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 § 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foerster (US 2020/0172072).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Foerster discloses a device for preventing a parked vehicle from rolling away, the vehicle comprising an electric motor for driving the vehicle (see [0006] [0020]), the device comprising: a blocking device activated by electronic actuation for immobilizing a movement of the vehicle (see [0007] [0017] [0043]), the blocking device comprising at least of a parking lock or a parking brake; a determination device configured to determine whether the vehicle is moving (see [0035] [0040]), the determination device comprising a sensor for determining the position of a rotor or shaft or for determining speed of rotation of a wheel of the vehicle; and an electronic control unit (12) configured to determine whether the blocking device has been activated, when the blocking device has been activated, the electronic control unit prompts the determination device to determine whether the vehicle is moving, when the determination device determines that the vehicle is moving, the electronic control unit actuates the electric motor to stop the movement of the vehicle and maintain a stopped state of the vehicle. The difference between the instant invention and the prior art reference is the process of “following the stopped state, when the determination device determines that the vehicle subsequently resumes movement, the electronic control unit re-activates the electric motor to stop the vehicle.” However, it is considered an obvious duplication of a known part for its known function. Whether the vehicle start moving or resume to moving, its function would be the same.
Regarding claim 2. Foerster discloses that the vehicle is an electric vehicle or a hybrid vehicle (see [0020] [0035]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Foerster teaches the invention as claimed
and as discussed above. Foerster fails to explicitly or expressly teach wherein in
the device further comprises a memory device and an output device, wherein the
control device is configured to save in the memory device information that the
blocking device has a fault and to output it, by the output device, when the
blocking device has been activated and the determination device determines that the vehicle is moving. However, Foerster at least suggests that the control device is configured to process information that determines whether the blocking device has a fault [e.g., an error] (see Fig. 1 in conjunction with paragraphs [0043]- [0045]) [e.g., "an
error or an error case of the motor vehicle is described. In this case, for example, the parking brake has failed because, for example, the electronic stability program that controls the parking brake has failed. In the event of an error, for example, at second step S2, the motor vehicle is, in automatically, decelerated by the electronic computing device, via the above-mentioned braking device, different from the service brake, the parking brake and the parking lock, and slowed down to a standstill, particularly while the parking lock is still disengaged"]; [e.g., the electric motor is utilized after determining an error (or fault) regarding the failure of the blocking device(s)]. Furthermore, notwithstanding that the additional features of a memory device and an output device, wherein the information is saved in the memory device and such that the fault can be output via the output device, constitute obvious and/or easily implemented features that are well-known and/or commonplace in the relevant art(s) [e.g., vehicle electronic computing devices, otherwise commonly known as electronic control units, are well-known for having a built-in memory via which applicable information (including error information, fault codes, etc.) is saved/stored, and as such, the implementation and/or utilization of a memory in the electronic computing device per Foerster to store information regarding the error(s) would not involve the exercise of inventive skill and/or would merely involve routine skill in the art]; [e.g., one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that information being saved/stored on a computer
memory is (or would be) required for the processor(s) of the electronic computing devices (or electronic control units) to execute the steps S1-S5 disclosed by Foerster]; [e.g., outputting the relevant information (such as error/fault information, codes, etc.), for example via a warning light/indicator and/or a display, is also customary practice and/or incredibly commonplace in the relevant art(s), and to the extent that there would clearly be no exercise of inventive skill required to implement and/or utilize an output device to output and/or display the error information per Foerster]; [e.g., commonplace fault/error outputs (or indicators) on a vehicle dashboard or display include, among other things, a brake system status that signals a potential brake failure requiring immediate attention]; [e.g., one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that a brake system warning light can indicate a parking brake (or blocking device) condition, brake fluid level being low, and/or a general fault/error in the braking system(s), and as such, the implementation and/or utilization of an output device to output information pertaining to a blocking device having a fault/error would not involve the exercise of inventive skill and/or would merely involve routine skill in the art].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Foerster discloses the electronic control unit has an electric motor control device and is configured to activate the electric motor control device when the blocking device has been activated, and the electric motor control device is configured to actuate the electric motor in order to stop the movement of the vehicle and maintain the stopped state of the vehicle if the determination device determines that the vehicle is moving (See [0019]0[0035]-[0037] [0043]-[0045]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Foerster discloses the electronic control unit is configured to deactivate the electric motor control device if the determination device determines that the vehicle is not moving ([0027] [0045]- [0046]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Foerster discloses the electronic control unit prompts the determination device, after the deactivation of the electric motor control device, continuously determine whether the vehicle is moving and, when the determination device determines that the vehicle is moving, [[to]] activate the electric motor control device to actuate the electric motor to stop the movement of the vehicle and maintain the stopped state of the vehicle ([0019] [0027] [0035]-[0037], [0042]-[0046]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17. Foerster discloses the determination device is configured to determine that the vehicle is moving when the rotated position of the rotor of the electric motor changes or the speed of rotation of the wheel does not equal zero (See [0035] [0037]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18. Foerster discloses the blocking device is a parking lock, which can be activated by electronic actuation, for immobilizing an output shaft of the electric motor, or a parking lock, which can be activated by electronic actuation, for immobilizing a transmission of the vehicle, or a parking brake, which can be activated by electronic actuation, for immobilizing at least one wheel of the vehicle (See [0007] [0017] [0043]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19. Foerster discloses the electronic control unit is configured to determine, based on a position of an actuator of the blocking device, whether the blocking device has been activated or not (See [0007] [0017] [0043]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20. (Foerster discloses the electronic control unit is configured to regulate torque of the electric motor to stop the movement of the vehicle and maintain the stopped state of the vehicle (See [0018]- [0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed April 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The issue is whether the process of “following the stopped state, when the determination device determines that the vehicle subsequently resumes movement, the electronic control unit re-activates the electric motor to stop the vehicle. is a new process. The examiner considers it as a continuation of the cycle of the process for preventing a parked vehicle from rolling away.
Thus, it is considered an obvious duplication of a known part for its known function.
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 JOHN KWON whose telephone number is (571)272-4846. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9A-5P. EST.
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, Phuttiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/JOHN KWON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights