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 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: “regenerative braking device”, “friction braking device”, and “road surface detector” (e.g., the function of which is to detect, so “detector” apparently has no [other] specific structural meaning beyond the claimed function) in claim 1. See e.g., published paragraphs [0032], [0029], etc. of the specification for corresponding structure, material, or acts of these claim limitations.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 to 5 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s)1, or by what steps or procedure2, he generated the friction braking force by using the friction braking device of both the front wheel and the rear wheel when it was determined that the road surface condition was in a predetermined condition in which a stability of the vehicle in braking was not maintained, as the claim apparently encompasses and covers. Accordingly, the examiner believes applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope3 of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
For example, when the road surface is not dry at S12 in FIG. 3, applicant’s disclosed invention apparently does nothing (cf. S16). For example, published paragraph [0040] of the specification indicates this:
[0040] In subsequent step S12, the brake ECU 22 determines whether or not the road surface condition is a predetermined condition in which stability is maintained in braking of the vehicle 1, specifically, whether or not the road surface condition is a dry road surface having a high friction coefficient μ, based on the obtained road surface information and/or wheel speed information. That is, as described later, the brake ECU 22 determines whether or not the road surface is the dry road surface so as to prevent the stability of the vehicle 1 from being decreased even when the vehicle 1 is braked. Therefore, when the road surface is the dry road surface, the brake ECU 22 makes a “Yes” determination, and executes the processing of step S13 and subsequent steps. On the other hand, when the road surface is not the dry road surface, for example, when the road surface is a wet road surface having a low friction coefficient μ due to rainfall, snow accumulation, or the like, the brake ECU 22 makes a “No” determination, and ends the execution of the program in step S16.
While this paragraph is indefinite and unclear in itself, it appears to equate “stability is maintained in braking” with “the road surface condition [being] a dry road surface having a high friction coefficient μ”. But even if this is the case, the paragraph even in conjunction with the totality of the description and drawings including FIG. 3, apparently does not describe, in sufficient detail, any algorithm(s) or steps/procedure for generating the friction braking force by using the friction braking device in the manner claimed when the road surface condition is in a state in which a stability of the vehicle in braking is “not” maintained, as the claim apparently encompasses and covers. Accordingly, the examiner believes applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only (if anything) described a desired result.
In this respect, see e.g., MPEP 2161.01, I., which indicates, “[O]riginal claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”
See also e.g., MPEP 2163, I., A. which indicates, “However, as discussed in subsection I, supra, issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. . . . An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function.”
See also MPEP 2163.03, V. which indicates, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”
Claims 1 to 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 1, “applied for” is indefinite and unclear in the claim context (e.g., applied for, in what way particularly?)
In claim 1, lines 12ff, “in a predetermined condition in which a stability of the vehicle in braking is maintained or not” is indefinite and not reasonably certain4 from the teachings of the specification that apparently puts no metes and bounds on such a “predetermined condition” (e.g., doesn’t every possibly condition satisfy “maintained or not” requirement of the claim language?) nor does the specification define, with reasonable certainty, how a mere detected road surface condition could be indicative of whether the stability of the vehicle in braking was maintained (or not), for example without stipulating particular conditions of e.g., the “vehicle in braking” (e.g., for example, even on ice, a vehicle with chains or with a sophisticated stability control system may maintain stability in braking, while even on a dry/perfect road, an unloaded pickup truck without functioning rear wheel ABS may be unable maintain stability in braking e.g., under high deceleration conditions with significant weight transfer). In this respect, “stability” is apparently facially subjective, with no objective standard provided in the specification for measuring/determining the scope of the term. See MPEP 2173.05(b), IV. Moreover, “maintained or not” would appear to cover every possibility and exclude nothing; therefore the metes and bounds of the “maintained or not” [predetermined] condition cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty, e.g., in the claim context and from the teachings of the specification.
In claim 2, lines 7ff, “is smaller a friction braking force” is grammatically incorrect and unclear (e.g., does applicant mean, “is smaller than a friction braking force”?)
In claim 4, line 6, “is configured to replacing” is grammatically incorrect and unclear (e.g., does applicant mean, “is configured to execute replacing”, as in claim 3?)
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (2007/0018499) in view of Yamasaki et al. (2020/0307645).
Kokubo et al. (‘499) reveals:
per claim 1, a vehicle braking control apparatus, applied for a vehicle comprising a regenerative braking device [e.g., the motor M, the generator G, etc.; e.g., paragraphs [0060], [0062], [0065], etc.] configured to apply a regenerative braking force to a front wheel [e.g., FL, FR], a rear wheel [e.g., RL, RR] or the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., the front wheels in FIG. 1, the rear wheels at paragraphs [0011], [0145], etc.] and a friction braking device [e.g., FIG. 2; see also FIG. 1] configured to apply a friction braking force to the front wheel and the rear wheel, comprising:
a road surface detector configured [e.g., paragraph [0039], “Notably, the road surface friction coefficient can be acquired by making use of an image of a road surface obtained from a photographing means (CCD camera or the like) which photographs the road surface on which the vehicle travels, or information regarding the road surface friction coefficient obtained through road-to-vehicle communications”; see also paragraphs [0154], etc.] to detect a road surface condition in front of the vehicle in a forward direction of the vehicle [e.g., the “road surface on which the vehicle travels” in paragraph [0039] obviously extends in the direction of travel in front of the vehicle]; and
a controller [e.g., 50, 30, 60, etc.] configured to execute cooperative control between the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 7A, 7B, etc.] so as to generate a target braking force [e.g., the target braking force FT in FIGS. 5, 6, etc.] for braking the vehicle,
wherein the controller is configured to execute:
determining whether the road surface condition detected by the road surface detector is in a predetermined condition in which a stability of the vehicle in braking is maintained or not [e.g., paragraphs [0037] to [0039], etc.; whether the road surface coefficient of friction μ is smaller or not smaller, wherein the regenerative braking gain K3 is set to a smaller value or to 1 in FIG. 4C when the road surface coefficient of friction μ is smaller or not, respectively; wherein as indicated at paragraph [0038], “the smaller the road surface friction coefficient, the greater the easiness of occurrence of a locking tendency of the wheels” and with the road surface friction coefficient itself being a “factor influencing the easiness of occurrence of a locking tendency of the driven wheels in the case where the driven wheels have no locking tendency”, with no locking tendency obviously indicating that stability of the vehicle in braking is maintained; with any acquired road surface coefficient of friction μ, e.g., from the CCD camera or the like being (photographing means), being the predetermined condition, with a stability of the vehicle obviously being “maintained or not” as covering all possibilities with any/all coefficients of friction]; and
in a state in which the road surface condition is in the predetermined condition [e.g., meaning any road surface coefficient of friction has been acquired] and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative braking device [e.g., a state (or obvious state) when the target braking force FT is greater than the regenerative braking force FE, in FIG. 3A, since the total braking force (=FE+FBf+FBr) coincides with the target braking force FT, for example at the point B in paragraph [0105]; see also FIGS. 7A, etc.], generating the friction braking force [e.g., FBf and FBr, e.g., in FIG. 3A] by using the friction braking device of both the front wheel and the rear wheel so as to generate the target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., paragraph [0095], “The front-wheel hydraulic braking force FBf (driven-wheels-side frictional braking force) is the total hydraulic braking force acting on the front wheels; and the rear-wheel hydraulic braking force FBr (non-driven-wheels-side frictional braking force) is the total hydraulic braking force acting on the two rear wheels”; see also FIGS. 5 to 7B];
It may be alleged that Kokubo et al. (‘499) does not explicitly disclose that the acquired road surface friction coefficient detects a road surface condition in front of the vehicle in a forward direction of the vehicle, although the examiner understands this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art even without further teaching, e.g., as being a part of “the road surface on which the vehicle travels”, obviously in a forward direction.
It may also be alleged that Kokubo et al. (‘499) does not explicitly disclose the indefinite limitation regarding the predetermined condition in which a stability of the vehicle in braking is maintained or not, although the examiner believes Kokubo et al. (‘499) fairly reveals or renders obvious this limitation, as detailed above.
However, in the context/field of an improved vehicle control device having a road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 and a motor that generates electrical power by regeneration (paragraph [0029]) as part of a vehicle braking and driving device 300 (FIG. 1), Yamasaki et al. (‘645) teaches at paragraphs [0035], [0042], etc. that the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 may calculate, in real time, the coefficient of friction on the road surface on the basis of, for example, the image and the temperature frontward of the vehicle detected by the vehicle exterior sensor 150 (e.g., a camera or a LIDAR), and may calculate the road surface friction coefficient frontward of the vehicle for a road determined to be in a dry state using the database shown in FIG. 3, wherein as taught at paragraph [0033], the coefficient of friction on the road surface may serve as “behavior instability” e.g., when the coefficient is determined to be low (paragraph [0053]), and obviously/conversely (to one of ordinary skill in the art) may also serve is an indicator of behavior stability when the road is “dry” (e.g., paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0039], [0042], etc.) and the coefficient of friction is high(er).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Kokubo et al. (‘499) vehicle brake control device so that the photographing means (his CCD camera or the like) of paragraph [0039] would have captured an image frontward of the vehicle, as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645) at paragraphs [0028], [0035], etc., in order to calculate the road surface friction coefficient frontward of the vehicle, in the manner taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645), in order to control the braking (e.g., as taught in conjunction with FIGS. 3A, 3B, 4C, and 5 to 7B of Kokubo et al. (‘499)), in order that the road surface friction coefficient would be calculated in real time as the vehicle was traveling [forwardly] on the frontward road, as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645), in order to improve real-time braking control, wherein the real time coefficient of friction of the road surface would have obviously been indicative of “behavior instability” e.g., when it was low, as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645) at paragraphs [0033], [0053], etc., and would have obviously been conversely indicative of behavior stability when it was high, to those having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Kokubo et al. (‘499) vehicle brake control device would have revealed or rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a vehicle braking control apparatus, applied for a vehicle comprising a regenerative braking device [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), the motor M, the generator G, etc.; e.g., paragraphs [0060], [0062], [0065], etc.] configured to apply a regenerative braking force to a front wheel [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), FL, FR], a rear wheel [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), RL, RR] or the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), the front wheels in FIG. 1, the rear wheels at paragraphs [0011], [0145], etc.] and a friction braking device [e.g., FIG. 2 in Kokubo et al. (‘499); see also FIG. 1] configured to apply a friction braking force to the front wheel and the rear wheel, comprising:
a road surface detector configured [e.g., paragraph [0039] in Kokubo et al. (‘499), “Notably, the road surface friction coefficient can be acquired by making use of an image of a road surface obtained from a photographing means (CCD camera or the like) which photographs the road surface on which the vehicle travels, or information regarding the road surface friction coefficient obtained through road-to-vehicle communications”; see also paragraphs [0154], etc.] to detect a road surface condition in front of the vehicle in a forward direction of the vehicle [e.g., to detect/calculate the coefficient of friction of the road surface “frontward of the vehicle”, as taught at paragraphs [0035], [0042], etc. of Yamasaki et al. (‘645); and the “road surface on which the vehicle travels” in paragraph [0039] of Kokubo et al. (‘499) obviously extends in the direction of travel in front of the vehicle]; and
a controller [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), 50, 30, 60, etc.] configured to execute cooperative control between the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 7A, 7B, etc. in Kokubo et al. (‘499)] so as to generate a target braking force [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), the target braking force FT in FIGS. 5, 6, etc.] for braking the vehicle,
wherein the controller is configured to execute:
determining whether the road surface condition detected by the road surface detector is in a predetermined condition in which a stability of the vehicle in braking is maintained or not [e.g., paragraphs [0037] to [0039], etc. in Kokubo et al. (‘499); whether the road surface coefficient of friction μ is smaller or not smaller, wherein the regenerative braking gain K3 is set to a smaller value or to 1 in FIG. 4C when the road surface coefficient of friction μ is smaller or not, respectively; wherein as indicated at paragraph [0038], “the smaller the road surface friction coefficient, the greater the easiness of occurrence of a locking tendency of the wheels” and with the road surface friction coefficient itself being a “factor influencing the easiness of occurrence of a locking tendency of the driven wheels in the case where the driven wheels have no locking tendency”, with no locking tendency obviously indicating that stability of the vehicle in braking is maintained; with any acquired road surface coefficient of friction μ, e.g., from the CCD camera or the like being (photographing means), being the predetermined condition, with a stability of the vehicle obviously being “maintained or not” as covering all possibilities with any/all coefficients of friction; with Yamasaki et al. (‘645) teaching that the coefficient of friction on the road surface may serve as “behavior instability” indicator at paragraph [0033] e.g., when it is low (e.g., paragraph [0053]), and obviously may also serve as a behavior stability indicator when it is high (e.g., to stabilize vehicle behavior e.g., at S26 in FIG. 9)]; and
in a state in which the road surface condition is in the predetermined condition [e.g., meaning any road surface coefficient of friction has been acquired in Kokubo et al. (‘499), since the predetermined condition covers all possibilities, e.g., stability being maintained or not] and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative braking device [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), a state (or obvious state) when the target braking force FT is greater than the regenerative braking force FE, in FIG. 3A, since the total braking force (=FE+FBf+FBr) coincides with the target braking force FT, for example at the point B in paragraph [0105]; see also FIGS. 7A, etc.], generating the friction braking force [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), FBf and FBr, e.g., in FIG. 3A] by using the friction braking device of both the front wheel and the rear wheel so as to generate the target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., paragraph [0095] in Kokubo et al. (‘499), “The front-wheel hydraulic braking force FBf (driven-wheels-side frictional braking force) is the total hydraulic braking force acting on the front wheels; and the rear-wheel hydraulic braking force FBr (non-driven-wheels-side frictional braking force) is the total hydraulic braking force acting on the two rear wheels”; see also FIGS. 5 to 7B];
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, wherein the regenerative braking device is configured to apply the regenerative braking force to the rear wheel [e.g., FIG. 7A in Kokubo et al. (‘499)], and
wherein, in the state in which the road surface condition is in the predetermined condition and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative braking device, the controller is configured to execute generating the friction braking force so that a friction braking force generated by the friction braking device of the rear wheel is smaller a friction braking force generated by the friction braking device of the front wheel [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), as shown in FIG. 7A for brake pedal depressing forces Fp above Fb];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein the regenerative braking force applied by the regenerative braking device is determined based on a maximum recoverable regenerative energy in braking [e.g., in Kokubo et al. (‘499), FEmax];
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (2007/0018499) in view of Yamasaki et al. (2020/0307645) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asanuma et al. (5,318,355).
Kokubo et al. (‘499) as implemented or modified in view of Yamasaki et al. (‘645) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Kokubo et al. (‘499) vehicle brake control device may not reveal the (execution of) replacing of at least part of the regenerative braking force as recited in claims 3 or 4.
However, in the context/field of an improved brake control system for an electric vehicle, Asanuma et al. (‘355) teaches at column 11, lines 57ff and e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 3, 29, etc. i) that when the coefficient of friction of the road surface is large, the regenerative braking-preference mode (Mode 3 at S587 in FIG. 29) can be selected, and that when the coefficient of friction of the road surface is small, the (usual) mode for braking distribution (Mode 2 at S588 in FIG. 29) in which the braking force distribution characteristic corresponds to the theoretic distribution characteristic can be selected (column 3, lines 20ff), wherein the regeneration limit value (RG LIMIT in FIG. 3) decreases with regenerative ON time t (FIG. 7; see also S325 in FIG. 6), in order to stabilize the braking behavior of the vehicle, and ii) that when the condition of a road surface with a small coefficient is continued, the driving wheel can be braked by only the hydraulic pressure (Mode 1 in FIG. 3; see e.g., S512, YES and S521, YES in FIG. 10), leading to an increased responsiveness of braking (column 4, lines 3ff). Since, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355), the change from Mode 3 to Mode 2 to Mode 1 occurs along the equal braking force line (shown in FIG. 3) and with increasing regenerative ON time t counted by the timer RBT started at S312 in FIG. 3, i) rear braking is replaced by front braking in the switch from Mode 3 to Mode 2 when the coefficient of friction of the road surface is small and ii) regenerative rear braking is replaced by hydraulic pressure braking both with the increase in regenerative ON time (in Modes 2 and 3, see FIG. 7C) and in the switch from Mode 2 to Mode 1 when the coefficient of friction of the road surface is small/continued as being small. In this way, the mode is switched from a regenerative braking mode (Mode 3 or Mode 2 in FIG. 3) to Mode 1 (with only hydraulic pressure braking at both the front and rear wheels, in FIG. 3) when the low-friction road condition is detected (claims 25 and 37). Moreover, Asanuma et al. (‘355) teaches at column 24, lines 65ff that although the vehicle having the front wheels Wf as follower wheels and the rear wheels Wr as driving wheels having the regenerative braking is shown and described by way of example, the present invention is applicable to a vehicle having front wheels as driving wheels (and thus having the regenerative braking) and rear wheels as follower wheels.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Kokubo et al. (‘499) vehicle brake control device so that when the acquired road surface friction coefficient (FIG. 4C) indicated a low-friction road condition as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355) (e.g., for example, which resulted in the regenerative braking gain K3 (FIG. 4C) in Kokubo et al. (‘499) being zero), the regenerative (in FIG. 3A or 7A) braking mode would have been switched to a braking mode with only hydraulic pressure braking at both the front and rear wheels, as taught by Mode 1 in Asanuma et al. (‘355), e.g., since the limit regenerative braking force KE1 at 640 in FIG. 6 of Kokubo et al. (‘499) would have obviously been zero when K3 was zero, in order to replace the regenerative braking and provide an increased responsiveness of braking with the hydraulic/frictional braking, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Kokubo et al. (‘499) vehicle brake control device would have revealed or rendered obvious:
per claim 3, depending from claim 1, wherein the regenerative braking device is configured to apply the regenerative braking force to the rear wheel [e.g., FIG. 7A in Kokubo et al. (‘499); and FIG. 3 in Asanuma et al. (‘355)], and
wherein, in the state in which the road surface condition is in the predetermined condition [e.g., when the road surface condition obviously changes (from a normal condition) to a low-friction road condition as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355) e.g., in the “Road of Low μ” Change of Mode in FIG. 3] and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative braking device [e.g., for example only, at the point B in FIG. 7A of Kokubo et al. (‘499)], the controller is configured to execute replacing at least a part of the regenerative braking force applied to the rear wheel by the regenerative braking device with the friction braking force generated by both the friction braking device of the rear wheel and the friction braking device of the front wheel [e.g., by replacing the regenerative braking force in Mode 3 of Asanuma et al. (‘355) (and FIG. 7A of Kokubo et al. (‘499)) with hydraulic pressure braking along in Mode 1 along the equal braking force line in FIG. 3 of Asanuma et al. (‘355), to stabilize the braking behavior of the vehicle (e.g., column 3, lines 20ff)], and generating the friction braking force by using both the friction braking device of the rear wheel and the friction braking device of the front wheel so as to generate the target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., as shown in the Mode 1 Braking Force Distribution in FIG. 3 of Asanuma et al. (‘355)];
per claim 4, depending from claim 1, wherein the regenerative braking device is configured to apply the regenerative braking force to the front wheel [e.g., FIG. 3A in Kokubo et al. (‘499); and FIG. 3 and column 24, lines 65ff in Asanuma et al. (‘355)], and
wherein, in the state in which the road surface condition is in the predetermined condition [e.g., when the road surface condition obviously changes (from a normal condition) to a low-friction road condition as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355) e.g., in the “Road of Low μ” Change of Mode in FIG. 3] and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative braking device [e.g., for example only, at the point B in FIG. 3A of Kokubo et al. (‘499)], the controller is configured to replacing at least a part of the regenerative braking force applied to the front wheel by the regenerative braking device with the friction braking force generated by both the friction braking device of the rear wheel and the friction braking device of the front wheel [e.g., by replacing the regenerative braking force in Mode 3 of Asanuma et al. (‘355) (and FIG. 3A of Kokubo et al. (‘499)) with hydraulic pressure braking along in Mode 1 along the equal braking force line in FIG. 3 of Asanuma et al. (‘355), to stabilize the braking behavior of the vehicle (e.g., column 3, lines 20ff)], and generating the friction braking force by using both the friction braking device of the rear wheel and the friction braking device of the front wheel so as to generate the target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., as shown in the Mode 1 Braking Force Distribution in FIG. 3 of Asanuma et al. (‘355)];
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the
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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
2 See http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fnctnllnggcmptr.pptx at page 29.
3 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]").
4 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
Prosecution Insights