DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-14 as originally presented and filed on 04/11/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is 04/16/2024 (20240416).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application claims priority to JAPANESE APPLICATION NUMBER 2024-066220 filed on 04/16/2024 (20240416).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 04/11/2025 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is missing the CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 12 recite the limitations “wherein the control unit (15b) prohibits the second control when it is determined that a driver of the vehicle (1) does not have an acceleration intention.” which renders the claims vague, indefinite and incomplete on how and in what manner such an acceleration intention is determined or measured. Because there is no manner or sensor set forth capable of reading the mind of the driver to measure “intention” the claims are vague indefinite and incomplete. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to recite how and in what manner an acceleration intention is measure and at what point a driver does not have such an intention.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20070038340 A1 to Sekiguchi; Hideki et al. (Sekiguchi).
Regarding claim 1 Sekiguchi teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
758
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
721
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
614
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
418
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
485
449
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
500
452
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
426
612
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a control apparatus (15) for controlling a behavior of a vehicle (1) (given the Broadest reasonable Interpretation (BRI) a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) of Anti-Lock Brake Systems (ABS) and Anti-brake systems (ABC) that control brakes would have understood a control apparatus is shown in for example only Fig. 1, in for example the “engine-stability-control control unit ESC-CU 31” as explained in for example only:
“[0059] An engine-stability-control control unit (ESC-CU) 31 detects wheel locked states based on respective wheel speeds detected by wheel speed sensors 17, 18, 19 and 20 which are disposed in association with the wheels 4, 5, 6 and 7. In the event of a slip, an engine-stability-control actuator (ESC-Act) 16 controls brakes 10, 11, 12 and 13 disposed in association with the wheels 4, 5, 6 and 7. Namely, the engine-stability-control control unit (ESC-CU) 31 serves as the so-called anti-brake system (ABC) to control the brakes.”),
the control apparatus comprising a control unit (15b) configured to execute, when slip of wheels (2) occurs due to a drive force,
a first control of eliminating the slip (Given the BRI it is considered that a POSITA would understand that the control apparatus 31 comprises a control unit capable of performing the methods shown in for example Fig. 6 step S0003 and follow the decision tree for “Y” Yes when the wheels slip wherein it is considered that the first control of eliminating slip is to reduce power as explained in for example para:
“[0092] Then, in step S003, the ESC-CU 31 determines whether any drive wheel is slipped. In the case of a four-wheel-drive vehicle, a wheel slip is determined by calculating the vehicle speed VSP from the longitudinal acceleration sensor 24, and comparing the calculated vehicle speed VSP with the wheel speeds detected by the wheel speed sensors 17, 18, 19 and 20 associated with the respective drive wheels. When any of the wheel speeds is higher than the vehicle speed VSP, this condition is regarded as meaning that the relevant wheel is slipped.
[0093] If it is determined that the drive wheel is slipped, a HEV-TCS (Hybrid-Electric-Vehicle Traction Control) subroutine is executed in step S004, and a MOTOR-TCS (Motor Traction Control) subroutine is executed in step S005. Thereafter, the end of slip control is determined in step S006. In the HEV-TCS subroutine, when the slip state is determined, the engine 1 is controlled so as to suppress the slip. Details of the HEV-TCS subroutine will be described later with reference to FIG. 9. In the MOTOR-TCS subroutine, when the slip state is determined, the motors in the electric driving trains 8 and 9 are controlled so as to suppress the slip. Details of the MOTOR-TCS subroutine will be described later with reference to FIG. 10.
[0094] In step S006, the motor demand torque Tdemand read in step S001 is compared with driving torque Tdrive obtained through MOTOR-TCS control (described later), and the end of the slip control is determined when Tdemand=Tdrive is confirmed. Additionally, if it is determined in step S003 that no slip occurs, the main routine of FIG. 6 is brought to an end.”)
and
a second control of generating a larger braking force, as compared to the first control, at any of the wheels (2) at which the slip is occurring,
wherein the control unit (15b) automatically executes the second control in response to the behavior of the vehicle (1) (as shown in Fig. 14, Steps S401 “Y” Yes as explained in for example only para:
“[0141] Because the regenerative torque is gradually increased, the wheel slip is also gradually increased. In step S409, the M-CU 28 determines whether the derivative value of the coefficient .mu. of road friction is positive or negative. If .DELTA..mu..gtoreq.0 is determined, the control flow proceeds to step S406 in which the motor braking force ramp control is continued. If the braking force is increased and the slip rate is increased correspondingly with the continued ramp control, the coefficient .mu. of road friction is reduced while changing from the region (1) to (2) in FIG. 11. Accordingly, .DELTA..mu.<0 is determined in step S409, and the control flow proceeds to step S410 in which the motor regenerative braking torque is reduced to the setting value stored in the ROM inside the M-CU 28. The setting value is set depending on the coefficient .mu. of road friction at the time of detection of the slip. Because the motor regenerative braking torque is reduced, the wheel slip is suppressed.”).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the second control, the control unit (15b) generates a larger braking force, as compared to the first control, at any of the wheels (2) at which the slip is occurring (see Fig. 14),
and increases the drive force of the vehicle (1) (see for example para:
“[0123] Moreover, when the motor driving force is controlled to drive the pair of front wheels in the system shown in FIG. 1 such that the coefficient .mu. of road friction is held in the vicinity of its maximum value, the ESC-CU 31 may increase the motor driving torque, which is applied to the rear wheels not causing slips, in amount corresponding to the difference between the demanded driving torque obtained from the accelerator opening read in step S001 in FIG. 6 and the actual motor driving torque within the range where the wheel slip is not caused.”).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit (15b) prohibits the second control when it is determined that the vehicle (1) is stopped (given the BRI a POSITA would understand that when calculating the VSP and wheel slippage a VSP of zero connotes a wheel slippage of zero and therefor the prohibition will be enacted as no slippage is occurring as explained in for example para:
“[0123] Moreover, when the motor driving force is controlled to drive the pair of front wheels in the system shown in FIG. 1 such that the coefficient .mu. of road friction is held in the vicinity of its maximum value, the ESC-CU 31 may increase the motor driving torque, which is applied to the rear wheels not causing slips, in amount corresponding to the difference between the demanded driving torque obtained from the accelerator opening read in step S001 in FIG. 6 and the actual motor driving torque within the range where the wheel slip is not caused.”.
Regarding claims 7 and 13 and the limitation control apparatus, wherein the control unit (15b) executes the second control based on an acceleration of any of the wheels (2) at which the slip is not occurring (see for example paras:
“[0090] Then, in step S002, the ESC-CU 31 calculates the coefficient .mu. of road friction in accordance with the following formula (2); .mu.=|(Tmotor-I.times..alpha.)/(r.times.W)| (2) where Tmotor is the motor torque, I is the inertial moment between a motor rotor and a tire, .alpha. is the angular acceleration of the motor rotation, r is the radius of the tire, and W is the wheel load.”).
Regarding claims 8 and 14 and the limitation control apparatus, wherein the control unit (15b) executes the second control based on a drive force and a speed of the vehicle (1) (see for example para:
“[0154] On the other hand, if brake SW=OFF is determined in step S503, the ESC-CU 31 determines in step S504 whether the accelerator opening is over 0 (i.e., opened) or 0 (i.e., fully closed). If the accelerator opening is over 0, this condition means that vehicle runs while turning under acceleration or coasting at a constant speed. Therefore, the ESC-CU 31 controls the motors for the left and right wheels in step S505 according to procedures A), B) and C) as follows. A) The ESC-CU 31 first obtains the demanded driving torque from the accelerator opening based on the map, shown in FIG. 19, representing the relationship between the accelerator opening and the demanded driving torque. Here, the demanded driving torque is a total value of the driving torques of the left and right motors. B) The ESC-CU 31 then obtains the difference in driving torque between the left and right motors from the steering angle based on the map, shown in FIG. 20, representing the relationship between the steering angle and the difference in driving torque between the left and right motors. C) The ESC-CU 31 then sets the relationship of (motor driving torque for outer wheel in turning>motor driving torque for inner wheel in turning).
[0156] Further, if it is determined in step S504 that the accelerator opening is fully closed, this means that the vehicle runs while turning under coasting. Therefore, the ESC-CU 31 obtains the motor driving torque of the outer wheel in turning and the motor regenerative braking torque of the inner wheel in turning from the steering angle based on the map, shown in FIG. 21, representing the relationship of the steering angle versus the motor driving torque of the outer wheel in turning and the motor regenerative braking torque of the inner wheel in turning. At this time, the driving torque is generated by the motor for the outer wheel in turning, and the regenerative braking torque is generated by the motor for the inner wheel in turning. In addition, respective absolute values of the driving torque generated in the motor for the outer wheel in turning and the regenerative braking torque in the motor for the inner wheel in turning are made equal to each other. Thus, by making the driving torque and the regenerative braking torque equal to each other, the vehicle can be prevented from undergoing acceleration/deceleration due to unbalance in motor torque. Also, by giving the difference between the torques generated by the motors for the inner and outer wheels in turning, it is possible to generate a turn moment in the vehicle and to improve the turning performance of the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation A control method for controlling a behavior of a vehicle (1),
the control method causing a control unit (15b) of a control apparatus (15) to execute, when slip of wheels (2) occurs due to a drive force,
a first control of eliminating the slip and
a second control of generating a larger braking force, as compared to the first control, to any of the wheels (2) at which the slip is occurring,
wherein the control unit (15b) automatically executes the second control in response to a behavior of the vehicle (1) (in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070038340 A1 to Sekiguchi; Hideki et al. (Sekiguchi) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20220259826 A1 to NAGAO; Kohei et al. (Nagao).
Regarding claims 4 and 10 Sekiguchi does not appear to expressly disclose, however in analogous art Nagao teaches a control apparatus, wherein a control unit (15b) prohibits a second control when it is determined that a speed of the vehicle (1) is higher than a reference speed (in for example para:
“[0138] A purpose of the automatic speed reduction control according to the embodiment is to provide a function to reduce the speed to the first speed when the speed is reduced due to a load while the vehicle is traveling at the second speed, that is, when the vehicle can travel faster at the first speed as a result. Thus, in order to prevent the automatic speed reduction from being activated even though a vehicle traveling speed is above a certain speed, a function is provided to prohibit the automatic speed reduction when the motor rotation speed is equal to or more than a set value.”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control disclosed in Nagao with the control taught in Sekiguchi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “provide a function to reduce the speed to the first speed when the speed is reduced due to a load while the vehicle is traveling at the second speed, that is, when the vehicle can travel faster at the first speed as a result.” as taught by Nagao Para(s) [0138] above.
Claims 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070038340 A1 to Sekiguchi; Hideki et al. (Sekiguchi) as applied to the claims above in view of US 9758167 B1 to Pandit; Chinmay M. et al. (Pandit).
Regarding claims 5 and 11 Sekiguchi does not appear to expressly disclose, however in analogous art Pandit teaches a control apparatus, wherein a control unit (15b) prohibits a second control when it is determined that a slip is occurring at all the wheels (2) (in for example para:
“(45) Entry condition 310d (“rolling state condition”) relates to the vehicle rolling state, i.e., whether the wheel(s) of the driveline 14 are slipping. Where one or more vehicle wheels are slipping, or where all of the vehicle wheels are slipping, it may be less desirable to initiate changes to a torque split or increased torque to the secondary axle, since a torque sufficient to initiate slip at the wheel(s) has already been commanded by the driveline 14.“).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control disclosed in Pandit with the control taught in Sekiguchi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have continues to cause the slip as taught by Pandit above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of anti-lock braking systems at the time of the invention. For example:
US 4976329 A to Ise; Kiyotaka teaches, inter alia a Wheel acceleration slip control apparatus in a vehicle brake system in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“An apparatus for applying brake to right and left drive wheels to reduce slip of the wheels upon detection of the slipping conditions of the wheels under acceleration. The apparatus has a target determining device for determining the manners or modes of applying the brakes to the two drive wheels in different fashions. For one of the two drive wheels which has a comparatively large slipping tendency, a nominal control mode corresponding to the detected slipping condition is selected. The control mode for the wheel having a low slipping tendency, a mode different from a nominal mode corresponding to the detected slipping condition is used, under predetermined conditions, so that the actually used control mode is closer to the nominal mode used for the wheel having the large slipping tendency, in order to assure an optimum compromise between the drivability or acceleration of the vehicle and the avoidance of the wheel slipping condition. The degree in which the actually used control mode of the wheel having the low slipping tendency is close to the nominal control mode of the other wheel differs depending upon the difference between the nominal modes of the two wheels corresponding to the detected slipping conditions.”.
US 20020030406 A1 to Poggenburg, Ruediger et al. teaches, inter alia a Vehicle steerability and driving stability while braking in a curve in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A method or apparatus for controlling a braking system in a vehicle, the vehicle including an inside front wheel and outside front wheel, whereby a determination is made of whether a drifting and/or an oversteering condition exists; and, if so, a predetermined braking pressure is applied to the outside front wheel.”.
US 20030102713 A1 to Murakami, Zensaku teaches, inter alia a Vehicle-behavior control apparatus and method in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A vehicle-behavior control apparatus for a vehicle with a center differential comprising of a control unit adopted to be connected to a braking system and vehicle status sensors. This control unit directs the braking system to distribute suitable braking force to each wheels in response to a spin or driftout moment determined by any outputs of the vehicle sensors and a state of the center differential determined by a differential state sensor.”.
US 20140222287 A1 to Popham; Thomas et al. teaches, inter alia a SUSPENSION CONTROL DEVICE in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A vehicle mounted time of flight camera provides repeating images of the scene ahead of a vehicle. Such images are processed to determine topographical features in the scene, and the vehicle suspension is commanded to adopt in advance a configuration appropriate to the nature of the topographical features.”.
US 9694794 B2 to Ishida; Yasuhito teaches, inter alia a Vehicle control device in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“To enable control of vehicle speed according to the intentions of a driver by a simpler operation. When a vehicle body speed rapidly decreases and becomes lower than a brake target threshold speed, the brake target threshold speed is decreased in conformity with the vehicle body speed. This prevents the increase of the vehicle body speed toward the brake target threshold speed such that a vehicle accelerates regardless of a brake being in operation because the brake target threshold speed is set at a higher value than the vehicle body speed. Accordingly, the vehicle body speed decelerates by a simpler operation while being able to prevent the vehicle from accelerating against the intentions of a driver and being able to control the speed of the vehicle according to the intentions of the driver.”.
US 20210188231 A1 to YAMAMOTO; Yusaku teaches, inter alia a BRAKING CONTROL DEVICE in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A braking control device includes a first control unit configured to execute first control for reducing a target braking force, which is either a front-wheel braking force to be applied to front wheels of a vehicle or a rear-wheel braking force to be applied to rear wheels during increasing of deceleration of the vehicle, in a case that a behavior of the vehicle is unstable as the target braking force is increased; and a second control unit configured to execute second control for reducing a rate of increase in the target braking force and increasing a rate of increase in the front-wheel braking force or the rear-wheel braking force, which is not the target braking force, prior to execution of the first control.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260725
Prosecution Insights