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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 8, 14-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 15 recites the limitation "the processing circuitry". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “time stamp” in more than one instance. It is unclear if these instances are the same or distinct. For purposes of examination these instances will be interpreted as being the same.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 it claims a program, per se.
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.
(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) 1-11, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20210078556A1 (“Laine”).
As per claims 1-3, and 14-15 Laine teaches the limitations of the system, method, and product(s):
A computer system for a vehicle comprising a primary brake system and a secondary brake system, wherein each of the primary and secondary brake systems is configured to control one or more brake actuators of the vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: enable the secondary brake system; trigger braking control by the secondary brake system; obtain measurements of an output of the secondary brake system, wherein the output is for control of the one or more brake actuators, and wherein the measurements are indicative of a response of the secondary brake system to the triggered braking control; and determine a functionality of the secondary brake system by comparing the measurements of the output of the secondary brake system to a corresponding output of the primary brake system. (Laine at least the abstract, FIG. 6, FIG. 7, [0159], [0046])
Claim 4:
obtaining, by the processing circuitry, measurements of an applied brake force by the one or more brake actuators responsive to the triggered braking control by the secondary brake system. (Laine at least [0150], FIG. 6)
Claim 5:
disabling, by the processing circuitry, the one or more brake actuators before triggering braking control by the secondary brake system. (Laine at least FIG. 6B)
Claim 6:
when the secondary brake system is determined as functional: enabling, by the processing circuitry, the one or more brake actuators; triggering, by the processing circuitry, further braking control by the secondary brake system; and obtaining, by the processing circuitry, measurements of an applied brake force by the one or more brake actuators responsive to the triggered further braking control by the secondary brake system. (Laine at least FIG. 6B)
Claim 7:
determining the functionality of the secondary brake system further comprises comparing, by the processing circuitry, the measurements of the applied brake force by the one or more brake actuators responsive to the triggered braking control, or further braking control, by the secondary brake system to a corresponding brake force for the primary brake system. (Laine at least FIG. 6, FIG. 6B, [0136])
Claim 8
storing, by the processing circuitry, the measurements in association with a time stamp; and storing, by the processing circuitry, the determined functionality of the secondary brake system in association with a time stamp. (Laine at least [0009-0012], FIG. 6B T1-T2)
Claim 9:
acquiring, by the processing circuitry, a request for evaluation of the secondary brake system, wherein enabling the secondary brake system is responsive to the request. (Laine at least [0078]: “one or more electronic control units build and deliver requests toward layer L0. Each function (drivetrain torque, braking, steering) returns a status and capabilities of their actuators.”)
Claim 10:
method of claim 3, performed while the vehicle is in motion. (Laine at least [0143])
Claim 11:
when the secondary brake system is determined as non-functional, causing, by the processing circuitry, a safety enhancing action. (Laine at least [0175]: “park brake function, it can be regarded generally as a third braking channel, that can be used in case of emergency when the main and backup circuits exhibit a severe failure that prevent proper backup operation”)
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.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine in view of US20240317197A1 (“Zhang”).
As per claim 12, Laine teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Laine does not disclose, which Zhang teaches:
the safety enhancing action comprises one or more of: performing a safe stop maneuver by the vehicle; alerting an operator of the vehicle; and disabling an autonomous drive mode of the vehicle. (Zhang at least the abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laine with the aforementioned limitations taught by Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve methods for detecting brake failures (Zhang [0019]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine in view of US20230136605A1 (“Oosthoek”).
As per claim 13, Laine teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Laine does not disclose, which Oosthoek teaches:
acquiring, by the processing circuitry, identification of a situation considered safe for brake system evaluation, wherein enabling the secondary brake system is performed automatically when the vehicle is in the identified situation. (Oosthoek at least [0020-0021]: “a diagnosis of the complete backup control branch is possible during the normal operational mode… power-up mode in which the diagnostic utilities provide a control signal to the backup control branch to cause the backup control branch to generate a brake motor drive signal. In the power-up mode, the mode control utilities temporarily enable the backup control branch to drive a brake motor with the brake motor drive signal. In the power-up mode the diagnostic utilities diagnose an operation of the backup control branch by verifying an operation of the brake motor in response to said the brake motor drive signal. In these embodiments, it is regularly verified that the backup control unit actually succeeds in properly controlling the brake motor.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Laine with the aforementioned limitations taught by Oosthoek with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to verify if the backup control unit functions properly (Oosthoek [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights