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 Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 11/21/2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 line 2, claim 1 line 3, claim 1 line 5, claim 1 line 12, claim 5 line 2, and claim 5 lines 7-8 “braking-force generating control” should read --braking-force-generating control--.
At claim 1 line 3, claim 1 line 4, claim 1 line 6, claim 2 line 7, claim 5 line 3, and claim 5 line 6 “braking-force release control” should read --braking-force-release control--.
At claim 1 line 7, claim 1 line 13, claim 2 line 2, claim 2 line 4, and claim 5 line 5 “unstable-behavior” should read --unstable behavior--.
At claim 1 lines 8-9, claim 2 line 3, claim 3 line 6, and claim 3 line 8 “determination-value” should read --determination value--.
At claim 3 line 2, claim 3 line 6, and claim 4 line 2“state-quantity” should read --state quantity--.
At claim 3 line 4, claim 3 line 6, and claim 4 line 4 “physical-quantity” should read --physical quantity--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “determine that the unstable-behavior occurs in a case where (i) a first situation…and (ii) a second situation…occur” in lines 4-8. It is unclear whether the claim requires the unstable behavior to be determined when both the first and second situations occur simultaneously or when either of the first or second situations occur. For examination purposes the limitation in lines 4-8 has been considered as
2. (Currently Amended) The vehicle braking control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the determiner is configured to determine that the unstable[[-]] behavior occurs in a case where the determination[[-]] value is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, and
wherein the determiner is configured to further determine that the unstable[[-]] behavior occurs in -release control is being executed in the braking device in accordance with the wheel speed
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MIZOGUCHI (JP 2010-018250).
Regarding claim 1, MIZOGUCHI teaches a vehicle braking control apparatus, comprising:
a controller (41) configured to switch between a braking-force generating control and a braking-force release control so as to execute the braking-force generating control and the braking-force release control (implied/inherent), the controller causing a braking device mounted on a vehicle to generate a braking force in the braking-force generating control and causing the braking device to release the generated braking force in the braking-force release control (implied/inherent); and
a determiner configured to determine whether an unstable-behavior with rotation around a rotation axis along a vertical direction occurs or not in the vehicle (reverse steer state, 0029 lines 3-end, ST16, Fig. 2) based on a determination-value (implied, 0032 lines 1-2) determined by a state occurred in the vehicle (lateral acceleration G, 0032 line 3) and a state of a road surface with which wheels of the vehicle are in contact (μ, 0032 line 3),
wherein the controller causes the braking device to generate the braking force by executing the braking-force generating control when the determiner determines that the unstable-behavior occurs (implied, 0006 lines 4-5, 0023 lines 5-6, 0042 lines 3-end, ST18, Fig. 2).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIZOGUCHI (JP 2010-018250) in view of YONEDA (US 10,358,128).
Regarding claim 3, MIZOGUCHI discloses the vehicle braking control apparatus according to claim 1.
, further comprising:
a state quantity detector (46) configured to detect a state quantity having a component in a right and left direction of the vehicle and indicating the state occurring in the vehicle (0032 line 8); and
wherein the determination value is a ratio of the state quantity to a physical quantity (0032 line 3) and the determiner is configured to determine whether the unstable behavior occurs based on the determination-value (0032 lines 3-4).
MIZOGUCHI is silent regarding how the physical quantity (i.e., surface friction) is obtained.
YONEDA teaches a physical-quantity detector (road-surface μ sensor 205, col. 4 line 1) configured to detect a physical quantity indicating a state between the wheels and the road surface (col. 4 lines 1-3) to detect distribution of a friction coefficient of a road surface frontward of the vehicle and output a detection result (col. 4 lines 1-3).
Absent guidance from MIZOGUCHI as to how the physical quantity is obtained, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the physical quantity from a sensor as taught by YONEDA to detect distribution of a friction coefficient of a road surface frontward of the vehicle and output a detection result.
Regarding claim 4, MIZOGUCHI discloses the vehicle braking control apparatus according to claim 3.
MIZOGUCHI further discloses wherein the state-quantity is lateral acceleration occurred in the vehicle (0032 line 3), and
wherein the physical-quantity is a friction coefficient indicating a magnitude of friction of the road surface with which the wheels of the vehicle are in contact (0032 lines 3-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
IZUMI (US 6,053,583) prioritizes ABS over ESC (col. 4 line 66 - col. 5 line 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747