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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed December 29, 2025. Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 29, 2025 with respect to the previous invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and rendered moot by present amendments.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed December 29, 2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered.
With respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1, Applicant argues the cited art of record Oosthoek et al., US 20230136605 A1, hereinafter referred to as Oosthoek, fails to explicitly disclose all of the features of claim 1, specifically, determining whether to perform braking of a vehicle based on a deceleration request, based on a restricted mode and generating factor for the deceleration request, in response to the deceleration request being generated. Applicant argues Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose determining whether braking should be performed or not, but rather is directed to choosing between a plurality of branches to generate a brake signal, which Applicant then construes as indicative of Oosthoek always generating a brake signal.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue a more narrow interpretation of determining than what is claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the above limitation is descriptive of generating a brake signal in response to a request for braking, which appears to be a description of routine and well-known braking control systems. When an input is provided to a brake control system, i.e., actuating a brake pedal, a control system, like the control system of Oosthoek, then determines an appropriate output, i.e., brake control signal (See at least ¶28 and Fig. 4 of Oosthoek), via an appropriate processor, control unit, etc.
Examiner notes the claimed determining is not limited in any way beyond being responsive to a deceleration (or braking) request, i.e., either a manual pressing of a brake pedal, or a control system determining braking is required, i.e., emergency braking, etc. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim limitation at issue, Oosthoek discloses the above.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claims 13 and 14.
For at least these reasons, the previous rejections are maintained.
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 1-12 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.
As to claim 1, the recitation “the vehicle apparatus comprising…a set of computer-executable instructions” is vague and indefinite. Apparatuses are defined in terms of their structure, and cannot comprise intangible computer instructions. These types of claims are typically claimed in terms of a memory which stores instruction that are executed by a processor, or similar structure.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oosthoek et al., US20230136605A1, hereinafter referred to as Oosthoek.
As to claim 1, Oosthoek discloses a vehicle control apparatus that performs automatic braking control of a braking apparatus of a vehicle, the vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium;
a set of computer-executable instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium that, when read and executed by the processor, cause the processor to implement:
determining durability of the braking apparatus (Integrity diagnostic, i.e., “durability” – See at least Abstract);
setting a control mode of automatic braking control to a restricted mode in which operation of the braking apparatus is restricted in response to determining that the durability of the braking apparatus has decreased (Degraded mode, i.e., “restricted mode” – See at least ¶11)
the restricted mode restricts execution of operation of the braking apparatus based on a generating factor for a deceleration request of the vehicle (Degraded mode based in part on brake control signal, i.e., “deceleration request” – See at least ¶28; Examiner notes the disclosed external brake signal is analogous to the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a generating factor” because the external brake signal is a factor in generating the commanded braking by virtue of being the commanded braking.), and
determining the durability of the braking apparatus comprises:
determining whether to perform braking of the vehicle based on the deceleration request, based on the restricted mode and the generating factor for the deceleration request, in response to the deceleration request of the vehicle being generated (Generate brake motor drive signal – See at least Abstract).
Independent claims 13 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 11, Oosthoek discloses notifying a driver of the vehicle that the restricted mode is set (Alert degraded mode is set – See at least ¶18).
As to claim 12, Oosthoek discloses notifying the driver of the vehicle that the durability of the braking apparatus has decreased suggesting to the driver to stop the vehicle in response to determining that the durability of the braking apparatus has decreased (Alert driver to take adequate steps, e.g., drive to garage – See at least ¶56; Examiner notes driving to a garage is analogous to stopping because the driver will stop at the garage.).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosthoek et al., US20230136605A1, in view of Wulf, US 20190118786 A1, hereinafter referred to as Oosthoek, and Wulf, respectively.
As to claim 2, Oosthoek discloses setting the restricted mode selected from the plurality of restricted modes based on a comparison between a predetermined parameter that affects the durability of the braking apparatus and a predetermined mode setting threshold that is set for the parameter (Integrity status – See at least ¶10; Examiner notes the art necessarily requires a threshold in order to register whether integrity requires a degraded mode or normal mode.).
Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose setting one of a plurality of restricted modes of which correspondence between the generating factors for the deceleration request of the vehicle and whether operation of the braking apparatus can be performed differs. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of setting one of a plurality of restricted modes of which correspondence between the generating factors for the deceleration request of the vehicle and whether operation of the braking apparatus can be performed differs, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Wulf teaches it is necessary to modify a vehicle’s braking when a requested brake operation is implausible (See at least Abstract of Wulf).
Claims 3-5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosthoek et al., US20230136605A1, in view of Kurata, US 20220314941 A1, hereinafter referred to as Oosthoek, and Kurata, respectively.
As to claim 3, Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for avoiding or mitigating a collision with an obstacle ahead of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for avoiding or mitigating a collision with an obstacle ahead of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kurata teaches braking in consideration of mitigating collisions, and/or controlling an inter-vehicle distance is well-known and routine (See at least ¶21-22 of Kurata).
As to claim 4, Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for avoiding or mitigating collisions or maintaining inter-vehicle distances to a preceding vehicle and an adjacent vehicle of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for avoiding or mitigating collisions or maintaining inter-vehicle distances to a preceding vehicle and an adjacent vehicle of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kurata teaches braking in consideration of mitigating collisions, and/or controlling an inter-vehicle distance is well-known and routine (See at least ¶21-22 of Kurata).
As to claim 5, Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for avoiding or mitigating a collision with a pedestrian. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for avoiding or mitigating a collision with a pedestrian, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kurata teaches braking in consideration of mitigating collisions with a pedestrian is well-known and routine (See at least ¶22 of Kurata).
As to claim 10, Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for reducing vehicle speed in response to vehicle speed control by cruise control. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for reducing vehicle speed in response to vehicle speed control by cruise control, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kurata teaches braking in consideration of cruise control is well-known and routine (See at least ¶21 of Kurata).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosthoek et al., US20230136605A1, in view of Cho, US 20220176925 A1, hereinafter referred to as Oosthoek, and Cho, respectively.
As to claim 6, Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for avoiding or mitigating a collision on a curved road. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for avoiding or mitigating a collision on a curved road, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cho teaches braking in consideration of mitigating collisions on a curved road is well-known and routine (See at least ¶120-122 of Cho).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosthoek et al., US20230136605A1, in view of Pinto et al, US 20190176794 A1, hereinafter referred to as Oosthoek, and Pinto, respectively.
As to claim 7, Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for stopping or reducing vehicle speed in response to a stop instruction from a traffic signal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for stopping or reducing vehicle speed in response to a stop instruction from a traffic signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Pinto teaches braking in consideration of a traffic signal is well-known and routine (See at least ¶36 of Pinto).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosthoek et al., US20230136605A1, in view of Zipfel et al, US 20170341630 A1, hereinafter referred to as Oosthoek, and Zipfel, respectively.
As to claim 8, Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for accommodating a vehicle speed on a regulatory sign or stopping in response to a speed regulatory sign or a stop instruction sign. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for accommodating a vehicle speed on a regulatory sign or stopping in response to a speed regulatory sign or a stop instruction sign, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zipfel teaches braking in consideration of a speed limit sign is well-known and routine (See at least ¶25 of Zipfel).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosthoek et al., US20230136605A1, in view of Nilsson et al., US 20220314947 A1 , hereinafter referred to as Oosthoek, and Nilsson, respectively.
As to claim 9, Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for reducing vehicle speed in response to a downhill road or road surface conditions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Oosthoek and include the feature of the generating factor for the deceleration request includes a factor for reducing vehicle speed in response to a downhill road or road surface conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Nilsson teaches braking in consideration of a speed limit sign is well-known and routine (See at least ¶69 of Nilsson).
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 Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights