DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 1 and 5-6 have been amended.
Claims 2-4 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b): The amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejection of record. The rejection is withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Claim 1 has been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites “when a plurality of slope values are estimated by a plurality of methods, … adjusting a margin brake torque based on the confidence of the road slope”, which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant's arguments included in Remarks filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in the last paragraph of pg 8 of remarks that Leach describes dynamic features of a moving vehicle, while the claim describes a stationary vehicle. However, examiner maintains that the slope and critical torque is calculated as the vehicle “is transitioning from moving to stationary”, meaning the vehicle is moving.
Applicant further argues that, in the context of determining a road slope confidence based on similarity, the road characteristics used in Leach to determine road slope are not gained by the “sensors as defined in claim 3”. However, examiner maintains that the information listed i) through vi) to determine a slope value in amended claim 1 are not explicitly linked to the “plurality of methods” incorporated from previous claim 4. Therefore, the “plurality of methods” do not have to come from the i) through iv) list.
Applicant further argues that, “as no plurality of methods are used to this point, no convergence may be determined. Examiner maintains that the “sensors 62a-62n” of Leach “may determine a change in pitch” (see Leach [0054]), which teaches item ii) from the claim, “a received inclination sensor signal”, and since there are multiple sensors 62 (a-n), and gathering slope information from multiple sensors can be considered using multiple methods.
Applicant further argues that “the prior art examines only the vehicle dynamics as measured by the sensors as being plausible based on being within the limits. Such a method is clearly different than establishing the possibility of the sensor data based on the similarity of the sensors as defined in claim 1.” However, examiner maintains that the specification does not restrict the method of determining the slope similarity (see pg 13 lines 18-20) and that if multiple slope values are within a range, the fact that they are both inside of the same range is a form of similarity between them.
Applicant argues that “Leach et al. fails to discuss a singularity among the priority of the established information values established in order to determine a confidence of the road slope. Even further, Leach et al. fails to teach, motivate or suggest not trusting the slope values of the map data or the sensors.” However, examiner maintains that Leach teaches designating the sensor data to be unreliable if they fall outside of the dynamic limits (see Leach [0037]). Applicant further argues that the approach of Leach “would only be applicable if the road slope is within plausible limits and not if the different readings are similar to one another.” However, examiner maintains that two slope sensor results in Leach that are within the limits are also similar to one another, in that they are both within the limits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The order of the claim limitations is confusing. Please see a recommended reorganization of claim 1 below. Several articles preceding “effective brake torque” and “margin brake torque” should also be changed to maintain correct antecedent basis. These changes are reflected in the reorganized claim below.
Claim 1
A control method for automatic holding applied to a brake system of a vehicle with two brake control modules, wherein the vehicle further comprises a drive motor, and a drive motor controller for controlling the drive motor to provide a drive torque, the brake system further comprises electromechanical brakes controlled by the brake control modules to provide braking force to each wheel, the control method comprising:
when the vehicle is transitioning from moving to stationary,
a) estimating a slope value of a road slope based on one or more of
i) acceleration sensor information of the two brake control modules;
ii) a received inclination sensor signal;
iii) a received global positioning system signal and/or topographical information;
iv) a received wheel speed information of the vehicle;
v) inertial sensor information of the two brake control modules; and
vi) torsional load sensor; and
b) estimating an effective brake torque at least based on the slope value;
after the vehicle transitions from moving to stationary and until a driver requested drive torque is continuously increased to a critical torque which is used to determine a time at which the drive system is to begin responding to the drive requested drive torque,
a) controlling the electromechanical brakes to continuously provide a brake torque, wherein the brake torque is a sum of the effective brake torque and a margin brake torque; and
b) continuously outputting a drive-off signal to the drive motor controller to control the drive motor not to provide drive torque; and
when a plurality of slope values are estimated by a plurality of methods, determining a confidence of the road slope based on similarity among the plurality of slope values and adjusting the margin brake torque based on the confidence of the road slope.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which states, “when a plurality of slope values are estimated by a plurality of methods, determining a confidence of the road slope based on similarity among the plurality of slope values and adjusting a margin brake torque based on the confidence of the road slope”, it is unclear how a margin brake torque can be adjusted based on the confidence of the road slope, wherein the confidence of the road slope is based on similarity among a plurality of slope values, when the plurality of slope values are estimated by a plurality of methods, because of several reasons. First, it is unclear if “a plurality of methods” refers to the slope estimation methods i) – vi) listed previously in the claim. Second, as defined in the claim, the slope estimation methods i) – vi) listed do not each estimate their own unique slope values but instead together, when multiple methods are used, contribute to the estimation of a single slope value. Examiner recognizes that pg 12 lines 7-9 of the specification states “estimating a slope value of the road slope … and estimating the effective brake torque based at least on the slope value”, and pg 13 lines 13-14 states “a plurality of slope values of the road may be estimated in various ways”, but the specification does not describe estimating a single slope value from a plurality of slope values or estimating the effective brake torque based on a plurality of slope values.
Examiner also notes that the condition, “when a plurality of slope values are estimated by a plurality of methods”, can be false, rendering the steps of “determining a confidence” and “adjusting a margin brake torque based on the confidence” moot.
Claims 5-21 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 5-21 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 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 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 1, 5, 9, 11-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US 20170232969 A1) in view of Schenke (DE 102017219921 A1), Leach et al. (US 20190291742 A1), and Monti et al. (US 20110287895 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hunt teach A control method for automatic holding applied to a brake system (see at least FIG. 1: brake system 110) of a vehicle (see at least FIG. 1: plug in hybrid electric vehicle 112) with brake control modules (see at least [0016]: “The brake system 150 may also include a controller to monitor and coordinate the brake system 150.”), wherein the vehicle further comprises a drive motor (see at least FIG. 1: electric machines 114), and a drive motor controller (see at least FIG. 1, [0030]: “the controller may issue a command to provide current to the electric machine causing it to provide output torque”) for controlling the drive motor to provide a drive torque, the brake system further comprises electromechanical brakes (see at least FIG. 1: friction brakes 144) controlled by the brake control modules to provide braking force to each (see at least [0016]: “One or more friction brakes 144 may be provided for resisting rotation of the wheels in order to decelerate the vehicle 112 or prevent vehicle movement altogether.”) wheel (see at least FIG. 1: wheels 122), the control method comprising:
after the vehicle transitions from moving to stationary,
a) controlling the electromechanical brakes to continuously provide a brake torque (see at least FIG. 3, [0041]: “Curve 306 represents resistive torque applied by the vehicle brake system.”; FIG. 3: when demanded torque (x-axis) is within bidirectional torque band 312, resistive torque is at TBRAKE level of applied torque (y-axis)), wherein the brake torque is a sum of an effective brake torque (see at least FIG. 3: TSTANDSTILL) and a margin brake torque (see at least [0044]: “the resistive brake torque applied during standstill mode is set to a value greater than the torque value of the upper end of the torque band.”; FIG. 3: TBRAKE = TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER + extra); and
b) continuously outputting a drive-off signal to the drive motor controller to control the drive motor not (see at least FIG. 3, [0041]: “Curve 308 represents powertrain output torque.”; FIG. 3: when demanded torque is in 312 band, powertrain output torque is zero) to provide drive torque;
until a driver requested drive torque is continuously increased to a critical torque (see at least FIG. 3: TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER along the x-axis) which is used to determine a time at which the drive system is to begin responding to the drive requested drive torque when the vehicle is transitioning from moving to stationary,
a) estimating a slope value (see at least [0027]: “a grade sensor may be provided to output a signal to inform the controller when the vehicle is on an incline grade”) of a road slope; and
b) estimating the effective brake torque (see at least [0027]: “The controller may also set a powertrain output torque value associated with the amount of torque required to hold the vehicle at a standstill. Determining the standstill torque each time the standstill mode is entered accounts for any of a range of different incline angles”) at least based on the slope value;
estimating the slope value based on one or more of:
i) acceleration sensor information of the two brake control modules;
ii) a received inclination sensor signal (see at least [0027]: “a grade sensor may be provided to output a signal to inform the controller when the vehicle is on an incline grade.”);
iii) a received global positioning system signal and/or topographical information;
iv) a received wheel speed information of the vehicle;
v) inertial sensor information of the two brake control modules; and
vi) torsional load sensor.
However, Hunt does not explicitly teach two brake control modules;
when a plurality of slope values are estimated by a plurality of methods, determining a confidence of the road slope based on similarity among the plurality of slope values
Schenke teach two (see at least FIG. 1, [0018]: “two electronic control units 18 for regulating the electro-hydraulic actuators 4 and their electromechanical actuators 11 and the wheel brake pressures in the wheel brakes 3.”) brake control modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Schenke to use two brake control modules. Doing so would improve safety, as recognized by Schenke in paragraph [0008].
Leach teach when a plurality of slope values are estimated by a plurality of methods, determining a confidence (see at least [0037]: “If the readings from the sensors 62a-62n are close to the dynamic limits 170d (e.g., within the range of likely sensor values), the readings from the sensors 62a-62n may be considered plausible (e.g., the sensor data may be reliable).”; [0086]: “increase the confidence level of the sensor data”) of the road slope based on similarity (see at least [0054]: “if the road 212 has an incline/decline, the readings from the sensors 62a-62n may determine a change in pitch. The processor 102 may perform a comparison between the dynamic limits 170d for the location of the region 204 and the actual sensor data from the sensors 62a-62n while the vehicle 50 is in the location of the region 204.”; [0067]: “The road extraction module 152 may extract the road characteristics for the road 302′ from the map data 170c. The prediction module 150 may generate the dynamic limits 170d for the sensor data corresponding to the road 302′ based on the road characteristics. For example, the road characteristics of the map data 170c may indicate an incline in the road 302′ which may correspond to a positive pitch value.”) among the plurality of slope values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Leach to determine a confidence of slope estimates based on similarity between slope determining methods. Doing so would “increase an ASIL classification of the vehicle”, which stands for “Automative Safety Integrity Levels”, as recognized by Leach in paragraphs [0049] and [0002].
Monti teach adjusting a margin brake torque based on the confidence (see at least [0088]: “This definition of the take-off threshold torque CT--thresh therefore makes it possible to set said threshold torque CT--thresh in nominal conditions and in degraded conditions: slope information unreliable”) of the road slope.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Monti to increase a margin torque if slope data is unreliable. Doing so would increase safety, as recognized by Monti in paragraph [0063].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 4.
Monti further teach the control method further comprising: determining the critical torque based on the confidence (see at least [0088]: “This definition of the take-off threshold torque CT--thresh therefore makes it possible to set said threshold torque CT--thresh in nominal conditions and in degraded conditions: slope information unreliable”) of the road slope;
wherein the higher (see at least [0028] – [0030]: “when a signal corresponding to the characteristic of the slope that cannot utilized is received, the threshold value of the take-off torque is determined as a function of a predetermined value of the characteristic of the slope”; [0013]: “the inclination of the slope (also designated "characteristic of the slope")”; [0053]: “In nominal operation, … the slope sensor in particular delivers a signal that can be utilized”) the confidence of the road slope is, the more the critical torque is in proximity to (see at least [0063]: “the take-off threshold torque determined from the predefined characteristic θdefault--slope has a higher value than the take-off threshold torque that would have been obtained from the real characteristic of the slope θdefault--slope”) *Examiner’s interpretation: if the slope information is reliable, the real slope angle is used, and there is no buffer torque added* the effective brake torque.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Monti to decrease an additional torque amount if slope data is unreliable. Doing so would increase safety, as recognized by Monti in paragraph [0063].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 1.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising: determining the margin brake torque based on a preset fixed value (see at least [0037]: “plus a predetermined buffer amount”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 1.
Monti further teach the control method further comprising: determining the margin brake torque based on a confidence (see at least [0088]: “This definition of the take-off threshold torque CT--thresh therefore makes it possible to set said threshold torque CT--thresh in nominal conditions and in degraded conditions: slope information unreliable”) of a road slope,
wherein the lower (see at least [0028] – [0030]: “when a signal corresponding to the characteristic of the slope that cannot utilized is received, the threshold value of the take-off torque is determined as a function of a predetermined value of the characteristic of the slope”; [0013]: “the inclination of the slope (also designated "characteristic of the slope")”) the confidence of the road slope is, the greater (see at least [0063]: “the take-off threshold torque determined from the predefined characteristic θdefault--slope has a higher value than the take-off threshold torque that would have been obtained from the real characteristic of the slope θdefault--slope”) the margin brake torque is.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Monti to increase a margin torque if slope data is unreliable. Doing so would increase safety, as recognized by Monti in paragraph [0063].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 9.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising: when a rotation signal of motor axles and/or a wheel speed signal of the drive motor is received (see at least FIG. 2 step 208, [0031]: “The controller monitors vehicle speed …. If at step 208 the vehicle speed is substantially zero, the vehicle is determined to be at standstill.”), increasing the braking force (see at least FIG. 2: step 208 [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 218; [0034]: “At step 218 the controller issues a command to cause application of at least one friction brake to resist wheel rotation of one or more vehicle wheels.”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 9.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising: when a rotation signal of motor axles and/or a wheel speed signal of the drive motor is received (see at least FIG. 2 step 208, [0031]: “The controller monitors vehicle speed …. If at step 208 the vehicle speed is substantially zero, the vehicle is determined to be at standstill.”), increasing the braking force (see at least FIG. 2: step 208 [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 218; [0034]: “At step 218 the controller issues a command to cause application of at least one friction brake to resist wheel rotation of one or more vehicle wheels.”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 9.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising: when a rotation signal of motor axles and/or a wheel speed signal of the drive motor is received (see at least FIG. 2 step 208, [0031]: “The controller monitors vehicle speed …. If at step 208 the vehicle speed is substantially zero, the vehicle is determined to be at standstill.”), increasing the braking force (see at least FIG. 2: step 208 [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 218; [0034]: “At step 218 the controller issues a command to cause application of at least one friction brake to resist wheel rotation of one or more vehicle wheels.”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 1.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising: when the driver requested drive torque increases to the critical torque, decreasing (see at least FIG. 3: when demanded torque = TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER, applied torque drops from TBRAKE to TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER) the brake torque to the effective brake torque (see at least [0043]: “the upper end of the band may be closer to the standstill torque”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 15.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising: when the driver requested drive torque is continuously increased to be greater than (see at least FIG. 3: TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER > TSTANDSTILL, OR [0043]: “the upper end of the band may be closer to the standstill torque”) the effective brake torque, stopping supplying the brake torque (see at least FIG. 3: when demanded torque exceeds TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER, applied brake torque 306 drops to zero).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 15.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising: when the driver requested drive torque is continuously increased to be greater than (see at least FIG. 3: TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER > TSTANDSTILL, OR [0043]: “the upper end of the band may be closer to the standstill torque”) the effective brake torque, stopping supplying the brake torque (see at least FIG. 3: when demanded torque exceeds TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER, applied brake torque 306 drops to zero).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach the steps of the control method for automatic holding according to claim 1.
Hunt further teach A brake control module of a vehicle's brake system comprising a memory and a processor (see at least FIG. 1, [0022]: “[0022] The controller 148 may include a processor that controls at least some portion of the operation of the controller 148. The processor allows onboard processing of commands and routines. The processor may be coupled to non-persistent storage and persistent storage. In an illustrative configuration, the non-persistent storage is random access memory (RAM)”); wherein the processor is configured to implement.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach according to claim 20.
Hunt further teaches A vehicle's brake system (see at least FIG. 1: brake system 150) comprising brake control module (see at least [0016]: “The brake system 150 may also include a controller to monitor and coordinate the brake system 150.”)
and electromechanical brakes (see at least FIG. 1: friction brakes 144) controlled by the brake control modules to provide braking force (see at least [0016]: “One or more friction brakes 144 may be provided for resisting rotation of the wheels in order to decelerate the vehicle 112 or prevent vehicle movement altogether.”) to each wheel.
Schenke further teaches two (see at least FIG. 1, [0018]: “two electronic control units 18 for regulating the electro-hydraulic actuators 4 and their electromechanical actuators 11 and the wheel brake pressures in the wheel brakes 3.”) brake control modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Schenke to use two brake control modules. Doing so would improve safety, as recognized by Schenke in paragraph [0008].
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US 20170232969 A1) in view of Schenke (DE 102017219921 A1), Leach et al. (US 20190291742 A1), Monti et al. (US 20110287895 A1), and Malone et al. (US 20150073675 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 5.
However, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti does not explicitly teach wherein estimating the effective brake torque further comprises:
wherein estimating the effective brake torque further comprises: estimating the effective brake torque based on a mass of the vehicle.
Malone teach wherein estimating the effective brake torque further comprises:
wherein estimating the effective brake torque further comprises: estimating the effective brake torque based on (see at least [0070]: “The brake holding force 606 is determined from … vehicle mass”) a mass of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Malone to estimate effective torque based on vehicle mass. Doing so would “improv[e] vehicle drivability and fuel economy”, as recognized by Malone in paragraph [0001].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, Monti, and Malone teach The control method according to claim 6.
Malone further teach the control method further comprising at least one of:
i) estimating the mass of the vehicle according to driving data (see at least [0034]: “the vehicle mass estimate is as follows:
M
v
=
T
w
h
1
-
T
w
h
2
+
T
r
l
2
-
T
r
l
1
R
r
r
*
g
*
s
i
n
θ
1
-
s
i
n
θ
2
”); and
ii) obtaining the mass of the vehicle from the suspension system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Malone to estimate effective torque based on vehicle mass estimated by driving data. Doing so would “improv[e] vehicle drivability and fuel economy”, as recognized by Malone in paragraph [0001].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US 20170232969 A1) in view of Schenke (DE 102017219921 A1), Leach et al. (US 20190291742 A1), Monti et al. (US 20110287895 A1), and Yu et al. (US 20140277980 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti does not explicitly teach the control method further comprising: when the vehicle is transitioning from moving to stationary,
a) obtaining a request brake torque from a brake pedal to stop the vehicle; and
b) estimating the effective brake torque based on the requested brake torque.
Yu teach the control method further comprising: when the vehicle is transitioning from moving to stationary,
a) obtaining a request brake torque from a brake pedal to stop the vehicle; and
b) estimating the effective brake torque based on the requested brake torque (see at least [0031]: “As long as the driver is holding the brake pedal in standstill the HHD starting brake force corresponds to the maximum force requested by the driver. The maximal hold force is limited by the HHD slope. The driver has to request enough brake force to hold the vehicle in standstill before releasing the brake pedal in order to activate HHD functionality.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Yu to estimate effective braking torque based on requested brake torque. Doing so would “provide a comfortable drive off down a steep slope”, as recognized by Yu in paragraph [0039].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US 20170232969 A1) in view of Schenke (DE 102017219921 A1), Leach et al. (US 20190291742 A1), Monti et al. (US 20110287895 A1), and Leiter et al. (US 20060267402 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti does not explicitly teach the control method further comprising: determining the margin brake torque based on a slope value of a road slope and/or a mass of the vehicle, wherein the greater the slope value and/or the mass is, the greater the margin brake torque is.
Leiter teach the control method further comprising: determining the margin brake torque based on a slope value of a road slope and/or a mass of the vehicle, wherein the greater the slope value and/or the mass is, the greater the margin brake torque is (see at least [0016]: “In any case, for example in the event that only a relatively small additional brake force component has to be provided by the service brake system, e.g. because the vehicle is unloaded and/or the road has a flat gradient, it is possible to provide for the service brake system to generate the additionally required brake forces after the parking brake system has generated predetermined brake forces.”; [0017]: “Likewise, for example in the event that a relatively large additional brake force component has to be provided by the service brake system, e.g. because the vehicle is loaded and/or the road has a steep gradient, it is possible to provide for the service brake system to generate the additionally required brake forces before the parking brake system generates brake forces.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Leiter to increase a margin torque if slope or mass increases. Doing so would decrease costs and reduce the size of the braking unit, as recognized by Leiter in paragraph [0009].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US 20170232969 A1) in view of Schenke (DE 102017219921 A1), Leach et al. (US 20190291742 A1), Monti et al. (US 20110287895 A1), Sabbatini (US 12017651 B2), and Ohmori et al. (US 20090018739 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 1.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising:
when the driver requested drive torque is continuously increasing after being greater than the critical torque,
a) gradually decreasing the brake torque (see at least FIG. 3: applied friction brake force 306 decreases as demanded torque increases past TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER) *Examiner’s interpretation: the slope of the 306 line at torque demand = TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER is steep, but there is a noticeable slope, which means the change is a gradual decrease*; and
b) outputting a driving enable signal to the drive motor controller to control the drive motor to gradually output the drive torque (see at least FIG. 3: applied drive torque 308 increases at demanded torque = TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER);
until the driver requested drive torque is increased (see at least FIG. 3: once demanded torque exceeds TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER, drive torque continues to increase and brake torque is zero) to the effective brake torque (see at least [0043]: “the upper end of the band may be closer to the standstill torque”).
However, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti does not explicitly teach but is less than the effective brake torque;
wherein a sum of the brake torque and the drive torque is equal to the effective brake torque.
Sabbatini teaches after being greater than the critical torque but is less than the effective brake torque (see at least FIG. 3, (19) column 3 lines 19-22: “the vehicle launch condition is satisfied at least when torque demand has increased to a value from the range 70-90% of estimated torque required for holding the vehicle stationary”; (58) lines 7-9: “the vehicle launch condition and braking removal condition may be the same and satisfied together”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Sabbatini to shift from friction brake to drive torque at a requested torque level below the torque required to keep the vehicle stationary on an inclined surface. Doing so would “provide[] the advantage of minimal or no roll-back”, as recognized by Sabbatini in column 3 lines 23-25.
Ohmori teaches wherein a sum (see at least FIG. 6: Fg = Fd + Fb) of the brake torque and the drive torque is equal to the effective brake torque.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Ohmori to keep the brake and drive torques equal the torque required to the keep the vehicle stationary on a slope when shifting from brake to drive torque. Doing so would reduce costs and prevent backward movement of a vehicle “with high accuracy”, as recognized by Sabbatini in column 3 lines 23-25.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti teach The control method according to claim 15.
Hunt further teach the control method further comprising:
when the driver requested drive torque is continuously increasing after being greater than the critical torque,
a) gradually decreasing the brake torque (see at least FIG. 3: applied friction brake force 306 decreases as demanded torque increases past TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER) *Examiner’s interpretation: the slope of the 306 line at torque demand = TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER is steep, but there is a noticeable slope, which means the change is a gradual decrease*; and
b) outputting a driving enable signal to the drive motor controller to control the drive motor to gradually output the drive torque (see at least FIG. 3: applied drive torque 308 increases at demanded torque = TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER);
until the driver requested drive torque is increased (see at least FIG. 3: once demanded torque exceeds TSTANDSTILL + TBUFFER, drive torque continues to increase and brake torque is zero) to the effective brake torque (see at least [0043]: “the upper end of the band may be closer to the standstill torque”).
However, the combination of Hunt, Schenke, Leach, and Monti does not explicitly teach but is less than the effective brake torque;
wherein a sum of the brake torque and the drive torque is equal to the effective brake torque.
Sabbatini teaches after being greater than the critical torque but is less than the effective brake torque (see at least FIG. 3, (19) column 3 lines 19-22: “the vehicle launch condition is satisfied at least when torque demand has increased to a value from the range 70-90% of estimated torque required for holding the vehicle stationary”; (58) lines 7-9: “the vehicle launch condition and braking removal condition may be the same and satisfied together”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Sabbatini to shift from friction brake to drive torque at a requested torque level below the torque required to keep the vehicle stationary on an inclined surface. Doing so would “provide[] the advantage of minimal or no roll-back”, as recognized by Sabbatini in column 3 lines 23-25.
Ohmori teaches wherein a sum (see at least FIG. 6: Fg = Fd + Fb) of the brake torque and the drive torque is equal to the effective brake torque.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hunt to incorporate the teachings of Ohmori to keep the brake and drive torques equal the torque required to the keep the vehicle stationary on a slope when shifting from brake to drive torque. Doing so would reduce costs and prevent backward movement of a vehicle “with high accuracy”, as recognized by Sabbatini in column 3 lines 23-25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mair (US 8239107 B2) teaches a system that increases an applied braking force by a safety margin (see at least column 6 lines 62-63).
Ohta (US 20180319397 A1) teaches a system that determines the holding force for a vehicle on a slope based on the vehicle weight (see at least paragraph [0052]).
Yanagida et al. (US 20120209479 A1) teaches a system that applies a greater than necessary force required to keep a vehicle stationary on a slope to account for possible inclination detection errors or heavier vehicles (see at least paragraph [0063]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662