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)(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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Kingston reference (WO2005016718A1).
4. Regarding claim 11, the Kingston reference discloses:
A motor vehicle (10) comprising: a front axle, wherein the front axle is a steered axle; a rear axle, wherein the rear axle is an unsteered axle; (FIG. 1), two front wheel brakes (14A-14B) arranged on the front axle; two rear wheel brakes (14C-14D) arranged on the rear axle, a data processing device (20) configured to:,
specify, a braking force distribution (20) [Page 3, Paragraph 0002],
a front braking force component for the two frontwheel brakes (14A, 14B) and a rear braking force component for the two rear wheel brakes (14C, 14D) [Page 3, Paragraph 0002],
determine a predetermined condition is fulfilled for an acoustically perceptible release of a tension in the motor vehicle (10) [Page 10, Paragraph 0003], and
adjust the braking force distribution by reducing the front braking force component
and by increasing the rear braking force component [Page 11, Paragraph 0005] wherein the braking force distribution is adjusted depending on a speed of the motor vehicle by progressively reducing the front braking force component as the speed decreases and progressively increasing the rear braking force component as the speed decreases.
5. Regarding claim 12, the Kingston reference further discloses:
wherein the braking force distribution is adjusted independently of a braking request [Page 9, Paragraph 0003].
6. Regarding claim 14, the Kingston reference further discloses:
wherein a trajectory for the motor vehicle is determined by the data processing device [Page 9, Paragraph 0003—speed trajectory], the trajectory having both a gradient and a curvature [Page 9 Paragraph 0003—discloses gradient and inherently must have a curvature even if zero] and wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the gradient of the trajectory is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value [Page 9, Paragraph 0003—constant gradient of speed during control intervention (said control intervention fulfills predetermined condition].
9. Regarding claim 22, the Kingston reference further discloses:
wherein a trajectory for the motor vehicle is determined by the data processing device [Page 9, Paragraph 0003—speed trajectory], the trajectory having both a gradient and a curvature [Page 9, Paragraph 0003—the trajectory does have a gradient and curvature] and wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the gradient of the trajectory is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value [Page 9, Paragraph 0003—constant gradient of speed during control intervention (said control intervention fulfills predetermined condition].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 13, 15-16, and 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Kingston reference.
12. Regarding claim 13, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the speed of the motor vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined limit value which lies in a range between 15 km/h and 60 km/h. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (the predetermined condition of claim 1) for another (speed) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 13 is allowable in light of the prior art.
13. Regarding claim 15, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein a trajectory for the motor vehicle is determined by the data processing device, the trajectory having both a gradient and a curvature and wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the curvature of the trajectory is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (trajectory having gradient and curvature) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 15 is obvious in light of the prior art.
14. Regarding claim 16, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein a slope in the local terrain is determined by the data processing device and the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the slope is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (slope) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 16 is obvious in light of the prior art.
17. Regarding claim 21, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the speed of the motor vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined limit value which lies in a range between 15 km/h and 60 km/h. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (the predetermined condition of claim 1) for another (speed) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 21 is allowable in light of the prior art.
18. Regarding claim 23, the Kingston reference further discloses:
wherein a trajectory for the motor vehicle is determined by the data processing device [Page 9, Paragraph 0003—speed trajectory], [Page 9 Paragraph 0003—discloses gradient and inherently must have a curvature even if zero] and wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the gradient of the trajectory is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value [Page 9, Paragraph 0003—constant gradient of speed during control intervention (said control intervention fulfills predetermined condition].
19. Regarding claim 24, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein a trajectory for the motor vehicle is determined by the data processing device, [Page 9 Paragraph 0003—discloses gradient and inherently must have a curvature even if zero] and wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the curvature of the trajectory is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (curvature) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 24 is obvious in light of the prior art.
20. Regarding claim 25, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein a trajectory for the motor vehicle is determined by the data processing device, [Page 9 Paragraph 0003—discloses gradient and inherently must have a curvature even if zero] and wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the curvature of the trajectory is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (curvature) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 25 is obvious in light of the prior art.
21. Regarding claim 26, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein a trajectory for the motor vehicle is determined by the data processing device, [Page 9 Paragraph 0003—discloses gradient and inherently must have a curvature even if zero] and wherein the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the curvature of the trajectory is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (curvature) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 26 is obvious in light of the prior art.
22. Regarding claim 27, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
a slope in the local terrain is determined by the data processing device and the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the slope is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (slope) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 27 is obvious in light of the prior art.
23. Regarding claim 28, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein a slope in the local terrain is determined by the data processing device and the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the slope is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (slope) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 28 is obvious in light of the prior art.
24. Regarding claim 29, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein a slope in the local terrain is determined by the data processing device and the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the slope is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (slope) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 29 is obvious in light of the prior art.
25. Regarding claim 30, the Kingston reference fails to disclose:
wherein a slope in the local terrain is determined by the data processing device and the predetermined condition is fulfilled if the slope is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit value. This is an example of a simple substitution of one known element (claim 4) for another (slope) to obtain predictable results (using a parameter to control noise). Accordingly, claim 30 is obvious in light of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed September 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant disputes (1) the application of applying a known technique to a known device for claim 11 incorporating cancelled claim 17 and (2) the application of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Each will be discussed in turn.
Initially, the discussion for claim 11 is conclusory. Beyond that, the Office has presented a prima facie case. The prior art does disclose a base device: a vehicle having wheels with braking that can apply different braking forces to different wheels. The prior art does disclose a known technique that is applicable to a base device with these features: applying these braking forces to different wheels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system: a better controlled deceleration. Additional considerations: this improvement of less braking on the front wheels and more braking on the back was possible, even probable, in the disclosed prior art. Accordingly, this claim is obvious.
Concerning the substitution claims, the Applicant states that the reliance upon “simple substitution” cannot remedy Kingston’s deficiencies because both a gradient and a curvature are indeed recited. The trajectory inherently must have a curvature. Accordingly, all claims are finally rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J BRAUCH whose telephone number is (313)446-6511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 6 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/CHARLES JOSEPH BRAUCH/
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights