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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 of the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 8 l 2 “microcomputer” broadest reasonable interpretation includes transitory memory.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (CRM) (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01 When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is acceptable to amend the claims to exclude the signal embodiment by adding non-transitory to modify the computer readable media. Non-transitory is not a requirement, but simply one option. Applicant can choose other ways to amend the claim in accordance with the original disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobune et al US 2017/0291585 in view of Rath US 5,251,968.
In Re 1, Kobune teaches A brake control (title) method comprising:
when a parking brake device (abstract) that is driven by a motor (abstract) performs braking control with anti-lock control (ABS para 27) for alternately repeating the brake operation and the brake release operation while the vehicle is travelling; and
Kobune does not teach however Rath teaches
determining whether acceleration amount in a brake release operation of a vehicle is equal to or larger than deceleration amount in a brake operation of the vehicle (col 5 ll 40-56 transverse acceleration present during antilock control, i.e. when ABS skid protection intermittently releases brake, transverse acceleration is present and larger than deceleration, transverse deceleration should be zero);
restricting the anti-lock control from being performed when the acceleration amount is equal to or larger than the deceleration amount (col 5 ll 50-55 if transverse acceleration during antilock control initiate normal braking, i.e. prohibit ABS skid protection of intermittent braking and instead activate full normal braking to decelerate vehicle).
Rath further teaches regular brake wear with his method col 1 ll 1-35. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Rath’s antilock restriction to Kobune’s emergency parking brake control to yield desirable regular brake wear.
In Re 2, Kobune as modified by Rath, Rath further teaches
determining whether a speed of the vehicle that is travelling is lower than a prescribed determination speed (col 5 ll 55-65, 80 km/h, manner according to invention when below 80 km/h); and determining whether the acceleration amount is equal to or larger than the deceleration amount when the speed of the vehicle that is travelling is lower than the prescribed determination speed (col 5 ll 40-56).
In Re 3, Kobune further teaches the braking control with the anti-lock control is emergency brake control (abstract) for braking the vehicle that is travelling due to an occupant (driver paras, 22,27) of the vehicle operating the parking brake device.
In Re 5, Kobune as modified by Rath, the deceleration amount is obtained based on an operation time of the brake operation in one cycle of the anti-lock control and a deceleration in the brake operation of the vehicle (inherent to Rath).
In Re 6, Kobune as modified by Rath, the acceleration amount is obtained based on an operation time of the brake release operation in one cycle of the anti-lock control and an acceleration in the brake release operation of the vehicle (inherent to Rath and ABS systems in general).
In Re 7, Kobune as modified by Rath, the anti-lock control is restricted by reducing the brake release amount in the brake release operation compared to the brake release amount when the anti-lock control is not restricted (normal braking eliminates any brake release operation).
In Re 8, the device of claim 8 is rejected over in re 1 as taught by Kobune in view of Rath as described above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobune et al US 2017/0291585 in view of Rath US 5,251,968 and Kato US 2010/0332098.
In Re 4, Kobune in view of Rath teach when an emergency brake is actuated, see in re 3 above; and determining whether the acceleration amount is equal to or larger than the deceleration amount, see in re 1 above.
Kobune does not teach however Kato teaches acquiring a friction coefficient (coefficient mu paras 18-19,80-91) of a road surface on which the vehicle travels; when the acquired friction coefficient is equal to or less than a prescribed threshold (para 55 lateral acceleration threshold dependent on road friction coefficient). Kato further teaches preventing vehicle turnover with braking based on road friction coefficient paras 3-18. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Kato’s road friction coefficient determination to Kobune’s control to prevent undesirable turnover.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747