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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment of 05/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-15 are currently pending in the application. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control portion” in claims 1 and 14. The generic placeholder “portion” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “control a braking mechanism of each wheel of a vehicle” without reciting the structure of the portion capable of performing the recited function.
“control portions” in claims 1 and 14. The generic placeholder “portion” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “control a braking mechanism of a corresponding wheel of the plurality of wheels” without reciting the structure of the portion capable of performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
ECUs 10, 11, and/or 31 (0078 lines 6-10)
ECUs 10, 11, and/or 31 (0078 lines 6-10)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 line 11 “is” should read --includes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the control portions perform control for increasing the clearance amount from a reference clearance amount for a wheel where the temperature is higher than a predetermined temperature among the wheels, and perform control for reducing the clearance amount from the reference clearance amount for each of the other wheels” (emphasis added) in lines 16-19. Applicant cites 0046 and 0078 of the original specification for support for the limitation (Remarks pg. 7 para. 2).
0046 discloses “the clearance is widened for a wheel subjected to a great heat increase, and is narrowed for a wheel other than that” (emphasis added)(lines 6-7). 0072 similarly discloses “the first ECU 10 reduces (narrows) the target clearance amount for a wheel other than the corresponding wheel” (emphasis added)(lines 7-8) where the corresponding wheel is the wheel having a high temperature brake.
0078 of the original disclosure discusses only the control arrangement of ECUs 10, 11, and 31 which is seemingly unrelated to the amendment to claim 14.
Additionally, 0097 (lines 8-10), 0015 (lines 6-9), and 0120 (lines 12-15) disclose the subject matter of original claim 7 where the clearance is increased for wheels above the temperature threshold and the clearance is decreased for wheels below the temperature threshold.
The specification (0046 and 0072) therefore only supports narrowing the clearance of at least one wheel other than the wheel with the overtemperature brake, whereas the current claim recites narrowing the clearance for each of the other wheels. Therefore, the term “each of the other wheels” in claim 14 is considered new matter. The rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “at least one other wheel”.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason, mutatis mutandis, as provided for claim 14 above.
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 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)(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.
(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, 5, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HONDA (JP 2020-183174).
Regarding claim 1, HONDA discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising: a control portion (50, 36FL, 36FR, 36RL, 36RR collectively) configured to control a braking mechanism (10FL, 10FR, 10RL, 10RR, 0008 lines 2-3) of each wheel of a plurality of wheels (8FL, 8FR, 8RL, 8RR, 0008 line 2) of a vehicle (0008 line 2), the braking mechanisms being configured to press a frictional pad against a rotor that rotates together with a wheel (Fig. 2, 0009 lines 1-8),
wherein the control portion is further configured to
acquire a control condition including at least one of information regarding a running environment of a running road on which the vehicle runs (S5, Fig. 4, road curvature, 0029 lines 5-7) or information regarding a state of the vehicle (load W, S11/S21, Figs. 4-5, 0031 lines 4-6; 0011 lines 7-9), and
control a clearance amount between the rotor and the frictional pad independently for each wheel of the vehicle based on the control condition (S25, Figs. 5-6, 0011 lines 7-9 implies that each brake has a load sensor 42, target clearance for each brake is obtained from load sensor value Wd, 0032 lines 1-3), and
wherein the control condition includes the information regarding the running environment (S5, Fig. 4, road curvature, 0029 lines 5-7).
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 5, HONDA discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
HONDA further discloses wherein the control condition includes the information regarding the state of the vehicle (load W, S11/S21, Figs. 4-5, 0031 lines 4-6; 0011 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 8, HONDA discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
HONDA further discloses wherein each braking mechanism (10FL, 10FR, 10RL, 10RR, 0008 lines 2-3) is actuated by an electric motor (0009 lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 13, HONDA discloses a vehicle control method configured to be performed by a control unit (50, 36FL, 36FR, 36RL, 36RR collectively) mounted on a vehicle including a braking mechanism (10FL, 10FR, 10RL, 10RR, 0008 lines 2-3) for each wheel of a plurality of wheels (8FL, 8FR, 8RL, 8RR, 0008 line 2) of the vehicle (0008 line 2), each braking mechanism being configured to press a frictional pad against a rotor that rotates together with a wheel (Fig. 2, 0009 lines 1-8), the vehicle control method comprising:
causing the control unit to
acquire a control condition including at least one of information regarding a running environment of a running road on which the vehicle runs (S5, Fig. 4, road curvature, 0029 lines 5-7) or information regarding a state of the vehicle (load W, S11/S21, Figs. 4-5, 0031 lines 4-6; 0011 lines 7-9), and
control a clearance amount between the rotor and the frictional pad independently for each of the wheels of the vehicle based on the control condition (S25, Figs. 5-6, 0011 lines 7-9 implies that each brake has a load sensor 42, target clearance for each brake is obtained from load sensor value Wd, 0032 lines 1-3),
wherein the control condition is the information regarding the running environment (S5, Fig. 4, road curvature, 0029 lines 5-7).
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
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 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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONDA (JP 2020-183174) in view of NARULA (US 9,989,116).
Regarding claim 6, HONDA discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5.
HONDA further discloses wherein the information regarding the state of the vehicle (load W, S11/S21, Figs. 4-5, 0031 lines 4-6; 0011 lines 7-9) is information regarding braking of the vehicle (braking load/force, 0011 lines 8-9).
HONDA is not relied upon to teach the control portion is further configured to predict a braking of the vehicle as claimed.
NARULA teaches information regarding the state of the vehicle is information regarding braking of the vehicle (col. 7 lines 28-32; c.f. Applicant’s 0043 lines 5-11), and
wherein, the control portion is further configured to predict a braking of the vehicle (col. 7 lines 28-32; c.f. Applicant’s 0043 lines 5-11), and when the vehicle is predicted to be braked (col. 7 lines 31-32), the control portion performs control for reducing the clearance amount from a reference clearance amount (col. 6 lines 47-49 and 51 53) such that, advantageously, when the brakes are subsequently applies, because the running clearance has been reduced, then the associated vehicle slows down more quickly because the delay between moving the brake pads and the brakes retarding the vehicle is reduced, since the running clearance has been reduced (col. 6 lines 53-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control portion of HONDA to reduce the clearance based on information regarding braking of the vehicle as taught by NARULA such that, advantageously, when the brakes are subsequently applies, because the running clearance has been reduced, then the associated vehicle slows down more quickly because the delay between moving the brake pads and the brakes retarding the vehicle is reduced, since the running clearance has been reduced.
front wheel
NARULA does not specify with which wheel the brake is associated.
Absent further guidance from NARULA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control portion of HONDA to adjust the clearance based on NARULA for all wheels of the vehicle such that, advantageously, when the brakes are subsequently applies, because the running clearance has been reduced, then the associated vehicle slows down more quickly because the delay between moving the brake pads and the brakes retarding the vehicle is reduced, since the running clearance has been reduced.
HONDA as modified teaches wherein, the control portion is further configured to predict a braking of the vehicle, and when the vehicle is predicted to be braked, the control portion performs control for reducing the clearance amount from a reference clearance amount for a front wheel among the wheels.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONDA (JP 2020-183174) in view of CARON (US 7,712,588).
Regarding claim 7, HONDA discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 5.
HONDA is not relied upon to teach the information regarding the state of the vehicle is a temperature as claimed.
CARON teaches information regarding the state of the vehicle is a temperature of at least one rotor and/or at least one frictional pad (col. 6 lines 32-34), and
wherein a control portion (24) performs control for increasing the clearance amount from a reference clearance amount for a wheel where the temperature is higher than a predetermined temperature among the wheels (col. 6 lines 42-46), and performs control for reducing the clearance amount from the reference clearance amount for a wheel where the temperature is equal to or lower than the predetermined temperature among the wheels (col. 6 lines 46-50) to provide a simple, effective, and reduced cost method for optimizing brake clearance (col. 1 lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control portion of HONDA to perform control of the clearance amount based on temperature as taught by CARON to provide a simple, effective, and reduced cost method for optimizing brake clearance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONDA (JP 2020-183174) in view of SUGAI (JP 2004-345393, provided by Applicant on 07/12/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 10, HONDA discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
HONDA is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
SUGAI teaches a control portion (30) configured to determine whether sudden braking occurs based on the information regarding the running environment (on high μ roads when not braking widen clearance and on low μ roads drag brakes even when not braking, pg. 18 line 20 - pg. 19 1 and pg. 19 lines 5-10), and when it is determined that no sudden braking occurs based on the information regarding the running environment the control portion performs control for increasing the clearance amount (Fig. 11B, pg. 18 penultimate line - pg. 19 line 1) from a reference clearance amount (Fig. 11A) for a wheel among the wheels (on high μ roads when not braking widen clearance and on low μ roads drag brakes even when not braking, pg. 18 line 20 - pg. 19 1 and pg. 19 lines 5-10) to reduce losses due to brake drag and improve the energy efficiency of the vehicle by adjusting the gap between the brake disc and pad to be wider when not braking and there is no need to use the brakes immediately (pg. 19 lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control portion of HONDA to increase the clearance amount when it is determined that no sudden braking occurs as taught by SUGAI to reduce losses due to brake drag and improve the energy efficiency of the vehicle by adjusting the gap between the brake disc and pads to be wider when not braking and there is no need to use the brakes immediately.
SUGAI does not specify which wheel is controlled to increase the clearance amount.
Absent guidance from SUGAI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when configuring HONDA as taught by SUGAI to increase the clearance amount at each wheel of the vehicle to reduce losses due to brake drag and improve the energy efficiency of the vehicle by adjusting the gap between the brake disc and pads to be wider when not braking and there is no need to use the brakes immediately.
HONDA as modified teaches the control portion performs control for increasing the clearance amount from a reference clearance amount for a rear wheel among the wheels.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONDA (JP 2020-183174) in view of CARON (US 7,712,588) and SUGAI (JP 2004-345393, provided by Applicant on 07/12/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 11, HONDA discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
HONDA further discloses wherein the control condition includes
a first condition including information regarding brake control of controlling a braking force independently for each wheel (S25, Figs. 5-6, 0011 lines 7-9 implies that each brake has a load sensor 42, target clearance for each brake is obtained from load sensor value Wd, 0032 lines 1-3) that is determined based on the information regarding the running environment (S25 follows S5, Figs. 4-6, road curvature, 0029 lines 5-7; “based on” is broad) to effectively suppress brake drag during vehicle turns (0004 line 1), and
a second condition including information regarding braking of the vehicle (brake load/force sensor 42, 0011 lines 8-9, S25 follows S21, 0031 lines 4-6, 0032 lines 1-3) in the information regarding the state of the vehicle.
HONDA is not relied upon to teach the third condition as claimed.
CARON teaches a control condition includes a condition including a temperature of at least one rotor and/or at least one frictional pad the information regarding the state of the vehicle (col. 6 lines 32-34 and 42-50) to provide a simple, effective, and reduced cost method for optimizing brake clearance (col. 1 lines 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control condition of HONDA to perform control of the clearance amount based on temperature as taught by CARON to provide a simple, effective, and reduced cost method for optimizing brake clearance.
HONDA is not relied upon to teach the fourth condition as claimed.
SUGAI teaches a control condition includes a fourth condition including information regarding sudden braking that is determined based on the information regarding the running environment (on high μ roads when not braking widen clearance and on low μ roads drag brakes even when not braking, pg. 18 line 20 - pg. 19 1 and pg. 19 lines 5-10) to reduce losses due to brake drag and improve the energy efficiency of the vehicle by adjusting the gap between the brake disc and pad to be wider when not braking and there is no need to use the brakes immediately (pg. 19 lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control condition of HONDA to increase the clearance amount when it is determined that no sudden braking occurs as taught by SUGAI to reduce losses due to brake drag and improve the energy efficiency of the vehicle by adjusting the gap between the brake disc and pads to be wider when not braking and there is no need to use the brakes immediately.
HONDA does not disclose the control portion prioritizes the first condition among the four conditions.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to prioritize the conditions in a specific order, absent a disclosure of criticality that the conditions be prioritized as claimed in the practice of Applicant’s invention. One of ordinary skill might have been motivated to prioritize the first condition to effectively suppress brake drag during vehicle turns. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in prioritizing the first condition among the conditions in the practice of Applicant’s invention.
HONDA as modified teaches wherein the control portion prioritizes the first condition among the first condition, the second condition, the third condition, and the fourth condition to use as a condition for controlling the clearance amount independently for each of the wheels of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, HONDA as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 11.
HONDA does not disclose the control portion prioritizes the four conditions in the claimed order. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to prioritize the conditions in a specific order, absent a disclosure of criticality that the conditions be prioritized as claimed in the practice of Applicant’s invention. One of ordinary skill might have been motivated to prioritize the first condition to effectively suppress brake drag during vehicle turns. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in prioritizing the four conditions in the claimed order when practicing Applicant’s invention.
HONDA as modified teaches wherein the control portion prioritizes the first condition, the second condition, the third condition, and the fourth condition in this order as the condition for controlling the clearance amount independently for each of the wheels of the vehicle.
Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 14 and 15 are not rejected over prior art. Additionally, were the claims amended to recite a limitation similar to “perform control for reducing the clearance amount from the reference clearance amount for at least one other wheel in response to the control for increasing the clearance amount for the wheel where the temperature is higher than a predetermined temperature” the claim would be allowable over prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (n.b. claim 9 was amended in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed 08/06/2025 to recite “the control portion is further configured to determine whether the maximum current is suppliable to each of the electric motors”).
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 05/11/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 14-15, see pp. 7-8 under heading II., have been fully considered but are unpersuasive because the amendment introduces new matter into the claims.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 and 3-13, see p. 8 under heading II., have been fully considered but are unpersuasive because they do not apply to newly discovered reference Honda.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights