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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 18 July 2025. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP24189786.7, filed on 19 July 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 July 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities: Figure 2 is missing labelling for diagrams or flowcharts that require text for understanding.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 5-11, “…wherein the gearbox, is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller, evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration in which…” should read --…wherein the gearbox is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller, evolve to a desired configuration between an engaged configuration in which…--;
Claim 13, line 3, “-processing unit” should read –processing unit--;
Claim 14 recites similar language as claim 1 and is objected for similar reasons above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“parameter processing unit” in claims 11 and 13;
The structure of the parameter processing unit is not disclosed in the specification.
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
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 11 and 13 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.
Claims 11 and 13 recites “…the computer program is run by the parameter processing unit”. The “parameter processing unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the parameter processing unit to perform the function of running the computer program. The specification lacks detailed description of the parameter processing unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the parameter processing unit is, what the advantages of using a parameter processing unit are and how the computer program is run by the parameter processing unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a parameter processing unit.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites “…a method for controlling a powertrain comprising: a primary part…a secondary part…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear whether the method comprises “a primary part…a secondary part…” or the powertrain comprises “a primary part…a secondary part…”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “…a method for controlling a powertrain, the powertrain comprising: a primary part…a secondary part…” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the gearbox, is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller, evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration…and a disengaged configuration…enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other” which is ambiguous. It is not clear what is a desired configuration between the “engaged configuration” and “disengaged configuration”, i.e. what configurations exist between the engaged/disengaged configurations. Further, “desired” is a subjective term. It is not clear how the “desired configuration” is determined and what is the “desired configuration”. In addition, it is not clear who/what implements “enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the real time measurement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “wherein step b) comprises computing a torque applied on the primary part during the braking” which is ambiguous. It is not clear what “…during the braking” is limiting, i.e. whether “computing…” during the braking OR “…applied…” during the braking. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the torque” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the torque”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “…wherein step c) disengages the gearbox immediately as soon as the torque computed during step b) has been applied by the electric motor” which is ambiguous. It is not clear what “the torque computed during step b)” is since step b) of claim 1 does not recite computing a torque. Further, it is not clear when the disengaging starts, i.e. whether the disengaging starts at a time the torque being initiated, being detected or being fully applied. In addition, it is not clear how fast the gearbox being disengaged after the torque being applied is considered “immediately as soon as…”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the parameter processing unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the parameter processing unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “…evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration … and a disengaged configuration…, enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear what is a desired configuration between the “engaged configuration” and “disengaged configuration”, i.e. what configurations exist between the engaged/disengaged configurations. Further, “desired” is a subjective term. It is not clear how the “desired configuration” is determined and what is the “desired configuration”. In addition, it is not clear who/what implements “enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 14 recites “a primary part”, “a secondary part”, “a gearbox” and “a controller”, “an order”, “a desired configuration”, “an engaged configuration”, “a disengaged configuration”. Claim 14 is dependent from claim 1, which also recites “a primary part”, “a secondary part”, “a gearbox” and “a controller”, “an order”, “a desired configuration”, “an engaged configuration”, “a disengaged configuration”. It is not clear if “a primary part”, “a secondary part”, “a gearbox” and “a controller”, “an order”, “a desired configuration”, “an engaged configuration”, “a disengaged configuration” of claim 14 are the same “a primary part”, “a secondary part”, “a gearbox” and “a controller”, “an order”, “a desired configuration”, “an engaged configuration”, “a disengaged configuration” as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 15 recites “…a power train according to claim 1” which is ambiguous. Claim 1 is a method claim, it is not clear how a powertrain is according to a method. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 1.
Claim limitation “parameter processing unit” in claims 11 and 13 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 or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “parameter processing unit” is recited in the claim as having the function of running the computer program. However, the specification 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. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 12, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recite “a computer readable medium”, while the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten,500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a “machine-readable medium” were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves) (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tobler (US20050182532).
As to claim 1, Tobler teaches a method for controlling a powertrain comprising:
a primary part comprising at least an electric motor (Tobler para 0007-0008: electric motor; Fig. 1, Fig. 5),
a secondary part comprising wheels (Tobler para 0007-0008: vehicle traction wheels; Fig. 1, Fig. 5),
a gearbox (Tobler para 0018: gear set; para 0021: gear assemblies; Fig. 1, Fig. 5), and
a controller (Tobler, Fig. 2 “vehicle systems controller”; also see para 0030 “the controller”), wherein the gearbox, is configured to, upon receiving an order given by the controller, evolve to a desired configuration, between an engaged configuration in which the primary part and the secondary part are engaged with each other so as to be secured in rotation with each other and a disengaged configuration in which the primary part and the secondary part are disengaged from each other, enabling rotation of the primary part and the secondary part relative to each other (Tobler para 0028-0030:…the powertrain is to be disconnected…to reconnect the driveline and powertrain with the wheels…during the period of disconnection…the reconnection process…effecting re-engagement …it is determined that a sudden braking event is occurring, the controller actuates the clutch to disengage the powertrain…reengagement of the powertrain with the wheels at the end of the braking event… ; also see Fig. 2, Fig. 3),
wherein the method comprising at least the following steps:
a) detecting an intention to brake the wheels (Tobler para 0027: …signals…that indicates an aggressive or sudden braking event…brake pedal brake travel sensors…predict events or conditions suggesting that sudden braking may b required or imminent…; also see para 0030, Fig. 3),
b) braking the primary part (Tobler para 0022: Motor 54 provides the dual function of driving the traction wheels 68 and acting as a regenerative braking generator. During vehicle braking, the motor 54 functions as an electrical generator…; also see para 0024: …braking force applied…deceleration of the powertrain…), and
c) disengaging the primary part from the secondary part (Tobler para 0025-0027: …allowing disengagement of the entire powertrain from the traction wheels…; para 0008: …partially or fully disengage the driveline from the wheels…; also see Fig. 3: disengage powertrain; claim 34: …disconnecting the driveline from the electric motor…).
As to claim 2, Tobler teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step a) comprises the real time measurement or estimation of a value representative of an angular deceleration of the wheels (Tobler para 0007: the braking event is sensed…measuring the rotational speed of the traction wheels).
As to claim 3, Tobler teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the value measured at step a) is an inclination of a braking pedal (Tobler para 0027: …brake pedal brake travel sensor…).
As to claim 4, Tobler teaches the method according to the claim 2, wherein the value measured at step a) is a rotation speed of at least one wheel (Tobler para 0007: the braking event is sensed…measuring the rotational speed of the traction wheels).
As to claim 6, Tobler teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein during step b), the electric motor is controlled so that an absolute value of a relative torque between the primary part and the secondary part is lower than a maximal torque, the maximal torque being less than 100Nm (Tobler para 0025: …limiting or substantially eliminating the amount of reactive torque transmitted between the traction wheels 68 and the powertrain components upstream from the wheels).
As to claim 7, Tobler teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein step b) comprises computing a torque applied on the primary part during the braking (Tobler para 0027: …sense when an unusually high reactive torque is present in the powertrain 74…).
As to claim 10, Tobler teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step c) disengages the gearbox immediately as soon as the torque computed during step b) has been applied by the electric motor (Tobler para 0027: …sense when an unusually high reactive torque is present in the powertrain 74 which requires activation of a clutch 72 to disengage the powertrain 74 from the wheels).
As to claim 11, claim 11, an apparatus claim includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim. Tobler further teaches a non-transitory computer program product comprising a computer readable medium, having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processing unit and adapted to cause execution of a method (Tobler para 0027, Fig. 2). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Tobler.
As to claim 12, claim 12, an apparatus claim includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim. Tobler further teaches a computer readable medium having encoded thereon a computer program (Tobler para 0027, Fig. 2). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Tobler.
As to claim 13, claim 13, an apparatus claim includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim. Tobler further teaches controller comprising a computer readable medium having encoded thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a -processing unit and adapted to cause execution of a method (Tobler para 0027, Fig. 2). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Tobler.
As to claim 14, claim 14, an apparatus claim includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Tobler.
As to claim 15, claim 15, an apparatus claim includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim. For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Tobler.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobler in view of Kuang (US20180135744).
As to claim 5, Tobler teaches the method according to the claim 2.
Tobler does not teach wherein the value measured at step a) is measured by a safety front sensor.
Kuang, directed to a vehicle including a powertrain and a controller, teaches the distance to a preceding car may be measured using electromagnetic waves and optics (e.g. LiDAR, RADAR). This calculation provides an indication of the need to brake due to proximity to other vehicles. A brake prediction may be indicated based on the headway range. If the headway range is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, the braking event is predicted (Kuang para 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobler so as to include wherein the value measured at step a) is measured by a safety front sensor in view of Kuang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that brake prediction based on distance to a preceding car of Kuang can be used in Tobler, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Tobler and Kuang because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to predict a braking event based on headway range using EM wave sensors to improve driving safety.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobler in view of Kerner (US20040100219).
As to claim 8, Tobler teaches the method according to claim 1.
Tobler does not teach wherein the torque applied on the primary part is computed with the following expression:
Tpl =Ipl*al
where:
Tpl is torque applied on the primary part expressed in Newton meter,
al is a wanted angular deceleration of the electric motor deduced from the angular deceleration of the wheels expressed in radian per square second, and
Ip1 is inertia momentum of the primary part expressed in kilogram square meter.
Kerner, directed to a method for determining the mass moment of inertia of an electric motor drive system, teaches …the electrical drive torque in turn can be represented as the product of the acceleration current and a motor constant which, in case of a rotating drive motor, is called torque constant…representation of the motor acceleration as a function of the mass moment of inertia (Kerner para 0021) …in accordance with physical laws for a rotary movement it is also possible to represent the angular acceleration as a=M/J. In this case M is the electric torque constant of the drive motor (Kerner para 0034-0037, para 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobler so as to include the above limitations in view of Kerner et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that relationship between torque, mass moment of inertia and angular acceleration of Kerner can be used in Tobler, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Tobler and Kerner because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobler in view of Hiroaki (CN114901233, the paragraph numbers are cited based on the attached machine translated copy).
As to claim 9, Tobler teaches the method according to claim 1.
Tobler does not teach wherein step b) lasts less than 200ms.
Hiroaki, directed to an electrically controlled vehicle, teaches if the pedestrian vehicle 100 has an auxiliary function and can increase braking force by reversing the motor 105, the fall brake control unit 127 can also release the fall brake based on a smaller threshold (e.g., 0.1 seconds) (Hiroaki para 0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tobler so as to include the above limitations in view of Hiroaki et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that releasing the brake under 0.1 seconds of Hiroaki can be used in Tobler, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Tobler and Hiroaki because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph 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 from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights