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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on August 29, 2024. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, 6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim US2011/0320099 (“Kim”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 12. Kim discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a control portion configured to control a first frictional braking apparatus and a second frictional braking apparatus, the first frictional braking apparatus being configured to provide a braking force to a first wheel, which is one of left and right wheels of a vehicle (fig. 1, ECU 100),
the second frictional braking apparatus being configured to provide a braking force to a second wheel portion, which is the other wheel portion of the left and right wheels of the vehicle (fig. 1 ECU 200), wherein,
when a first braking force provided to the first wheel cannot be controlled due to a failure in the first frictional braking apparatus, the control portion outputs a braking instruction for causing the second frictional braking apparatus to generate a second braking force according to magnitude of the first braking force ([0019] The object, in detail, is achieved by a braking control system including: a first control unit controlling the operation of a first electronic brake mounted at a front-left wheel and a second electronic brake mounted at a front-right wheel in response to braking signals; and a second control unit controlling the operation of a third electronic brake mounted at a rear-left wheel and a fourth electronic brake mounted at a rear-right wheel in response to the braking signals, in which, when a fail occurs in any one of the first and second control units, the other control unit selectively controls at least one or more of the first to fourth electronic brakes.).
Regarding claim(s) 2. Kim discloses wherein the control portion outputs an acceleration/deceleration instruction according to a relationship between the magnitude of the first braking force and magnitude of an acceleration/deceleration request requested to the vehicle ([0068] The F-ECU 100 and the R-ECU 200 receive the driver's intention of braking, that is, braking signals generated from a pedal unit 300 by pedal-pressing force from the driver. The braking signals imply electronic signals generated from the pedal unit 300. The F-ECU 100 and the R-ECU 200 calculate braking force in response to the braking signals and control the operation of the corresponding electronic brakes.).
Regarding claim(s) 6. Kim discloses wherein the control portion outputs the braking instruction in such a manner that magnitude of the second braking force matches the magnitude of the first braking force (para. 81-85, [0068] The F-ECU 100 and the R-ECU 200 receive the driver's intention of braking, that is, braking signals generated from a pedal unit 300 by pedal-pressing force from the driver. The braking signals imply electronic signals generated from the pedal unit 300. The F-ECU 100 and the R-ECU 200 calculate braking force in response to the braking signals and control the operation of the corresponding electronic brakes.).
Regarding claim(s) 8. Kim discloses wherein the first frictional braking apparatus is actuated by a first electric motor, and wherein the second frictional braking apparatus is actuated by a second electric motor ([0070] Further, the F-ECU 100 is connected with the electronic brakes 110, 120, 210, and 220 by signal lines to detect normal/abnormal operation, and the R-ECU 200 is also connected with the electronic brakes 110, 120, 210, and 220 by signal lines to detect normal/abnormal operation. Furthermore, a signal line is also connected between the F-ECU 100 and the R-ECU 200 to detect whether the counter-ECU fails.).
Regarding claim(s) 9. Kim discloses wherein the second wheel portion is a second front wheel, which is a front wheel in the other wheel portion, or a second rear wheel, which is a rear wheel in the other wheel portion (fig. 1).
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 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 of this title, 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 3-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US2011/0320099 (“Kim”) in view of Yokoyama et al. US2010/0127562 (“Yokoyama”).
Regarding claim(s) 3. Kim does not explicitly disclose the control portion outputs the braking instruction in such a manner that magnitude of the second braking force is smaller than the first braking force by a predetermined amount, and outputs an acceleration instruction of the acceleration/deceleration instruction so as to generate an acceleration corresponding to a sum of a sum of the magnitude of the first braking force and the magnitude of the second braking force and magnitude of the acceleration request.
Yokoyama teaches another braking control system and method that the control portion outputs the braking instruction in such a manner that magnitude of the second braking force is smaller than the first braking force by a predetermined amount, and outputs an acceleration instruction of the acceleration/deceleration instruction so as to generate an acceleration corresponding to a sum of a sum of the magnitude of the first braking force and the magnitude of the second braking force and magnitude of the acceleration request (para. 66-67, FIG. 5(a), tracking capability of the required total braking force can be ensured by increasing the target braking force of the rear wheels. This means that distribution control is executed by correcting distribution by using a regeneration distribution line, shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, so that the tracking delay in the front wheels can be compensated for by an increase in the rear-wheel target braking force. Such corrections can be made on the condition that the tracking error exceeds the predetermined threshold. That is, distribution control is to be executed by increasing the ratio of distribution to the rear wheels so that the required total braking force can be satisfied when the tracking error becomes equal to or greater than the threshold.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Kim by incorporating the applied teaching of Yokoyama to improve the safety of vehicle braking control when there’s a failure in the braking system and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim(s) 4. Kim in view of Yokoyama further teaches the acceleration/deceleration request is a deceleration request and magnitude of the deceleration request is less than twice the magnitude of the first braking force, the control portion outputs the braking instruction in such a manner that magnitude of the second braking force is smaller than the first braking force by a predetermined amount, and outputs an acceleration instruction of the acceleration/deceleration instruction so as to generate a deceleration corresponding to a difference between a sum of the magnitude of the first braking force and the magnitude of the second braking force and the magnitude of the deceleration request (Yokoyama: para. 66, as shown in the lower portion of FIG. 5(a), tracking capability of the required total braking force can be ensured by increasing the target braking force of the rear wheels. This means that distribution control is executed by correcting distribution by using a regeneration distribution line, shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, so that the tracking delay in the front wheels can be compensated for by an increase in the rear-wheel target braking force. Such corrections can be made on the condition that the tracking error exceeds the predetermined threshold. That is, distribution control is to be executed by increasing the ratio of distribution to the rear wheels so that the required total braking force can be satisfied when the tracking error becomes equal to or greater than the threshold.).
Regarding claim(s) 5. Kim in view of Yokoyama further teaches wherein, when the acceleration/deceleration request is a deceleration request and magnitude of the deceleration request is more than twice the magnitude of the first braking force, the control portion outputs the braking instruction in such a manner that magnitude of the second braking force is greater than the first braking force by a predetermined amount, and outputs a deceleration instruction of the acceleration/deceleration instruction so as to generate a deceleration corresponding to a difference between the magnitude of the deceleration request and a sum of the magnitude of the first braking force and the magnitude of the second braking force (Yokoyama: para. 70, an error between the target braking force and the actual braking force is calculated, and it is judged whether the calculated tracking error is larger than the threshold or not. When it is judged that the tracking error does not exceed the threshold, the procedure will end. On the other hand, when it is judged that the tracking error is larger than the threshold, that is, when it is judged that the control error needs to be corrected, the process proceeds to step S10 wherein the above-mentioned control error correction is executed, then, the procedure will end.).
Regarding claim(s) 7. Kim in view of Yokoyama further teaches wherein the control portion determines the second braking force according to an estimated moment amount to be generated by a steering apparatus of the vehicle (Yokoyama: para. 31, para. 36, vehicle state detectors include a variety of sensors, such as front-back acceleration sensor, lateral acceleration sensor, yaw rate sensor, steering angle sensor, wheel speed sensor, vehicle speed sensor, and friction brake pressure sensor.).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658