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 07/18/2025
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 8 and 14 have been amended
This action is made 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 15 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 Shimbo et al. (US 20210213974 A1), hereinafter Shimbo.
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: (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.”; Paragraphs 0021 – 0023: “With reference to FIG. 1, a vehicle 30 may be an autonomous vehicle. For purposes of this disclosure, autonomous operation is defined as driving for which each of a propulsion 34, a brake system 36, and a steering 38 of the vehicle 30 are controlled by a computer 32; semi-autonomous operation is defined as driving for which the computer 32 controls one or two of the propulsion 34, brake system 36, and steering 38. The computer 32 includes a processor, memory, etc. The memory stores instructions executable by the processor as well as for electronically storing data and/or databases. The computer 32 may be a single computer, as shown in FIG. 1, or may be multiple computers. The computer 32 may transmit signals through a communications network 40 such as a controller area network (CAN) bus, Ethernet, WiFi, Local Interconnect Network (LIN), onboard diagnostics connector (OBD-II), and/or by any other wired or wireless communications network. The computer 32 may be in communication with the propulsion 34, the brake system 36, the steering 38, and sensors 42.”)
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; and engage the brake system at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure. Zhang however does not teach estimate a time until the vehicle comes to a stop; and in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold whereas Shimbo does.
Shimbo teaches estimate a time until the vehicle comes to a stop; and (Shimbo: Paragraph 0058: “The amount of time t which the own vehicle takes until the own vehicle stops, can be expressed by a following equation (3)
PNG
media_image1.png
38
107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.”)
in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold, (Shimbo: Paragraph 0056: “When the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, is determined to reach the second level, the autonomous braking section 13 sends the PCS brake command to the brake ECU 20. The PCS brake command includes information on the PCS-requested deceleration Gpcs.”; Paragraph 0064: “The autonomous braking section 13 determines whether the predicted collision amount of time TTC becomes larger than a termination threshold TTCb (TTC>TTCb) by the autonomous braking control. The termination threshold TTCb has been set to a value larger than the activation threshold TTCa. Therefore, the autonomous braking section 13 monitors whether the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, decreases to a small level (i.e., whether the own vehicle has avoided a collision with the obstacle). When the autonomous braking section 13 determines that the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, decreases to the small level, the autonomous braking section 13 terminates sending the PCS brake command. Thereby, an execution of the autonomous braking control is terminated, and an execution of the PCS control is terminated.”,
Supplemental Note: the threshold in this example is if the time to collision is lower than the time to stop, thus if it is, then to automatically apply braking to avoid a collision)
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 Shimbo with a reasonable expectation of success. The ability to determine when a vehicle will come to a stop when approaching an obstacle and determining a time when the vehicle will collide with the obstacle to calculate when to implement an emergency brake as taught by Shimbo would be obvious to try to combine with the vehicle system of Zhang. Shimbo’s teaching prevents the vehicle from potentially colliding with an approaching object per it’s automatic emergency braking system that improves the safety of the vehicle and passengers, thus with these benefits in safety, one with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement it with the teaching of Zhang. Zhang further teaches the ability of determining the braking pressure to apply when approaching on obstacle. Shimbo teaches the ability of instructing the electronic brake control unit to reduce the jerk when coming to a stop by the use of a brake schedule stating the amount of torque to apply to the brakes. Utilizing Zhangs teaching, one with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this method with Shimbo to calculate the proper braking pressure to apply (by the electronic brake control unit of Shimbo) when approaching an obstacle to reduce stop jerk. For example, an obstacle suddenly appearing in front of the host vehicle can be detected and the proper braking pressure to apply by the brake schedule for the vehicle to come to complete stop before collision and to reduce jerk for the passengers can now be determined.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches 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. (Zhang: Paragraph 0035 – 0036: “Next, in a block 320, the computer 32 determines a maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance resulting from the monotonic reduction of the brake torque T, i.e., a maximum distance that the stopping distance can be increased where reduction of the brake torque T is monotonic. Further, the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance is an additional distance estimated to be safe, e.g., according to factors discussed below, above a default stopping distance s.sub.brk. The default stopping distance s.sub.brk may be determined by assuming constant deceleration according to the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
111
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which T.sub.0 is an initial brake torque when the speed v is at the threshold v.sub.0. Other assumptions than constant deceleration may produce different formulas. The maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance may be determined from, e.g., following distance, i.e., a distance between the vehicle 30 and a vehicle traveling in front of the vehicle 30; speed v; see-ahead distance, i.e., a maximum distance in a direction of travel of the vehicle 30 that the sensors 42 can detect obstacles; the default stopping distance s.sub.brk, etc. The see-ahead distance may be negatively affected by, e.g., fog, other vehicles, hills, buildings, and other obstacles and terrain over and around which the vehicle 30 is traveling. For example, the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance may be determined according to the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
41
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in which s.sub.clear is the minimum of the following distance, the see-ahead distance, and a distance to a nearest obstacle in the direction of travel. 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:
PNG
media_image4.png
179
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This formula represents a difference between the default stopping distance s.sub.brk and a modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk, and sets the difference equal to the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance. The formula assumes constant deceleration for the default stopping distance s.sub.brk and linearly decreasing brake torque T for the modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk. Other patterns of brake torque T besides constant deceleration may be used for the default stopping distance s.sub.brk. Other patterns of brake torque T besides linear decay may be used for the modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk that are still monotonically decreasing.”)
Regarding claim 5, Zhang 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 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: “With reference to FIG. 2, a brake-torque curve 202 illustrates an example of how the brakes 44 apply a brake torque T versus time t, and a speed curve 204 illustrates the effect on a speed v of the vehicle 30. The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v.sub.0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque T.sub.target when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t.sub.1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk. “Brake torque” is a twisting force applied by the brakes 44 tending to counteract the rotation of wheels of the vehicle 30. How the brakes 44 apply the brake torque T depends on the type of brakes 44; for example, for friction brakes, the computer 32 may choose a brake pressure that will produce a brake torque T. The target brake torque T.sub.target is a value of the brake torque T that is less than a holding brake torque T.sub.hold and greater than or equal to a minimum brake torque T.sub.min. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold is a preset value of the brake torque T for holding the vehicle 30 stationary when the vehicle 30 is not in park. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold may be determined by applying a safety factor to a brake torque T that holds the vehicle 30 stationary in experiments and/or simulations. 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. The minimum brake torque T.sub.min may be determined by experiments and/or simulations. 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.”; 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 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: “With reference to FIG. 2, a brake-torque curve 202 illustrates an example of how the brakes 44 apply a brake torque T versus time t, and a speed curve 204 illustrates the effect on a speed v of the vehicle 30. The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v.sub.0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque T.sub.target when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t.sub.1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk. “Brake torque” is a twisting force applied by the brakes 44 tending to counteract the rotation of wheels of the vehicle 30. How the brakes 44 apply the brake torque T depends on the type of brakes 44; for example, for friction brakes, the computer 32 may choose a brake pressure that will produce a brake torque T. The target brake torque T.sub.target is a value of the brake torque T that is less than a holding brake torque T.sub.hold and greater than or equal to a minimum brake torque T.sub.min. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold is a preset value of the brake torque T for holding the vehicle 30 stationary when the vehicle 30 is not in park. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold may be determined by applying a safety factor to a brake torque T that holds the vehicle 30 stationary in experiments and/or simulations. 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. The minimum brake torque T.sub.min may be determined by experiments and/or simulations. 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.”; 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. 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 teaches 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 can gather velocity from a 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 the estimation of the time is based on a velocity whereas Shimbo does.
Shimbo teaches further including a velocity sensor and wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity is provided by (Shimbo: Paragraph 0002: “There is known a technique to forcibly stop an own vehicle by an autonomous braking. For example, there is known a collision avoidance assist apparatus to increase hydraulic pressure (i.e., brake hydraulic pressure) applied to a brake apparatus to activate the autonomous braking to stop the own vehicle when (i) an obstacle is detected by a front sensor such as a camera sensor and a radar sensor, and (ii) the own vehicle potentially collides with the detected obstacle.”)
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 Shimbo with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated for claim 1, the ability to determine when a vehicle will come to a stop when approaching an obstacle and determining a time when the vehicle will collide with the obstacle to calculate when to implement an emergency brake as taught by Shimbo would be obvious to try to combine with the vehicle system of Zhang. Shimbo’s teaching prevents the vehicle from potentially colliding with an approaching object per it’s automatic emergency braking system that improves the safety of the vehicle and passengers, thus with these benefits in safety, one with knowledge in the art would find it obvious to try to implement it with the teaching of Zhang. This function is taught by Shimbo to be performed by the vehicle sensors, thus one with knowledge in the art would find these sensors as a simple substitution with the vehicle sensors of Zhang.
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: “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.”)
…engaging the brake 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 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; and 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; and performing an action in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold whereas Shimbo does.
Shimbo teaches estimating a time until the vehicle comes to a stop; and (Shimbo: Paragraph 0058: “The amount of time t which the own vehicle takes until the own vehicle stops, can be expressed by a following equation (3)
PNG
media_image1.png
38
107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.”)
in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold, (Shimbo: Paragraph 0064: “The autonomous braking section 13 determines whether the predicted collision amount of time TTC becomes larger than a termination threshold TTCb (TTC>TTCb) by the autonomous braking control. The termination threshold TTCb has been set to a value larger than the activation threshold TTCa. Therefore, the autonomous braking section 13 monitors whether the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, decreases to a small level (i.e., whether the own vehicle has avoided a collision with the obstacle). When the autonomous braking section 13 determines that the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, decreases to the small level, the autonomous braking section 13 terminates sending the PCS brake command. Thereby, an execution of the autonomous braking control is terminated, and an execution of the PCS control is terminated.”,
Supplemental Note: the threshold in this example is if the time to collision is lower than the time to stop, thus if it is, then to automatically apply braking to avoid a collision)
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 Shimbo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang 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. (Zhang: Paragraph 0035 – 0036: “Next, in a block 320, the computer 32 determines a maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance resulting from the monotonic reduction of the brake torque T, i.e., a maximum distance that the stopping distance can be increased where reduction of the brake torque T is monotonic. Further, the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance is an additional distance estimated to be safe, e.g., according to factors discussed below, above a default stopping distance s.sub.brk. The default stopping distance s.sub.brk may be determined by assuming constant deceleration according to the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
111
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which T.sub.0 is an initial brake torque when the speed v is at the threshold v.sub.0. Other assumptions than constant deceleration may produce different formulas. The maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance may be determined from, e.g., following distance, i.e., a distance between the vehicle 30 and a vehicle traveling in front of the vehicle 30; speed v; see-ahead distance, i.e., a maximum distance in a direction of travel of the vehicle 30 that the sensors 42 can detect obstacles; the default stopping distance s.sub.brk, etc. The see-ahead distance may be negatively affected by, e.g., fog, other vehicles, hills, buildings, and other obstacles and terrain over and around which the vehicle 30 is traveling. For example, the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance may be determined according to the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
41
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in which s.sub.clear is the minimum of the following distance, the see-ahead distance, and a distance to a nearest obstacle in the direction of travel. 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:
PNG
media_image4.png
179
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This formula represents a difference between the default stopping distance s.sub.brk and a modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk, and sets the difference equal to the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance. The formula assumes constant deceleration for the default stopping distance s.sub.brk and linearly decreasing brake torque T for the modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk. Other patterns of brake torque T besides constant deceleration may be used for the default stopping distance s.sub.brk. Other patterns of brake torque T besides linear decay may be used for the modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk that are still monotonically decreasing.”)
Regarding claim 11, Zhang 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 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: “With reference to FIG. 2, a brake-torque curve 202 illustrates an example of how the brakes 44 apply a brake torque T versus time t, and a speed curve 204 illustrates the effect on a speed v of the vehicle 30. The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v.sub.0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque T.sub.target when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t.sub.1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk. “Brake torque” is a twisting force applied by the brakes 44 tending to counteract the rotation of wheels of the vehicle 30. How the brakes 44 apply the brake torque T depends on the type of brakes 44; for example, for friction brakes, the computer 32 may choose a brake pressure that will produce a brake torque T. The target brake torque T.sub.target is a value of the brake torque T that is less than a holding brake torque T.sub.hold and greater than or equal to a minimum brake torque T.sub.min. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold is a preset value of the brake torque T for holding the vehicle 30 stationary when the vehicle 30 is not in park. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold may be determined by applying a safety factor to a brake torque T that holds the vehicle 30 stationary in experiments and/or simulations. 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. The minimum brake torque T.sub.min may be determined by experiments and/or simulations. 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.”; 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 12, Zhang 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: “With reference to FIG. 2, a brake-torque curve 202 illustrates an example of how the brakes 44 apply a brake torque T versus time t, and a speed curve 204 illustrates the effect on a speed v of the vehicle 30. The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v.sub.0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque T.sub.target when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t.sub.1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk. “Brake torque” is a twisting force applied by the brakes 44 tending to counteract the rotation of wheels of the vehicle 30. How the brakes 44 apply the brake torque T depends on the type of brakes 44; for example, for friction brakes, the computer 32 may choose a brake pressure that will produce a brake torque T. The target brake torque T.sub.target is a value of the brake torque T that is less than a holding brake torque T.sub.hold and greater than or equal to a minimum brake torque T.sub.min. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold is a preset value of the brake torque T for holding the vehicle 30 stationary when the vehicle 30 is not in park. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold may be determined by applying a safety factor to a brake torque T that holds the vehicle 30 stationary in experiments and/or simulations. 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. The minimum brake torque T.sub.min may be determined by experiments and/or simulations. 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.”; 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. 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 teaches 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: “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 can gather velocity from a 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 the estimation of the time is based on a velocity whereas Shimbo does.
Shimbo teaches wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity provided by (Shimbo: Paragraph 0002: “There is known a technique to forcibly stop an own vehicle by an autonomous braking. For example, there is known a collision avoidance assist apparatus to increase hydraulic pressure (i.e., brake hydraulic pressure) applied to a brake apparatus to activate the autonomous braking to stop the own vehicle when (i) an obstacle is detected by a front sensor such as a camera sensor and a radar sensor, and (ii) the own vehicle potentially collides with the detected obstacle.”)
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 Shimbo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as both state 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: “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.”; Paragraph 0022: “The computer 32 includes a processor, memory, etc. The memory stores instructions executable by the processor as well as for electronically storing data and/or databases. The computer 32 may be a single computer, as shown in FIG. 1, or may be multiple computers.”; Paragraphs 0021 – 0023: “With reference to FIG. 1, a vehicle 30 may be an autonomous vehicle. For purposes of this disclosure, autonomous operation is defined as driving for which each of a propulsion 34, a brake system 36, and a steering 38 of the vehicle 30 are controlled by a computer 32; semi-autonomous operation is defined as driving for which the computer 32 controls one or two of the propulsion 34, brake system 36, and steering 38. The computer 32 includes a processor, memory, etc. The memory stores instructions executable by the processor as well as for electronically storing data and/or databases. The computer 32 may be a single computer, as shown in FIG. 1, or may be multiple computers. The computer 32 may transmit signals through a communications network 40 such as a controller area network (CAN) bus, Ethernet, WiFi, Local Interconnect Network (LIN), onboard diagnostics connector (OBD-II), and/or by any other wired or wireless communications network. The computer 32 may be in communication with the propulsion 34, the brake system 36, the steering 38, and sensors 42.”)
engage the brake at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure to reduce end of stop jerk. (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 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; and engage the brake system at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure to reduce end of stop jerk. Zhang however does not teach to estimate a time until the vehicle comes to a stop; and performing an action in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold whereas Shimbo does.
Shimbo teaches estimate a time until the vehicle comes to a stop; and (Shimbo: Paragraph 0058: “The amount of time t which the own vehicle takes until the own vehicle stops, can be expressed by a following equation (3)
PNG
media_image1.png
38
107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.”)
in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold, (Shimbo: Paragraph 0064: “The autonomous braking section 13 determines whether the predicted collision amount of time TTC becomes larger than a termination threshold TTCb (TTC>TTCb) by the autonomous braking control. The termination threshold TTCb has been set to a value larger than the activation threshold TTCa. Therefore, the autonomous braking section 13 monitors whether the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, decreases to a small level (i.e., whether the own vehicle has avoided a collision with the obstacle). When the autonomous braking section 13 determines that the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, decreases to the small level, the autonomous braking section 13 terminates sending the PCS brake command. Thereby, an execution of the autonomous braking control is terminated, and an execution of the PCS control is terminated.”,
Supplemental Note: the threshold in this example is if the time to collision is lower than the time to stop, thus if it is, then to automatically apply braking to avoid a collision)
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 Shimbo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang 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. (Zhang: Paragraph 0035 – 0036: “Next, in a block 320, the computer 32 determines a maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance resulting from the monotonic reduction of the brake torque T, i.e., a maximum distance that the stopping distance can be increased where reduction of the brake torque T is monotonic. Further, the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance is an additional distance estimated to be safe, e.g., according to factors discussed below, above a default stopping distance s.sub.brk. The default stopping distance s.sub.brk may be determined by assuming constant deceleration according to the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
111
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which T.sub.0 is an initial brake torque when the speed v is at the threshold v.sub.0. Other assumptions than constant deceleration may produce different formulas. The maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance may be determined from, e.g., following distance, i.e., a distance between the vehicle 30 and a vehicle traveling in front of the vehicle 30; speed v; see-ahead distance, i.e., a maximum distance in a direction of travel of the vehicle 30 that the sensors 42 can detect obstacles; the default stopping distance s.sub.brk, etc. The see-ahead distance may be negatively affected by, e.g., fog, other vehicles, hills, buildings, and other obstacles and terrain over and around which the vehicle 30 is traveling. For example, the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance may be determined according to the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
41
200
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in which s.sub.clear is the minimum of the following distance, the see-ahead distance, and a distance to a nearest obstacle in the direction of travel. 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:
PNG
media_image4.png
179
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This formula represents a difference between the default stopping distance s.sub.brk and a modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk, and sets the difference equal to the maximum increase Δs.sub.max of stopping distance. The formula assumes constant deceleration for the default stopping distance s.sub.brk and linearly decreasing brake torque T for the modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk. Other patterns of brake torque T besides constant deceleration may be used for the default stopping distance s.sub.brk. Other patterns of brake torque T besides linear decay may be used for the modified stopping distance s′.sub.brk that are still monotonically decreasing.”)
Regarding claim 18, Zhang 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 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: “With reference to FIG. 2, a brake-torque curve 202 illustrates an example of how the brakes 44 apply a brake torque T versus time t, and a speed curve 204 illustrates the effect on a speed v of the vehicle 30. The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v.sub.0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque T.sub.target when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t.sub.1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk. “Brake torque” is a twisting force applied by the brakes 44 tending to counteract the rotation of wheels of the vehicle 30. How the brakes 44 apply the brake torque T depends on the type of brakes 44; for example, for friction brakes, the computer 32 may choose a brake pressure that will produce a brake torque T. The target brake torque T.sub.target is a value of the brake torque T that is less than a holding brake torque T.sub.hold and greater than or equal to a minimum brake torque T.sub.min. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold is a preset value of the brake torque T for holding the vehicle 30 stationary when the vehicle 30 is not in park. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold may be determined by applying a safety factor to a brake torque T that holds the vehicle 30 stationary in experiments and/or simulations. 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. The minimum brake torque T.sub.min may be determined by experiments and/or simulations. 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.”; 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 19, Zhang 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: “With reference to FIG. 2, a brake-torque curve 202 illustrates an example of how the brakes 44 apply a brake torque T versus time t, and a speed curve 204 illustrates the effect on a speed v of the vehicle 30. The computer 32 is programmed to detect that the brakes 44 are applied and that the speed v of the vehicle 30 is below a threshold v.sub.0, and, upon so detecting, monotonically reduce the brake torque T of the brakes 44 so that the brake torque T reaches a target brake torque T.sub.target when the speed v reaches substantially zero, as shown between a time to and a time t.sub.1. As a consequence, an occupant of the vehicle 30 may experience reduced jerk. “Brake torque” is a twisting force applied by the brakes 44 tending to counteract the rotation of wheels of the vehicle 30. How the brakes 44 apply the brake torque T depends on the type of brakes 44; for example, for friction brakes, the computer 32 may choose a brake pressure that will produce a brake torque T. The target brake torque T.sub.target is a value of the brake torque T that is less than a holding brake torque T.sub.hold and greater than or equal to a minimum brake torque T.sub.min. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold is a preset value of the brake torque T for holding the vehicle 30 stationary when the vehicle 30 is not in park. The holding brake torque T.sub.hold may be determined by applying a safety factor to a brake torque T that holds the vehicle 30 stationary in experiments and/or simulations. 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. The minimum brake torque T.sub.min may be determined by experiments and/or simulations. 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.”; 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. 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 teaches 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: “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 can gather velocity from a 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 the estimation of the time is based on a velocity whereas Shimbo does.
Shimbo teaches wherein the estimation of the time is based on a velocity provided by (Shimbo: Paragraph 0002: “There is known a technique to forcibly stop an own vehicle by an autonomous braking. For example, there is known a collision avoidance assist apparatus to increase hydraulic pressure (i.e., brake hydraulic pressure) applied to a brake apparatus to activate the autonomous braking to stop the own vehicle when (i) an obstacle is detected by a front sensor such as a camera sensor and a radar sensor, and (ii) the own vehicle potentially collides with the detected obstacle.”)
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 Shimbo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as both state 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) and Shimbo et al. (US 20210213974 A1) as applied respectively to independent claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Toshiki et al. (JP2007196903A).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang does not teach wherein the time threshold is between 100 milliseconds and 1500 milliseconds whereas Toshiki does.
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.
PNG
media_image5.png
512
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 does not teach wherein the time threshold is between 100 milliseconds and 1500 milliseconds whereas Toshiki does.
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. Please refer to the rejection of claim 2 as both state 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) and Shimbo et al. (US 20210213974 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 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 to 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 whereas Kato does.
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 teaches engaging the brake 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 to engage the brake system at the command brake pressure. Zhang however does not teach in response to determining a wheel of the vehicle is at rest for a period whereas Kato does.
Kato reaches further including, in response to a wheel of the vehicle being 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. Please refer to the rejection of claim 4 as both state the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches to engage the brake 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 to engage the brake system at the command brake pressure. Zhang however does not teach instructions to in response to determining a wheel of the vehicle is at rest for a period whereas Kato does.
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, engage the brake at the command brake pressure. (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. Please refer to the rejection of claim 4 as both state the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 of the REMARKS, filed 07/18/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see section Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the REMARKS, filed 07/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states: “Shimbo fails to overcome the deficiencies of Zhang. Shimbo generally describes: "... a driving assist apparatus which can prevent rapid moving of the own vehicle due to the mistaken pressing operation performed by the driver when the execution of the stopped state keeping control is terminated." Shimbo, para. [0006]. Shimbo further mentions: "The amount of time t which the own vehicle takes until the own vehicle stops, can be expressed by a following [sic] equation (3). t = -V/a." Shimbo, para. [0058]. That is, Shimbo describes the determination of a time until the vehicle comes to a stop based on the velocity of the vehicle and the deceleration of the vehicle. Shimbo mentions: "When the equation (3) is assigned to the equation (2), the moving distance X which the own vehicle moves until the own vehicle stops, can be expressed by a following equation (4). X = -V2/2a." Shimbo, para. [0059]. That is, Shimbo describes using the equation used to determine an estimated time (t) until the vehicle comes to a stop to determine the distance (X) until the vehicle stops. Shimbo appears to make no further use of the estimated time (t) until the vehicle comes to a stop.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The time for the vehicle to come into a stop is merely an estimation by just utilizing the function of t = -V/a as taught by Shimbo. One with knowledge in the art knows that there are other factors vehicles face more than just acceleration and velocity such as wind drag, pavement friction, etc. The time to stop is merely an estimation based off the factors of acceleration and velocity. If another definition of estimation or method is required by the claim, then it should be stated within the claim language.
Applicant further states:
“Shimbo further mentions: "The autonomous braking section 13 determines whether the predicted collision amount of time TTC becomes larger than a termination threshold TTCb (TTC> TTCb) by the autonomous braking control." Shimbo, para. [0064]. That is, Shimbo describes the comparison of a predicted collision amount of time (TTC) to a termination threshold (TTCb). Neither the TTC nor the TTCb of Shimbo is an "estimated time until the vehicle comes to a stop," as set forth in claim 1. Particularly, Shimbo describes: "TTC is a predicted amount of time which the own vehicle takes to collide with the obstacle ... [that] is calculated, based on ... the distance d between the obstacle and the own vehicle, and the relative speed Vr of the own vehicle relative to the obstacle." Shimbo, para. [0052]. As such, the TTC of Shimbo is the expected time until collision with an object, not the expected time for the vehicle to come to a stop. Turning to the TTCb, Shimbo mentions: "The termination threshold TTCb has been set to a value larger than the activation threshold TTCa. Therefore, the autonomous braking section 13 monitors whether the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, decreases to a small level (i.e., whether the own vehicle has avoided a collision with the obstacle)." Shimbo, para. [0064]. As such, the TTCb of Shimbo is a threshold time used to determine if the autonomous braking system is to be deactivated. Accordingly, Shimbo does not teach or suggest taking any action in response to determining that a time until the vehicle comes to a stop satisfies a time threshold, much less in response to determining that a time until the vehicle comes to a stop satisfies a time threshold, engage a brake system at a delivered brake pressure less than a command brake pressure.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shimbo teaches in paragraphs 0057 – 0063 the method of determining the distance of when to apply the brake prior to colliding with an obstacle. This distance is based on time the vehicle takes to come to a stop by applying the max braking pressure, therefore directly related to the time it takes for the vehicle to stop. This is further applies to the TTC and TTCb calculations, whereas stated in paragraph 0064 describes the autonomous braking section determining a distance threshold with an obstacle to apply the brakes. Paragraph 0056 of Shimbo expliclty states :”When the level of the potential that the own vehicle collides with the obstacle, is determined to reach the second level, the autonomous braking section 13 sends the PCS brake command to the brake ECU 20. The PCS brake command includes information on the PCS-requested deceleration Gpcs.”, further validating the autonomous braking section is able to apply a breaking pressure depending on the distance to collide with an obstacle.
Applicant further states:
“Zhang and Shimbo are missing the same elements of claim 1, namely a controller to in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold, engage the brake system at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure. Therefore, the alleged Zhang/Shimbo combination is likewise missing those same elements. As a result, the alleged Zhang/Shimbo combination fails to establish a primafacie case of obviousness against claim 1. As such, claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom are allowable over the alleged Zhang/Shimbo combination. Withdrawal of the § 103 rejections therefrom is respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The various missing elements are taught by Zhang and Zhang in view of Shimbo as stated in the section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. If there is an issue with the primafacie of obviousness with this combination, then the applicant should state those reasons as it is not clear what part of the motivation to combine the applicant is arguing against.
Applicant further states: “Independent Claim 8 Independent claim 8 sets forth a method to reduce end of stop jerk, method including in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold, engaging the brake at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure. The alleged Zhang/Shimbo combination fails to teach or suggest such a method. Thus, independent claim 8 and all claims depending therefrom are allowable over the alleged Zhang/Shimbo combination. Withdrawal of the § 103 rejections therefrom is respectfully requested.
Independent Claim 14 Independent claim 14 sets forth a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed cause a processor to in response to determining that the time satisfies a time threshold, engage the brake at a delivered brake pressure less than the command brake pressure to reduce end of stop jerk. The alleged Zhang/Shimbo combination fails to teach or suggest such a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, independent claim 14 and all claims depending therefrom are allowable over the alleged Zhang/Shimbo combination.
Withdrawal of the § 103 rejections therefrom is respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above for claim 1, the same arguments pertain to claims 8 and 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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