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 action is reply to the Application Number 17/850,601 filed on 12/10/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 5 – 8, 11 – 14 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20180354474 A1), further in view of Sudo et al. (JP5191914B2) and Zhao et al. (US 20180297475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a vehicle including:
a user interface;
a brake system; and
a controller to execute instructions to reduce end of stop jerk, the controller to:
detect, via the user interface, a command to engage the brake system at a command brake pressure while the vehicle has a non-zero velocity; (Zhang: Paragraph 0008: “As disclosed herein it is possible to reduce an amplitude of the jerk experienced by an occupant of a vehicle when the vehicle comes to a stop. A brake torque applied by brakes of the vehicle is controlled by a computer. The computer reduces the brake torque shortly before the vehicle comes to a complete stop. The computer determines a brake schedule, i.e., amounts of torque applied over time during a braking operation, and instructs the brakes (i.e., an electronic brake control unit) to reduce the brake torque according to the determined brake schedule in a fine-grained manner that a human driver pushing a brake pedal could not replicate. The system increases the comfort of occupants of the vehicle.”)
… engage the brake system at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure (Zhang: Paragraph 0008: “As disclosed herein it is possible to reduce an amplitude of the jerk experienced by an occupant of a vehicle when the vehicle comes to a stop. A brake torque applied by brakes of the vehicle is controlled by a computer. The computer reduces the brake torque shortly before the vehicle comes to a complete stop. The computer determines a brake schedule, i.e., amounts of torque applied over time during a braking operation, and instructs the brakes (i.e., an electronic brake control unit) to reduce the brake torque according to the determined brake schedule in a fine-grained manner that a human driver pushing a brake pedal could not replicate. The system increases the comfort of occupants of the vehicle.”).
In sum, Zhang teaches a vehicle including: a user interface; a brake system; and a controller to execute instructions to reduce end of stop jerk, the controller to: detect, via the user interface, a command to engage the brake system at a command brake pressure while the vehicle has a non-zero velocity; engage the brake system at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure. Zhang however does not teach to estimate a time until the vehicle comes to a stop.
Sudo teaches estimate a time until the vehicle comes to a stop; and (Sudo: Paragraph 0035: “The stop time calculation unit 208 calculates the time from the start of deceleration to the stop of the vehicle X, that is, the time from the measurement of the initial speed to the stop of the vehicle X as the stop time, using [Equation 2]. It is configured to Specifically, the stop time calculation unit 208 is configured to calculate the stop time by substituting the initial speed, the degree of deceleration, and the time constant into [Equation 2].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Sudo with a reasonable expectation of success. Sudo teaches the ability to calculate the time needed for a vehicle from starting from deceleration to a complete stop. Sudo uses this time to estimate a stop distance for a vehicle (Sudo: Paragraph 0010). One of ordinary skill in the art would find this ability of Sudo as obvious to try to implement with the vehicle system of Zhang. For example, Zhang teaches the ability of determining a stopping distance to accurately apply a target brake torque (Zhang: Paragraph 0013; Paragraph 0036). Therefore, the ability of Sudo able to calculate the time needed for the vehicle to stop to further determine the stop distance would be obvious to try by the system of Zhang as to more accurately determine the target brake torque to apply. Zhang in view of Sudo however still do not teach in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold.
Zhao teaches in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold (Zhao: Paragraph 0034: “The vehicle 10 is following a leading vehicle 90 in front of the vehicle 10. Based on the information gathered from the sensor, the vehicle needs to slow down to keep a safe distance from the leading vehicle. The controller associated with the sensor 80 may define a necessary deceleration rate 82 in order to safely slow the vehicle 10 at a rate such that the vehicle 10 will safely stop before reaching the leading vehicle 90. The time to safely brake the vehicle 10 is dependent on the speed of the vehicle 10 and the distance to the leading vehicle. The controller can construct the deceleration of the vehicle to occur over the necessary time (i.e., between t_start and t_end).”,
Supplemental Note: the necessary time to stop is interpreted as the time threshold for safely stopping the vehicle prior to a collision with the leading vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. Zhao teaches the ability of determining the time when the vehicle safely comes to a stop when approaching the leading vehicle and able to determine a deceleration rate to safely slow down the vehicle. Zhang teaches the ability of reducing jerk by applying a brake torque at a correct time when the vehicle reaches substantially zero (Zhang: Paragraph 0028). Therefore the ability to detect the time threshold of when the vehicle should come to a complete stop approaching the leading vehicle along with what deceleration rate to apply for a safe stop, would be obvious to try with Zhang’s vehicle system. Zhang’s vehicle can now be used to apply the safe deceleration rate while also determining the time at the which the speed of the vehicle will reach substantially zero to further apply a brake pressure to reduce jerk.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the delivered brake pressure is a first delivered brake pressure, and the controller further executes the instructions to:
determine a grade on which the vehicle is disposed; and (Zhang: Paragraph 0028: “Alternatively, the minimum brake torque T.sub.min may be calculated based on a temperature of the brakes 44, an angle of a slope on which the vehicle 30 is stopped, etc., and the relationship between the minimum brake torque T.sub.min and the temperature of the brakes 44, the angle of a slope on which the vehicle 30 is stopped, etc. may be determined by experiments and/or simulations. Monotonic reduction from a first value of a quantity to a second value of the quantity occurs when the quantity decreases from the first value without increasing until the quantity reaches the second value.”)
in response to determining the grade of the vehicle satisfies a first grade threshold, modify the first delivered brake pressure to a second delivered brake pressure, a difference between the first delivered brake pressure and the second delivered brake pressure based on the grade (Zhang: Paragraph 0028: “The minimum brake torque T.sub.min is a lowest value of the brake torque T that will hold the vehicle 30 at standstill when the vehicle 30 is not in park.”; Paragraph 0036: “Next, in a block 325, the computer 32 determines the target brake torque T.sub.target. The target brake torque T.sub.target is less than the holding brake torque T.sub.hold and greater than or equal to the minimum brake torque T.sub.min to hold the vehicle 30 at standstill. The computer 32 determines the target brake torque T.sub.target so that the vehicle 30 stops within a distance that is the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance. The computer 32 determines the target brake torque T.sub.target based on the threshold v.sub.0, the initial brake torque T.sub.0, and the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance, as well as the braking coefficients a.sub.0, b.sub.0. The computer 32 may determine the target brake torque T.sub.target by solving this formula:”,
Supplemental Note: the angle of the slope on which the vehicle is stopped dictates the minimum brake torque required to hold the vehicle still. This is calculated to change the applied brake torque by the user to the minimum brake torque needed to hold the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein:
the second delivered brake pressure is equal to the first delivered brake pressure when the grade is equal to the first grade threshold; and
the second delivered brake pressure is less than or equal to the command brake pressure when the grade satisfies a second grade threshold, the second grade threshold greater than the first grade threshold (Zhang: Paragraph 0028; Paragraph 0036,
Supplemental Note: the angle of the slope on which the vehicle is stopped dictates the minimum brake torque required to hold the vehicle still. This is calculated to change the applied brake torque by the user to the minimum brake torque needed to hold the vehicle. This can happen for a variety of slopes, thus the different slopes are the various thresholds to identify the minimum brake torque).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang, as modified, teaches provided by the velocity sensor, a deceleration rate of the vehicle, a resolution of the velocity sensor, and a braking dynamic of the vehicle (Zhang: Paragraph 0027: “With continued reference to FIG. 1, the vehicle 30 may include the sensors 42. The sensors 42 may provide data about operation of the vehicle 30 via the communications network 40, for example, wheel speed, wheel orientation, and engine and transmission data (e.g., temperature, fuel consumption, etc.). The sensors 42 may detect the position or orientation of the vehicle 30. For example, the sensors 42 may include global positioning system (GPS) sensors; accelerometers such as piezo-electric or microelectromechanical systems (MEMS); gyroscopes such as rate, ring laser, or fiber-optic gyroscopes; inertial measurements units (IMU); and magnetometers. The sensors 42 may detect the external world. For example, the sensors 42 may include radar sensors, scanning laser range finders, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) devices, and image processing sensors such as cameras. The sensors 42 may include communications devices, for example, vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) or vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) devices.”).
In sum, Zhang teaches provided by the velocity sensor, a deceleration rate of the vehicle, a resolution of the velocity sensor, and a braking dynamic of the vehicle. Zhang however does not teach further including a velocity sensor and wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity.
Sudo teaches further including a velocity sensor and wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity (Sudo: Paragraph 0035: “The stop time calculation unit 208 calculates the time from the start of deceleration to the stop of the vehicle X, that is, the time from the measurement of the initial speed to the stop of the vehicle X as the stop time, using [Equation 2]. It is configured to Specifically, the stop time calculation unit 208 is configured to calculate the stop time by substituting the initial speed, the degree of deceleration, and the time constant into [Equation 2].”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Sudo with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated for claim 1, Sudo teaches the ability to calculate the time needed for a vehicle starting from deceleration to a complete stop. Sudo uses this time to estimate a stop distance for a vehicle (Sudo: Paragraph 0010). One of ordinary skill in the art would find this ability of Sudo as obvious to try to implement with the vehicle system of Zhang. For example, Zhang teaches the ability of determining a stopping distance to accurately apply a target brake torque (Zhang: Paragraph 0013; Paragraph 0036). Therefore, the ability of Sudo able to calculate the time needed for the vehicle to stop to further determine the stop distance would be obvious to try by the system of Zhang as to more accurately determine the target brake torque to apply. Sudo does not teach the use of sensors for calculating the vehicle’s velocity however the vehicle of Zhang does include the velocity sensing sensors such as accelerometer and sensors to detect the wheel speed. Therefore, these sensors are already incorporated into Zhang’s vehicle and therefore will be able to perform the functions of Sudo.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches a method to reduce end of stop jerk, method including:
detecting a command to engage a brake of a vehicle at a command brake pressure while the vehicle has a non-zero velocity; (Zhang: Paragraph 0008)
… engaging the brake at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure (Zhang: Paragraph 0008).
In sum, Zhang teaches a method to reduce end of stop jerk, method including: detecting a command to engage a brake of a vehicle at a command brake pressure while the vehicle has a non-zero velocity; engaging the brake at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure. Zhang however does not teach estimating a time until the vehicle comes to a stop.
Sudo teaches estimating a time until the vehicle comes to a stop; and (Sudo: Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Sudo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Zhang in view of Sudo however still do not teach in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold.
Zhao teaches in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold, (Zhao: Paragraph 0034,
Supplemental Note: the necessary time to stop is interpreted as the time threshold for safely stopping the vehicle prior to a collision with the leading vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the delivered brake pressure is a first delivered brake pressure, and further including:
determining a grade on which the vehicle is disposed; and (Zhang: Paragraph 0028)
in response to determining the grade of the vehicle satisfies a first grade threshold,
modifying the first delivered brake pressure to a second delivered brake pressure, a difference between the first delivered brake pressure and the second delivered brake pressure based on the grade (Zhang: Paragraph 0028; Paragraph 0036,
Supplemental Note: the angle of the slope on which the vehicle is stopped dictates the minimum brake torque required to hold the vehicle still. This is calculated to change the applied brake torque by the user to the minimum brake torque needed to hold the vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein:
the second delivered brake pressure is equal to the first delivered brake pressure when the grade is equal to the first grade threshold; and the second delivered brake pressure is less than or equal to the command brake pressure when the grade satisfies a second grade threshold, the second grade threshold greater than the first grade threshold (Zhang: Paragraph 0028; Paragraph 0036,
Supplemental Note: the angle of the slope on which the vehicle is stopped dictates the minimum brake torque required to hold the vehicle still. This is calculated to change the applied brake torque by the user to the minimum brake torque needed to hold the vehicle. This can happen for a variety of slopes, thus the different slopes are the various thresholds to identify the minimum brake torque).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, as modified, teaches provided by a velocity sensor, a deceleration rate of the vehicle, a resolution of the velocity sensor, and a braking dynamic of the vehicle (Zhang: Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Zhang teaches provided by a velocity sensor, a deceleration rate of the vehicle, a resolution of the velocity sensor, and a braking dynamic of the vehicle. Zhang however does not teach wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity.
Sudo teaches wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity (Sudo: Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Sudo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed cause a processor to at least:
detect a command to engage a brake of a vehicle at a command brake pressure while the vehicle has a non-zero velocity; (Zhang: Paragraph 0008)
… engage the brake at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure to reduce end of stop jerk (Zhang: Paragraph 0008).
In sum, Zhang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed cause a processor to at least: detect a command to engage a brake of a vehicle at a command brake pressure while the vehicle has a non-zero velocity; engage the brake at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure to reduce end of stop jerk. Zhang however still does not teach estimate a time until the vehicle comes to a stop.
Sudo teaches estimate a time until the vehicle comes to a stop; and (Sudo: Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Sudo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Zhang in view of Sudo however still do not teach in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold.
Zhao teaches in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold, (Zhao: Paragraph 0034,
Supplemental Note: the necessary time to stop is interpreted as the time threshold for safely stopping the vehicle prior to a collision with the leading vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the delivered brake pressure is a first delivered brake pressure and the instructions when executed cause the processor to:
determine a grade on which the vehicle is disposed; and (Zhang: Paragraph 0028)
in response to determining the grade of the vehicle satisfies a first grade threshold, modify the first delivered brake pressure to a second delivered brake pressure, a difference between the first delivered brake pressure and the second delivered brake pressure based on the grade (Zhang: Paragraph 0028,
Supplemental Note: the angle of the slope on which the vehicle is stopped dictates the minimum brake torque required to hold the vehicle still. This is calculated to change the applied brake torque by the user to the minimum brake torque needed to hold the vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein:
the second delivered brake pressure is equal to the first delivered brake pressure when the grade is equal to the first grade threshold; and
the second delivered brake pressure is less than or equal to the command brake pressure when the grade satisfies a second grade threshold, the second grade threshold greater than the first grade threshold (Zhang: Paragraph 0028; Paragraph 0036,
Supplemental Note: the angle of the slope on which the vehicle is stopped dictates the minimum brake torque required to hold the vehicle still. This is calculated to change the applied brake torque by the user to the minimum brake torque needed to hold the vehicle. This can happen for a variety of slopes, thus the different slopes are the various thresholds to identify the minimum brake torque).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang, as modified, teaches provided by a velocity sensor, a deceleration rate of the vehicle, a resolution of the velocity sensor, and a braking dynamic of the vehicle (Zhang: Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Zhang teaches provided by a velocity sensor, a deceleration rate of the vehicle, a resolution of the velocity sensor, and a braking dynamic of the vehicle. Zhang however does not teach wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity.
Sudo teaches wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity (Sudo: Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Sudo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20180354474 A1), Sudo et al. (JP5191914B2) and Zhao et al. (US 20180297475 A1) as applied respectively to independent claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Toshiki et al. (JP2007196903A).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang, as modified, does not teach wherein the time threshold is between 100 milliseconds and 1500 milliseconds.
Toshiki teaches wherein the time threshold is between 100 milliseconds and 1500 milliseconds (Toshiki: Paragraph 0009: “The predicted time required for the object and the vehicle to be derived based on the relative distance and relative speed between the object and the vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined distance is, for example, a collision between the object and the vehicle This is the estimated time required to do this (hereinafter referred to as TTC (Time To Collision)).”; Paragraph 0030: “In the example of FIG. 3B, the braking control ECU 4 first applies braking of about 0.1 G from TTC 2.4 seconds to 1.6 seconds in the first stage marked “alarm”. At this stage, the so-called sudden braking is not yet applied, and the stop lamp is lit to notify the following vehicle that the sudden braking will be performed. Next, the braking control ECU 4 applies braking of about 0.3 G from TTC 1.6 seconds to 0.8 seconds in the second stage described as “enlarged region braking”. Finally, in the third stage, marked as “full-scale braking”, the maximum braking (about 0.5G) is applied from TTC 0.8 seconds to 0 seconds.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Toshiki with a reasonable expectation of success. Zhang and Toshiki both teach the ability of a vehicle able to implement an automatic braking control whereas Zhang teaches the automatic braking to reduce stop jerk while Toshiki teaches the braking prior to a collision. One with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Toshiki with the teaching of Zhang as to improve safety of the vehicle by mitigating a collision per this braking system. Zhang teaches in Fig. 2 the ability to apply brakes in a time period of t0 to t2, thus the ability to gather time thresholds in which various levels of brake power is applied as per Toshiki is a use of known techniques to improve similar devices. For example, with the combination of Zhang with Toshiki, the vehicle will be able to determine a time-of-collision (TCC) and then within the various time stages, to apply the brake accordingly as to avoid the collision and increase vehicle passenger’s safety.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang, as modified, does not teach wherein the time threshold is between 100 milliseconds and 1500 milliseconds.
Toshiki teaches wherein the time threshold is between 100 milliseconds and 1500 milliseconds (Toshiki: Paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Toshiki with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 2 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim(s) 3, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20180354474 A1), Sudo et al. (JP5191914B2) and Zhao et al. (US 20180297475 A1) as applied respectively to independent claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of O'Meachair et al. (US 20150239448 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, as modified, does not teach wherein the controller executes the instructions to determine the delivered brake pressure by applying a first gain to the command brake pressure, the first gain applied via a ramp function (O’Meachair: Paragraph 0042: “In simple schematic form, desired braking behaviour for an embodiment of the invention is indicated in the effective pedal response functions of FIGS. 1-3. FIG. 1 shows a linear relation between the applied brake pedal travel and the resulting brake fluid pressure. The gradient of this line represents the effective brake pedal ratio, which may reflect the gain factor applied to the pedal force or travel by a brake booster unit or master cylinder, and in this case contributes toward overall brake responsiveness. Alternatively, or in addition, the function may represent the desired brake pressure as adjusted by one or each brake pressure valve pair in an ABS and/or ESC system.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of O’Meachair with a reasonable expectation of success. Zhang teaches the ability of linearly or monotonically applying braking pressure to slow down a vehicle (Zhang: Paragraph 0036). O’Meachair further states the linear relationship between the braking force and the brake pedal. One of ordinary skill in the art would find both of these functions as a simple substitution. For example, Zhang applying a braking force linearly would be the same O’Meachair applying linear braking force. The vehicle will be able to decelerate in a constant rate utilizing both methods of Zhang or O’Meachair, thus would be merely be a simple substitution.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang, as modified, does not teach further including determining the delivered brake pressure by applying a first gain to the command brake pressure, the first gain applied via a ramp function.
O’Meachair teaches further including determining the delivered brake pressure by applying a first gain to the command brake pressure, the first gain applied via a ramp function (O’Meachair: Paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of O’Meachair with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang, as modified, does not teach wherein the instructions when executed cause the processor to determine the delivered brake pressure by applying a first gain to the command brake pressure, the first gain applied via a ramp function.
O’Meachair teaches wherein the instructions when executed cause the processor to determine the delivered brake pressure by applying a first gain to the command brake pressure, the first gain applied via a ramp function (O’Meachair: Paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of O’Meachair with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20180354474 A1), Sudo et al. (JP5191914B2) and Zhao et al. (US 20180297475 A1) as applied respectively to independent claims 1, 8 and 14 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 9855941 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang, as modified, teaches engage the brake system at the command brake pressure (Zhang: Paragraphs 0042 – 0043: “Next, in a decision block 355, the computer 32 determines whether the brake torque T has reached the target brake torque T.sub.target, i.e., whether the vehicle 30 has stopped. If the vehicle 30 has not stopped, the process 300 returns to the decision block 335; in other words, as long as the speed v is below the threshold v.sub.0, the anti-lock brake is off, and the emergency brake is off, the computer 32 continues to apply the brake torque T according to the schedule. If the vehicle 30 has stopped, i.e., after the brake torque T reaches the target brake torque T.sub.target, next, in a block 360, the computer 32 increases the brake torque T to the holding brake torque T.sub.hold. After the block 360, the process 300 ends.”).
In sum, Zhang teaches engage the brake system at the command brake pressure. Zhang however does not teach wherein the controller further executes the instructions to, in response to determining a wheel of the vehicle is at rest for a period.
Kato teaches wherein the controller further executes the instructions to, in response to determining a wheel of the vehicle is at rest for a period, (Kato: Col. 10, lines 51 – 62: “The BH control part 42 starts to count time after actuating the vehicle stop maintaining function. Thus, the EPB shifting determination part 45 can determine whether or not a predetermined period has lapsed after the actuation of the vehicle stop maintaining function (S51). Until the predetermined period has lapsed, the operation sequence is identical to that in FIGS. 6A and 6B. In the case where the predetermined period has lapsed (YES in S51), the BH control part 42 makes a shifting to EPB (S52). That is, the vehicle stop maintenance by the wheel cylinder pressure is shifted to the vehicle stop maintenance by the parking brake.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. Zhang teaches a holding brake torque which is applied when the vehicle is detected to be stopped, this brake torque holds the vehicle in the stopping position. Kato teaches the ability of its vehicle to apply a parking brake when a predetermined time has lapsed. One with knowledge in the art would find these two functions as simple substitutions of themselves or at least obvious to try to implement with the vehicle of Zhang. Both prior art teach the ability to activate a vehicle hold function, Zhang does not explicitly state how quickly the hold is implemented whereas Kato does. Applying the predetermined time limit improves the vehicle of Zhang as if the vehicle applies this hold immediately when the vehicle is stopped, it might be unnecessary in situations such as slow moving traffic. The predetermined time limit as taught by Kato allows the driver to configure the hold mode to when they deem necessary and mitigate unnecessary hold situations such as the example traffic jam.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, as modified, teaches engaging the brake at the command brake pressure (Zhang: Paragraphs 0042 – 0043).
In sum, Zhang teaches engaging the brake at the command brake pressure. Zhang however does not teach further including, in response to a wheel of the vehicle being at rest for a period.
Kato teaches further including, in response to a wheel of the vehicle being at rest for a period, (Kato: Col. 10, lines 51 – 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 4 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang, as modified teaches engage the brake at the command brake pressure (Zhang: Paragraphs 0042 – 0043).
In sum, Zhang teaches engage the brake at the command brake pressure. Zhang however does not teach wherein the instructions when executed cause the processor to in response to a wheel of the vehicle being at rest for a period.
Kato teaches wherein the instructions when executed cause the processor to in response to a wheel of the vehicle being at rest for a period, (Kato: Col. 10, lines 51 – 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Zhang with the teachings of Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 4 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant stated the prior art of Zhang in view of Shimbo and Toshiki do not teach all of the claim limitations stated for independent claims 1, 8 and 14. Examiner agrees and the claim limitations rejected under Shimbo and Toshiki have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sudo (JP 5191914 B2) and Zhao (US 20180297475 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights