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
This Office action is in response to application filed on 11/11/2025. Claim(s) 14-25 is/are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
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 words in length. 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.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not concise and because it necessitates readers to consult the full patent text for details (i.e., it uses reference characters).
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 14-25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 14, 24, and 25 recite(s) the limitation “generating a braking force is generated on a rear wheel of the motorcycle”. This limitation is unclear and thus, the claim(s) is/are indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear why the term “is generated” is seemingly repeated after “generating a braking force” has already been recited. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitations to be “generating a braking force on a rear wheel”, instead.
Claim(s) 18 recite(s) the limitation “the braking force on the rear wheel is maintained at least in part up to or shortly after an apex of a cornering maneuver, until an acceleration request is recognized”. This limitation is unclear and thus, the claim(s) is/are indefinite. Specifically, the claim recites that the “braking force…is maintained…up to or shortly after an apex of a cornering maneuver” which is understood to mean the “braking force” stops being maintained after an “apex of a cornering maneuver” condition is met. The claim further recites “the braking force on the rear wheel is maintained…until an acceleration request is recognized”. Thus, it is unclear how the “braking force” is maintained “up to or shortly after an apex of a cornering maneuver” and “until an acceleration request is recognized”. Which condition is given preference? It does not make sense how both conditions could be met as recited in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitations to be “the braking force on the rear wheel is maintained at least in part up to or shortly after an apex of a cornering maneuver, or until an acceleration request is recognized”, instead.
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.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 21, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng (US 20170320476 A1).
Regarding claim 14, and similarly claims 24-25, Cheng teaches A method for operating a motorcycle which includes an electronic combined brake system (eCBS) (“a variable linked braking system controlled by motorcycle lean angle to enhance the stability and traction of a motorcycle being braked in a turn.”, [0005], “The variable linked braking system comprises a brake master cylinder 1, a hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2, a front brake unit 3, a rear brake unit 4, a hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5…The hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2, electronically or mechanically operated, is connected to the brake master cylinder 1 by an oil path 11 to distribute the hydraulic pressure generated from the brake master cylinder 1 on the front brake unit 3 and the rear brake unit 4… The hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5 has a computation processor (not shown), a servomotor (not shown) controlled by the computation processor, a memory (not shown) connected to the computation processor, and a power source (not shown). The hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5 uses the computation processor, or the computation processor and the servomotor, to control the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2 so as to change the hydraulic pressure distribution proportion of the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2.”, [0022]), the method comprising the following steps:
generating a braking force is generated on a rear wheel of the motorcycle using the eCBS when a front wheel brake of the motorcycle is actuated by a driver of the motorcycle (“The brake switch 8 is provided in the form of a brake handle and adapted to start the brake master cylinder 1 and send a brake signal 81 to the hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5… The hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5 controls, according to the motorcycle lean angle 71, the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2 to change the hydraulic pressure distribution proportion of the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2 so that, given a motorcycle speed larger than 0, the ratio of the braking force of the front brake unit 3 to the braking force of the rear brake unit 4 decreases to 0 or larger than 0 as the motorcycle lean angle 71 increases (from 0 degree, 5 degrees, 10 degrees, 15 degrees, 20 degrees, and the like.)”, [0022], the operation of the “brake 8” by an operator of the motorcycle results in the front wheel brake of the motorcycle being delivered a braking force); and
dynamically controlling the braking force on the rear wheel depending on a current driving situation of the motorcycle, using the eCBS (see “The hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5 controls, according to the motorcycle lean angle 71, the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2 to change the hydraulic pressure distribution proportion of the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2 so that, given a motorcycle speed larger than 0, the ratio of the braking force of the front brake unit 3 to the braking force of the rear brake unit 4 decreases to 0 or larger than 0 as the motorcycle lean angle 71 increases (from 0 degree, 5 degrees, 10 degrees, 15 degrees, 20 degrees, and the like.)”, [0022] citation above, the rear wheel is delivered a braking force depending on the “lean angle”, which corresponds to Applicant’s “current driving situation”).
Regarding claim 15, Cheng teaches The method according to claim 14, wherein the current driving situation is recognized using a lean angle of the motorcycle (“The motorcycle lean angle sensor 7 senses a motorcycle lean angle 71 to the hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5. The motorcycle lean angle 71 is the angle by which a motorcycle 9 leans to one side. The brake switch 8 is provided in the form of a brake handle and adapted to start the brake master cylinder 1 and send a brake signal 81 to the hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5. The hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5 controls, according to the motorcycle lean angle 71, the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2 to change the hydraulic pressure distribution proportion of the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2”, [0022]).
Regarding claim 21, Cheng teaches The method according to claim 14, wherein an adjustable proportional valve of the eCBS is used to reduce the braking force on the rear wheel (“The rear brake unit 4 is provided in the form of rear brake calipers and connected to the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2 by a second oil path 41…The hydraulic pressure proportion controller 5 uses the computation processor, or the computation processor and the servomotor, to control the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2 so as to change the hydraulic pressure distribution proportion of the hydraulic pressure proportion variable valve 2.”, [0022]).
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20170320476 A1) in view of Takenaka et al. (US 20090187302 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng teaches The method according to claim 14,
However, Takenaka teaches
wherein the current driving situation is recognized using a slip angle of the rear wheel (“The present invention relates to a control device for a vehicle having a plurality of wheels, such as…a two-wheeled motor vehicle.”, [0001], “according to the embodiments in the present description, the driving/braking device 3A is a driving/braking device capable of actively controlling the driving/braking forces to be applied to the wheels W1 to W4 (specifically, the driving/braking forces in the braking direction of the vehicle 1) by operating a braking device through the intermediary of actuators provided in the braking device (a driving/braking device capable of controlling the driving/braking forces to be applied to the wheels W1 to W4 by the braking device by increasing or decreasing the basic driving/braking forces determined on the basis of the manipulated variables of the brake pedal).”, [0071], “The driving/braking device 3A may have a function that permits active control, through the intermediary of actuators provided in the driving system, of the difference or the ratio between the driving/braking forces to be applied to the front wheels W1 and W2, which are driving wheels, by operating the driving system of the driving/braking device 3A, in addition to the function for actively controlling the driving/braking forces of the wheels W1 to W4 by operating the braking device.”, [0072], “Further, regarding the rear wheels W3 and W4, (when n=3 or 4), the n-th wheel driving/braking force at the generation of a maximum moment Fxmmax_n and the n-th wheel slip ratio at the generation of a maximum moment Smmax_n corresponding thereto are determined from, for example, the actual rear wheel slip angle .beta.r_act and the estimated friction coefficient .mu.estm according to a map prepared beforehand (a map showing the relationship among rear wheel side slip angles”, [0368], [0094-0095]).
Takenaka teaches it was known to control the rear wheel of a motorcycle depending on a current driving situation recognized using a slip angle of the rear wheel. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng with the teachings of Takenaka such that the current driving situation of Cheng is recognized using a slip angle of the rear wheel, as suggested by Takenaka, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to determine the braking force based on the well-known parameter of the rear wheel slip-angle, as taught by Takenaka [0367-0368].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20170320476 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 20060138857 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng teaches The method according to claim 14,
However, Nakayama teaches
wherein the braking force on the rear wheel is set using at least one predefined brake pressure ramp (“As shown in the figure, when the front wheel master cylinder pressure is gradually increased, at first the rear wheel brake caliper pressure gradually increases until it reaches a first front wheel master cylinder pressure P.sub.1. As the front wheel master cylinder pressure continues to gradually increase beyond pressure P.sub.1, the rear wheel brake caliper pressure levels off. When the front wheel master cylinder pressure is further increased beyond a second front wheel master cylinder pressure P.sub.2, the rear wheel brake caliper pressure gradually decreases, where the braking pressure ratio of the rear wheel brake caliper 4 to the front wheel master cylinder pressure under both ABS control and CBS control is different from that under CBS control only (the ABS is inactive).”, [0057], Figs. 4-5).
Both Cheng and Nakayama teach combined braking systems of a motorcycle. Nakayama further teaches gradually adjusting the braking force on the rear wheel using a predefined graph. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng with the teachings of Nakayama such that the method of Cheng further comprises setting the braking force on the rear wheel using a predefined brake pressure ramp, as suggested by Shanmugam, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that “an adequate braking pressure is ensured by the wheel braking member for the rear wheel which works in conjunction with brake operation for the front wheel until brake operation for the front wheel is ended” [0009], as taught by Nakayama.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20170320476 A1) in view of Atsushi et al. (US 20100045097 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Cheng teaches The method according to claim 14,
However, Atsushi teaches
wherein the braking force on the rear wheel is increased independently of the driving situation when the braking force is generated via a brake pedal of the motorcycle (“According to the first aspect of the present invention, ordinarily, the first switch control valve is open and the second switch control valve is closed. Thus, ordinarily, the rear wheel is braked by brake operation of the rear wheel. When a predetermined condition has been established, the control device controls so as to close the first switch control valve and open the second switch control valve and also drives the hydraulic pump. Thus, high-pressure fluid is supplied from the pressure amplification conduit to both the combined brake conduit and the rear wheel brake conduit, and increased brake force is applied to both the front wheel and the rear wheel (active pressure amplification). Preferably, the control means detects pressure amplification of the front wheel master cylinder and, when the ratio of brake force on the rear wheel with respect to brake force on the front wheel does not match a predetermined ratio, determines that the predetermined condition has been established and executes active pressure amplification control. At this time, the control means controls brake force on the front wheel and the rear wheel such that the ratio of brake force on the rear wheel matches the predetermined ratio. When a driver steps on a foot pedal that links to the rear wheel master cylinder during brake operation of the rear wheel, brake fluid is discharged from the rear wheel master cylinder, so the stepping-on of the foot pedal is shallow, but the sensation is blunter than when operated by hand; consequently, some change in the stroke of the brake pedal does not become a problem sensorially.”, [0006]).
Both Cheng and Atsushi teach combined braking systems of a motorcycle. Atsushi further teaches increasing braking force of the rear wheel when a rear brake pedal is operated during combined braking control. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng with the teachings of Atsushi such that the method of Cheng further comprises controlling the braking force on the rear wheel to be increased independently of the driving situation when the braking force is generated via a brake pedal, as suggested by Atsushi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that “the stroke of the brake pedal does not become a problem sensorially” [0006], as taught by Atsushi.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20170320476 A1) in view of Shanmugam et al. (WO 2022201182 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Cheng teaches The method according to claim 14,
However, Shanmugam teaches
wherein the braking force on the rear wheel is dynamically controlled depending on the driving situation independently of an actuation of the front wheel brake (“Figure 6a to Figure 6c illustrates a sectional view of a front master cylinder (300) of a vehicle (100) during operation of both front braking by front brake lever (208) and rear braking by means of a rear brake control lever (not shown), in accordance with an embodiment of the present claimed subject matter. Because of the simultaneous actuation of both the front brake actuation lever (208) and the rear brake control lever (not shown), the primary piston (302) is pulled from inside by means of the direct connection, herein called as a first connection (309), through force exerted by cable 308 inside the cable sheath (306) by means of the lock pin (307), and at the same time the front brake actuation lever (208) moves in the direction of the primary piston (302). However, because of the clearance created in between the primary piston (302) and the front brake actuation lever (208), the front brake actuation lever (208) is able to apply reduced pressure on the primary piston (302), ensuring avoidance of any hard braking experience during the operation. Thereby, during the synchronous braking or combine braking, along with the front braking, rider safety is additionally ensured due to avoidance of any hard braking”, [0076]).
Both Cheng and Shanmugam teach combined braking systems of a motorcycle. Shanmugam further teaches maintaining control of the rear wheel is maintained during combined braking, even if the front wheel brake lever is actuated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cheng with the teachings of Shanmugam such that the method of Cheng further comprises controlling the braking force on the rear wheel depending on the driver situation independently of an actuation of the front wheel brake, as suggested by Shanmugam, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that “rider safety is additionally ensured due to avoidance of any hard braking” [0076], as taught by Shanmugam.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
