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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed by the Applicant listed below:
January 17, 2025
April 8, 2025
35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
braking device
steering device
warning device
coefficient estimation unit
electric braking device
steering operation input member
regenerative braking device
vehicle control device
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 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims are 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.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
However, the claim further recites the limitation "" in Lines .
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, .
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations as follows:
“”.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
However, the claim further recites the limitation "" in Lines .
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, .
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations as follows:
“”.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation " " in Lines .
However, the claim further recites the limitation " " in Lines .
Taken together, these claim limitations are incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of these limitations, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, .
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what these limitations, taken together, are intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitations, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations as follows:
“”.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and are rejected for depending therefrom.
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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the Examiner)
disclose:
A vehicle control device for a vehicle,
the vehicle including:
a braking device that generates braking force for each wheel of the vehicle (¶¶; “The brake system may include one or more brakes 1050 coupled to respective wheels 1060 of the vehicle 1000.“); and
a steer-by-wire steering system that includes a steering operation input member () and a steering device including a steering actuator that applies steering force to steered road wheels of the vehicle, (¶¶ “Steering system 1030 is typically a known vehicle steering subsystem and controls the turning of the road wheels 1060.”; “The steering system 1030 may be … a steer-by-wire system”)
the steer-by-wire steering system being configured to control a steering angle of the steered road wheels () independently of an operation amount of the steering operation input member, (¶¶ “The control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn”; “Steering system 1030 is typically a known vehicle steering subsystem and controls the turning of the road wheels 1060.”; “The steering system 1030 may be … a steer-by-wire system”)
the vehicle control device comprising:
a controller () that outputs a control signal to the steering actuator based on the operation amount of the steering operation input member (), wherein the controller obtains an abnormality detection signal indicating whether the vehicle has an abnormality that causes abnormal behavior of the vehicle when the braking force is generated by the braking device (), when occurrence of the abnormality is detected based on the abnormality detection signal, calculates predicted behavior, which is behavior of the vehicle predicted to occur when the braking device is activated, (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”) and
outputs the control signal to the steering actuator to generate the steering force in a direction to suppress the predicted behavior so that the vehicle behaves in accordance with the operation amount of the steering operation input member () when the braking device is activated. (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the vehicle includes a warning device that warns the occurrence of the abnormality; (¶¶; “processor 1020 may be programmed to provide a warning to an occupant”) and when detecting the occurrence of the abnormality, the controller outputs an activation signal that activates the warning device. (¶¶; “processor 1020 may be programmed to provide a warning to an occupant”)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the abnormality detection signal indicates whether the abnormality is present in the braking device. (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein when detecting the occurrence of the abnormality in the braking device, the controller changes distribution of the braking force for each wheel of the vehicle so that a yaw moment to be generated on the vehicle due to the abnormality in the braking device is reduced and calculates the predicted behavior in a condition in which the distribution of the braking force has been changed. (¶¶ “The processor 1020 is programmed to command application of one of up to a predetermined steering torque value and up to a predetermined net asymmetric braking force value. Each predetermined force is selected to achieve a predetermined vehicle yaw torque that is at most the lesser of a first maximum yaw torque resulting from actuating a steering system 1030 and a second maximum yaw torque resulting from actuating a brake system.”)
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the Examiner)
disclose:
A vehicle control method performed by a controller of a vehicle,
the vehicle including:
a braking device that generates braking force on each wheel of the vehicle; (¶¶; “The brake system may include one or more brakes 1050 coupled to respective wheels 1060 of the vehicle 1000.“); and
a steer-by-wire steering system that includes a steering operation input member () and a steering device including a steering actuator that applies steering force to steered road wheels of the vehicle, (¶¶ “Steering system 1030 is typically a known vehicle steering subsystem and controls the turning of the road wheels 1060.”; “The steering system 1030 may be … a steer-by-wire system”)
the steer-by-wire steering system being configured to control a steering angle of the steered road wheels independently of an operation amount of the steering operation input member, (¶¶ “The control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn”; “Steering system 1030 is typically a known vehicle steering subsystem and controls the turning of the road wheels 1060.”; “The steering system 1030 may be … a steer-by-wire system”)
the controller () being configured to output a control signal to the steering actuator based on the operation amount of the steering operation input member, (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”)--
the vehicle control method comprising:
obtaining an abnormality detection signal indicating whether the vehicle has an abnormality that causes abnormal behavior of the vehicle when the braking force is generated by the braking device; (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”)
when occurrence of the abnormality is detected based on the abnormality detection signal, calculating predicted behavior, which is behavior of the vehicle predicted to occur when the braking device is activated, (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”) and
outputting the control signal to the steering actuator to generate the steering force in a direction to suppress the predicted behavior so that the vehicle behaves in accordance with the operation amount of the steering operation input member when the braking device is activated. (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”)
Regarding Claim , (as best understood by the Examiner)
disclose:
A steer-by-wire steering system comprising:
a steering operation input member () attachable to a vehicle; (¶¶ “Steering system 1030 is typically a known vehicle steering subsystem and controls the turning of the road wheels 1060.”; “The steering system 1030 may be … a steer-by-wire system”)
a steering device including a steering actuator that applies steering force to steered road wheels of the vehicle; (¶¶ “Steering system 1030 is typically a known vehicle steering subsystem and controls the turning of the road wheels 1060.”; “The steering system 1030 may be … a steer-by-wire system”) and
a controller () that outputs a control signal to the steering actuator based on an operation amount of the steering operation input member (),
wherein the steer-by-wire steering system is configured to control a steering angle of the steered road wheels independently of the operation amount of the steering operation input member; (¶¶ “The control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn”; “Steering system 1030 is typically a known vehicle steering subsystem and controls the turning of the road wheels 1060.”; “The steering system 1030 may be … a steer-by-wire system”) and
the controller () obtains an abnormality detection signal indicating whether the vehicle has an abnormality that causes abnormal behavior of the vehicle when braking force is generated by a braking device (1050) of the vehicle on each wheel of the vehicle, when occurrence of the abnormality is detected based on the abnormality detection signal, calculates predicted behavior, which is behavior of the vehicle predicted to occur when the braking device is activated, (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”) and
outputs the control signal to the steering actuator to generate the steering force in a direction to suppress the predicted behavior so that the vehicle behaves in accordance with the operation amount of the steering operation input member () when the braking device is activated. (¶¶ “control system 1010 allows one of the steering system 1030 and the brake system to take over for the other of the steering system 1030 and the brake system if the other fails while the vehicle 1000 is executing a turn. Whichever of the steering system 1030 and the braking system remains operable is then able to apply sufficient yaw torque to the vehicle 1000 to continue the turn.”)
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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above, in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the braking device is an electric braking device that generates braking force by operation of a motor.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to provide electronic control of vehicle brakes. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to provide electronic control of vehicle brakes. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the electric braking device is an electric caliper that is disposed on each wheel of the vehicle and generates frictional force by driving the motor. (Pennala et al.: ¶¶; 118a-118d; Fig 1)
Claim are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
[Claim 10] The vehicle control device according to claim 8,wherein the electric braking device is a regenerative braking device that generates the braking force on each wheel of the vehicle by a regenerative operation of an in-wheel motor disposed in each wheel of the vehicle.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to provide failsafe braking control. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to provide failsafe braking control. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights