DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 6/3/2026 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
-The claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 12 accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-As to applicant’s argument that “Claim 1 recites a differential lock "engaged on a drive axle" of a vehicle. A differential lock on a drive axle forces the left side wheel and the right side wheel on that drive axle to rotate at the same rotational speed. JP's differential limiting mechanism 24 is not a differential lock on a drive axle. It is a center differential lock that operates between the rear wheel drive system 30 and the front wheel drive system 40 through the center differential 25 ([0035]-[0037]). It does not act between left and right wheels on a single drive axle. JP therefore does not disclose the element: receiving, when a differential lock is engaged on a drive axle of a vehicle, an indication of a driving situation where it would be desirable to disengage the differential lock on the drive axle.” has been acknowledged. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the differential lock acting between left and right wheels on a single drive axle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless of whether the differential in JP is a center differential, JP still discloses a differential lock 24 engaged on a drive axle via at least 31, 41 (31 can be considered an axle that drives differential 32).
-As to applicant’s argument that “Claim 1 further recites receiving "a first indication of a first road friction on a left side of the vehicle and a second indication of a second road friction on a right side of the vehicle." JP does not disclose this. The Office Action cites [0015] of JP for this element, but this paragraph merely states that a slip amount "related to the left and right rear wheels and the left and right front wheels is monitored." This is a single aggregate slip metric based on a speed difference between the fastest and slowest rotating wheels ([0047]). It is not separate indications of road friction on the left side and the right side of the vehicle. JP therefore does not disclose the element: receive a first indication of a first road friction on a left side of the vehicle and a second indication of a second road friction on a right side of the vehicle” has been acknowledged. However, [0047] in JP does disclose that the slip amount Ns for each (separately) of the wheels 33L, 33R, 43L, 43R is determined and this does correspond to receiving a first indication of a first road friction on a left side of the vehicle (via slip determination for each of 33L, 43L) and a second indication of a second road friction on a right side of the vehicle (via slip determination for each of 33R, 43R) albeit separately.
-As to applicant’s argument that “Since JP does not disclose separate indications of road friction on the left and right sides of the vehicle, JP also does not disclose the element: determine, based on the first indication and the second indication, a first braking setting for a left side wheel on the drive axle and a second braking setting for a right side wheel on the drive axle. The Office Action cites [0039] and [0078] of JP for this element. However, [0039] describes a TRC actuator that automatically applies braking force to stop an idling wheel according to the slip condition of the wheels. [0078] states that the front wheel brake mechanisms generate larger braking forces than the rear wheel brake mechanisms. Neither paragraph describes determining different braking settings for the left and right side wheels on a drive axle based on respective road friction indications.” has been acknowledged. However, [0047] in JP does disclose that the slip amount Ns for each (separately) of the wheels 33L, 33R, 43L, 43R is determined and this does correspond to receiving a first indication of a first road friction on a left side of the vehicle (via slip determination for each of 33L, 43L) and a second indication of a second road friction on a right side of the vehicle (via slip determination for each of 33R, 43R) albeit separately. JP in [0039] describes setting a larger braking force for wheel 43R than wheel 33R and a larger braking force for wheel 43L than 33L based on the separate slip determinations which corresponds to the first braking setting for a left side wheel on drive axle (43L being larger than 33L) and a second braking setting for a right side wheel on drive axle (43R larger than 33R).
-As to applicant’s argument that “It further follows that JP does not disclose the element: change driving mode for the vehicle by controlling the differential lock to disengage and controlling at least one braking system of the vehicle to brake the left side wheel with the first braking setting, and to brake the right side wheel with the second braking setting JP has no differential lock on a drive axle to disengage, and no individual braking settings for left and right side wheels on a drive axle determined based on road friction indications.” has been acknowledged. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the differential lock acting between left and right wheels on a single drive axle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Further, [0047] in JP does disclose that the slip amount Ns for each (separately) of the wheels 33L, 33R, 43L, 43R is determined and this does correspond to receiving a first indication of a first road friction on a left side of the vehicle (via slip determination for each of 33L, 43L) and a second indication of a second road friction on a right side of the vehicle (via slip determination for each of 33R, 43R) albeit separately. JP in [0039] describes setting a larger braking force for wheel 43R than wheel 33R and a larger braking force for wheel 43L than 33L based on the separate slip determinations which corresponds to the first braking setting for a left side wheel on drive axle (43L being larger than 33L) and a second braking setting for a right side wheel on drive axle (43R larger than 33R).
-Applicant’s arguments that “Cho does not disclose a differential lock, let alone a differential lock on a drive axle. There is no engagement or disengagement of a differential lock, and no change of driving mode involving coordinated differential lock disengagement with friction-based braking. Cho is purely a braking and steering control system for ABS operation on split-friction surfaces. Cho therefore does not disclose, among other features, the element: receive, when a differential lock is engaged on a drive axle of a vehicle, an indication of a driving situation where it would be desirable to disengage the differential lock on the drive axle change driving mode for the vehicle by controlling the differential lock to disengage and controlling at least one braking system of the vehicle to brake the left side wheel with the first braking setting, and to brake the right side wheel with the second braking setting” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 2, 3 and 11 has been withdrawn.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2004122989 (with machine translation). As to claim 1, JP discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive, when a differential lock (24) is engaged on a drive axle (via 31, 41 to axles 34, 44) of a vehicle, an indication of a driving situation where it would be desirable to disengage the differential lock on the drive axle (abstract, lines 9-12; [0046] via conditions A-C and [0065] in translation); receive a first indication of a first road friction on a left side of the vehicle and a second indication of a second road friction on a right side of the vehicle ([0015], lines 10-12, via slip determination for all wheels); determine, based on the first indication and the second indication, a first braking setting for a left side wheel on the drive axle and a second braking setting for a right side wheel on the drive axle ([0039], [0078] describes that braking force for front wheels or rear wheels can be large the right
and left sides would have similar braking settings); and change driving mode for the vehicle by controlling the differential lock to disengage and controlling at least one braking system of the vehicle to brake the left side wheel with the first braking setting, and to brake the right side wheel with the second braking setting ([0047], [0056]).
As to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, when changing driving mode for the vehicle: control the at least one braking system of the vehicle with an initial braking setting ([0046] via condition C when brake pedal is depressed) resulting in substantially maintained rotational speeds of the left side wheel and the right side wheel, in relation to when the differential lock was engaged ([0047] via restriction being maintained until pedal detection is detected), before controlling the at least one braking system of the vehicle to brake the left side wheel with the first braking setting, and to brake the right side wheel with the second braking setting ([0056]).
As to claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: start to control the at least one braking system of the vehicle with the initial braking setting within a predefined time after controlling the differential lock to disengage ([0056], brakes are controlled to be operated via brake pedal depression after "a timing" of release").
As to claim 6, wherein the predefined time is shorter than one second (Figure 3; [0062], [0064], via depression of brake pedal causing brakes to be driven at t3 and by t4 when release happens, brakes are forcibly stopping wheels immediately).
As to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive, when the differential lock is disengaged, an indication of a driving situation where it would be desirable to engage the differential lock; and change driving mode for the vehicle by controlling the differential lock to engage ([0048]).
As to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, when changing driving mode for the vehicle: ([0064]) control the at least one braking system of the vehicle with a transitional braking setting (forcible stop) resulting in substantially equal rotational speeds of the left wheel and the right wheel on the drive axle (0 speed), before controlling the differential lock to engage.
As to claim 9, JP discloses a vehicle comprising: a drive axle (34, 44) having a left side wheel and a right side wheel (33, 43); a differential lock (24) on the drive axle (via 31, 41); at least one braking system controllable to brake the left side wheel and the right side wheel with different braking settings (13, 14, 15, 52); and the computer system of claim 1.
As to claim 10, JP discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, when a differential lock (24) is engaged (via 31, 41) on a drive axle (34, 44) of a vehicle, an indication of a driving situation where it would be desirable to disengage the differential lock on the drive axle (abstract, lines 9-12; [0046] via conditions A-C and [0065] in translation); receiving a first indication of a first road friction on a left side of the vehicle and a second indication of a second road friction on a right side of the vehicle
([0015], lines 10-12, via slip determination for all wheels); determining, based on the first indication and the second indication, a first braking setting for a left side wheel on the drive axle and a second braking setting for a right side wheel on the drive axle ([0039], [0078] describes that braking force for front wheels or rear wheels can be large the right and left sides would have similar braking settings); and changing driving mode for the vehicle by controlling the differential lock to disengage and controlling at least one braking system of the vehicle to brake the left side wheel with the first braking setting, and to brake the right side wheel with the second braking setting ([0047], [0056]).
As to claim 12, comprising: controlling the at least one braking system of the vehicle with an initial braking setting ([0046] via condition C when brake pedal is depressed) resulting in substantially maintained rotational speeds of the left wheel and the right wheel, in relation to when the differential lock was engaged ([0047] via restriction being maintained until pedal detection is detected), before controlling the at least one braking system of the vehicle to brake the left side wheel with the first braking setting, and to brake the right side wheel with the second braking setting ([0056]).
As to claim 13, comprising: starting to control the at least one braking system of the vehicle with the initial braking setting within a predefined time after controlling the differential lock to disengage ([0056], brakes are controlled to be operated via brake pedal depression after "a timing" of release").
As to claim 14, comprising: receiving, when the differential lock is disengaged, an indication of a driving situation where it would be desirable to engage the differential lock; and changing driving mode for the vehicle by controlling the differential lock to engage ([0048]).
As to claim 15, JP discloses a non-transitory computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry comprised in the computer system (well known in the art within microcomputer systems, [0042]), the method of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 11 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-(as to claim 2 in combination with the limitations in claim 1 exactly as written)…….wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine the first braking setting and the second braking setting in such a way that the first braking setting corresponds to a first braking torque, and the second braking setting corresponds to a second braking torque being greater than the first braking torque, when the second road friction on the right side of the vehicle is less than the first road friction on the left side of the vehicle.
-(as to claim 3 in combination with the limitations in claim 1 exactly as written)……. wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine the first braking setting and the second braking setting in such a way that the first braking setting corresponds to a first braking torque, and the second braking setting corresponds to a second braking torque being less than the first braking torque, when the second road friction on the right side of the vehicle is greater than the first road friction on the left side of the vehicle.
-(as to claim 11 in combination with the limitations in claim 10 exactly as written)……. determining the first braking setting and the second braking setting in such a way that the first braking setting corresponds to a first braking torque, and the second braking setting corresponds to a second braking torque being greater than the first braking torque, when the second road friction on the right side of the vehicle is less than the first road friction on the left side of the vehicle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
There is no additional prior art made of record and relied upon as the examiner considers the prior art used in the rejections and cited in previous office action the most pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights