DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/2026.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites numerous instances of “detecting” and “generating” Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (“A braking control apparatus”), but these limitations appear to recite active method steps performed by the device. It is unclear what scope of protection is being sought. For purposes of examination, these limitations will be interpreted as a capability (e.g. “configured to detect” and “configured to generate”). The claims recite numerous instances throughout of similar active language rather than capabilities, all of which should be amended to recite a capability, to avoid confusion. For example, claim 4 recites “compares the output”, claims 4, and 6-9 recite “generates braking force” at least.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuki et al. (U.S. 2022/0258614).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuki discloses (figs. 1-3) A braking control apparatus (100) comprising:
a first receiving unit (23) detecting internal driving data of a vehicle (see pgh. 0040);
a second receiving unit (22) detecting external driving data of the vehicle (see pgh. 0039);
a regenerative braking unit (6,7) generating regenerative braking force (see pgh. 0047);
a main braking unit (8a-8d) generating braking force in the vehicle (see pgh. 0028);
a parking brake unit (6c,7c) generating parking brake force in the vehicle (see pgh. 0034); and
a controller (10) generating braking force by controlling at least one of the regenerative braking unit, the main braking unit, or the parking brake unit (see figs. 3A-3D, regenerative braking force and brake oil pressure to main brake unit simultaneously) based on the internal driving data (e.g. vehicle speed, charging speed of the battery, etc.) and the external driving data (e.g. slope of the road) in response to determining that unintended acceleration occurs (e.g. pgh. 0069-0070, there is a difference between the tire vehicle speed and the target vehicle speed, due to a grade for example, and the controller adjusts mechanical braking force accordingly).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuki discloses (figs. 1-3) the internal driving data includes at least one of a driving speed of the vehicle (pgh. 0069, “tire vehicle speed acquired by travel information acquisition unit 13”), a transmission status, or an output of a driving motor (pgh. 0068, acquisition of the regenerative current of the left and right motor).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuki discloses (figs. 1-3) the external driving data includes at least one of whether an obstacle is present in a driving direction of the vehicle (pgh. 0039), a relative distance between the vehicle and an obstacle in front of the vehicle, location information of the obstacle in front of the vehicle, a traffic signal, a road condition (pgh. 0039), ongoing construction work, information on adjacent vehicles, whether a road on which the vehicle is driving is a child protection zone, whether the road is a two-lane road, or whether the road is an alley.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuki discloses (figs. 1-3) the internal driving data includes output of a driving motor (pgh. 0052, regenerative current, e.g.), and the controller compares the output of the driving motor with a preset first reference output (“second current value”) or a preset second reference output (“first current value”) and generates braking force by controlling at least one of the regenerative braking unit, the main braking unit, or the parking brake unit (see pgh. 0055 at least, controlling braking).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuki discloses the first reference output is set to be less than the second reference output (pgh. 0055, second current value smaller than first current value).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuki discloses in response to the output of the driving motor being less than the first reference output, the controller generates braking force by controlling the regenerative braking unit or the parking brake unit (pgh. 0055, braking is controlled while regen current less than second current value)
Regarding claim 7, Matsuki discloses in response to the output of the driving motor being greater than the first reference output and less than the second reference output, the controller generates braking force by controlling the regenerative braking unit, the parking brake unit, and the main braking unit (pgh. 0060, regen current decreases from the first current value while being larger than second current value, corresponding to position P3, providing both regenerative current and mechanical brake pressure. The parking brake is “controlled” in that it is controlled not to be actuated, at least, in this state, also pgh. 0092, where the parking brakes may be treated as the mechanical brake force).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki et al. (U.S. 2022/0258614) in view of Takae et al. (U.S. 2018/0201241).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuki does not appear to disclose controlling the braking when driving speed is zero and the transmission is in gear. In the same field of endeavor of braking control, Takae teaches an adaptive cruise control system for a vehicle (abstract and pgh. 0003 at least), where the vehicle is traveling with the adaptive cruise on (gear shift status in a driving state), and the vehicle is decelerated and stopped by a main braking device, and followed by a parking brake after a predetermined period of time (see pgh. 0006-0008 at least).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the main braking unit or the parking brake unit based on the internal driving data and the external driving data when the gear shift status is in a driving state and the driving speed being zero to provide a hill hold function that safely keeps the vehicle stopped due to road grade (see pgh. 0086 at least).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various brake control devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights