DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2025 and 06/23/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 wards while current abstract contain 167 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patient claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. (12358478B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because following observation is made:
Instant Application (19236796)
US Patent No. (12358478)
1. A brake traction control system (BTCS) using a redundancy braking system, the brake traction control system comprising:
a main braking force adjusting device configured to control a hydraulic brake of a vehicle; a sensor unit configured to detect a driving state of the vehicle;
an electronic brake electrically operating and configured to generate braking force for at least one driving wheel of the vehicle; and
an auxiliary braking force adjusting device configured to control the hydraulic brake and the electronic brake when a failure occurs in the main braking force adjusting device,
wherein the auxiliary braking force adjusting device is configured to adjust the braking force of the electronic brake provided on at the least one wheel on left and right sides of the vehicle based on a detected value of the sensor unit,
wherein the auxiliary braking force adjusting device apply the longer pre-operation time of the electronic brake as a risk level increases, and
wherein the risk level is determined based on a gradient ratio of a road on which the vehicle is travelling.
1. A brake traction control system (BTCS) using a redundancy braking system, the brake traction control system comprising:
a main braking force adjusting device configured to control a hydraulic brake of a vehicle; a sensor unit configured to detect a driving state of the vehicle;
an electronic brake electrically operating and configured to generate braking force for at least one driving wheel of the vehicle; and
an auxiliary braking force adjusting device configured to control the hydraulic brake and the electronic brake when a failure occurs in the main braking force adjusting device,
wherein the auxiliary braking force adjusting device is configured to adjust the braking force of the electronic brake provided on at the least one wheel on left and right sides of the vehicle based on a detected value of the sensor unit,
wherein the auxiliary braking force adjusting device applies the longer pre-operation time of the electronic brake as a risk level increases, and
wherein the risk level is determined based on a distance to an obstacle and a speed of the vehicle.
2. The brake traction control system of claim 1,
wherein the sensor unit includes:
a wheel speed sensor configured to detect a rotation speed of the at least one wheel of the vehicle; and
a gradient sensor configured to detect a slope of a road on which the vehicle is travelling.
10. A brake traction control method using a redundancy braking system, the brake traction control method comprising:
performing a redundancy braking control system mode in which a vehicle travels while controlling braking force of at least one driving wheel of the vehicle with an electronic brake;
identifying whether a condition for entering the redundancy brake traction control system mode is satisfied; and
travelling the vehicle in the redundant brake traction control system mode, wherein the travelling the vehicle in the redundant brake traction control system mode includes adjusting the braking force of the electronic brake provided on at least one of left and right sides of the at least one driving wheel based on a detected value of a sensor unit,
wherein the auxiliary braking force adjusting device included in the redundancy braking system apply the longer pre-operation time of the electronic brake as a risk level increases, and
wherein the risk level is determined based on a gradient ratio of a road on which the vehicle is travelling.
10. A brake traction control method using a redundancy braking system, the brake traction control method comprising: performing a redundancy braking control system mode in which a vehicle travels while controlling braking force of at least one driving wheel of the vehicle with an electronic brake;
identifying whether a condition for entering the redundancy brake traction control system mode is satisfied; and
travelling the vehicle in the redundant brake traction control system mode, wherein the travelling the vehicle in the redundant brake traction control system mode includes adjusting the braking force of the electronic brake provided on at least one of left and right sides of the at least one driving wheel based on a detected value of a sensor unit,
wherein an auxiliary braking force adjusting device included in the redundancy braking system applies the longer pre-operation time of the electronic brake as a risk level increases, and
wherein the risk level is determined based on a distance to an obstacle and a speed of the vehicle.
14. The brake traction control method of claim 10,
wherein the travelling in the redundant brake traction control system mode includes:
identifying a gradient ratio of a road on which the vehicle is traveling and a wheel speed; and
performing braking control of the electronic brake based on the gradient ratio and the wheel speed.
As demonstrated, the independent claims of US Patent No. (12358478) disclose the features of the independent claims of 19236796 while the claims are broader in scope and anticipate the claimed invention in the parent. From this comparison it shows that the present application discloses the similar/same/identical limitations with terminology, both method/system/apparatus claim discloses with broader or same but not narrow means as specially in present claim does not further define the method/system/apparatus while similar/same/identical limitations patented in claim. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the claims of 19236796 to modify the claims to achieve the features of claims of US 12358478.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection in this office action.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter is based on the combination limitations of the independent claims. These limitations are interpreted by the examiner, with the assumption of rewritten or amended to corrected the non-statutory double patenting rejection.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter over the prior art of record Leiber (US20220055592A1).
Leiber discloses a brake system for a vehicle may contain redundant components that permit braking force to be applied in case of partial or complete failure of a primary braking mechanism. The system may include at least one hydraulic brake circuit having at least one hydraulically operating wheel brake; a pressure supply device driven by an electric-motor drive; at least one electronic control and regulating device; a valve assembly having valves for setting wheel-specific brake pressures and/or for (dis)connecting the wheel brakes (from)to the pressure supply device; a piston-cylinder unit actuable by an actuating device, which can be connected to the at least one hydraulic brake circuit, to at least one brake unit comprising an electric drive motor, to an electric parking brake, to a hydraulically supported electromechanical brake, and/or to an electromechanical brake; at least one electric drive motor for at least one axle or wheel; and a central control unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARDUL D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm (IFP).
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, KITO ROBINSON can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/SHARDUL D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights