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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alford et al. (US 2021/0179051).
Regarding independent claim 1, Alford discloses a braking control device for a vehicle (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising: an upper braking unit (132) that electrically outputs a supply pressure according to a braking request amount (see ¶ 0049); and a lower braking unit (170, 172, 174, 176, 170’, 172’, 174’, 176’, 120) that is disposed between the upper braking unit and a plurality of wheel cylinders (HL, HR, VR, VL), individually adjusts the supply pressure with respect to each of the plurality of wheel cylinders (see ¶ 0061), and outputs a wheel pressure (see ¶ 0061); wherein the upper braking unit increases the supply pressure to a demand pressure necessary for executing a sideslip prevention control when the lower braking unit executes the sideslip prevention control (see ¶ 0066).
Regarding claim 4, Alford discloses that when the upper braking unit cannot increase the supply pressure to the demand pressure, the lower braking unit increases the wheel pressure by a deviation between the supply pressure and the demand pressure (see ¶ 0071).
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alford et al. (US 2021/0179051), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ohkubo et al. (US 6,913,326).
Alford does not explicitly disclose that the demand pressure is determined based on a maximum value of necessary pressures required for each of the plurality of wheel cylinders.
Ohkubo teaches a braking control device for a vehicle (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising a braking unit (30), wherein the braking unit increases the supply pressure to a demand pressure necessary for executing a sideslip prevention control (see col. 34, lines 31-39), the demand pressure is determined based on a maximum value of necessary pressures required for each of the plurality of wheel cylinders (see col. 34, lines 31-39).
It would have been obvious to set the demand pressure in Alford to the maximum value of necessary pressures required for each of the plurality of wheel cylinders, as taught by Ohkubo, to permit the fluid pressure in any wheel brake cylinder to be controlled to the target value (see e.g. Ohkubo, col. 34, lines 31-39).
Regarding claim 3, Alford discloses that when the upper braking unit cannot increase the supply pressure to the demand pressure, the lower braking unit increases the wheel pressure by a deviation between the supply pressure and the demand pressure (see ¶ 0071).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights