DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 11/17/2025.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabuguchi U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0156141 (hereinafter, Yabuguchi), in view of Kiwoong KR20230130229 (hereinafter, Kiwoong).
Regarding Claim 1, Yabuguchi describes a braking control method of an electric mobility (braking control for a vehicle, Yabuguchi, Paragraph 0032), comprising:
-activating a parking brake function (activating a parking brake function, Yabuguchi, Paragraph 0033);
-detecting a speed of the electric mobility when activating the parking brake function (detecting the vehicle speed when activating the parking brake function, Yabuguchi, Paragraphs 0042 and 0075 and Figure 8);
…
Yabuguchi does not specifically disclose the method to include if the speed of the electric mobility when activating the parking brake function is 0, short-circuiting a motor, the motor being configured to drive the electric mobility; detecting the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor; and controlling the motor based on the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor.
Kiwoong discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kiwoong describes determining that the speed of the electric motor is zero (i.e., less than 1%) thus short-circuiting the motor of the electric vehicle (Kiwoong, Paragraphs 0058-0061 and Figures 4-5). Moreover, Kiwoong also describes determining the speed of the electric mobility after the short-circuiting and controlling the motor based on the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor (Kiwoong, Paragraphs 0059-0061 and Figures 4 and 5).
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 method of Yabuguchi to include if the speed of the electric mobility when activating the parking brake function is 0, short-circuiting a motor, the motor being configured to drive the electric mobility; detecting the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor; and controlling the motor based on the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kiwoong.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because helping hold a vehicle, through means such as short-circuiting the motor (e.g., motor hold) ensures safe operation of the vehicle (Kiwoong, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 2, Yabuguchi, as modified, describes the braking control method of claim 1, wherein if it is detected that the speed of the electric mobility when activating the parking brake function is not 0, the parking brake function is deactivated (determining the speed of the vehicle and based on the speed of the vehicle activating or not activating the brake function, Yabuguchi, Paragraphs 0075-0077 and Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Yabuguchi, as modified, describes the braking control method of claim 1, wherein if it is detected that the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor is 0, short-circuiting of the motor is maintained (maintaining the parking brake motor if the speed of the vehicle remains 0, Yabuguchi, Paragraphs 0075-0076 and Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 8, 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 9, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, 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 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabigichi U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0156141 (hereinafter, Yabuguchi), in view of Kiwoong KR20230130229 (hereinafter, Kiwoong), in further view of Takeda et al. JPH1023615A (hereinafter, Takeda).
Regarding Claim 4, Yabuguchi describes the braking control method of claim 1.
Yabuguchi does not specifically disclose the method to include that if it is detected that the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor is greater than 0, the controlling of the motor comprises controlling a motor torque to be applied in a reverse direction.
Takeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Takeda describes determining the speed of the vehicle and if needed applying a motor torque in the forward or reverse direction (Takeda, Paragraphs 0076-0077 and 0080-0083).
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 method of Yabuguchi to include that if it is detected that the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor is greater than 0, the controlling of the motor comprises controlling a motor torque to be applied in a reverse direction, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Takeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because allowing for the motor to apply a motor torque, allows for the vehicle to avoid issues should as vehicle creep (Takeda, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 6, Yabuguchi describes the braking control method of claim 1.
Yabuguchi does not specifically disclose the method to include that if it is detected that the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor is less than 0, the controlling of the motor comprises controlling a motor torque to be applied in a forward direction.
Takeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Takeda describes determining the speed of the vehicle and if needed applying a motor torque in the forward or reverse direction (Takeda, Paragraphs 0076-0077 and 0080-0083).
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 method of Yabuguchi to include that if it is detected that the speed of the electric mobility after short-circuiting the motor is less than 0, the controlling of the motor comprises controlling a motor torque to be applied in a forward direction, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Takeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because allowing for the motor to apply a motor torque, allows for the vehicle to avoid issues should as vehicle creep (Takeda, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Yabuguchi describes the braking control method of claim 1.
Yabuguchi does not specifically disclose the method to include that the controlling of the motor torque to be applied in the reverse direction comprises: calculating an inclination degree of downhill of the road surface; determining a required torque value according to the inclination degree of downhill of the road surface; and applying the motor torque according to the determined required torque value in the reverse direction.
Takeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Takeda describes determining a slope of a hill and the needed motor torque in the forward or reverse direction (Takeda, Paragraphs 0076-0077 and 0080-0083).
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 method of Yabuguchi to include the controlling of the motor torque to be applied in the reverse direction comprises: calculating an inclination degree of downhill of the road surface; determining a required torque value according to the inclination degree of downhill of the road surface; and applying the motor torque according to the determined required torque value in the reverse direction, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Takeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because allowing for the motor to apply a motor torque, allows for the vehicle to avoid issues should as vehicle creep (Takeda, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Yabuguchi describes the braking control method of claim 1.
Yabuguchi does not specifically disclose the method to include that the controlling of the motor torque to be applied in the forward direction comprises: calculating an inclination degree of uphill of the road surface; determining a required torque value according to the inclination degree of uphill of the road surface; and applying the motor torque according to the determined required torque value in the forward direction.
Takeda discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Takeda describes determining a slope of a hill and the needed motor torque in the forward or reverse direction (Takeda, Paragraphs 0076-0077 and 0080-0083).
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 method of Yabuguchi to include the controlling of the motor torque to be applied in the forward direction comprises: calculating an inclination degree of uphill of the road surface; determining a required torque value according to the inclination degree of uphill of the road surface; and applying the motor torque according to the determined required torque value in the forward direction, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Takeda.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because allowing for the motor to apply a motor torque, allows for the vehicle to avoid issues should as vehicle creep (Takeda, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 11 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 13 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 11 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 5, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabigichi U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0156141 (hereinafter, Yabuguchi), in view of Kiwoong KR20230130229 (hereinafter, Kiwoong), in further view of Hisashi et al. JP2001231101A (hereinafter, Hisashi).
Regarding Claim 5, Yabuguchi describes the braking control method of claim 4.
Yabuguchi does not specifically disclose the method to include that the controlling of the motor torque to be applied in the reverse direction further comprises generating a visual or audible alarm through a warning device.
Hisashi discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Hisashi describes generating a alarm when the motor torque is applied in the reserve direction (Hisashi, Paragraphs 0021-0022).
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 method of Yabuguchi to include that the controlling of the motor torque to be applied in the reverse direction further comprises generating a visual or audible alarm through a warning device, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Hisashi.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because informing the operator of the vehicle that the motor is operating ensures items such as avoiding overheating (Hisashi, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 7, Yabuguchi describes the braking control method of claim 4.
Yabuguchi does not specifically disclose the method to include that the controlling of the motor torque to be applied in the forward direction further comprises generating a visual or audible alarm through a warning device.
Hisashi discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Hisashi describes generating an alarm when the motor torque is applied in the forward direction (Hisashi, Paragraphs 0021-0022).
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 method of Yabuguchi to include that the controlling of the motor torque to be applied in the reverse direction further comprises generating a visual or audible alarm through a warning device, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Hisashi.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because informing the operator of the vehicle that the motor is operating ensures items such as avoiding overheating (Hisashi, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
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 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