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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 7/9/2024. Claims 1-3 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 7/9/2024 and 6/5/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the 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) 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):
(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), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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 rotating electric machine control unit configured to control an operation...” in claim 1.
“...a friction braking control unit configured to control an operation...” in claim 1.
“...the friction braking control unit is configured to...block a flow...and increase a pressure...” in claim 1.
“...the friction braking control unit is configured to set the pressure...” in claim 2.
"...the friction braking control unit is configured to...terminate control..." in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Support for these limitations are as follows:
rotating electric machine control unit:
"(1) A vehicle control system according to an aspect of the present invention includes a rotating electric machine control unit configured to control an operation of a rotating electric machine configured to transmit and receive torque to and from a predetermined wheel and a friction braking control unit configured to control an operation of a pressure system configured to drive a friction brake mechanism of a plurality of wheels including the predetermined wheel using a pressure medium, wherein the friction braking control unit is configured to, when a slip of the predetermined wheel has occurred during execution of regenerative braking by the rotating electric machine control unit, block a flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel and increase a pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred. (2) In the above aspect (1), the friction braking control unit may be configured to set the pressure of the pressure medium in association with a friction braking torque obtained by multiplying a decrease in a regenerative braking torque by which the rotating electric machine control unit has reduced the regenerative braking torque by a predetermined coefficient while the flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel is blocked when a slip of the predetermined wheel has occurred to increase the pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred." (pages 2-3 of 22)
Additionally, page 7 of 22 details various control units [software that functions by a processor/CPU] found within a processing device, however the rotating electric machine control unit is not included within this list. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the rotating electric machine control unit as being similar to above, a software that functions by a processor/CPU, but the interpretation is not limited to such assumptions.
friction braking control unit:
"(1) A vehicle control system according to an aspect of the present invention includes a rotating electric machine control unit configured to control an operation of a rotating electric machine configured to transmit and receive torque to and from a predetermined wheel and a friction braking control unit configured to control an operation of a pressure system configured to drive a friction brake mechanism of a plurality of wheels including the predetermined wheel using a pressure medium, wherein the friction braking control unit is configured to, when a slip of the predetermined wheel has occurred during execution of regenerative braking by the rotating electric machine control unit, block a flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel and increase a pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred. (2) In the above aspect (1), the friction braking control unit may be configured to set the pressure of the pressure medium in association with a friction braking torque obtained by multiplying a decrease in a regenerative braking torque by which the rotating electric machine control unit has reduced the regenerative braking torque by a predetermined coefficient while the flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel is blocked when a slip of the predetermined wheel has occurred to increase the pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred." (pages 2-3 of 22)
Additionally, page 7 of 22 details various control units [software that functions by a processor/CPU] found within a processing device, however the friction braking control unit is not included within this list. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the friction braking control unit as being similar to above, a software that functions by a processor/CPU, but the interpretation is not limited to such assumptions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “rotating electric machine control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Pages 2-3 of 22 of the instant specification are paragraphs which provide support for the term, but does not clearly link what the structure is. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the “rotating electric machine control unit” as being a software that functions by a processor/CPU, but the interpretation is not limited to such assumptions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 1-3, claim limitation “friction braking control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Pages 2-3 of 22 of the instant specification are paragraphs which provide support for the term, but does not clearly link what the structure is. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the “friction braking control unit” as being a software that functions by a processor/CPU, but the interpretation is not limited to such assumptions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 includes term “a slip of the predetermined wheel” but then later in claim 2 repeats that term with “a slip of the predetermined wheel”; however, if the subsequent use of this term was meant to be referring to the earlier use of this term it should instead begin with “the” or “said” instead of “a”. Or, if the subsequent use of this term was NOT meant to be referring to the earlier term then they should be clearly differentiated with terminology such as “a FIRST slip of the predetermined wheel” vs. “a SECOND slip of the predetermined wheel”, or the like. Since the subsequent use of this term begins with “a” but doesn’t include a “FIRST” or “SECOND”, the subsequent use of this term is indefinite as to whether it is meant to be the same as the earlier term or different.
For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting claim 2 “a slip of the predetermined wheel” as if it was instead “[ [ a ] ] the slip of the predetermined wheel” (as though both terms are referring to the same thing) such as claim 3 currently states.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the claim as currently presented states “…when the blocking of the flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel has been released, terminate control of increasing the pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred after a predetermined period of time elapses…” which the Examiner notes is indefinite for the following reasons. The primary reason for indefiniteness appears to result from the grammatical structure of the sentence, such that the Examiner is uncertain when specific actions are intended to occur. For instance, “…terminate control of increasing the pressure of the pressure medium…” appears to be the overall action to occur when certain criteria are satisfied, however the claim does not clearly indicate when this “…terminate control of increasing the pressure of the pressure medium…” action should occur.
Claim 3 additionally states “...when the blocking of the flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel has been released…” however there is no indication that this step actually occurs or when it should occur; the Examiner will assume that this occurs when slip is no longer detected during a regenerative braking operation, but is not limited to this assumption.
Claim 3 additionally states “…compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred after a predetermined period of time elapses…” however the claims have not described any aspect of “the pressure of the pressure medium” during a period of time where no slip occurs, nor have the claims detailed how a period of time affects the pressure of the pressure medium.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claim 3 according to page 20 of 22 of the instant specification,
“The electric braking control unit 21 reduces the predetermined increase PU in the master pressure toward zero over a predetermined period of time when the slip of the front wheels Fr has been eliminated, such that it is possible to prevent the total friction braking force of the vehicle from becoming excessive and prevent sudden fluctuations in the friction braking force and vehicle behavior instability.”
which provides the Examiner insight as to preventing a friction braking from becoming excessive when it is reapplied to the overall braking application to the predetermined wheel.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US-2019/0299786; hereinafter Nakagawa) in view of Kamei et al. (US-6,056,372; hereinafter Kamei).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a vehicle control system (see Nakagawa at least Abs) comprising:
a rotating electric machine control unit configured to control an operation of a rotating electric machine configured to transmit and receive torque to and from a predetermined wheel (see Nakagawa at least [0020]-[0021] "...As shown in FIG. 1, the vehicle includes a driving motor 10, which is an example of a driving source of the vehicle, and a driving control device 11 that controls the drive of the driving motor 10... The driving system of the vehicle is rear wheel drive, and the driving force output from the driving motor 10 is transmitted to the rear wheels RL and RR through a differential gear 14. Furthermore, in the vehicle, a regenerative braking force BPR can be applied to the rear wheels RL, RR by controlling the driving motor 10 and an inverter for the driving motor 10..."); and
a friction braking control unit configured to control an operation of a pressure system configured to drive a friction brake mechanism of a plurality of wheels including the predetermined wheel using a pressure medium (see Nakagawa at least [0022] "The vehicle is provided with a friction braking unit 200 that controls the adjustment of the WC pressure Pwc in each of the wheel cylinders 13a to 13d. The friction braking unit 200 is a component of the braking system BS. The friction braking unit 200 is provided with a friction braking device 20..." and [0046] "The high pressure supply unit 73 includes a servo pump 732 having a servo motor 731 as a driving source, an accumulator 733 that accumulates high-pressure brake fluid, and an accumulator pressure detection sensor SE1 that detects an accumulator pressure which is a fluid pressure in the accumulator 733..."),
wherein the friction braking control unit is configured to, when a slip of the predetermined wheel has occurred during execution of regenerative braking by the rotating electric machine control unit (see Nakagawa at least [0079] "...That is, in the first slip suppression control, when the regenerative braking force BPR is applied to the rear wheels RL and RR, the first ECU 231 transmits to the driving control device 11 to stop the application of the regenerative braking force BPR to the rear wheels RL and RR. If the slip amount SlpE is still large even if the regenerative braking force BPR on the rear wheels RL and RR becomes equal to “0”, the first ECU 231 controls the operation of the servo pressure generation device 70 to reduce the MC pressure Pmc in each of the master chambers 361, 362. The WC pressure Pwc in all the wheel cylinders 13a to 13d is thereby reduced, so that the friction braking force BPP to apply to each of the wheels FL, FR, RL, RR becomes smaller..."), …
However, while Nakagawa describes the adjustment of a friction braking amount during a slip occurrence, it is not explicit that Nakagawa discloses the following:
…block a flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel and increase a pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred.
Kamei, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…block a flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel and increase a pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred (see Kamei at least col 21 lines 32-40 “The solenoid valve control portion 106 is adapted to command the solenoid-operated shut-off valve devices 30, 32, 38 to be appropriately opened and closed, so as to establish the pressure control modes selected by the control mode selecting portion 104. As shown in FIG. 3, the solenoid valve control portion 106 includes front pseudo-hold means in the form of a front Pseudo-Hold control portion 108, and front and rear pseudo-hold means in the form of a front and rear Pseudo-Hold control portion 110.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the friction braking control as disclosed by Nakagawa with the blockage of a pressure medium such as taught by Kamei with a reasonable expectation of success so that a pressure may be regulated at the request of a user (see Kamei at least col 1 lines 26-35).
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa in view of Kamei teach the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the friction braking control unit is configured to, when the blocking of the flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel has been released (Kamei, see claim 1), terminate control of increasing the pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred after a predetermined period of time elapses (see Nakagawa at least [0079] "...When the slip amount SlpE of the rear wheels RL and RR decreases by reducing the braking force applied to the wheels FL, FR, RL, and RR, the first ECU 231 controls the operation of the servo pressure generation device 70 to increase the MC pressure Pmc. The WC pressure Pwc in all the wheel cylinders 13a to 13d is thereby increased, so that the friction braking force BPP applied to each of the wheels FL, FR, RL, and RR becomes larger. That is, in the first slip suppression control, the lowering in the stability of the vehicle behavior is suppressed while decelerating the vehicle by operating the servo pressure generation device 70 to increase or decrease the MC pressure Pmc based on the fluctuation of the slip amount SlpE.").
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Kamei, and further in view of Maruyama et al. (US-2021/0276534; hereinafter Maruyama).
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa in view of Kamei teach the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the friction braking control unit is configured to set the pressure of the pressure medium … while the flow of the pressure medium to the friction brake mechanism of the predetermined wheel is blocked when a slip of the predetermined wheel has occurred to increase the pressure of the pressure medium compared to when the slip of the predetermined wheel has not occurred (Kamei, see claim 1).
However, while Kamei teaches the adjustment of a pressure medium for a braking system, it is not explicit that either Nakagawa nor Kamei disclose or teach the following:
…[adjust pressure] in association with a friction braking torque obtained by multiplying a decrease in a regenerative braking torque by which the rotating electric machine control unit has reduced the regenerative braking torque by a predetermined coefficient...
Maruyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…[adjust pressure] in association with a friction braking torque obtained by multiplying a decrease in a regenerative braking torque by which the rotating electric machine control unit has reduced the regenerative braking torque by a predetermined coefficient (see Maruyama at least Fig 4 and [0093] "At a time point t1, since the vehicle body speed Vx reaches the first predetermined speed vo and the maximum regenerative force Fx is reduced, the regenerative braking force Fg is reduced. The friction braking force Fm is increased to compensate for the decrease in the regenerative braking force Fg. As the friction braking force increases, the target liquid pressure Pt (as a result, the adjustment liquid pressure Pa, brake liquid pressure Pw) is increased from the predetermined liquid pressure pp. Accordingly, a braking force F acting on the vehicle matches the required braking force Fd (=fa). That is, at the time point t1 after the preceding pressurization is performed, the replacement operation between the regenerative braking force Fg and the friction braking force Fm is started. As the target liquid pressure Pt increases in the replacement operation, the liquid pressure change amount dP increases and the target rotation speed Nt increases. As a result, the actual rotation speed Na is increased to a value nb (see characteristic Ca).")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braking controls as taught by Nakagawa in view of Kamei with an adjustment of friction braking proportional to an adjustment of regenerative braking such as taught by Maruyama with a reasonable expectation of success so as to provide an appropriate amount of braking force for a vehicle (see Maruyama at least [0005]-[0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663