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 references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 09/17/2025 and 07/21/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 1-4, recite “wherein
the coefficient estimation unit estimates an acceleration friction coefficient, which is a maximum friction coefficient when the mobile body accelerates, and a deceleration friction coefficient, which is a maximum friction coefficient when the mobile body decelerates” but should recite – wherein the coefficient estimation unit estimates an acceleration friction coefficient, which is a maximum friction coefficient when the mobile body accelerates, and a deceleration friction coefficient, which is a maximum friction coefficient when the mobile body decelerates –; Claims 3-6 are objected to for similar reasoning.
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: “coefficient estimation unit that…” in claims 1-2 and 4, “limit calculation unit that…” in claims 1 and 3-5, and “target-setting unit that…” in claims 1 and 6.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/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.
Claim 1, line 3, recites “mobile body causes the drive wheel to rotate”. It is unclear to the Examiner how the mobile body causes the drive wheel to rotate. In other words, the mobile body is not a motor, actuator or controller causing or controlling the drive wheel to rotate. The mobile body alone is not able to “cause” the drive wheel to rotate. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this to be a controller or similar circuitry causing the drive wheel to rotate. Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the deceleration friction coefficient most recently estimated" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, recites “wherein the target-setting unit does not perform a setting of the target torque based on the torque upper limit when the mobile body cannot accelerate”. It is unclear to the Examiner what “when the mobile body cannot accelerate” means. In other words, it is unclear if the mobile body is unable to accelerate due to wheel slip or no traction, a situation where the torque upper limit has already been reached, an acceleration command being zero, or etc. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the body not being able to accelerate as wheel slip or no traction.
Claim 7, lines 4-5, recites “estimating a maximum friction coefficient of a drive wheel with respect to a road surface when a mobile body travels causes the drive wheel to rotate and travels on the road surface”. It is unclear to the Examiner how “estimating a maximum friction coefficient of a drive wheel with respect to a road surface when a mobile body travels” causes the drive wheel to rotate. In other words, it is unclear how the estimating of a maximum friction coefficient of a drive wheel causes the drive wheel to rotate. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this to mean estimating a maximum friction coefficient of a drive wheel with respect to a road surface when a mobile body travels and then separately causing the drive wheel to rotate.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taira (WO 2013076902 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Taira teaches a control device comprising: a coefficient estimation unit that estimates a maximum friction coefficient of a drive wheel with respect to a road surface when a mobile body causes the drive wheel to rotate and travels on the road surface (abstract and page 8 “road surface friction coefficient μ is estimated”); a limit calculation unit that calculates a torque upper limit for driving the drive wheel according to the estimated maximum friction coefficient (page 8 “grip limit torque”); and a target-setting unit that sets a target torque to drive the drive wheel so as not to exceed the torque upper limit (pages 4-7 “target motor torque calculation unit” “target motor torque”).
Regarding claim 2, Taira teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the coefficient estimation unit estimates an acceleration friction coefficient, which is a maximum friction coefficient when the mobile body accelerates, and a deceleration friction coefficient, which is a maximum friction coefficient when the mobile body decelerates (page 10 “road surface friction coefficient μ” “braking / driving force”, i.e., when braking a deceleration coefficient would be estimated and when driving force is applied an acceleration coefficient would be estimated).
Regarding claim 3, Taira teaches the control device according to claim 2, wherein the limit calculation unit calculates the torque upper limit according to the acceleration friction coefficient or the deceleration friction coefficient most recently estimated by the coefficient estimation unit (page 8 “grip limit torque”; also, see page 11 “step S104 corresponds to the “friction coefficient estimation unit”, the process of step S105 corresponds to the “upper limit torque estimation unit””).
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 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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira (WO 2013076902 A1) in view of Tsutsui (WO 2022153590 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Taira does not explicitly teach the control device according to claim 3, wherein the coefficient estimation unit estimates an offset amount corresponding to a difference between the acceleration friction coefficient and the deceleration friction coefficient, and the limit calculation unit, when calculating the torque upper limit according to the deceleration friction coefficient, adds the offset amount to the deceleration friction coefficient. However, Tsutsui discloses a vehicle control device and teaches the control device according to claim 3, wherein the coefficient estimation unit estimates an offset amount corresponding to a difference between the acceleration friction coefficient and the deceleration friction coefficient, and the limit calculation unit, when calculating the torque upper limit according to the deceleration friction coefficient, adds the offset amount to the deceleration friction coefficient (page 6 “friction coefficient μ of the road surface on which the vehicle 10 travels and further multiplied by the safety factor” “upper limit deceleration”).
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 the drive control device for a vehicle of Taira to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the coefficient estimation unit estimates an offset amount corresponding to a difference between the acceleration friction coefficient and the deceleration friction coefficient, and the limit calculation unit, when calculating the torque upper limit according to the deceleration friction coefficient, adds the offset amount to the deceleration friction coefficient, as taught by Tsutsui, to provide improving the safety of the vehicle. (Tsutsui at page 8)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira (WO 2013076902 A1) in view of Boeckenhoff et al. (US 20110106388 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Taira does not explicitly teach the control device according to claim 1, wherein the limit calculation unit varies the torque upper limit according to at least one of a gradient of a road surface on which the mobile body travels, a drive system of the mobile body, and a weight of the mobile body. However, Boeckenhoff discloses vehicle torque management and teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the limit calculation unit varies the torque upper limit according to at least one of a gradient of a road surface on which the mobile body travels, a drive system of the mobile body, and a weight of the mobile body (¶[0020] regarding maximum torque of the vehicle based on gross weight).
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 the drive control device for a vehicle of Taira to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the limit calculation unit varies the torque upper limit according to at least one of a gradient of a road surface on which the mobile body travels, a drive system of the mobile body, and a weight of the mobile body, as taught by Boeckenhoff, to provide different maximum torque curves based on vehicle weight. (Boeckenhoff at ¶[0020])
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira (WO 2013076902 A1) in view of Liggins et al. (US 20150239456 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Taira does not explicitly teach the control device according to claim 1, wherein the target-setting unit does not perform a setting of the target torque based on the torque upper limit when the mobile body cannot accelerate. However, Liggins discloses a vehicle recovery system and teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the target-setting unit does not perform a setting of the target torque based on the torque upper limit when the mobile body cannot accelerate (¶[0005] regarding a situation where there is insufficient traction and ¶[0018] “reduction in motor torque”, i.e., for increasing traction, there would not want to be added torque if there is no traction).
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 the drive control device for a vehicle of Taira to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the target-setting unit does not perform a setting of the target torque based on the torque upper limit when the mobile body cannot accelerate, as taught by Liggins, to provide increasing the available traction to enable self-recovery of the vehicle. (Liggins at ¶[0005])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chae et al. (US 20220055623 A1) is pertinent because it is an apparatus and a method for estimating a road surface friction coefficient.
Suzuki et al. (US 20160221446 A1) is pertinent because it is a driving force control device capable of stabilizing a vehicle behavior when a driving torque of a drive wheel is controlled.
Kato (US 20160039312 A1) is pertinent because it is a traction control device and traction control method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights