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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the replacement drawing sheet overcomes the objection to the drawings, which is withdrawn.
Second, the claim amendments to claim 8 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, which is withdrawn.
Third, the claim amendments and arguments/explanations overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), description requirement, which is withdrawn.
Fourth, applicant’s claim amendments overcome many of the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, a few (e.g., unaddressed) issues remain, and several new issues are raised in this respect by the claim amendments, as detailed below.
Fifth, applicant’s arguments are convincing regarding the manner in which the claim amendments patentably distinguish the claims over the previously applied prior art including Lubbers (‘129). Accordingly, that rejection is withdrawn. However, new rejections e.g., substituting Okuda1 (Japan, 2010-154643) for Lubbers (‘129) are made herein. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not dispositive as to the question of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4 December 2025. These drawings are accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4 to 6, and 8 to 10 are 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.
In claim 1, line 2, “generating a regenerative braking torque to rear wheels” is indefinite and not reasonably certain2 in the claim context, being grammatically unclear (e.g., how can a torque be “generat[ed] to” (e.g., as opposed to “generat[ed] at” or “distribut[ed] to” or “appl[ied] to”, for example) rear wheels?)3
In claim 1, lines 19ff, “to apply only the rear wheel regenerative braking torque to the rear wheels” is indefinite in the claim context that specifically says that the “rear wheel friction control braking torque” may also apparently be applied to the rear wheels.
In claim 1, lines 20ff, and in claim 8, lines 15ff, “[apply/applying . . .]at least one of the front wheel friction braking torque or the rear wheel friction [] braking torque to the front and rear wheels” is grammatically incorrect and unclear (e.g., how can one of the alternatively recited torques be applied “to both the front and rear wheels”?)
In claim 1, line 21, “the rear wheel friction control braking torque” is unclear with apparently insufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 23ff, “a first reference deceleration” is unclear because “a first reference deceleration” has already been recited in lines 13ff, and so it is unclear whether the “first reference deceleration” recited in lines 23ff is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the “first reference deceleration” recited in lines 13ff.
In the last line of claim 1, “a second reference deceleration” is unclear because “a second reference deceleration” has already been recited in line 24, and so it is unclear whether the “second reference deceleration” recited in the last line of claim 1 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the “second reference deceleration” recited in line 24.
In claim 4, lines 2ff, “the controller determines the distribution ratio based on an amplitude . . . “ is indefinite from the teachings of the specification that apparently does not clearly teach any (algorithm for) determination by the controller of the distribution ratio based on the claimed amplitude.
In claim 4, lines 3ff, “a first reference deceleration” is unclear because “a first reference deceleration” has already been recited in lines 13ff and 23ff of claim 1, and so it is unclear whether the “first reference deceleration” recited in lines 3ff of claim 4 is the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, etc. the “first reference deceleration” recited in lines 13ff or 23ff of claim 1.
In claim 4, line 4, it is unclear and grammatically ambiguous what the claim phrase “and the controller does not perform wheel lock control” is intended to signify (e.g., is this phrase describing a “wherein” condition per line 2 in the claim or a “when” condition per line 3, in the claim context?)
In claim 4, line 9, “the wheels” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear (e.g., does this refer to the front wheels, the rear wheels, a combination of the front and rear wheels, etc.?)
In claim 8, line 21, “the front wheels” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 10, line 3, “a friction braking torque to prevent locking of wheels” is vague and unclear in the claim context, giving rise to indefiniteness as a possible double inclusion/recitation of the same claim elements by different names (MPEP 2173.05(o). In particular, a “front wheel friction braking torque” and a “rear wheel friction braking torque” have already been recited (through dependency) in the claims, and it is thus unclear whether the now claimed “friction braking torque” is the same as, different from, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, etc. one or more of the previously recited front and/or rear friction braking torque(s). Moreover, it is unclear from the claim context which wheels (plural) are being referred to by the recited “wheels”, and whether these wheels might be the same as, different from, permissively the same as, permissively different from, etc. a subset or a combination of the previously recited “front wheels “ and/or “rear wheels”, with the examiner noting that claim 8 does not explicitly recite wheels per se, but rather recites front wheel and rear wheel torques, from which the front and rear wheels may be implicit.
In claim 10, lines 6ff, “the rear wheel regenerative braking torque” apparently (now, in view of the amendment to claim 8, line 5) has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear. Applicant is encouraged to make consistent amendments for claims 8 and 10, to promote clarity.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda (Japan, 2010-154643; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Kim (2011/0074204) and Chae et al. (2022/0009337).
Okuda (JP, ‘643) reveals:
per claim 1, an apparatus for controlling braking torque for a vehicle, comprising:
a regenerative braking apparatus [e.g., 4] generating a regenerative braking torque to rear wheels [e.g., 12L, 12R];
a plurality of electro mechanical brakes (EMBs) generating a friction braking torque using an actuator [e.g., the brake devices 72 for mechanical braking provided on each wheel (left and right front wheels 1L, 1R and left and right rear wheels 12L, 12R), wherein the brake controller 14 (obviously electronic, such as a “brake ECU”, as at paragraph [0005]) controls the operation of each brake device 72]; and
a controller [e.g., 14, 24, 34, etc.] that controls [e.g., at Step S28 in FIG. 6, and as described at paragraphs [0029], [0048], [0049], etc.] the regenerative braking apparatus [e.g., 4] and the plurality of EMBs [e.g., brake devices 72] to apply a front wheel friction braking torque to front wheels [e.g., as shown by the solid line section designated with legend “Front” in FIGS. 4 and 5[4], representing mechanical/friction braking force at the front wheels] and to apply a rear wheel braking torque [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 4 and/or 5, in the dashed line sections below the section designated with the “Front” legend in FIGS. 4 and 5, representing mechanical/friction braking force at the rear wheels], which is a sum of a rear wheel friction braking torque [e.g., in the dashed line section to the right of the regenerative braking force section in FIGS. 4 and/or 5, representing mechanical/friction braking force at the rear wheels] and a rear wheel regenerative braking torque [e.g., in the dashed line section of FIGS. 4 and/or 5 labeled “regenerative braking force” in the Google translated image of FIG. 4 and/or FIG. 5], to the rear wheels [e.g., as shown in FIG. 1],
wherein the plurality of EMBs [e.g., 72, 14, etc.] are respectively provided for each wheel of the vehicle so that a different friction braking torque is generated for each wheel [e.g., paragraphs [0029], [0033], etc.],
the controller changes a distribution ratio between the front wheel friction braking torque and the rear wheel friction braking torque when a required deceleration is greater than a first reference deceleration [e.g., for example, in the normal map as depicted in FIG. 4, the controller 14, 24, 34 changes the distribution ratio between the front wheel mechanical/friction braking force (“Front”) and the rear wheel mechanical/friction braking force (“Rear”), e.g., from an infinite value when only front mechanical braking is being performed to a finite value [e.g., near 21:12 as depicted[5]] when the required brake force is maximum at the right-hand portion of FIG. 4, when the required brake force along the horizontal axis in FIG. 4 becomes greater than the brake force level (depicted by the examiner by a vertical solid line) where rear friction braking starts being performed, as depicted by the examiner in the footnote below[6]],
the controller controls only the regenerative braking apparatus, among the regenerative braking apparatus and the plurality of EMBs, to apply the rear wheel regenerative braking torque to the rear wheels when a required deceleration is less than or equal to the first reference deceleration [e.g., only regenerative braking is applied when the required brake force (e.g., shown on the horizontal axis in FIG. 4 and output by the required brake force detecting means 80 based on the information signal output by the brake stroke sensor 70) is less that the (dashed line) first brake force level as depicted by the examiner above in the labeled/annotated version of FIG. 4],
the controller controls [e.g., when the required braking force in FIG. 4 is greater than the (vertical solid line) brake force level and less than or equal to the (dashed line) second brake force level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above] the regenerative braking apparatus to apply only the rear wheel regenerative braking torque to the rear wheels [e.g., the regenerative braking force in FIG. 4 that is applied only to the rear wheels 12L, 12R (and not to front wheels 1L, 1R)] and the plurality of EMBs to apply at least one of the front wheel friction braking torque or the rear wheel friction control braking torque to the front and rear wheels [e.g., to apply the front and rear mechanical/friction braking forces according to the relationships shown in FIG. 4] by changing the distribution ratio between the front wheel friction braking torque and the rear wheel friction braking torque [e.g., which would be infinity when the rear mechanical/friction braking force is zero at the (vertical solid line) brake force level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above, and would be finite (e.g., near 21:12) at the (dashed line) second brake force level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above] when a required deceleration is greater than a first reference deceleration [e.g., all required brake force levels in FIG. 4 between the (vertical solid line) brake force level and the (dashed line) second brake force level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above are “greater than” the (dashed line) first brake force level] and is less than or equal to a second reference deceleration greater than the first reference deceleration [e.g., all required brake force levels in FIG. 4 between the (vertical solid line) brake force level and the (dashed line) second brake force level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above are “less than or equal to” the (dashed line) second brake force level], and
the controller controls [e.g., when the required braking force in FIG. 4 is greater than the (dashed line) second brake force level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above] only the plurality of EMBs, among the regenerative braking apparatus and the plurality of EMBs [e.g., only the “Front” and “Rear” mechanical/friction braking forces as applied by the brake devices 72 are controlled when the required braking force in FIG. 4 is greater than the (dashed line) second brake force level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above], to apply the front wheel friction braking torque to the front wheels and the rear wheel friction braking torque to the rear wheels when a required deceleration is greater than a second reference deceleration [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, where no regenerative braking force is generated at high levels (above the dashed line second brake force level depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above, but rather only mechanical/friction braking forces are generated at the front and rear wheels];
It may be alleged that Okuda (JP, ‘643) does not expressly teach that the mechanical braking devices 72 at the front and rear wheels were electro mechanical brakes (EMBs) that apply front wheel and rear wheel “friction braking torque[s]” to the front and rear wheels, although the examiner understands that wheel brakes which apply frictional torques were fully conventional types of mechanical wheel brakes which would have been obvious to those skilled in the art from the teachings of Okuda (JP< ‘643), even without further teaching.
Moreover, while Okuda (JP, ‘643) teaches that relationships of the total braking forces of the mechanical front and rear brakes and the rear regenerative brake are controlled according to the control maps of FIGS. 4 and/or 5 based on the “required braking force” required by the driver (e.g., brake [pedal] depression force), it may be alleged that Okuda (JP, ‘643) does not teach that “required deceleration” (as opposed to “required braking force” required by the driver) and the claimed “reference deceleration[s]” (e.g., thresholds).
However, in the context/field of an improved regenerative braking system, Kim (‘204) teaches that electromechanical brakes (EMB) 10 may be employed at two or four wheels (FIGS. 3 to 5), in place of a conventional hydraulic system, such that the braking force can be generated through friction between the disc 202 and the pads 201 for performing active braking (for slip control yaw rate control, paragraph [0085]) at each wheel.
Moreover, in the context/field of an improved braking control method of a vehicle powertrain, Chae et al. (‘337) teaches at paragraphs [0060], etc. that, “the required deceleration and the required braking torque may be easily converted to each other because the braking torque required for implementing the required deceleration is the required braking torque”, and shows in FIG. 6 that control sections of a braking system that controls both regenerative braking and friction braking may be specified based on increasing required deceleration, with the braking torque according to the required deceleration being distributed to the front wheel and the rear wheel along the braking force distribution line (see FIG. 5) of the respective section.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Okuda (JP, ‘643) regenerative braking control device and method of a hybrid vehicle so that the mechanical braking devices 72 at the respective vehicle wheels would have been implemented with independently controlled electro-mechanical brakes (EMBs) 10 that generated braking force through friction for performing slip and yaw rate control, as taught by Kim (‘204), in order that stability of the vehicle would have been maintained by active-control braking, etc., as taught by Kim (‘204),at each wheel brake, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Okuda (JP, ‘643) regenerative braking control device and method of a hybrid vehicle so that the horizontal axis of the normal braking force map of FIG. 4 in Okuda (JP, ‘643) which in Okuda (JP, ‘643) represented “required braking force” (required by the driver, paragraphs [0045], [0046], etc.) would have been made to equivalently represent “required deceleration” as taught at paragraph [0060], FIG. 6, etc. by Chae et al. (‘337), so that the relationships between the described forces of the mechanical/friction front and rear brakes and the rear regenerative brake would have been equivalently controlled according to the required deceleration (required by the driver in accordance with pedal depression, e.g., as represented on the horizontal axis in FIG. 4 in Okuda (JP, ‘643)) reaching the respective levels of deceleration represented by the braking force levels shown in FIG. 4, in order that the vehicle deceleration required by the driver’s depression force on a brake pedal would be met by the control of friction and regenerative braking as taught by Chae et al. (‘337), as a substitution of art recognized equivalents (required deceleration for required braking force) for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06, II.), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
For example, this modification to the normal braking force map in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643) would have been equivalently obvious from the teachings of Chae et al. (‘337) at paragraphs [0060], etc., FIG. 6, etc.:
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
PNG
media_image4.png
653
675
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As such, the implemented or modified Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, an apparatus for controlling braking torque for a vehicle, comprising:
a regenerative braking apparatus [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), 4] generating a regenerative braking torque to rear wheels [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), 12L, 12R];
a plurality of electro mechanical brakes (EMBs) generating a friction braking torque using an actuator [e.g., the EMBs 10 in FIG. 4 of Kim (‘204); obviously implementing the brake devices 72 for mechanical braking provided on each wheel (left and right front wheels 1L, 1R and left and right rear wheels 12L, 12R) in Okuda (JP, ‘643), wherein the brake controller 14 (obviously electronic, such as a “brake ECU”, as at paragraph [0005]) controls the operation of each brake device 72]; and
a controller [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), 14, 24, 34, etc.] that controls [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), at Step S28 in FIG. 6, and as described at paragraphs [0029], [0048], [0049], etc.] the regenerative braking apparatus [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), 4] and the plurality of EMBs [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), brake devices 72, implemented as the EMBs 10 in FIG. 4 of Kim (‘204)] to apply a front wheel friction braking torque to front wheels [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), as shown by the solid line section designated with legend “Front” in FIGS. 4 and 5, representing mechanical/friction braking force at the front wheels] and to apply a rear wheel braking torque [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), as shown in FIGS. 4 and/or 5, in the dashed line sections below the section designated with the “Front” legend in FIGS. 4 and 5, representing mechanical/friction braking force at the rear wheels], which is a sum of a rear wheel friction braking torque [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), in the dashed line section to the right of the regenerative braking force section in FIGS. 4 and/or 5, representing mechanical/friction braking force at the rear wheels] and a rear wheel regenerative braking torque [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), in the dashed line section of FIGS. 4 and/or 5 labeled “regenerative braking force” in the Google translated image of FIG. 4 and/or FIG. 5], to the rear wheels [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), as shown in FIG. 1],
wherein the plurality of EMBs [e.g., 10 in Kim (‘204); and in Okuda (JP, ‘643), 72, 14, etc.] are respectively provided for each wheel of the vehicle so that a different friction braking torque is generated for each wheel [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), paragraphs [0029], [0033], etc., “the integrated controller 34 receives the above-mentioned information signals and outputs control commands to the brake controller 14 to control the operation of each brake device 72”; and paragraph [0085] in Kim (‘204), “The central ECU controls each EMB actuator by using each EMB ECU based on peripheral sensor information and existing information, thereby performing the slip control and yaw rate control through the position/current feedback control.”],
the controller changes a distribution ratio between the front wheel friction braking torque and the rear wheel friction braking torque when a required deceleration [e.g., the required deceleration (and deceleration levels of the brake control map) being equivalent as taught by Chae et al. (‘337) at paragraphs [0060], etc. to the required braking force (and brake force levels) in horizontal axis of the brake control map in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643)] is greater than a first reference deceleration [e.g., for example, in the normal map as depicted in FIG. 4 in Okuda (JP, ‘643), the controller 14, 24, 34 changes the distribution ratio between the front wheel mechanical/friction braking force (“Front”) and the rear wheel mechanical/friction braking force (“Rear”) when the required brake force/deceleration along the horizontal axis in FIG. 4 becomes greater than the brake force/deceleration level (depicted by the examiner by a vertical solid line) where rear friction braking starts being performed, as depicted by the examiner in the footnote below[7], e.g., the distribution ratio changes from an infinite value when only front mechanical braking is being performed (to the left of the vertical solid line) to a finite value (to the right of the vertical solid line), e.g., to near 21:12 as depicted[8] when the required brake force/deceleration is maximum at the right-hand portion of FIG. 4],
the controller controls only the regenerative braking apparatus, among the regenerative braking apparatus and the plurality of EMBs, to apply the rear wheel regenerative braking torque to the rear wheels when a required deceleration is less than or equal to the first reference deceleration [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), only regenerative braking is applied when the required brake force/deceleration (e.g., shown on the horizontal axis in FIG. 4 and output by the required brake force detecting means 80 based on the information signal output by the brake stroke sensor 70) is less that the (dashed line) first brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner above in the labeled/annotated version of FIG. 4],
the controller controls [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), when the required braking force/deceleration in FIG. 4 is greater than the (vertical solid line) brake force/deceleration level and less than or equal to the (dashed line) second brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above] the regenerative braking apparatus to apply only the rear wheel regenerative braking torque to the rear wheels [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), the regenerative braking force in FIG. 4 that is applied only to the rear wheels 12L, 12R (and not to front wheels 1L, 1R)] and the plurality of EMBs to apply at least one of the front wheel friction braking torque or the rear wheel friction control braking torque to the front and rear wheels [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), to apply the front and rear mechanical/friction braking forces according to the relationships shown in FIG. 4] by changing the distribution ratio between the front wheel friction braking torque and the rear wheel friction braking torque [e.g., which would be infinity in Okuda (JP, ‘643) when the rear mechanical/friction braking force is zero at the (vertical solid line) brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above, and would be finite (e.g., near 21:12) at the (dashed line) second brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above] when a required deceleration is greater than a first reference deceleration [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), all required brake force/deceleration levels in FIG. 4 between the (vertical solid line) brake force/deceleration level and the (dashed line) second brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above are “greater than” the (dashed line) first brake force/deceleration level] and is less than or equal to a second reference deceleration greater than the first reference deceleration [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), all required brake force/deceleration levels in FIG. 4 between the (vertical solid line) brake force/deceleration level and the (dashed line) second brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above are “less than or equal to” the (dashed line) second brake force/deceleration level], and
the controller controls [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), when the required braking/deceleration force in FIG. 4 is greater than the (dashed line) second brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above] only the plurality of EMBs, among the regenerative braking apparatus and the plurality of EMBs [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), only the “Front” and “Rear” mechanical/friction braking forces as applied by the brake devices 72 are controlled when the required braking force/deceleration in FIG. 4 is greater than the (dashed line) second brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above], to apply the front wheel friction braking torque to the front wheels and the rear wheel friction braking torque to the rear wheels when a required deceleration is greater than a second reference deceleration [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, where no regenerative braking force is generated at high levels (above the dashed line second brake force level depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above, but rather only mechanical/friction braking forces are generated at the front and rear wheels];
per claim 8, a method of controlling braking torque for a vehicle, comprising:
a first process of determining whether a required deceleration is less than or equal to a first reference deceleration [e.g., in conjunction with the normal brake control map in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643) obviously determining whether the required braking force (or required deceleration in Chae et al. (‘337) is less than the upper limit of the regenerative braking force as the level or required brake force/deceleration where front mechanical/friction braking will also be used, when the driver starts to operate the brake pedal , e.g., at paragraph [0049]];
a second process of applying a wheel regenerative braking torque, by a regenerative braking apparatus, to rear wheels when it is determined that the required deceleration is less than or equal to the first reference deceleration [e.g., paragraph [0049] in Okuda (JP, ‘643)];
a third process of determining whether the required deceleration is less than or equal to a second reference deceleration [e.g., in Okuda (JP, ‘643), the level of required brake force/deceleration in FIG. 4 where the depicted regenerative braking force returns to zero (e.g., by being reduced at paragraph [0051]), with the regenerative braking force being replaced by the rear mechanical/friction braking force, as depicted by the (dashed line) second brake force/deceleration level in the examiner’s labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above] when it is determined that the required deceleration is greater than the first reference deceleration [e.g., the (dashed line) second braking force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643) is greater than the (dashed line) first braking force/deceleration level in the examiner’s labeled/annotated sketch in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643)];
a fourth process of determining distribution ratios of a front wheel friction braking torque and a rear wheel friction braking torque when it is determined that the required deceleration is less than or equal to the second reference deceleration [e.g., various distribution ratios (e.g., as described in paragraphs [0049 to [0051] of Okuda (JP, ‘643)) between the front wheel mechanical/friction braking force and the rear wheel mechanical/friction braking force (e.g., ranging from infinite to finite) are depicted in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ’643) to the left of the (dashed line) second braking force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643) above which rear wheel mechanical/friction braking force has replaced the regenerative braking force];
a fifth process of adjusting and applying, by the regenerative braking apparatus and a plurality of electro mechanical brakes (EMBs) [e.g., as taught by Kim (‘204) for implementing the front and rear wheel brake devices 72 of Okuda (JP, ‘643), for applying the front and rear mechanical/friction braking forces in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643)], at least one of the front wheel friction braking torque or the rear wheel friction braking torque to the front and rear wheels, and the wheel regenerative braking torque to the rear wheels based on the distribution ratios [e.g., when the level of required brake force/deceleration in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643) is between the (dashed line) first braking force/deceleration level and the (dashed line) second braking force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643), such that regenerative braking force, front mechanical/friction braking force, and optionally rear mechanical/friction braking force are applied to brake the vehicle, as described at paragraphs [0049] to [0051] of Okuda (JP, ‘643)]; and
a sixth process of applying only, by the plurality of EMBs, the front wheel friction braking torque to the front wheels and the rear wheel friction braking torque to the rear wheels when it is determined that the required deceleration is greater than the second reference deceleration [e.g., when the level of required brake force/deceleration in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643) is greater than the (dashed line) second braking force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643), rear wheel mechanical/friction braking force has fully replaced the regenerative braking force, as clearly depicted in e.g., the right half of FIG. 4, such that (only) front mechanical/friction braking force and rear mechanical/friction braking force are applied to brake the vehicle],
wherein the fourth process and the sixth process are performed by changing the distribution ratio between the front wheel friction braking torque and the rear wheel friction braking torque [e.g., as shown in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643), wherein i) to the left of the (dashed line) second braking force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643) corresponding to the fourth process, the Front/Rear mechanical/friction braking distribution changes e.g., from infinite to finite, and ii) at the right hand portion of FIG. 4 in Okuda (JP, ‘643) where the total braking force plateaus at its maximum level, the Front/Rear mechanical/friction braking distribution changes (as depicted) from about 24:9 to about 21:12];
per claim 9, depending from claim 8, wherein, in the fourth process, a distribution ratio between the rear wheel friction braking torque applied to the rear wheels and the wheel regenerative braking torque applied to the rear wheels is changed while a predetermined distribution ratio between a front wheel braking torque and a rear wheel braking torque is maintained [e.g., as shown in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643) between i) the (vertical solid line) brake force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 above and ii) the (dashed line) second braking force/deceleration level as depicted by the examiner in the labeled/annotated sketch in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643), where the overall Front/Rear brake force distribution ratio remains constant but the rear Regenerative/Friction braking force ratio changes from infinite to zero];
Claims 4 to 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda (Japan, 2010-154643; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Kim (2011/0074204) and Chae et al. (2022/0009337) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (2021/0086623).
Okuda (JP, ‘643) as implemented or modified in view of Kim (‘204) and Chae et al. (‘337) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method may not teach the claimed wheel lock prevention and associated aspects, although Kim (204) teaches that the EMBs 10 utilized by the examiner in the modified Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method have ABS/TCS/ESC functions (e.g., paragraphs [0052], [0081], etc.)
However, in the context/field of a regenerative braking/anti-lock braking control system, Yao et al. (‘623) teaches in conjunction with FIGS. 3 to 5 (e.g., at paragraph [0058] to [0060]) that in response to an ABS event, the required regeneration brake torque at the driving wheels may be decreased in substantially identical proportion/rate to an increase in the required friction braking torque at the driving wheels, and thereafter, the required friction braking torque is modulated (FIG. 3, Case 1 in paragraph [0051]) or both the friction brake torque and the regenerative braking are modulated (FIG. 5, Case 3 in paragraph [0051]), wherein the increase in the required friction braking torque in FIG. 3 is made to be greater than or equal to the modulation amplitude of the required friction braking torque, obviously in order to provide stability and satisfactory braking at all times in/during the ABS event.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method so that the anti-lock function would have been provided in the vehicle control device, as taught by Yao et al. (‘623) and as suggested by Kim (‘204), and so that in response to the occurrence on an ABS event, the required regeneration brake torque at the driving/rear wheels would have been decreased in/at substantially identical proportion/rate to an increase in the required friction braking torque at the driving/rear wheels, and thereafter, the required friction braking torque and/or regenerative braking torque would have been modulated (FIGS. 3 and 5), as taught by Yao et al. (‘623), wherein the increase in the required friction braking torque would have obviously been made to be greater than or equal to the modulation amplitude of the required friction braking torque, as shown in FIG. 3 or 5 of Yao et al. (;’623), obviously in order to provide stability and satisfactory braking at all times in/during the ABS event, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method would have rendered obvious:
per claim 4, depending from claim 1, wherein the controller determines the distribution ratio [e.g., that decreases the proportion of required regeneration brake torque and increases the proportion of required friction torque, as taught in FIG. 3 by Yao et al. (‘623), in order that the magnitude of the regeneration/friction braking torques becomes lower] based on an amplitude of the rear wheel friction braking torque [e.g., the modulation amplitude of the friction braking torque in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)] when a required deceleration is greater than a first reference deceleration [e.g., greater that the deceleration in Okuda (JP, ‘643) that causes the front mechanical braking to supplement the regenerative braking force in FIG. 4 of Okuda (JP, ‘643), e.g., such as greater than the (dashed line) first deceleration level depicted by the examiner above in the labeled/annotated version of FIG. 4] and the controller does not perform wheel lock prevention control [e.g., the controller 14, 24, 34 in Okuda (JP, ‘643) obviously determines the distribution ratio (e.g., Front/Rear) of mechanical/friction braking in FG. 4 when no wheel lock prevention is being performed],
when the actuator performs the wheel lock prevention control, the controller repeatedly changes an amount of the rear wheel regenerative friction torque and an amount of the rear wheel friction braking torque to prevent locking of wheels [e.g., as shown in the shaded block/box in FIGS. 5 and/or 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)], and
the amplitude refers to how much the rear wheel friction braking torque changes [e.g., as depicted in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)] for a preset time [e.g., during the ABS event in the shaded block/box (time duration) in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)] when the wheel lock prevention control is performed;
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein, when performing wheel lock prevention control for repeatedly changing an amount of the friction braking torque to prevent locking of wheels [e.g., as depicted in the shaded block/box in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)], the controller reduces the rear wheel regenerative braking torque [e.g., as depicted in time sequence just before the shaded block/box in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)] and increases the rear wheel friction braking torque [e.g., as depicted in time sequence just before the shaded block/box in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)];
per claim 6, depending from claim 5, wherein the controller determines the distribution ratio so that an amount of reduction in the rear wheel regenerative braking torque per unit time is equal to an amount of increase in the rear wheel friction braking torque per unit time [e.g., as depicted in, or obvious from the depiction in, FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623), in time sequence just before the shaded block/box];
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda (Japan, 2010-154643; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Kim (2011/0074204) and Chae et al. (2022/0009337) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (2021/0086623).
Okuda (JP, ‘643) as implemented or modified in view of Kim (‘204) and Chae et al. (‘337) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method may not teach the claimed wheel lock prevention and associated aspects, although Kim (204) teaches that the EMBs 10 utilized by the examiner in the modified Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method have ABS/TCS/ESC functions (e.g., paragraphs [0052], [0081], etc.).
However, in the context/field of a regenerative braking/anti-lock braking control system, Yao et al. (‘623) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 3 (e.g., at paragraph [0058]) that in response to an ABS event, the required regeneration brake torque at the driving wheels may be decreased in substantially identical proportion/rate to an increase in the required friction braking torque at the driving wheels, and thereafter, the required friction braking torque is modulated (Case 1 in paragraph [0051]), wherein the increase in the required friction braking torque in FIG. 3 is made to be greater than the modulation amplitude of the required friction braking torque, obviously in order to provide stability and satisfactory braking at all times in/during the ABS event.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method so that the anti-lock function would have been provided in the vehicle control system, as taught by Yao et al. (‘623), and so that in response to the occurrence on an ABS event, the required regeneration brake torque at the driving/rear wheels would have been decreased in/at substantially identical proportion/rate to an increase in the required friction braking torque at the driving/rear wheels, and thereafter, the required friction braking torque would have been modulated, as taught by Yao et al. (‘623), wherein the increase in the required friction braking torque would have obviously been made to be greater than the modulation amplitude of the required friction braking torque, as shown in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (;’623), obviously in order to provide stability and satisfactory braking at all times in/during the ABS event, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Okuda (JP, ‘643) vehicle control device and method would have rendered obvious:
per claim 10, depending from claim 8, further comprising a seventh process of performing wheel lock prevention control for repeatedly changing an amount of a friction braking torque to prevent locking of wheels [e.g., as shown in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)],
wherein, in the seventh process, the wheel regenerative braking torque is reduced [e.g., as depicted in time sequence just before the shaded block/box in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)] while the rear wheel friction braking torque is increased [e.g., as depicted in time sequence just before the shaded block/box in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)] and an amount of change [e.g., the magnitude/slope of the increase in the required friction brake torque in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623)] in the rear wheel friction braking torque per unit time is determined based on an amount of change in the rear wheel regenerative braking torque per unit time [e.g., to obviously match the magnitude/slope of the decrease in the required regenerative brake torque in FIG. 3 of Yao et al. (‘623), obviously so that the total brake force is not changed during/by the replacement];
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 David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 This reference was cited and described (but not applied) near the end of the previous Office action.
2 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
3 See MPEP 2173.02, III., B., “For example, in making a prima facie case of indefiniteness, the examiner should point out the specific term or phrase that is indefinite, explain in detail why such term or phrase renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear and, whenever practicable, indicate how the indefiniteness issues may be resolved to overcome the rejection. See MPEP § 707.07(d). If the applicant does not adequately respond to the prima facie case, the examiner may make the indefiniteness rejection final. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312.”
4 Okuda (Japan, 2010-154643) reveals in FIGS. 4 and 5 brake control maps utilizing rear wheel regeneration, with FIGS. 4 and 5 being reproduced, with added Google machine translations of legends, below/on the next page(s) by the examiner:
FIG. 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
775
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
490
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
5 See MPEP 2125, “However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).” The maps in FIGS. 4 and 5 are described at paragraph [0046] as, “showing the relationship between the required braking force, the front wheel braking force generated by the front wheels 1 and the rear wheel braking force generated by the rear wheels 12 in accordance with the required braking force, and the ratio of the regenerative braking force generated by the motor 4 in accordance with the required braking force to the rear wheel braking force”.
In this respect, the Front/Rear mechanical/friction braking distribution ratio in Okuda (JP, ‘643) may obviously be inferred/measured e.g., in FIG. 4, by one having ordinary skill in the art, by i) measuring (e.g., in millimeters) the vertical extent of the front mechanical/friction braking force, ii) measuring the vertical extent of the rear mechanical/friction braking force, and iii) forming the ratio of the respective extents.
6 For example, the front/rear wheel mechanical brake force distribution ratio changes in FIG. 4 (from near infinite to a finite value) at this (solid line) brake force level, as depicted by the examiner in a labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 in Okuda (JP, ‘643):
PNG
media_image3.png
653
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
7 For example, the front/rear wheel mechanical brake force distribution ratio changes in FIG. 4 (from near infinite to a finite value) at this (vertical solid line) brake force/deceleration level, as depicted by the examiner in a labeled/annotated sketch of FIG. 4 in Okuda (JP, ‘643):
PNG
media_image4.png
653
675
media_image4.png
Greyscale
8 See MPEP 2125, “However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).” The maps in FIGS. 4 and 5 are described at paragraph [0046] as, “showing the relationship between the required braking force, the front wheel braking force generated by the front wheels 1 and the rear wheel braking force generated by the rear wheels 12 in accordance with the required braking force, and the ratio of the regenerative braking force generated by the motor 4 in accordance with the required braking force to the rear wheel braking force”.
Prosecution Insights