DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 10-18 remain pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 01/23/2026 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 08/18/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional reference provided below.1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbitmann et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0257664A1 (hereinafter, Arbitmann), in view of Semsey et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2012/0130581A1 (hereinafter, Semsey), in further view of Makoto et al. JP2007223421A (hereinafter, Makoto).
Regarding Claim 10, Arbitmann describes a control method for braking a commercial vehicle (control system for braking of a vehicle, Arbitmann, Paragraph 0010), comprising:
(a) receiving a deceleration request by a brake system (detecting a deceleration request by a braking system, Arbitmann, Paragraph 0011);
(b) calculating at least one braking torque by a control device (calculating a braking torque, Arbitmann, Paragraph 0048);
….
(d) subsequently, repeatedly detecting brake slip on at least one wheel of the commercial vehicle (detecting brake slip of the vehicle, Arbitmann, Paragraph 0011); and ….
Arbitmann does not specifically disclose the method to include that when the brake slip of a wheel determined in step (d) reaches a predetermined stability-critical limit value or when the braking torque calculated in step (b) exceeds a maximum braking torque of the electric motor, distributing the braking torque calculated in step (b) to the at least one electric motor and at least one other brake, wherein the at least one other brake or the electric motor provides for a constant base braking torque, and the other one of the at least one other brake and the electric motor takes over fine adjustments in an anti-lock situation to regulate the brake slip.
Semsey discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Semsey discloses that when the driver braking request torque cannot be fully transmitted to the road due to slip or stability constraints, the system distributes braking torque between the electric motor and the friction brake (Semsey, Paragraphs 0031–0037). The friction brake provides a slower-rising but larger base braking torque, while the electric motor generates a quickly adjustable generator-type braking torque that can be dynamically increased, decreased, or even reversed to prevent wheel lock and maintain stability. Semsey additionally explains that the electric motor torque is modulated onto the base friction brake torque to provide rapid fine corrections during slip control situations (Semsey, Paragraphs 0035-0037).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Arbitmann to include that when the brake slip of a wheel determined in step (d) reaches a predetermined stability-critical limit value or when the braking torque calculated in step (b) exceeds a maximum braking torque of the electric motor, distributing the braking torque calculated in step (b) to the at least one electric motor and at least one other brake, wherein the at least one other brake or the electric motor provides for a constant base braking torque, and the other one of the at least one other brake and the electric motor takes over fine adjustments in an anti-lock situation to regulate the brake slip., as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Semsey.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having an electric motor provide fine braking allows for a more precise wheel braking system when wheel slip is occurring, thus providing a more precise brake (Semsey, Paragraphs 0005-0008).
Arbitmann does not specifically disclose the method to include (c) generating the braking torque calculated in step (b) by the at least one electric motor of the commercial vehicle so that deceleration is initially carried out only with the at least one electric motor.
Makoto discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Makoto describes the ability to decelerate the vehicle only through an electric motor of the vehicle (Makoto, Paragraph 0007).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Arbitmann to include (c) generating the braking torque calculated in step (b) by the at least one electric motor of the commercial vehicle so that deceleration is initially carried out only with the at least one electric motor, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Makoto.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because decelerating a vehicle via an electric motor only, improves the energy recovery of the vehicle during deceleration (Makoto, Paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claim 11, Arbitmann describes the control method as claimed in claim 10, wherein in step (b), the braking torque is calculated wheel-specifically, and in step (c), the braking torque is generated by at least one electric motor assigned to a wheel (braking torque determined per wheel and possible one electric motor per wheel, Arbitmann, Paragraphs 0011-0012 and 0044).
Regarding Claim 12, Arbitmann describes the control method as claimed in claim 10, further comprising: (f) controlling the brake slip on at least one wheel of the commercial vehicle with the at least one electric motor (controlling brake slip with the at least one electric motor, Arbitmann, Paragraphs 0011-0012).
Regarding Claim 13, Arbitmann describes the control method as claimed in claim 10, wherein in step (b), the braking torque is calculated wheel-specifically, and in step (c), the braking torque is generated by at least one electric motor assigned to an axle (braking torque determined per wheel and possible one electric motor per wheel for generating braking torque, Arbitmann, Paragraphs 0011-0012 and 0044).
Regarding Claim 14, Arbitmann describes the control method as claimed in claim 10, further comprising: (f) controlling the brake slip on at least one wheel of the commercial vehicle with the at least one other brake (controlling the brake slip of the vehicle with one of the brakes (i.e., brake distribution), Arbitmann, Paragraphs 0011-0012), if necessary.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 2 and 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Arbitmann describes the device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the control device is configured to determine the braking torque axle-specifically and to generate the braking torque by each electric motor assigned to an axle, wherein the brake slip on at least one wheel of the commercial vehicle is controlled with the at least one other brake (braking torque being axle specific and controlled by at least one brake, Arbitmann, Paragraphs 0011-0012).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 The Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and finds persuasive the position that the previously cited references do not clearly disclose generating the braking torque calculated in step (b) by at least one electric motor of the commercial vehicle such that the deceleration is initially carried out only by the at least one electric motor. The Examiner finds that this limitation is more clearly taught by newly cited Makoto. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the cited references, taken as a whole, disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations claimed by Applicant.
Prosecution Insights