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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 05/26/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 2, and 4 have been amended; claim 3 has been canceled; claims 5-11 have been added; no claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 are now pending and under consideration.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-6 of the remarks with respect to the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0315354 to Kleemann et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of amended claim 1 is now made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleemann in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0274970 to Takahashi.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should be amended to include a colon immediately following “configured to” at the end of line 2.
Claim 2, as amended, now recites “the second start threshold value being that is a threshold value in a non-operating state” in line 4, which appears to be a misstating of --the second start threshold value being
Claim 2, as amended, now recites “the start second start threshold value” in line 7, which should be amended to instead recite --the .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 limitations are: “drive device” in claim 6 and “brake temperature acquisition unit” in claim 7.
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0315354 to Kleemann et al. (hereinafter: “Kleemann”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0274970 to Takahashi (hereinafter: “Takahashi”).
With respect to claim 1, Kleemann teaches a vehicle control system (apparent from at least Fig. 2) configured to control a vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-2 in view of at least ¶ 0032-0036), the vehicle control system comprising an electronic control unit (e.g., 12) configured to limit a driving force to be applied to the vehicle based on a brake temperature that is a temperature of a friction brake provided on a wheel of the vehicle [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0015-0036, the electronics system 12 is structured to perform functions to: establish a maximum acceleration amax based on an estimated temperature 30 (e.g., “brake temperature”) of at least one component of at least one wheel brake caliper (e.g., “friction brake”) of the vehicle, establish a setpoint acceleration a0 of the vehicle which remains smaller than or equal to the maximum acceleration amax, and control an acceleration motor 26 of the vehicle via a control signal 28 such that an actual acceleration avehicle of the vehicle corresponds to the setpoint acceleration a0, thereby, at least at times, limiting a driving force to be applied to the vehicle via the control of the acceleration motor 26 which is limited by the maximum acceleration amax, by virtue of force being equal to mass times acceleration, where the maximum acceleration amax is less than a specified initial value (normal value) of the maximum acceleration amax], wherein the electronic control unit is configured to: limit the driving force such that an acceleration of the vehicle does not exceed a first upper limit value, in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a second start threshold value, including in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a definable first value that is greater than the second start threshold value [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0015-0036, the electronics system 12 is structured to perform functions to: establish a first maximum acceleration amax (e.g., “first upper limit value”) as the maximum acceleration amax, which is reduced relative to the specified initial value (normal value) of the maximum acceleration amax, at times including when the estimated temperature 30 exceeds a temperature threshold value (e.g., “second start threshold value”) (e.g., at S0b), such as when the estimated temperature 30 exceeds a definable first value that is greater than the temperature threshold value; establish a first setpoint acceleration a0 of the vehicle which remains smaller than or equal to the first maximum acceleration amax; and control the acceleration motor 26 such that the actual acceleration avehicle of the vehicle corresponds to the first setpoint acceleration a0, thereby, at least at times, limiting the driving force to be applied to the vehicle via the control of the acceleration motor 26 which is limited by the first maximum acceleration amax], limit the driving force such that an acceleration of the vehicle does not exceed a second upper limit value that is greater than the first upper limit value, in a case where the brake temperature is higher than the second start threshold value, including in a case where the brake temperature is equal to or lower than the definable first value that is greater than the second start threshold value [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0015-0036, the electronics system 12 is structured to perform functions to: establish a second maximum acceleration amax (e.g., “second upper limit value”) as the maximum acceleration amax, which is reduced relative to the specified initial value (normal value) of the maximum acceleration amax but larger than the first maximum acceleration amax via a stepwise manner reduction, at times including when the estimated temperature 30 exceeds the temperature threshold value (e.g., at S0b), and preceding the stepwise manner reduction of the first maximum acceleration amax; establish a second setpoint acceleration a0 of the vehicle which remains smaller than or equal to the second maximum acceleration amax; and control the acceleration motor 26 such that the actual acceleration avehicle of the vehicle corresponds to the second setpoint acceleration a0, thereby, at least at times, limiting the driving force to be applied to the vehicle via the control of the acceleration motor 26 which is limited by the second maximum acceleration amax], and avoid limiting the driving force in a case where the brake temperature is less than the second start threshold value [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0015-0036, the electronics system 12 is structured to perform functions to: establish the specified initial value (normal value) of the maximum acceleration amax at times including when the estimated temperature 30 is less than the temperature threshold value (e.g., via S0c), thereby avoiding limiting the driving force to be applied to the vehicle via the control of the acceleration motor 26].
The examiner respectfully notes that: none of “in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a first start threshold value,” “in a case where the brake temperature is equal to or lower than the first start threshold value and higher than a second start threshold value,” and “in a case where the brake temperature is less than the second start threshold value” requires determination of the “brake temperature” by the claimed “vehicle control system”; none of “in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a first start threshold value,” “in a case where the brake temperature is equal to or lower than the first start threshold value and higher than a second start threshold value,” and “in a case where the brake temperature is less than the second start threshold value” requires comparison, by the claimed “vehicle control system,” between the “brake temperature” and either of the “first start threshold value” and the “second start threshold value”; and none of “in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a first start threshold value,” “in a case where the brake temperature is equal to or lower than the first start threshold value and higher than a second start threshold value,” and “in a case where the brake temperature is less than the second start threshold value” requires the “electronic control unit” of the claimed “vehicle control system,” which is open-ended in scope (e.g., see “comprising” in line 2; e.g., see: MPEP 2111.03_I), to always “limit the driving force such that an acceleration of the vehicle does not exceed a first upper limit value, in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a first start threshold value” (emphasis added), “limit the driving force such that an acceleration of the vehicle does not exceed a second upper limit value that is greater than the first upper limit value, in a case where the brake temperature is equal to or lower than the first start threshold value and higher than a second start threshold value” (emphasis added), or “avoid limiting the driving force in a case where the brake temperature is less than the second start threshold value” (emphasis added).
While Kleemann further teaches optional usage of more than one temperature threshold value (e.g., a “first start threshold value” in addition to the “second start threshold value”) (as discussed by at least ¶ 0018 & 0026-0027), Kleemann appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the electronic control unit is configured to limit the driving force such that an acceleration of the vehicle does not exceed the first upper limit value, in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a first start threshold value (that is higher than the second start threshold value).
Takahashi teaches an analogous a vehicle control system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-2) configured to control a vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5), the vehicle control system comprising an electronic control unit (e.g., 130 or 202, via 300; as discussed by at least ¶ 0025) configured to limit a driving power to be applied to the vehicle based on a brake temperature that is a temperature of a friction brake provided on a wheel of the vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 3-5 in view of at least ¶ 0025-0040), wherein the electronic control unit is configured to: limit the driving power to not exceed a first upper limit value (e.g., at 350 or 360), in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a first start threshold value (e.g., via “YES” at 345 or via “YES at 360) (apparent from at least Figs. 3-5), limit the driving power to not exceed a second upper limit value that is greater than the first upper limit value (e.g., at 340), in a case where the brake temperature is equal to or lower than the first start threshold value and higher than the second start threshold value (e.g., via “YES” at 335 and “NO” at 345) (apparent from at least Figs. 3-5), and avoid limiting the driving power (e.g., at 365) in a case where the brake temperature is less than the second start threshold value (e.g., via “NO” at 335) (apparent from at least Figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle control system of Kleemann with the teachings of Takahashi, if even necessary, such that the electronic control unit is further configured to limit the driving force such that an acceleration of the vehicle does not exceed the first upper limit value, in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a first start threshold value (that is higher than the second start threshold value), to beneficially provide a more particular process for accomplishing the reducing of the maximum acceleration in the stepwise manner (e.g., from the specified initial value (normal value) of the maximum acceleration amax to the second maximum acceleration amax, and from the second maximum acceleration amax to the first maximum acceleration amax) to promote a recovery from brake-temperature-related brake fade risk in Kleemann at times including when the brake-temperature-related brake fade risk increases due to increasing brake temperature, by increasing limiting of driving force responsive to increasing brake temperature exceeding increasing temperature threshold values, in a manner already taught by Takahashi for at least substantially equivalent reasons (as discussed by at least ¶ 0005-0008 & 0027-0031 of Takahashi), including by linear interpolated reduction in the alternative to the stepwise manner reduction (compare Fig. 5 of Takahashi to Fig. 4 of Takahashi, in view of at least ¶ 0039 of Takahashi), as Takahashi further demonstrates that the linear interpolated reduction provides a smoother transition in limiting driving output as compared to the stepwise manner reduction.
With respect to claim 4, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the first upper limit value, the second upper limit value, the first start threshold value, and the second start threshold value are set based on specifications of the vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0016, 0019-0020, 0022, 0030, 0033 & 0035 of Kleemann in view of at least Figs. 3-5 of Takahashi).
With respect to claim 5, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to set the first upper limit value to a smaller value as the brake temperature increases (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1 with respect to at least Fig. 5 and at least ¶ 0039 of Takahashi, the “first upper limit value” is variably definable in relation to any temperature threshold value along the slope of a line 515, including to set the “first upper limit value” to be relatively smaller as the brake rotor temperature matches a relatively larger temperature threshold value along the slope of the line 515).
With respect to claim 6, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to limit the driving force by a controlling a drive device that drives the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 7, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, further comprising a brake temperature acquisition unit (e.g., via 12) configured to acquire the brake temperature based on an energy balance in the friction brake (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0007, 0022, 0025, 0027-0028 & 0035 of Kleemann; also, see at least ¶ 0018, 0020-0021, 0024 & 0026 of Takahashi).
With respect to claim 8, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to set the first upper limit value to a progressively smaller value as the brake temperature increases above the first start threshold value [as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1 with respect to at least Fig. 5 and at least ¶ 0039 of Takahashi, the “first upper limit value” is variably definable in relation to any temperature threshold value along the slope of a line 515, including to set the “first upper limit value” to be relatively (and progressively) smaller as the brake rotor temperature matches a relatively larger temperature threshold value (for example, above the “first start threshold value”) along the slope of the line 515].
With respect to claim 9, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to limit the driving force in a non-operating state of the friction brake (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 10, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the friction brake includes a brake rotating body rotatable integrally with the wheel (as discussed by at least ¶ 0007-0008 of Kleemann), and friction engagement members configured to frictionally engage with the brake rotating body (as discussed by at least ¶ 0005-0008 of Kleemann), and the brake temperature is a temperature of the brake rotating body (as discussed by at least ¶ 0007-0008 of Kleemann).
With respect to claim 11, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the brake temperature is a temperature of the friction brake in a non-operating state (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleemann in view of Takahashi, and in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,688,295 to Tsoras et al. (hereinafter: “Tsoras”).
With respect to claim 2, Kleemann modified supra teaches the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to start limiting the driving force in a case where the brake temperature is higher than the second start threshold value, the second start threshold value being that is a threshold value in a non-operating state of the friction brake, and end limiting the driving force in a case where the brake temperature is lower than the start second start threshold value (for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); however, Kleemann appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the electronic control unit is further configured to end limiting of the driving force in a case where the brake temperature is lower than an end threshold value that is lower than the second start threshold value.
Tsoras teaches an electronic control unit (apparent from at least Fig. 1) configured to: determine a start of an overheat condition of a brake of a wheel of a vehicle in a case where the brake temperature is higher than a predetermined high temperature level threshold value, and determine an end of the overheat condition in a case where the brake temperature becomes lower than a predetermined low temperature level threshold value that is lower than the predetermined high temperature level threshold value, thereby implementing a hysteresis effect to prevent hunting by the electronic control unit in cases where the brake temperature hovers around the predetermined high temperature level threshold value (apparent from at least Fig. 4 in view of at least Col. 1, lines 24-29 & Col. 4, line 61 – Col. 5, line 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle control system of Kleemann with the teachings of Tsoras such that the electronic control unit is further configured to end limiting the driving force in a case where the brake temperature is lower than an end threshold value that is lower than the second start threshold value to beneficially include a hysteresis effect to prevent hunting by the electronic control unit in cases where the brake temperature hovers around the second start threshold value.
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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 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 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights