DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 1 July 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. No claims were amended, added or cancelled. The submitted arguments are considered below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first asserts that the prior art of record cannot render obvious the claimed invention because it is fundamentally different braking technology from the claimed invention. Examiner does not agree.
In response to applicant's argument that Sasaki is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the claimed invention decelerates a vehicle by adjusting torque of an engine. Sasaki also controls vehicle deceleration based on engine torque adjustments. Thus, Sasaki is both in the field of endeavor (braking via engine control) and related to the particular problem (improving braking control apparatus).
Additionally, it is worth noting that the “claimed invention” does not exclude the use of a regenerative braking system. The preamble of the independent claim is defined as open-ended (referring to the “comprising” preamble); thus, the claims do not preclude the use of a regenerative braking system in combination with the claimed system and may include features that are not explicitly claimed. As such, the “claimed invention” fails to be fundamentally different from the prior art of record.
Moreover, the inherent feature of engine braking in internal combustion engines does not prohibit the use of regenerative braking. As shown by Sasaki (and its use of controlling engine torque for the goal of deceleration), and because engine braking is an inherent feature of internal combustion engines, hybrid vehicles have regenerative braking systems that are complimentary and coexist with engine braking. They are not inherently different.
Applicant also asserts that Sasaki fails to teach or suggest actively controlling engine torque to achieve a target deceleration. Examiner does not agree.
Applicant’s specification states that the target deceleration is converted into a series of corresponding torque values, and from the target deceleration, an engine torque demand is determined (see para. 0036). Additionally, the specification teaches that the torque of the engine may be adjusted according to the demand of the driver (see para. 0038).
Sasaki teaches that target deceleration is a value proportional the amount by which the brake pedal is depressed (see para. 0034). This is interpreted to be a deceleration force demand. Within this demand is the braking force demand (see para. 0051). However, within this target deceleration indicating deceleration force demand, the depressed brake pedal also implicitly contains an engine torque demand. The target deceleration is used to determine engine braking forces which are then used to control engine braking (see paras. 0054-0055). These forces are interpreted to be equivalent to the engine torque demand because they are based on the brake pedal input, which as defined by Applicant, may be the engine torque demand.
Accordingly, Sasaki does not explicitly disclose the term of “engine torque demand”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the teaching of Sasaki implicitly discloses an engine torque demand and that torque of the engine/engine braking is controlled/adjusted according to the engine torque demand based on motivation outlined below.
Applicant further asserted that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Sasaki to include the “engine torque demand”. Examiner does not agree.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings). Further, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As such, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2144.
In the previous rejection and below, Examiner determined that Sasaki is reasonably related to Applicant’s technology and field of endeavor. Additionally, Examiner outlined the strongest type of rationale to modify the references with an express recognition of an expected benefit would have been produced (“the motivation to improve a brake control apparatus that can impart an appropriate braking force to the wheels (see para. 0007)”). Further clarity is provided through the teaching that the regenerative braking force imparted to the wheels varies depending on the gear ratio of the transmission (see para. 0006). This is relevant because one of ordinary skill in the art has the knowledge that the transmission controls internal combustion engine speed; so control of the gear ratio is control of engine braking. Appropriate braking force to the wheels implicitly includes the changing braking force from the engine via the transmission. The motivation outlined by the Examiner is proper to support the conclusion of Obviousness.
The rejection is maintained.
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, 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 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.
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 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0168266).
For claim 1, Sasaki teaches an engine braking control system for a vehicle, the system comprising: an electronic processor (see para. 0032) configured to: receive a deceleration request (see para. 0023); determine a base engine braking level based on a vehicle speed and a vehicle gear (see paras. 0035, 0050); adjust the base engine braking level according to a brake pressure of the vehicle (see paras. 0056, 0094); generate, based on the adjusted base engine braking level and the deceleration request, a target deceleration profile (see paras. 0034, 0097). Sasaki does not explicitly disclose determining an engine torque demand.
However, Sasaki teaches that target deceleration is a value proportional the amount by which the brake pedal is depressed (see para. 0034). This is interpreted to be a deceleration force demand. Within this demand is the braking force demand (see para. 0051). Within this target deceleration indicating deceleration force demand, the depressed brake pedal also implicitly contains an engine torque demand. The target deceleration is used to determine engine braking forces which are then used to control engine braking (see paras. 0054-0055, 0090-0091). These forces are interpreted to be equivalent to the engine torque demand because they are based on the brake pedal input, which as defined by Applicant (see paras. 0036, 0038 of specification), may be the engine torque demand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that Sasaki includes an engine torque demand based on target deceleration in the calculations for determining engine braking operation of the vehicle based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a brake control apparatus that can impart an appropriate braking force to the wheels (see para. 0007) because the regenerative braking force imparted to the wheels varies depending on the gear ratio of the transmission (see para. 0006) and one of ordinary skill in the art has the knowledge that the transmission controls internal combustion engine speed; so control of the gear ratio is control of engine braking.
Continuing with the claim, Sasaki further teaches control an engine braking operation of the vehicle by adjusting a torque of an engine of the vehicle according to the engine torque demand (see paras. 0094-0095, 0034, 0051, 0054-0055, driver pedal input and transmission gear ratio control engine braking), wherein the engine torque demand is updated during the engine braking operation (see paras. 0094-0095).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki further discloses wherein the deceleration request is received from a driver assistance system (see para. 0032).
With reference to claim 3, Sasaki further discloses wherein the electronic processor is further configured to generate the target deceleration profile based on a projected gear shift point (see paras. 0050, 0091-0095).
Pertaining to claim 4, Sasaki further teaches wherein the deceleration request is received from a driver of the vehicle (see para. 0023).
With regards to claim 5, Sasaki does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. However, the claim limitation is interpreted to define a torque demand from a driver that is opposing the torque of the engine braking operation and therefore interpreted to be a positive acceleration. As a positive acceleration is opposite from an engine torque demand to provide negative acceleration or deceleration, using the torque demand from a driver instead of the engine torque demand to adjust torque from the engine (when the torque demand is greater than the engine torque demand – implying an intention to positively accelerate) to accelerate the vehicle would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the motivation to improve a brake control apparatus that can impart an appropriate braking force to the wheels (see para. 0007).
For claim 6, Sasaki further teaches wherein the user input is a throttle lever (see para. 0053, accelerator pedal equivalent to lever).
Referring to claim 8, Sasaki further discloses wherein the electronic processor is further configured to determine the engine torque demand based on a vehicle driving resistance model (see para. 0050, resistance data stored, equivalent to model).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki further teaches wherein the electronic processor is further configured to generate the target deceleration profile based on either or both of a road gradient and a road condition (see para. 0035).
For claim 10, Sasaki further teaches wherein the electronic processor is further configured to generate the target deceleration profile based on a load of the vehicle (see para. 0050, vehicle weight equivalent to load).
Claims 11 and 20 define elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claims 11 and 20 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
Claim 12 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 2.
Claim 13 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 3.
Claim 12 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 2.
Claim 14 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 5. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 5.
Claim 15 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 6. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 6.
Claim 17 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 8. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 8.
Claim 18 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 9. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 9.
Claim 19 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 10. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 10.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0168266), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Nishimura, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0211919).
With reference to claim 7 and 16, Sasaki does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Nishimura discloses wherein the electronic processor is further configured to adjust the base engine braking level according to a lean angle of the vehicle (see para. 0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Sasaki with the teaching of Nishimura based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve when the vehicle is driving under a condition in which it will be necessary to use engine braking in the immediate future (see para. 0006).
Conclusion
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights