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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on June 29, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-11 remain pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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: an actuating element in claim 1, interpreted as actuating element 14, which is designed as an accelerator pedal.
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
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 § 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 3-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (US 20180244158 A1) herein Komatsu, in view of Ganley et al. (US 20120109479 A1) herein Ganley, and in the alterative, further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20140052339 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Komatsu discloses the following:
1. A method for operating a motor vehicle, which includes a drive system including an electric drive machine, (see at least Abstract “electric vehicle” and Fig. 1, item 4) a friction braking system, (see at least Fig. 1, item 12 and [0032]-[0035] “friction brake 12”) and an actuating element, (see at least [0026] “accelerator pedal”) the actuating element being continuously movable between a first end state and a second end state, a position of the actuating element in the first end state corresponding to a percentage value of 0%, and the position of the actuating element in the second end state corresponding to a percentage value of 100%, (limitations in the preamble, no patentable weight given)
Examiner Note: Applicant is reminded that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). See also MPEP 2111.02 (II).
Komatsu discloses the following:
the method comprising the following steps:
predefining an acceleration torque for the motor vehicle when the position of the actuating element has a percentage value that is greater than a predefined threshold value; (see at least Fig. 2, step 201 and [0037] “In Step S201, signals indicating the vehicle states are input to the motor controller 2… [including] the accelerator position θ (%)”, and Fig. 3 “Motor Torque” vs. “pedal position”, wherein each of pedal positions 2/8-8/8 provide a predefined positive motor torque that inherently provides acceleration.)
predefining a deceleration torque for the motor vehicle when the position of the actuating element has a percentage value that is less than the threshold value; (see at least Fig. 2, step 201 and [0037] “In Step S201, signals indicating the vehicle states are input to the motor controller 2… [including] the accelerator position θ (%)”, and Fig. 3 “Motor Torque” vs. “pedal position”, wherein pedal positions 1/8-0/8 provide a predefined negative motor torque that inherently provides deceleration.)
and activating the friction braking system in such a way that the friction braking system generates, at least partially, the predefined deceleration torque, (see at least [0034] “friction-braking-amount controller to generate the brake fluid pressure according to the friction-braking-amount command value, which is generated by the motor controller 2.”, and Fig. 8, steps S804, S806 and [0127] “when the motor rotation speed ωm becomes almost 0, the control device performs the control such that the friction-braking-amount command value with respect to the friction brakes 12 converges to a value determined on the basis of the disturbance torque estimated value T.sub.d, and causes the motor torque command value to converge to almost 0.”)
wherein: a minimum value is predefined for the deceleration torque, (see at least Fig. 3 “Motor Torque” vs. “pedal position”, wherein pedal positions 1/8-0/8 provide a predefined negative motor torque and associated acceleration for a given motor rotation speed.)
It is noted that Komatsu Fig. 3 does not explicitly describe the predefined deceleration torque of accelerator positions of 1/8 and 0/8 as a “minimum” torque. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a “minimum” only requires that the control scheme include a pre-established lower-bound deceleration torque value within the set of deceleration torque values that may be commanded when deceleration torque is being redefined. The claim does not recite any particular mechanism by which the minimum is established, nor does it require that the controller perform any explicit limiting step beyond predefining the minimum. Further, Komatsu inherently includes the functionality of both a “minimum” and a “maximum” torque with the torque settings of Fig. 3. i.e. if the motor torque of Komatsu deviates below the set torque, the control logic of Komatsu inherently increased the torque output to compensate. Accordingly, the torque setting of Komatsu inherently includes both a minimum and maximum, according to the BRI of the claim.
In the alternative, this limitation is more explicitly taught by Ganley. (see at least Fig. 4, and [0017] “minimum output torque (To_min) 35, and a minimum output torque during regenerative braking (To_min_regen) 37”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ganley with the invention of Komatsu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of securing the torque commands generated so that they are within a calculated range of the net torque request 31 during ongoing operation, (Ganley, [0044]) and/or with the motivation of ensuring a smooth deceleration without vibration. (Komatsu, [0004])
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Ganley:
and a base deceleration torque is generated by the friction braking system, (see Fig. 3 and [0033] “friction brake torque 27, 28”) a difference between the base deceleration torque and the predefined deceleration torque being compensated for by operating the electric drive machine as a motor or as a generator, (see at least Fig. 3 and [0033] “torque command 25 to control the torque machine 30”, see also [0036] “implementing the torque command 25 in response to the regenerative braking torque request 23 at timestep 309, which includes commanding the torque machine 30 to operate in the electric power-generating mode to react torque in response to the torque command 25. The EBCM 20 begins to reduce the magnitude of the friction braking torque 27 by an amount corresponding to an expected increase in regenerative braking torque associated with the torque command 25.”)
and the friction braking system is activated for generating the deceleration torque only when it is not possible to ensure the predefined deceleration torque solely by operating the electric drive machine. (see at least [0021] “regenerative braking capacity 21 of the vehicle 100 is determined in the HCP 10 (202), and is a measure of regenerative braking torque that the vehicle 100 is capable of achieving”, [0025] “regenerative braking torque request 23, which is preferably the smaller magnitude of the braking torque request 13 and the present regenerative braking capacity 21”, [0039] At timestep 311, the regenerative braking capacity 21 reduces, with the braking torque request 13 unchanged… The regenerative braking torque request 23… is reduced to the regenerative braking capacity 21.” and claim 10 “commanding a friction braking torque corresponding to a difference between the operator braking torque request and the regenerative braking torque request.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ganley with the invention of Komatsu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of securing the torque commands generated so that they are within a calculated range of the net torque request 31 during ongoing operation, (Ganley, [0044]) and/or with the motivation of ensuring a smooth deceleration without vibration. (Komatsu, [0004])
In the alternative, for the sake of compact prosecution, the above is also taught by Takahashi. (see at least [0200] “vehicle is a hybrid vehicle having a drive device that includes an electric motor”, [0252] “acceleration opening-degree sensor 234”, [0257] “hydraulic pressure of the common passage 110 is controlled such that an actual braking force Fs* including an actual regenerative braking force Fm* and an actual hydraulic-pressure braking force Fp* becomes close to a required braking force Fsref” and [0094] “the friction braking force is made zero in a case when the required braking force, which is determined depending on the operational state of the brake operating member, can be realized by an outputtable regenerative braking force, but the friction braking force is added in a case when the required braking force cannot be realized by only the regenerative braking force.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Takahashi with the invention of Komatsu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing friction braking force when the required braking force cannot be satisfied by the regenerative braking force due to the condition of a storage device, (Takahashi, [0098]) and/or with the motivation of ensuring a smooth deceleration without vibration. (Komatsu, [0004])
In regards to Claim 3, Komatsu discloses the following:
3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the friction braking system is a hydraulic friction braking system, (see at least [0032] “A fluid pressure sensor 10 detects a brake fluid pressure of friction brakes 12.”)
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Ganley:
and wherein, in the activating step, the friction braking system generates completely the predefined deceleration torque. (see at least Fig. 3 and [0033] “The EBCM 20 commands a magnitude of friction braking torque 27 equal to the braking torque request 13 at subsequent timestep 305 in response to the braking torque request 13.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Ganley with the invention of Komatsu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing braking delays caused by latencies associated with communications between the controller and the electric machine, (Ganley, [0033]) and/or with the motivation of ensuring a smooth deceleration without vibration. (Komatsu, [0004])
In regards to Claim 4, Komatsu discloses the following:
4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the electric drive machine of the drive system is operated as a generator for generating the predefined deceleration torque in such a way that the drive machine generates at least partially the predefined deceleration torque. (see at least previous citations to Fig. 3 and [0045])
In regards to Claim 5, Komatsu discloses the following:
5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein a relative speed of the motor vehicle to ground is detected, and the predefined deceleration torque is changed as a function of the detected relative speed. (see at least [0038] “vehicle speed V (kin/h) is obtained”, [0040] “rotator phase a (rad) of the motor 4 is obtained from the rotation sensor 6.” and Fig. 3)
In regards to Claim 9, Komatsu discloses the following:
9. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the deceleration torque is predefined as a function of a previously stored characteristic curve. (see at least Fig. 3)
In regards to Claim 10, Komatsu discloses the following:
10. The method as recited in claim 9, wherein the characteristic curve exhibits a slope, which becomes greater and/or smaller with decreasing relative speed. (see at least Fig. 3)
In regards to Claim 11, Komatsu discloses the following:
11. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the motor vehicle is decelerated to a standstill by the predefined deceleration torque. (see at least [0014] “slow and/or stop the vehicle 100”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Ganley, or in the alternative, Komatsu in view of Ganley and Takahashi, and further in view of Headlee et al. (US 20100125398 A1) herein Headlee.
In regards to Claim 2, Komatsu is silent, but Headlee teaches the following:
2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the friction braking system is one of an electromotive friction braking system and a pneumatic friction braking system. (see at least [0013] “pneumatic brake actuation system”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Headlee with the invention of Komatsu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing friction service brake operation to any wheels not supplying the target level of braking torque when regenerative braking proves insufficient to meet braking target levels, (Headlee, [0006]) particularly during emergency braking. (Headlee, [0017])
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Ganley, or in the alternative, Komatsu in view of Ganley and Takahashi, and further in view of Osborn et al. (US 20070182243 A1) herein Osborn.
In regards to Claim 6, Komatsu is silent, but Osborn teaches the following:
6. The method as recited in claim 5, wherein the predefined deceleration torque is reduced with a reduction of the relative speed. (see at least [0009] “Braking pressure to the vehicle actuators is reduced as a function of vehicle speed”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Osborn with the invention of Komatsu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing a sudden jolt or jerk stop that is displeasing to passengers traveling in a vehicle. (Osborn, [0007])
In regards to Claim 7, Komatsu is silent, but Osborn teaches the following:
7. The method as recited in claim 6, wherein a first threshold speed is predefined, the predefined deceleration torque being reduced only when the detected relative speed is less than the first threshold speed. (see at least Fig. 2, steps 46 and 53)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Osborn with the invention of Komatsu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing a sudden jolt or jerk stop that is displeasing to passengers traveling in a vehicle. (Osborn, [0007])
In regards to Claim 8, Komatsu suggests the following:
8. The method as recited in claim 7, wherein a second threshold speed is predefined, which is greater than the first threshold speed, the predefined deceleration torque being increased with the reduction of the relative speed when a relative speed is detected, which is greater than the first threshold speed and less than the second threshold speed. (see at least Fig. 3, inherent)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Office respectfully reminds the applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to arguments on pages 5 of 6 of Applicant arguments that Komatsu does not disclose this feature because it applies the friction brake only after the vehicle has stopped, in order to hold its position, the examiner respectfully disagrees because this argument is inconsistent with the manner in which the present application uses the term “deceleration torque”. Paragraph [0014] of Applicant published disclosure in particular describes “sufficient deceleration torque” as the deceleration of the motor vehicle to a standstill. Accordingly, Komatsu discloses activation of the friction braking system to generate a braking/deceleration torque that is within the scope of claim 1. While the Examiner agrees that Komatsu does not, standing along, expressly require friction braking to be activated only when the electric machine is incapable of supplying the requested torque, Komatsu [0080] explains that the motor could continue to hold the stopped vehicle, but that switching to friction braking improves electrical efficiency. The rejection, however, relies upon Ganley for the newly added limitations of claim 1.
In response to arguments on pages 5 and 6 of 6 of Applicant arguments that Ganley does not overcome this deficiency in Komatsu because Ganley discloses a "blended" braking operation that draws deceleration torque from both friction brakes and a torque machine, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Ganley does not require both friction braking and regenerative braking to have nonzero values at all times. Ganley coordinates the two sources of braking according to the braking request and available regenerative braking capacity. When regenerative capacity can satisfy the complete request, the residual friction braking torque is zero. Friction braking supplies the shortfall when regenerative capacity is insufficient.
However, for the sake of clarity and compact prosecution, Applicant should also note the teachings of newly cited reference Takahashi, outlined above in the alternative, that also makes obvious the newly amended limitations of claim 1. Please see the rejections above for details.
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 extension fee 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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
August 26, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights