CTNF 19/086,630 CTNF 95786 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Status of the Claims This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on March 21, 2025. Claims 1-13 have been presented for examination. Claims 1-13 are currently rejected. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0273236) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0273236) in view of Nakata et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0193572) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0273236) in view of Tsunehara (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2004/0090116) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0273236) in view of Kamiya et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0416890) . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-06 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: “a comfortable braking determination unit,” “a hydraulic brake acquisition unit,” “a drive force request unit,” and “a comfortable braking control unit” in claim 11. 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 § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recited limitations “a comfortable braking determination unit,” “a hydraulic brake acquisition unit,” “a drive force request unit,” and “a comfortable braking control unit” in claim 11 is not provided with further structure or definition in the claims and written description. It is unclear what the recited “units” specifically consist of, or how they perform their recited functions. Therefore, such “units” cannot reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art what specific mechanism or technology is involved, rendering the claims as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “comfortable braking force” in at least claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ comfortable ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, a braking force that is deemed “comfortable” by one driver may not be “comfortable” for another. The claims and instant specification of the present application do not provide metrics for measuring a level of comfort. For these reasons, the term “comfortable” is relative and renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. 07-34-23 Further, claim limitations “a comfortable braking determination unit,” “a hydraulic brake acquisition unit,” “a drive force request unit,” and “a comfortable braking control unit” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The recited units are not defined in the claims or specification as having a specific technological structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0273236) . Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses a method for comfortable braking, comprising: determining a comfortable braking force based on an openness of a brake pedal of a vehicle; Mori ¶ 63 discloses “a brake hydraulic pressure corresponding to an operating force with which the driver operates a brake pedal BP is supplied to wheel cylinders Wfr, Wfl, Wrr, and Wrl corresponding to the respective wheels. Thus, a braking force corresponding to the driver's braking operating is applied to each wheel.” acquiring a current hydraulic braking force of the vehicle; Mori ¶ 17 discloses performing generating, thereby acquiring, “braking forces of different magnitudes in the left-hand and right-hand wheels of the vehicle.” requesting a drive force from a vehicle control unit in response to the hydraulic braking force being greater than the comfortable braking force; and Mori ¶ 34 discloses that “instructing [i.e., “requesting”] a drive control apparatus to perform a drive force increase control for increasing the drive force acting on the vehicle,” such that “the automatic steering control apparatus is configured to increase the drive force acting on the vehicle when the total sum of braking forces acting on the wheels of the vehicle because of the braking force difference imparting control exceeds a predetermined value,” see ¶ 37. performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the drive force. Mori ¶ 89 discloses performing “braking force difference imparting control so as to generate a force for compensating for the insufficiency of the steering drive force,” wherein the braking force in each wheel is generated by hydraulic brake pressure, see ¶ 58. Regarding claim 2, Mori discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein performing the comfortable braking on the vehicle comprises: offsetting the hydraulic braking force with the drive force based on the comfortable braking force; and Mori ¶ 89 discloses “the present apparatus performs braking force difference imparting control so as to generate a force for compensating [i.e., “offset”] for the insufficiency of the steering drive force” so that “the driver does not feel an undesirable sensation stemming from stoppage of the vehicle,” see ¶ 37 using the offset hydraulic braking force to perform the comfortable braking on the vehicle. Mori ¶ 94 discloses “a force for compensating for the insufficiency of the steering drive force is generated through application of a braking force to the wheel located inside the target vehicle locus,” and performing “the braking force difference imparting control by generating braking forces of different magnitudes in the left-hand and right-hand wheels of the vehicle,” see ¶ 17 Regarding claim 3, Mori discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining an actual drive force of the vehicle; Mori in at least ¶ 62 discloses generating, thereby obtaining, a “drive force,” and determining that the drive force may be insufficient, the drive force thereby being an actual drive force, see at least ¶¶ 87-89. determining a summative braking force based on the actual drive force and the hydraulic braking force; and Mori ¶ 34 discloses performing “a drive force increase control for increasing the drive force acting on the vehicle, when the braking force difference imparting control is being performed and the total sum [i.e., “summative”] of braking forces acting on the wheels of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined value,” such that a final braking force Fin is applied, wherein the final braking force is “the sum total of braking forces which act on the wheels of the vehicle as a result of the braking force difference imparting control,” see ¶¶ 111-112. adjusting the hydraulic braking force and the drive force based on the summative braking force, the comfortable braking force, and the requested target braking force. Mori ¶ 34 discloses that performing the “braking force difference imparting control, and further includes drive force increase means for instructing a drive control apparatus to perform a drive force increase control for increasing the drive force acting on the vehicle, when the braking force difference imparting control is being performed and the total sum of braking forces acting on the wheels of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined value.” Regarding claim 4, Mori discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein adjusting the hydraulic braking force and the drive force comprises: increasing the hydraulic braking force or decreasing the drive force in response to the summative braking force being less than the comfortable braking force; and Mori ¶ 160 discloses that “In Step 1525, the CPU 71 determines whether the final braking force Ffin at the present point time is equal to or smaller than the predetermined reference value Fref,” such that “when the CPU 71 makes a "Yes" determination in Step 1525, the CPU 71 proceeds to Step 1530 so as to change the value of the drive-force-increase-control execution flag DRIVE from "1" to "0." That is, the condition of Step 1525 corresponds to the drive-force-increase-control end condition [i.e., “decreasing the drive force”].” Also see ¶ 38 disclosing that “the drive force acting on the vehicle decreases by an amount corresponding to the total sum of braking forces [i.e., “summative braking force”] applied by means of the braking force difference imparting control.” Also see ¶¶ 111-112. increasing the drive force in response to the summative braking force being greater than the comfortable braking force. Mori ¶ 37 “the automatic steering control apparatus is configured to increase the drive force acting on the vehicle when the total sum of braking forces acting on the wheels of the vehicle because of the braking force difference imparting control exceeds a predetermined value. Regarding claim 5, Mori discloses the method according to claim 4, further comprising: in response to the summative braking force being equal to the comfortable braking force, triggering comfortable braking with full performance. Mori ¶ 160 discloses that “CPU 71 determines whether the final [i.e., “summative”] braking force Ffin at the present point time is equal to or smaller than the predetermined reference value Fref ... when the CPU 71 makes a "Yes" determination in Step 1525, the CPU 71 proceeds to Step 1530 so as to change the value of the drive-force-increase-control execution flag DRIVE from "1" to "0." That is, the condition of Step 1525 corresponds to the drive-force-increase-control end condition.” Regarding claim 11, Mori discloses a device for comfortable braking, comprising: a comfortable braking determination unit configured to determine a comfortable braking force based on an openness of a brake pedal of a vehicle; Mori ¶ 63 discloses “a brake hydraulic pressure corresponding to an operating force with which the driver operates a brake pedal BP is supplied to wheel cylinders Wfr, Wfl, Wrr, and Wrl corresponding to the respective wheels. Thus, a braking force corresponding to the driver's braking operating is applied to each wheel.” a hydraulic brake acquisition unit configured to acquire a current hydraulic braking force of the vehicle; Mori ¶ 17 discloses performing generating, thereby acquiring, “braking forces of different magnitudes in the left-hand and right-hand wheels of the vehicle.” a drive force request unit configured to request a drive force from a vehicle control unit in response to the hydraulic braking force being greater than the comfortable braking force; and Mori ¶ 34 discloses that “instructing [i.e., “requesting”] a drive control apparatus to perform a drive force increase control for increasing the drive force acting on the vehicle,” such that “the automatic steering control apparatus is configured to increase the drive force acting on the vehicle when the total sum of braking forces acting on the wheels of the vehicle because of the braking force difference imparting control exceeds a predetermined value,” see ¶ 37. a comfortable braking control unit configured to perform comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the drive force. Mori ¶ 89 discloses performing “braking force difference imparting control so as to generate a force for compensating for the insufficiency of the steering drive force,” wherein the braking force in each wheel is generated by hydraulic brake pressure, see ¶ 58. Regarding claim 12, Mori discloses the controller, comprising: at least one processor, and a memory, coupled to the at least one processor, and having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to perform the method according to claim 1. Mori in at least ¶ 119 discloses CPU 71, which “repeatedly executes the program shown in FIG. 10” Regarding claim 13, Mori discloses: the computer program product that is tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer- readable medium and includes machine-executable instructions that are used to execute the method according to claim 1. Mori in at least ¶ 70 discloses electronic controller 70 which is a microcomputer and includes “a CPU 71; ROM 72 in which are previously stored programs which are executed by the CPU 71” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. ( U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0273236) in view of Nakata et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0193572) . Regarding claim 6, Mori does not expressly disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising: requesting a regenerative braking force in response to the hydraulic braking force being less than the comfortable braking force; and performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force. However, Nakata discloses: requesting a regenerative braking force in response to the hydraulic braking force being less than the comfortable braking force; and Nakata ¶ 59 discloses that “when the difference between the maximum regeneration braking force and the execution regeneration braking force becomes equal to or less than the set judgement threshold value [i.e., “less than the comfortable braking force”], the hydraulic pressure control portion 171 executes [i.e., “requests”] the raising processing and the target servo pressure becomes increased by a predetermined pressure from the zero value.” performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force. Nakata ¶ 55 discloses “generate and the execution regeneration braking force becomes equal to or less than a judgement threshold value.” Also see ¶ 59 and Figs. 2-4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the braking of Mori with requesting a regenerative braking force in response to the hydraulic braking force being less than the comfortable braking force; and performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the hydraulic braking force and the regenerative braking force, as disclosed by Nakata, with reasonable expectation of success, because controlling to limit the regeneration braking force at an earlier stage may be effective in suppressing the uncomfortable feeling in deceleration (Nakata ¶ 75), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification. Regarding claim 8, Mori discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the comfortable braking force comprises: determining a requested target braking force based on the openness of the brake pedal; and Mori ¶ 63 discloses “a brake hydraulic pressure corresponding to an operating force with which the driver operates a brake pedal BP is supplied to wheel cylinders Wfr, Wfl, Wrr, and Wrl corresponding to the respective wheels. Thus, a braking force corresponding to the driver's braking operating is applied to each wheel.” Mori does not expressly disclose: determining the comfortable braking force based on the target braking force, a gradient value of the vehicle, and a vehicle speed of the vehicle. However, Nakata discloses: determining the comfortable braking force based on the target braking force, a gradient value of the vehicle, and a vehicle speed of the vehicle. Nakata ¶ 56 discloses that a “threshold value setting portion 172 sets the judgement threshold value based on the gradient of the requested braking force” and setting a “judgement threshold value based on the gradient of the target hydraulic pressure braking force,” wherein “The hydraulic pressure control portion 171 sends the requested braking force to the hybrid ECU 92 as the “target regeneration braking force” and “The execution regeneration braking force depends on the vehicle speed (vehicle wheel speed),” see ¶ 54. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the braking of Mori with determining the comfortable braking force based on the target braking force, a gradient value of the vehicle and a vehicle speed of the vehicle, as disclosed by Nakata, with reasonable expectation of success, to eliminate the uncomfortable feeling in deceleration (stepped thrust feeling) in order to match both timings by changing the judgement threshold value (Nakata ¶ 75), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification. Regarding claim 9, Mori discloses the method according to claim 8, further comprising: reducing the drive force to zero in response to the vehicle stopping; and Mori Fig. 15 depicts that when CPU 71 determines that “a final braking force Ffin at the present point time is equal to or smaller than the predetermined reference value Fref,” the CPU changes the value of the drive-force-increase-control execution flag DRIVE from "1" to "0." That is, the condition of Step 1525 corresponds to the drive-force-increase-control end condition. See corresponding ¶ 160. increasing the hydraulic braking force equal to the target braking force. Mori ¶ 160 discloses that “In Step 1525, the CPU 71 determines whether the final braking force Ffin at the present point time is equal to or smaller than the predetermined reference value Fref,” such that “when the CPU 71 makes a "Yes" determination in Step 1525, the CPU 71 proceeds to Step 1530 so as to change the value of the drive-force-increase-control execution flag DRIVE from "1" to "0." That is, the condition of Step 1525 corresponds to the drive-force-increase-control end condition [i.e., “decreasing the drive force”].” Also see ¶ 38 disclosing that “the drive force acting on the vehicle decreases by an amount corresponding to the total sum of braking forces [i.e., “summative braking force”] applied by means of the braking force difference imparting control.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. ( U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0273236) in view of Tsunehara (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2004/0090116) . Regarding claim 7, Mori in combination with Nakata does not expressly disclose the method according to claim 6, further comprising: determining a front axle summative braking force based on the hydraulic braking force and a drive force requested from a front axle motor of the vehicle; determining a rear axle summative braking force based on the hydraulic braking force and a regenerative braking force requested from the rear axle motor of the vehicle; and performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the front axle summative braking force and the rear axle summative braking force. However, Tsunehara discloses: determining a front axle summative braking force based on the hydraulic braking force and a drive force requested from a front axle motor of the vehicle; Tsunehara ¶ 68 discloses that “the regenerative brake 5b and the drive axle 11 are coupled ... to generate a braking force by the regenerative brake 5b, even at a low speed, by generating a torque (drive force),” wherein the regenerative brake 5b is a front regenerative brake, see ¶ 62 and Fig. 5. determining a rear axle summative braking force based on the hydraulic braking force and a regenerative braking force requested from the rear axle motor of the vehicle; and Tsunehara ¶ 68 discloses reducing “the load of the hydraulic brakes 3 and the electric brakes 4, since in this embodiment, the hydraulic brakes 3 and the regenerative brake 5b both apply to the wheels of the drive axle 11,” wherein “The hydraulic brakes 3 are arranged and configured for braking the right and left rear wheels RRW and RLW, which are subject to the second braking system S2” and “The regenerative brake 5 is arranged and configured for braking the rear wheels RRW and RLW, and functions as a regenerative braking apparatus that applies a braking force by regenerated power.” performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the front axle summative braking force and the rear axle summative braking force. Tsunehara ¶ 60 discloses “two wheel axles are separately controlled even if the braking force is small, as with electronic brake force distribution (EBD) control and the so-called limited slip differential (LSD) braking in which control is performed by limiting braking by applying a braking force differential to a pair of drive axles” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the braking of Mori with determining a front axle summative braking force based on the hydraulic braking force and a drive force requested from a front axle motor of the vehicle, determining a rear axle summative braking force based on the hydraulic braking force and a regenerative braking force requested from the rear axle motor of the vehicle, and performing comfortable braking on the vehicle based on the front axle summative braking force and the rear axle summative braking force, as disclosed by Tsunehara, based on with reasonable expectation of success, to improve fuel economy (Tsunehara ¶ 60), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2005/0273236) in view of Kamiya et al. ( U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0416890) . Regarding claim 10, Mori in combination with Nakata does not expressly disclose the method according to claim 8, further comprising: transitioning the drive force to an idle drive force of the vehicle in response to the vehicle stopping; and increasing the hydraulic braking force equal to the target braking force. However, Kamiya discloses: transitioning the drive force to an idle drive force of the vehicle in response to the vehicle stopping; and Kamiya ¶ 26 discloses that a “drive system ECU 71 repeatedly calculates a basic driving force, a fuel-cut driving force, and an idling driving force based on the operating state etc.” increasing the hydraulic braking force equal to the target braking force. Kamiya in at least ¶ 60 discloses that ECU 60 controls the internal combustion engine 20 and increases the braking force of the hydraulic brake 50. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the braking of Mori, of the combination of Mori and Nakata, with transitioning the drive force to an idle drive force of the vehicle in response to the vehicle stopping; and increasing the hydraulic braking force equal to the target braking force, as disclosed by Kamiya, with reasonable expectation of success, because by giving priority to the fuel-cut state in this way, fuel efficiency is improved (Kamiya ¶ 67), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Nishio et al. ( U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0074767) discloses a vehicle brake system having a hydraulic brake device, a regenerative brake device, and a brake control device. The control device includes a section for calculating a driver target brake force for each wheel corresponding to a manipulation amount of a braking manipulation member, a section for enabling the brake control device itself to set compensation brake forces for respective wheels, a section for selecting a larger one of the driver target brake force and the compensation brake force for each wheel and for subtracting a base hydraulic brake force from the selected brake force to set differences for respective wheels as compensated target brake forces for the wheels, and a section for controlling the distribution of the compensated target brake force for each wheel to a controlled hydraulic brake force for each wheel and a regenerative brake force for each driving wheel. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST. 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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. /STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/086,630 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights