted at a high level of abstraction and lack any technical specificity that would indicate an unconventional solution or inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims fail to recite an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 13 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-8 and 10:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claim 1. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-8, 10, and 12-13 are not patent eligible.
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 1-5, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsu U.S. P.G. Publication 2016/0159225A1 (hereinafter, Nakatsu), in view of Sawada et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0043792 (hereinafter, Sawada).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakatsu describes a vehicle control device (ECU (50), Nakatsu, Figure 1), which is configured to be provided in a vehicle including a friction braking device (friction braking device (20), Nakatsu, Figure 1) configured to generate a friction braking force in the vehicle (braking device to generate a braking force in the vehicle, Nakatsu, Paragraph 0070 and Figure 1) and
-a driving device configured to generate a driving force in the vehicle (driving force (30) configured to generate a driving force for the vehicle, Nakatsu, Paragraph 0072 and Figure 1),
-the vehicle control device comprising a control unit configured to output a result of calculation based on input information (determining output calculation based in input information (S21-S30), Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0103-0118 and Figures 4-6), wherein the control unit is configured to:
-acquire a physical quantity relating to a speed of the vehicle (acquire speed of the vehicle, Nakatsu, Paragraph 0078);
-acquire a physical quantity relating to a target braking force required to decelerate the vehicle (acquire target braking force of the vehicle to decelerate the vehicle, Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0098-0105 and Figures 4-6);
…
Nakatsu does not specifically disclose the device to include acquir[ing] a physical quantity relating to a behavior of the vehicle at a time when the physical quantity relating to the speed of the vehicle falls below a predetermined speed when the vehicle is to be decelerated based on the physical quantity relating to the target braking force; and correct, based on the physical quantity relating to the behavior of the vehicle, a control command to be output in order to generate the driving force by the driving device under a state in which the friction braking force is being generated.
Sawada discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Sawada describes control when the vehicle is being decelerated and the vehicle speed falls below a predetermined low-speed threshold just before stop, such as 15 km/h or less (Sawada, Paragraphs 0099 and 0100). Sawada also teaches acquiring physical quantities relating to vehicle behavior, including vehicle state and motor rotation speed, and further acquiring braking related quantities, such as brake operation amount, brake pressure, brake pedal stroke, and/or a braking command value, to determine a brake torque estimated value (Sawada, Paragraphs 0099 and 0101-0107). Sawada further teaches that the motor is controlled based on a motor torque command value, and that this command value is corrected through correction of the disturbance torque estimated value based on the acquired vehicle behavior and braking-related quantities (Sawada, Paragraphs 0099 and 0101-0107). Therefore, the Examiner finds Sawada teaches correcting a control command to be output in order to generate driving force by the motor while a friction braking force (i.e., a braking force other than regenerative braking, is being generated) (Sawada, Paragraphs 0101-0107).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Nakatsu to include acquiring a physical quantity relating to a behavior of the vehicle at a time when the physical quantity relating to the speed of the vehicle falls below a predetermined speed when the vehicle is to be decelerated based on the physical quantity relating to the target braking force; and correct, based on the physical quantity relating to the behavior of the vehicle, a control command to be output in order to generate the driving force by the driving device under a state in which the friction braking force is being generated, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Sawada.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because attempting to reduce the disturbance torque of the vehicle reduces the vibration of jerk of the vehicle when decelerating (Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0003-0005).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakatsu, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Nakatsu does not specifically disclose the device to include that the physical quantity relating to the behavior of the vehicle is a jerk or an acceleration.
Sawada discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Sawada describes the physical quantity relating to a behavior of the vehicle being a jerk or an acceleration (Sawada, Paragraph 0099).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Nakatsu to include that the physical quantity relating to the behavior of the vehicle is a jerk or an acceleration, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Sawada.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because the physical quantity relating to the behavior of the vehicle being a jerk or an acceleration is the issues for which the invention is trying to reduce (Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0003-0005).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakatsu, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to correct the control command toward a direction for increasing the driving force … when the physical quantity relating to the speed of the vehicle falls below the predetermined speed is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value (change or update the control command (i.e., increase force on vehicle) when the speed of the vehicle speed falls, that is to mitigate the distribution characteristic of forces when the vehicle speed decreases, increase drive force, this mitigates vibration and jerk (e.g., unsprung vertical acceleration), Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0103-0118 and 0026 and Figures 4-6).
Nakatsu does not specifically disclose the device to include increasing the driving force based on a maximum value of the jerk when the maximum value of the jerk at the time.
Sawada discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Sawada describes the ability to increase the driving force to mitigate vibration of the vehicle (Sawada, Paragraph 0099).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Nakatsu to include increasing the driving force based on a maximum value of the jerk when the maximum value of the jerk at the time, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Sawada.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because attempting to reduce the disturbance torque of the vehicle reduces the vibration of jerk of the vehicle when decelerating (Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0003-0005).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakatsu, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured to increase a correction amount toward the direction for increasing the driving force as the maximum value of the jerk increases (increase the control command (i.e., increase a correction amount to increase the driving force) when it is determined that the jerk (i.e., unsprung vertical acceleration) will increase, Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0103-0118 and 0026 and Figures 4-6).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakatsu, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured to change a magnitude of the predetermined threshold value based on a magnitude of the target braking force (change the magnitude value (i.e., threshold) of the of the control command based on the magnitude of the target braking force, Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0103-0118 and Figures 4-6).
Regarding Claim 10, Nakatsu, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 9, wherein the control unit is configured to avoid the correction of the control command: when a deceleration of the vehicle at the time when the physical quantity relating to the speed of the vehicle falls below the predetermined speed is equal to or larger than a predetermined value of a deceleration; when a physical quantity relating to a stroke of a brake pedal at the time when the physical quantity relating to the speed of the vehicle falls below the predetermined speed of the vehicle fluctuates by a predetermined quantity or more; or when a steering amount at the time when the physical quantity relating to the speed falls below the predetermined speed is equal to or larger than a predetermined value of a steering amount (when the steering amount is above a threshold value and the speed of the vehicle is below a determined speed delay or avoid the correction control command, Nakatsu, Paragraphs 0033-0036).
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 The Examiner finds independent claim 11 contained a practical application (i.e., “a driving force correction unit configured to correct the driving force toward a direction for increasing the driving force.”). Therefore, the Examiner did not include Claim 11 in the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis.