DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on September 12, 2025. Claims 1 – 15 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 12 are 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.
As to claim 1, the phrase “physical quantities” is considered vague and
ambiguous because it is not clearly defined in the specification or the claims. Clarification is required.
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
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 1 – 12 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.
As to claim 1, the phrase “physical quantities” is considered vague and
ambiguous because it is not clearly defined in the specification or the claims. Clarification is required.
Any claims not specifically mentioned herein above, but nonetheless rejected as being indefinite, are rejected for incorporating the errors of their respective base claims by dependency.
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 1 – 3, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0209752 A1 to Ono et al. (herein after “Ono et al. publication") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0253162 A1 to Thompson et al. (herein after "Thompson et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1 – 2, 13 and 15,
the Ono et al. publication discloses a vehicle control apparatus provided in a vehicle including a front driving and braking apparatus that applies driving and braking force to front wheels of the vehicle and a rear driving and braking apparatus that applies driving and braking force to rear wheels of the vehicle, wherein at primary steering, which is a state in which a steering wheel of the vehicle is rotated from a neutral position in one of right and left directions, and outputs a first control command for generating the first braking force and the first driving force. (See ¶6 – ¶7, where “a braking/driving force control unit [is] capable of individually controlling braking force and/or driving force of the left and right steered road wheels . . . [and] . . . determining a reference steering ratio based on both of a vehicle speed and the steering-wheel rotation angle”.)(Emphasis added.)
The Ono et al. publication does not disclose
a control unit provided in the vehicle control apparatus calculates first braking force generated by the front driving and braking apparatus and first driving force generated by the rear driving and braking apparatus, based on a speed of the vehicle and physical quantities relating to a steering angle of the vehicle.
The Thompson et al. publication discloses “[a] vehicle [that] includes a propulsion system configured to selectively drive at least one wheel of a plurality of wheels, a brake system configured to selectively brake at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels, and a dig lock controller in signal communication with the propulsion system and the brake system. The dig lock controller is configured to, based on a driver request, selectively perform a vehicle rotating dig lock operation by braking one wheel of the plurality of wheels while driving at least one other wheel of the plurality of wheels to move the vehicle laterally about a pivot point at least partially defined by the braked wheel.” (See Abstract.)
In particular, the Thompson et al. publication achieve optimum turning control by “performing a lateral crab walk motion of the vehicle by alternating between a front dig operation and a rear dig operation in a same direction to move the vehicle laterally in that direction, wherein a front dig operation is performed by braking a rear wheel of the plurality of wheels and driving front wheels of the plurality of wheels, and wherein the rear dig operation is performed by braking a front wheel of the plurality of wheels and driving the rear wheels of the plurality of wheels.” (See Claim 17.)(Emphasis added.)
Such disclosure suggests a control unit provided in the vehicle control apparatus to calculate a first braking force generated by the front driving and braking apparatus and a first driving force generated by the rear driving and braking apparatus, based on a speed of the vehicle and physical quantities relating to a steering angle of the vehicle.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and/or provide the Ono et al. publication with a control unit provided in the vehicle control apparatus to calculate a first braking force generated by the front driving and braking apparatus and a first driving force generated by the rear driving and braking apparatus, based on a speed of the vehicle and physical quantities relating to a steering angle of the vehicle, as suggested by the Thompson et al. publication, in order to provide a system for controlling a vehicular motion when said vehicle is in a turning state.
As to claim 3,
the Ono et al. publication, as modified by the Thompson et al. publication, is considered to disclose the control unit calculating the first braking force and the first driving force, based on the speed, a steering angular 40 velocity among the physical quantities relating to the steering angle, and the steering angle among the physical quantities relating to the steering angle.
As to claim 8,
the Ono et al. publication, as modified by the Thompson et al. publication, is considered to disclose the control unit calculating the first braking force and the first driving force in view of a predetermined limitation in a system of the vehicle.
As to claim 10,
the Ono et al. publication, as modified by the Thompson et al. publication, is considered to disclose the control unit distributing magnitude of the first braking force and magnitude of the first driving force at a predetermined distribution ratio, and outputs the first braking force and the first driving force.
As to claim 12,
the Ono et al. publication, as modified by the Thompson et al. publication, is considered to disclose the front driving and braking apparatus being a front electric motor, and the rear driving and braking apparatus being a rear electric motor. (See ¶27 of the Thompson et al. publication.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 7, 11 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights