DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/721232 filed 6/18/2024.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/18/24 has been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the legal claim phraseology “comprises” should be deleted from line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-On page 2, line 13, “un” should be changed to the term “in”.
-On page 3, line 5, “2” should be changed to “1” due to there only being one patent literature described in specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 first unit (generic placeholder) that outputs a supply pressure in accordance with an operation displacement of a braking operation member (function)” in claim 1.
-“a second unit (generic placeholder) that is provided between the first unit and a wheel cylinder, increases the supply pressure, and outputs a wheel pressure to the wheel cylinder (function)” in claim 1.
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.
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 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isono et al 20080229741 (IDS cited art) in view of JP 202093656 (with machine translation). As to claim 1, Isono discloses a braking control device for a vehicle comprising: a first unit (via 11 with 51) that outputs a supply pressure in accordance with an operation displacement of a braking operation member (14); a second unit (via 40) that is provided between the first unit and a wheel cylinder (39), increases the supply pressure, and outputs a wheel pressure to the wheel cylinder; a displacement sensor (52) that detects the operation displacement; and a supply pressure sensor (56) that detects the supply pressure, wherein the first unit selects any one of a first mode (via S27:No) in which the operation displacement and the supply pressure are independent and a second mode (via S27: Yes) in which the operation displacement and the supply pressure are linked, in a case of a normal state (via S27:No) where the displacement sensor is normal, the first unit selects the first mode and increases the supply pressure based on the operation displacement ([0176]), and in a case of an abnormal state where the displacement sensor is not normal (via S27: Yes), the first unit selects the second mode. However, Isono doesn’t explicitly disclose that the second unit increases the wheel pressure based on the supply pressure during abnormal state.
JP discloses a braking control device for a vehicle comprising: a first unit (via 3 with 100) that outputs a supply pressure in accordance with an operation displacement of a braking operation member (2); a second unit (6) that is provided between the first unit and a wheel cylinder (8), increases the supply pressure, and outputs a wheel pressure to the wheel cylinder; a displacement sensor (90) that detects the operation displacement; and a supply pressure sensor (91) that detects the supply pressure and shows that it is well known in the art to, in a case of an abnormal state where the displacement sensor is not normal, increase the wheel pressure based on the supply pressure (page 10, lines 11-19 via boost control).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Isono second unit increase wheel pressure based on supply pressure during abnormality of displacement sensor in view of JP to enhance braking efficiency which contributes to better vehicle stability during braking operation.
As to claim 2, Isono in view of JP discloses wherein the first unit calculates a target pressure (Prt; [0069] in Isono) based on the operation displacement and increases the supply pressure so as to be brought close to the target pressure, and the second unit calculates an assist pressure (Ptg; page 10, lines 11-19 in JP) based on the supply pressure and increases the wheel pressure based on the assist pressure.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isono in view of JP’656 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of JP 2010167970 (with machine translation). Isono in view of JP’656 discloses the displacement sensor including, as the operation displacement, first and second detection portions that output first and second displacement signals, and at least one of the first and second units determines the abnormal state based on the signals (Figure 9). However, Isono in view of Kim doesn’t disclose one of the first and second units determining abnormality when a magnitude of a difference between the first displacement signal and the second displacement signal is equal to or greater than a predetermined value.
JP’ 970 discloses a braking control device and shows that it is well known in the art to have a displacement sensor including, as the operation displacement, first and second detection portions (46a, 46b) that output first and second displacement signals, and at least one of a first and second units (90, 92) determines the abnormal state when a magnitude of a difference between the first displacement signal and the second displacement signal is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (abstract describes that abnormality is determined if absolute value difference between sensor outputs is a predetermined threshold, which meets the “equal to” as recited).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Isono in view of JP’656 with a first and second sensor signal output as recited further in view of JP’970 to provide proper failure detection of displacement sensor which eliminates inappropriate braking output during operation of vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-The PCT office action as filed has been considered and the examiner agrees that the Isono prior art does meet inventive step of claims as recited.
-Arakawa 20110074207 (abstract); Yamamoto 9260093 (abstract) and JP 201816161 (abstract) all disclose braking control devices and show that it is well known in the art to use supply pressure from master cylinder when brake displacement sensor is determined to be abnormal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights