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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/23/26 has been entered
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, 4-11, 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenov et al (US PG Pub No. 2022/0097660) in view of Liu (US PG Pub No. 2023/0339441) in further view of Beauvais (US PG Pub No. 2018/0029577) in further view of Mori et al (US Patent No. 7,358,864)
Regarding claim 1, Semenov teaches A motor vehicle comprising:
a brake system having a brake pedal configured to be actuated by a driver of the motor vehicle to apply braking force to the motor vehicle; (42 52 figure 2 paragraph 18 and 19)
a brake pedal sensor sensing an actuation force to the brake pedal; (42 52 figure 2 paragraph 18 and 19)
a vehicle speed sensor sensing speed of the motor vehicle; (figure 1)
an accelerator input;
one or more doors; (figure 1)
one or more door sensors configured to sense an open or closed position of the one or more doors; and
a controller configured to determine when the vehicle speed indicates the motor vehicle is in a stopped state (54 figure 3) and in a drive mode with at least one of the one or more doors (58 figure 3) sensed in the open position, and controlling the brake system to brake the motor vehicle (64 figure 3) while the determined vehicle speed indicates the motor vehicle is in a stopped state (54 figure 2 paragraph 21) and the motor vehicle is operating in a drive mode with the at least one of the one or more doors sensed in the open position (58 figure 3 paragraph 21)
Semenov does not explicitly teach however Liu teaches a controller the sensed actuation force on the brake pedal is partially or fully reduced to hold the vehicle in the stopped state (Liu paragraph 102-13 figure 5 brake hold even after brake is released) that performs brake hold unless the driver actuates the accelerator input (paragraph 96 420 figure 4 accelerate pedal 404 after brake hold and vehicle takes off) wherein the controller controls the antilock brake system to release the braking force once the accelerator input is actuated by the driver of the motor vehicle to accelerate the vehicle (Liu 430 figure 4 paragraph 96)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Semenov based on the teachings of Liu to teach controller the sensed actuation force on the brake pedal is partially or fully reduced to hold the vehicle in the stopped state that performs brake hold unless the driver actuates the accelerator input wherein the controller controls the antilock brake system to release the braking force once the accelerator input is actuated by the driver of the motor vehicle to accelerate the vehicle. The motivation would be to overcome shortcomings of traditional brake hold and comply with driver request (Liu abstract).
Semenov does not explicitly teach however Beauvais teaches that the electronic parking brake is an antilock braking system (paragraph 49 and 22 e parking brake controlled to use ABS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Semenov based on Beauvais to teach the electronic parking brake is an antilock braking system. The motivation would be to reduce working volume of primary braking system (Beauvais paragraph 22)
Semenov does not explicitly teach however Mori teaches where the antilock braking system applies the braking force when the motor vehicle is in its stopped state and the door is open. (111-115 figure 3 control brake force generation column 9 line 55-67 and column 10 line 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Semenov based on the teachings of Mori to teach where the antilock braking system applies the braking force when the motor vehicle is in its stopped state and the door is open. The motivation would be ensure safety of occupants (Mori column 10 line 35-40)
Regarding claim 4, Semenov teaches further comprising a motor to accelerate the vehicle in response to the accelerator input (12 paragraph 15 e motor figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Semenov does not explicitly teach however Liu teaches wherein the accelerator input comprises an accelerator pedal (404 420 figure 4 paragraph 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Semenov based on the teachings of Liu to teach wherein the accelerator input comprises an accelerator pedal. The motivation would be to overcome shortcomings of traditional brake hold and comply with driver request (Liu abstract).
Regarding claim 6-8, Semenov teaches 58 driver door (paragraph 21) when driver is leaving vehicle and in drive gear so the car doesn’t roll away.
Semenov does not explicitly teach that the door is a passenger door, a rear door, trunk, tailgate of liftgate. However It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Semenov to teach those doors in order for the car to not roll away when the door it opened.
Semenov discloses the claimed invention except for the door is a passenger door, a rear door, trunk, tailgate of liftgate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the door is a passenger door, a rear door, trunk, tailgate of liftgate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Semenov teaches wherein the door comprises one of a front door, a hood and a frunk (paragraph 19 driver door).
Regarding claim 10, Semenov teaches wherein the drive mode comprises a forward drive mode or a reverse gear mode (54 figure 1 suggests drive mode is forward or reverse if vehicle has come to stop).
Regarding claim 11, 13-19, see the rejection to claim 1, 3, 5, 4, 6, 8 or 9, 8, 9 and 4 as the limitations are substantially similar
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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.
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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights