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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 17/617,281. Claim(s) 1-13 have been examined and fully considered.
Claim(s) 1-13 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/10/2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 10-11 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. As applicant remarks, states “wherein the first valve driver is connected between the first MCU and valves, the second valve driver is connected between the second MCU and the valves, and the first motor driver and the second motor driver are connected to one motor” neither Heise nor Yhr the references does not explicitly disclose the amended claim feature clearly. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Abe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0189439).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0282249; previously recorded), hereinafter, referred to as “Heise” in view of Yhr (Pub. No.: US 2018/0046161; previously recorded), and in view of Abe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0189439), hereinafter, referred to as “Abe”.
Regarding [claim 1], Heise discloses a control device of a brake system (see at least Abstract “an electronic controller for a brake system of a motor vehicle, which comprises at least one interface to a control element, in particular a parking brake control switch, and at least two drive circuits for electric actuators, in particular electric parking brake actuators.”), comprising: a sensor unit including at least one of a pedal sensor , one or more pressure sensors, and a motor position sensor (see at least Paragraph [0023]: “the electronic controller comprises at least one acceleration sensor, at least one yaw rate sensor, and at least one interface for wheel revolution rate sensors”; a first control unit including a first electronic parking brake (EPB) driver (see at least Paragraph [0038]: “electrical parking brake actuators 3a”), a first valve driver (see at least “arithmetic units 7”), a first motor driver (“drive circuits 8”), and a first microcontroller unit (MCU) (“microcontrollers 7”) configured to control the first EPB driver, the first valve driver, and the first motor driver according to a signal received from the sensor unit (see at least Paragraph [0025]: “the electronic controller comprises at least one electrically controllable hydraulic valve, at least one electric hydraulic pump, and at least one interface for pressure sensors. Said components enable electronic control of a hydraulic brake system” and [0044]: “Each of the redundant core microcontrollers 7, 7' has an associated drive circuit 8, 8' for an electric parking brake actuator 3a, 3b, in particular a bridge circuit. Thus the two arithmetic units 7, 7' can control the electric motor parking brake actuator(s) 3a, 3b of a respective wheel independently of each other.”); and a second control unit including a second EPB driver, a second valve driver, a second motor driver, and a second MCU configured to control the second EPB driver, the second valve driver, and the second motor driver according to the signal received from the sensor unit (see at least Paragraph [0025]: “the electronic controller comprises at least one electrically controllable hydraulic valve, at least one electric hydraulic pump, and at least one interface for pressure sensors. Said components enable electronic control of a hydraulic brake system” and [0044]: “Each of the redundant core microcontrollers 7, 7' has an associated drive circuit 8, 8' for an electric parking brake actuator 3a, 3b, in particular a bridge circuit. Thus the two arithmetic units 7, 7' can control the electric motor parking brake actuator(s) 3a, 3b of a respective wheel independently of each other”), the second control unit is configured to perform the same function as the first control unit and constitute redundancy of the first control unit (see at least Paragraphs [0049]: “If a fault occurs in one of the arithmetic units 7, 7', then the second arithmetic unit can now operate at least the parking brake of one of its associated wheels.” and [0052]: “If a fault occurs with the first arithmetic unit 7 operating the two parking brake actuators 3a, 3b, then the second arithmetic unit 7' takes over control at least of one electrical parking brake actuator. The first arithmetic unit 7 comprises a means of fault detection for this purpose, which in the event of a fault sends a signal 12 to the switch or multiplexer 11, which connects the drive circuit of at least one actuator to the second arithmetic unit 7'. Clearly only the polarity or the level of signal 12 could be changed in order to indicate a fault. Switch 11 can also contain a circuit for detection of rising or falling edges of signal 12”).
However, in addition and/or alternatively, Yhr teaches
…the second control unit is configured to perform the same function as the first control unit and constitute redundancy of the first control unit (see at least Paragraphs [0032]: “FIG. 2 shows an arrangement 1 for providing redundancy in a vehicle electrical control system 2 according to the invention. The electrical control system 2 comprises a plurality of electronic control units connected to each other through a data bus”; [0033]; [0047]: “the programmable switch will be able to reconnect one or more transceivers from the faulty electronic control unit to another electronic control unit , which in this way will be able to continue to perform the function of the faulty electronic control unit by using the sensors and actuators for that function” and [0049]: “In the shown example , the second electronic control unit 4 will take over the duties form the first electronic control unit 3 . The second electronic control unit sends a control signal to the control input 25 of the programmable switch , ordering the programmable switch to reconnect transceiver 6 to the second electronic control unit 4 . The programmable switch thus reconnects transceiver 6 to the second electronic control unit 4 . The sensors and actuators required by function A are now connected to the second electronic control unit 4”)…
Heise discloses at least two of the independent arithmetic units are implemented at least partly in redundant form. As e.g. the functional groups with the highest probability of a fault are implemented as redundant, i.e. duplicated, the normal programs of the arithmetic units can continue to be executed even in the event of a single fault occurring.
And Yhr teaches an electronic control unit may be selectively reconnected to any
other electronic control unit in case of malfunction of the electronic control unit.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further incorporate when selecting an electronic control unit another electronic control unit in case of malfunction of the electronic control unit . The arrangement and method is especially suited for vehicle electrical control systems, in which several different electronic control units are used as taught by Yhr. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey the functionality taken over from the first electronic control unit may also differ over time, depending e.g. on the amount of computing capacity that the second electronic control unit requires for its own original functionality (see at least Paragraph [0001]).
Heise discloses at least two of the independent arithmetic units are implemented at least partly in redundant form which vaguely mention a motor, see, Paragraph [0030]: “an internal combustion engine and/or an electric motor of the motor vehicle according to the invention is/are connected via an automatic gearbox without a transmission lock to the wheels of at least one axle”), and Yhr teaches an electronic control unit may be selectively reconnected to any
other electronic control unit in case of malfunction of the electronic control unit.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Abe teaches
…wherein the first valve driver is connected between the first MCU and valves (see, Figures 1-3, and 5-6; Paragraphs [0026]; [0028]-[0030] , the second valve driver is connected between the second MCU (“second CPU 17c”) and the valves, and the first motor driver and the second motor driver are connected to one motor (see, Paragraph [0053]: “The conductive member 54b constitutes a first signal conductive member for transmitting serial signals (serial data) from a first CPU 18c of the main ECU 18 to the second CPU 17c of the motor ECU 17. The conductive member 54b is secured by, e.g., Soldering at one end thereof to the fixing portion of the connection terminal 22b4 and at the other end thereof to a terminal (copper foil terminal) 17a-4 of a first signal line L4 which is formed on the motor ECU 17 and which is connected to the second CPU 17c.”; [0062]-[0064]; [0066] and [0074]-[0077]: “The second CPU 17c receives a target rotational speed of the electric motor 34b from the first CPU 18c, calculates control values to attain the received target rotational speed, and transmits to the pre-driver (drive means) 17d motor control signals which are calculated based on the control values for controlling the electric motor 34b.”).
***Examiner notes as Heise, Yhr, teaches wherein the first valve driver is connected between the first and second MCU and valves, the second valve driver, however, Abe was brought in to explicitly teach where the first and second valve driver are connected to at least one motor (“electric motor 34b,”)***
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to as taught by Abe. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improved brake hydraulic pressure control device (see, Paragraph [0009]), and where the pressure sensors P1-P3 are connected to be able to transmit the output signals therefrom to the main CPU 18 through the motor ECU 17. With this construction, it becomes possible to connect, by transmission, the pressure sensors P1-P3 to the main ECU 18 by utilizing the communication line between the main ECU 18 and the motor ECU 17. This precludes the provision of any dedicated transmission lines for pressure signals, so that an increase in dimension of the device main body can be suppressed. (see, Paragraph [0088]).
As to [claim 2], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe teaches the control device of claim 1.Heise discloses wherein the second control unit operates only when the first control unit does not operate normally (see at least Paragraphs [0049]: “If a fault occurs in one of the arithmetic units 7, 7', then the second arithmetic unit can now operate at least the parking brake of one of its associated wheels.” and [0052]: “If a fault occurs with the first arithmetic unit 7 operating the two parking brake actuators 3a, 3b, then the second arithmetic unit 7' takes over control at least of one electrical parking brake actuator. The first arithmetic unit 7 comprises a means of fault detection for this purpose, which in the event of a fault sends a signal 12 to the switch or multiplexer 11, which connects the drive circuit of at least one actuator to the second arithmetic unit 7'. Clearly only the polarity or the level of signal 12 could be changed in order to indicate a fault. Switch 11 can also contain a circuit for detection of rising or falling edges of signal 12”).
As to [claim 3], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe the control device of claim 1. Heise discloses …the second valve driver is included in a second ASIC chip included in the second control unit (see at least Paragraph [0021]: “a second arithmetic unit is connected to a second drive circuit for electric parking brake actuators”)… However, Heise does not disclosing the control device further comprising a third valve driver included in a separate chip wherein the first valve driver is included in a first application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip included in the first control unit; and the second valve driver is included in a second ASIC chip included in the second control unit.
However, in the same field of Yhr teaches
a third valve driver included in a separate chip wherein the first valve driver is included in a first application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip included in the first control unit (see at least Paragraph [0032]: “three electronic control units 3, 4, 5 are used. However, in a normal electrical control system used in a vehicle, a larger amount of electronic control units will be used. In the shown example, the electronic control units are interconnected with a first data bus 10. The electronic control units may also be connected through another, parallel data bus. The other data bus may be e.g. a data bus intended to provide redundancy if the first data bus breaks down or is damaged, or may be a specific high speed data bus used for sending high speed data between two electronic control units”)…
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further incorporate when selecting an electronic control unit another electronic control unit in case of malfunction of the electronic control unit . The arrangement and method is especially suited for vehicle electrical control systems , in which several different electronic control units are used as taught by Yhr. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey the functionality taken over from the first electronic control unit may also differ over time, depending e.g. on the amount of computing capacity that the second electronic control unit requires for its own original functionality (see at least Paragraph [0001]).
As to [claim 7], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe teaches the control device of claim 1. Yhr teaches wherein: the first control unit includes a first car area network (CAN) transceiver; the second control unit includes a second CAN transceiver; and the first MCU and the second MCU communicate with each other through the first CAN transceiver and the second CAN transceiver (see at least Paragraph [0004]: “One or more sensors and/or actuators are thus connected to an Input/Output unit (I/O-unit), which comprises a number of discrete input and output channels and a data bus interface which allows the I/O-unit to connect to other I/O-units and to the electronic control unit through a data bus, often a LIN bus or a CAN bus. An electronic control unit may thus be connected to several I/O-units.”; [0015]: “ the arrangement will allow a transceiver to be connected to any selected electronic control unit. Each transceiver is connected to one or more I/O-units through a suitable data bus, such as a CAN bus or LIN bus”; and [0060]: “each transceiver is connected to a selected electronic control unit with a programmable switch. The programmable switch is initialized to connect each transceiver to a predefined electronic, control unit. In this way, each electronic control unit will be able to communicate with predefined sensors and actuators through a second data bus, where the sensors and actuators are connected to one or more I/O-units”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further incorporate the first MCU and the second MCU communicate with each other through the first CAN transceiver and the second CAN transceiver as taught by Yhr. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey the functionality taken over from the first electronic control unit may also differ over time, depending e.g. on the amount of computing capacity that the second electronic control unit requires for its own original functionality (see at least Paragraph [0001]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise, Yhr and Abe, and in view of Dabbs (US 2013/0289842; previous recorded).
As to [claim 4], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe teaches the control device of claim 3. Neither Heise nor Yhr explicitly teaches wherein: the first and second valve drivers included in the first and second ASIC chips are configured to drive valves for a function of an electronic stability control (ESC) system or an anti-lock brake system (ABS); and the third valve driver included in the separate chip is configured to drive valves for a foot brake function.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dabbs teaches
wherein:
the valve drivers included in the first and second ASIC chips drive valves for a function of an electronic stability control (ESC) system (see at least Paragraph [0020]: “The tractor 10 may further include an electronic control unit 24 receiving com mands from implement, steering and braking controls (not shown) in an operator station 26 of the tractor 10. As the operator manipulates to the controls, the electronic control unit 24 in response controls the engine 18 to drive the tractor 10 over a surface 28”) or an anti-lock brake system (ABS); and the valve driver (see at least Paragraph [0021]: “a microcontroller, an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit) chip, or any other integrated circuit device. The control unit 24 electrically connects to the engine 18, a steering device 48, a direction selector 50, a braking device 52”) included in the separate chip drives valves for a foot brake function (see at least Paragraph [0021]: “The braking device 52 may be a foot pedal, a hand lever or other device providing a braking signal to the controller 24”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Heise in view of Yhr by combining wherein the valve driver includes: a valve driver included in a separate chip; a valve driver included in a first application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chip included in the first control unit; and a valve driver included in a second ASIC chip included in the second control unit as taught by Dabbs. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey when the pressure difference and rate of change of the pressure difference indicate that the detected over-pressure or under-pressure problem is more severe so that the cumulative integration value increases at a faster rate. The cumulative integration value approaches the integration limit sooner so that a response to the braking condition is triggered earlier to notify the operator, and to allow the vehicle and operator to react before an accident occurs (see at least Paragraph [0045]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise, Yhr and Abe, and in view of Chen Xishan, (CN108964561A, NPL English Translation: previously recorded), hereinafter, referred to as “Chen”.
As of [Claim 5], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe teaches the control device of claim 1. Neither Heise nor Yhr or Abe explicitly teaches wherein:
the first control unit includes a first motor driver and the first three-phase inverter; the second control unit includes a second motor driver and a second three- phase inverter; and the first MCU or the second MCU controls a dual winding motor which is simultaneously connected to the first three-phase inverter of the first control unit and the second three-phase inverter of the second control unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches
the first control unit includes a first motor driver and the first three-phase inverter (see at least Paragraph [0023]: “the motor controller is divided into a first motor controller and a second motor controller. The first motor controller is connected to a power module through a first switch. , the second motor controller is connected to the power module through the second switch”); the second control unit includes a second motor driver and a second three- phase inverter (see at least Paragraph [0023]: “the motor controller is divided into a first motor controller and a second motor controller. The first motor controller is connected to a power module through a first switch. , the second motor controller is connected to the power module through the second switch”); and the first MCU or the second MCU controls a dual winding motor which is simultaneously connected to the first three-phase inverter of the first control unit (see at least Paragraph [0020]: “the dual winding mode is converted to the single winding mode, and the first position information is used as the position information of the motor rotor”) and the second three-phase inverter of the second control unit (see at least Paragraph [0018]: “The second motor branch is provided with a second relay, a second inverter and a second three-phase winding connected in sequence”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Heise, Yhr and Abe by combining the first control unit includes a first motor driver and a first three-phase inverter; the second control unit includes a second motor driver and a second three- phase inverter; and the first MCU or the second MCU controls a dual winding motor which is simultaneously connected to the first three-phase inverter of the first control unit and the second three-phase inverter of the second control unit as taught by Chen. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability and safety of the existing electric vehicle drive system, a control method for a dual three-phase motor drive system and its position sensor of an electric vehicle under high reliability, high safety, and multiple working modes is provided, and the electric vehicle drive assembly It is mainly composed of dual three-phase motors, a motor controller with safety redundancy function and compatible with multimode control (see at least [0058]).
As to [Claim 6], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe and Chen teaches the control device of claim 5. Chen further teaches wherein, when the first control unit fails (see at least Paragraph [0014]: “the position sensor fails, it also includes determining whether the phase current of the motor is controllable. When it is determined that it is uncontrollable, it is determined that the motor has failed”), the second control unit controls the dual winding motor only with the second three-phase inverter and the second motor driver (see at least Paragraphs [0040]: “the motor controller is divided into a first motor controller and a second motor controller. The first motor controller is connected to a power module through a first switch. , the second motor controller is connected to the power module through the second switch, and when one of the motor controllers is working abnormally, the switch connecting the motor controller that is working abnormally is disconnected”; and [0054]: “When a certain MCU works abnormally, another MCU that works normally disconnects the power supply enable of the faulty MCU and uploads the fault alarm information to the vehicle controller for recording. At the same time, the motor controller will run under the control of a single MCU”).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise, Yhr and Abe in view of Ditty et al. (US 2024/0045426; previous recorded), hereinafter, referred to as “Ditty”.
As to [Claim 8], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe teaches the control device of claim 1. Neither Heise nor Yhr or Abe explicitly disclose wherein the first MCU and the second MCU communicate with each other through general purpose input/output (GPIO) or universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ditty teaches
wherein the first MCU and the second MCU communicate with each other through general purpose input/output (GPIO) or universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART) (see at least Paragraph [0309]: “the MCUs 2003 can also communicate directly with the vehicle bus 2032 via the interfaces 2028. Vehicle bus 2032 in one example embodiment may comprise a vehicle Controller Area Network (CAN) multi-master, message broadcast system bus 2032 such as found in many or most modern vehicles. Such a vehicle bus 2032 in some embodiments complies with the Bosch CAN standard and ISO-11898: 2003, or future versions, replacements and/or alternatives of same. Interfaces 2028 includes transceivers to communicate via such a vehicle bus 2032. Other vehicle interfaces 2028 may be employed such as RS-232, Flexray, PTP, GPIO, LIN, UART”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Heise, Yhr and Abe by combining wherein the first MCU and the second MCU communicate with each other through general purpose input/output (GPIO) or universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART) as taught by Ditty. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey providing diversity and redundancy, and meeting functional safety standards. The technology provides for a faster, more reliable, safer, energy-efficient and space-efficient System-on-a-Chip, which may be integrated into a flexible, expandable platform that enables a wide-range of autonomous vehicles, including cars, taxis, trucks, and buses… (see at least Abstract).
As to [Claim 9], the combination of Heise, Yhr, Abe and Ditty teaches the control device of claim 7. Heise discloses wherein: the first control unit receives a signal value of a sensor connected to the second control unit through the first CAN transceiver; or the second control unit receives a signal value of a sensor connected to the first control unit through the second CAN transceiver (see at least Paragraph [0044]: “microcontrollers 7, 7' are directly connected to each other via a data bus 13, to which preferably no other function blocks or external circuits are connected. This enables rapid data transfer (i.e. a high transfer rate) without long latency times (because both short signal transition times and also high possible clock rates are achieved). Each of the redundant core microcontrollers 7, 7' has an associated drive circuit 8, 8' for an electric parking brake actuator 3a, 3b, in particular a bridge circuit. Thus the two arithmetic units 7, 7' can control the electric motor parking brake actuator(s) 3a, 3b of a respective wheel independently of each other.”).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heise, Yhr and Abe, and in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2022/0073038; previously recorded), hereinafter, referred to as “Suzuki”.
As to [Claim 10] the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe teaches the control device of claim 1. As Abe teaches the pressure sensor (see, Paragraph [0020]: “a pressure sensor.”; and [0028]: “a plurality of electromagnetic valves 31, 32a, 32b, 33a, 33b, 34d, 41, 42a, 42b, 43a, 43b, 44d, the pumps 34a, 44a, pressure sensors P1, P2, P3, and a connector section 22. FIG. 3 shows all of the electromagnetic valves, the pumps and the pressure sensors, while FIGS. 2A and 2B show some of these devices.”), discloses wherein:
the pressure sensor includes a first pressure sensor, a second pressure sensor, and a third pressure sensor (see, Figure 5; Paragraph [0028]: “a plurality of electromagnetic valves 31, 32a, 32b, 33a, 33b, 34d, 41, 42a, 42b, 43a, 43b, 44d, the pumps 34a, 44a, pressure sensors P1, P2, P3, and a connector section 22. FIG. 3 shows all of the electromagnetic valves, the pumps and the pressure sensors, while FIGS. 2A and 2B show some of these devices.”)…
However, neither reference explicitly disclose does not explicitly discloses wherein:
the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor are connected only to the first control unit; and the third pressure sensor is connected only to the second control unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches wherein:
the pressure sensor includes a first pressure sensor, a second pressure sensor, and a third pressure sensor (see at least Figs. 1 and 3 and Paragraphs [0025, 0029-0030, 0032, 0034-0039, 0045, 0075] and [0039-0041, 0051-0052]); the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor are connected only to the first control unit; and the third pressure sensor is connected only to the second control unit (see at least Figs. 1 and 3 and Paragraphs and [0025, 0029-0030, 0032, 0034-0039, 0045, 0075] and [0039-0041, 0051-0052]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Heise, Yhr and Abe by combining the pressure sensor includes a first pressure sensor, a second pressure sensor, and a third pressure sensor; the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor are connected only to the first control unit; and the third pressure sensor is connected only to the second control unit as taught by Suzuki. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide an electric brake device capable of suppressing variation in an arrival current (that is, thrust) while ensuring robustness against current fluctuation (see at least Paragraph [0005]).
As to [Claim 11], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe teaches the control device of claim 10. Heise discloses wherein, when the first control unit fails, the second control unit controls the brake system (see at least Paragraph [0047]: “If the driver demands the application or release of the parking brake via control switch 5, then the arithmetic units 7, 7' of the two wheels fitted with parking brakes synchronise themselves by means of communications via the internal data bus. Here e.g. a command for operating or releasing the parking brake is exchanged via the data bus connecting the two processors within the controller. An unimpaired or fault-free redundant core microcontroller 7, 7' directly controls the parking brake actuator associated therewith. A logical decision for operating or releasing the parking brake can be triggered by the operation of a parking brake switch or the present operating state of the vehicle”) only with the third pressure sensor in a state in which performance is degraded as compared with a case in which all of the first, second, and third pressure sensors operate (see at least Paragraph [0014]: “at least one of the arithmetic units, in particular two, is implemented as a redundant core microcontroller, in particular with two processor cores operating in lockstep mode. Two processor cores operating in lockstep mode are characterized by a comparison unit connected to both processor cores, which enables the detection of individual errors. If three redundant cores and a circuit for the determination of a majority decision are used, a single error can not only be detected but also corrected”).
As to [Claim 12], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe teaches the control device of claim 1. Heise in view of Yhr does not explicitly discloses wherein: the pedal sensor has an output of a first channel and an output of a second channel; the output of the first channel is connected to the first control unit; and the output of the second channel is connected to the second control unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches wherein: the pedal sensor has an output of a first channel and an output of a second channel; the output of the first channel is connected to the first control unit; and the output of the second channel is connected to the second control unit (see at least Figs. 1 and 3 and Paragraphs [0025, 0029-0030, 0032, 0034-0039, 0045, 0075] and [0039-0041, 0051-0052]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify Heise, Yhr and Abe by combining the pedal sensor has an output of a first channel and an output of a second channel; the output of the first channel is connected to the first control unit; and the output of the second channel is connected to the second control unit as taught by Suzuki. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide an electric brake device capable of suppressing variation in an arrival current (that is, thrust) while ensuring robustness against current fluctuation (see at least Paragraph [0005]).
As to [Claim 13], the combination of Heise, Yhr and Abe and Suzuki teaches the control device of claim 12. Suzuki further teaches wherein: the output of the first channel and the output of the second channel of the pedal sensor output different values according to settings; and when the first control unit fails, the output of the second channel outputs the same value as the output of the first channel before the first control unit fails (see at least Figs. 1 and 3 and Paragraphs [0025, 0029-0030, 0032, 0034-0039, 0045, 0075] and [0039-0041, 0051-0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663