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 Claims
The amendment of 11/06/2025 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.
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)
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
Claims 1, 3, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 line 2 “each wheel of a vehicle” should read -- each wheel of a plurality of wheels of a vehicle--.
At claim 3 line 4 “brake control” should read --the brake control--.
At claim 14 line 2 “each wheel of a vehicle” should read -- each wheel of a plurality of wheels of a vehicle--.
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 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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CARON (US 7,712,588).
Regarding claim 14, CARON discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a control portion (24) configured to control a braking mechanism (10) of each wheel of a plurality of wheels of a vehicle (a control portion for each wheel implied, i.a. col. 1 lines 12-13; c.f. Applicant’s 0078 lines 6-10 where four control units 31A correspond to the control portion as claimed), the braking mechanisms being configured to press a frictional pad against a rotor that rotates together with a wheel (implied, Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 12-13),
wherein the control portion is further configured to
acquire a control condition including at least one of information regarding information regarding a state of the vehicle (i.a. col. 6 lines 11-14), and
control a clearance amount (18) between the rotor and the frictional pad (col. 6 lines 42-51) independently for each wheel of the vehicle based on the control condition (implied, i.a., sensor 30 measures temperature of only one brake, col. 2 lines 35-37),
wherein the control condition is the information regarding the state of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 11-14),
wherein the information regarding the state of the vehicle is a temperature of at least one of the rotors or at least one of the frictional pads (col. 6 lines 32-34), and
wherein the control portion 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).
Regarding claim 15, CARON discloses a vehicle control method configured to be performed by a control unit (24) mounted on a vehicle (title) including a braking mechanism (10) for each wheel of a plurality of wheels of the vehicle (a control portion for each wheel implied, i.a. col. 1 lines 12-13; c.f. Applicant’s 0078 lines 6-10 where four control units 31A correspond to the control portion as claimed), each braking mechanism being configured to press a frictional pad (16) against a rotor (12) that rotates together with a wheel (implied, Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 12-13), the vehicle control method comprising:
causing the control unit to
acquire a control condition including information regarding a state of the vehicle (i.a. col. 6 lines 11-14), and
control a clearance amount (18) between the rotor and the frictional pad (col. 6 lines 42-51) independently for each of the wheels of the vehicle based on the control condition (implied, i.a., sensor 30 measures temperature of only one brake, col. 2 lines 35-37),
wherein the control condition is the information regarding the state of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 11-14),
wherein the information regarding the state of the vehicle is a temperature of at least one of the rotors, or at least one of the frictional pads (col. 6 lines 32-34), and
the vehicle control method further comprises causing the control unit to 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 (col. 6 lines 42-46), and to perform 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 13, SUGAI (JP 2004-345393, provided by Applicant on 07/12/2024 IDS) and TSUNEHARA (JP H11-227586) are the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, SUGAI discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a control portion (30) configured to control a braking mechanism (20) of each wheel of a vehicle, the braking mechanisms being configured to press a frictional pad (23) against a rotor (22) that rotates together with a wheel (implied, Fig. 2),
wherein the control portion is further configured to
acquire a control condition including information regarding a running environment of a running road on which a vehicle runs (pg. 18 last 4 lines), and
control a clearance amount between the rotor and the frictional pad for each wheel of the vehicle based on the control condition (pg. 18 line 18 - pg. 19 line 1; Fig. 11).
SUGAI does not disclose controlling the clearance amount independently for each of the wheels based on the running environment.
TSUNEHARA discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a control portion (41) configured to control a braking mechanism (corresponding to 11FL, 11FR, 11RL, 11RR, pg. 13 lines 1-6) of each wheel of a vehicle, the braking mechanisms being configured to press a frictional pad against a rotor that rotates together with a wheel (implied),
wherein the control portion is further configured to
acquire a control condition (yaw rate deviation, 0038 lines 1-3), and
control a clearance amount between the rotor and the frictional pad independently for each of wheels of the vehicle based on the control condition (0038 lines 1-3 and 6-8).
TSUNEHARA does not disclose the control condition including information regarding a running environment of a running road on which a vehicle runs. Because TSUNEHARA only teaches independently controlling the wheels based on a yaw rate deviation the reference cannot teach independently controlling the wheels based on a running environment of the vehicle. Regarding TSUNEHARA’s passing mentions of a lane change (i.a. 0037 line 7), as the reference does not disclose sensors or processing capable of recognizing the environment of the vehicle it cannot be said that the recited situation of the lane change meets the limitation of the running environment as claimed.
At least for the above reasons, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claim limitation “wherein the control condition is the information regarding the running environment” in the manner defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, SUGAI discloses vehicle control method configured to be performed by a control unit (30) mounted on a vehicle including a braking mechanism (20) for each wheel of a plurality of wheels of the vehicle, each braking mechanism being configured to press a frictional pad (23) against a rotor (22) that rotates together with a wheel (implied, Fig. 2), the vehicle control method comprising:
causing the control unit to
acquire a control condition including information regarding a running environment of a running road on which the vehicle runs (pg. 18 last 4 lines), and
control a clearance amount between the rotor and the frictional pad for each of the wheels of the vehicle based on the control condition (pg. 18 line 18 - pg. 19 line 1; Fig. 11),
SUGAI does not disclose controlling the clearance amount independently for each of the wheels based on the running environment.
TSUNEHARA discloses a vehicle control method configured to be performed by a control unit (41) mounted on a vehicle including a braking mechanism (corresponding to 11FL, 11FR, 11RL, 11RR, pg. 13 lines 1-6) for each wheel of a plurality of wheels of the vehicle, each braking mechanism being configured to press a frictional pad against a rotor that rotates together with a wheel (implied), the vehicle control method comprising:
causing the control unit to
acquire a control condition (yaw rate deviation, 0038 lines 1-3), 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 (0038 lines 1-3 and 6-8).
TSUNEHARA does not disclose the control condition including information regarding a running environment of a running road on which a vehicle runs. Because TSUNEHARA only teaches independently controlling the wheels based on a yaw rate deviation the reference cannot teach independently controlling the wheels based on a running environment of the vehicle. Regarding TSUNEHARA’s passing mentions of a lane change (i.a. 0037 line 7), as the reference does not disclose sensors or processing capable of recognizing the environment of the vehicle it cannot be said that the recited situation of the lane change meets the limitation of the running environment as claimed.
At least for the above reasons, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claim limitation “wherein the control condition is the information regarding the running environment” in the manner defined in claim 13.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 11/06/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new claim 14 and the CARON reference, see pg. 11, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
At pg. 11 lines 22-26, Applicant argues that CARON discloses the controller 24 is part of the adjustment mechanism for a single brake and therefore cannot correspond to the control portion configured to control a braking mechanism of each wheel.
The Examiner reminds Applicant that the claims are interpreted in light of the specification. At 0078 lines 7-10 of Applicant’s specification clearly states that the ECUs 10, 11, and/or 31 (and control portions 10A, 11A, and/or 31A contained therein) correspond to the control unit mounted on the vehicle of the claimed invention. From this disclosure a person of ordinary skill would reasonably understand the four ECUs 31 (and four control portions 31A contained therein) disclosed in Applicant’s figure 1 to collectively correspond to the control unit (and control portion) as claimed in new claims 14-15. Therefore, the independent ECUs 24 implied at each braking wheel of the vehicle of CARON corresponds, consistently with Applicant’s disclosure, on the control unit (and control portion) as claimed.
Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single control unit or control portion that independently controls each brake of the vehicle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At pg. 11 lines 15-18, Applicant argues that CARON discloses the controller 24 cannot disclose controlling the brakes independently for each wheel of the vehicle.
As Applicant clearly states (see pg. 11 lines 22-24) the controller 24 of CARON controls the brake of a single wheel. Therefore, the controllers 24 reasonably implied by CARON at each brake of the vehicle are themselves independent. Additionally, as argued just above herein, the controllers 24 reasonably implied at each brake of the vehicle in CARON collectively correspond to the control unit (and control portion) recited in claims 14 and 15. Therefore, as the controllers 24 themselves are independent then the control of the brakes is also independent.
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 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