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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 5/12/2026. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. All pending claims therefore have an effective filing date of 7/7/2023.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see page 8 of 11, filed 5/12/2026, with respect to claim objections and 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and 112 rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10 of 11, filed 5/12/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that none of the references of record explicitly disclose or teach amended claim 1 as currently presented, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejections of record pertaining to claim 1 have been updated according to the amendments as currently presented, and additionally, the teachings of Petridis and Nimura remain applicable for reasons similar to those presented previously, updated where applicable.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10-11, and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 as currently presented states “…the deceleration for downhill cruising…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a deceleration for downhill cruising…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 10 as currently presented states “…the deceleration for moving obstacles…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a deceleration for moving obstacles…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 11 as currently presented states “…the current vehicle speed…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a current vehicle speed…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 16 as currently presented states “…the vehicle speed…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a vehicle speed…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 17 as currently presented states “…a vehicle…a controller…a regenerative braking switch…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…[ [ a ] ] the vehicle…[ [ a ] ] the controller…[ [ a ] ] the regenerative braking switch…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 18 as currently presented states “…a road…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…[ [ a ] ] the road…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 19 as currently presented states “…a preceding vehicle…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…[ [ a ] ] the preceding vehicle…” or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim as currently presented states “…a mixing ratio…” however this is not a common term which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, nor is there any structure or detail provided in the specification or drawings to further indicate the metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim as currently presented states “…the designated preliminary obstacle is a speed camera…” however per the amendment to independent claim 1, it already been established that the designated preliminary obstacle is “…a preceding vehicle…”, which the Examiner notes creates indefiniteness in claim 6 because it is unclear if the “speed camera” should be interpretated as an alternative or as an additional categorization, in which case the claim(s) should be updated accordingly. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claim 6 as simply an alternative.
Claims 3-5, 7, and 9-20 are also rejected since the claims are dependent on a previously rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US-2022/0114889; hereinafter Choi; already of record) in view of Oldridge (US-2016/0318501; already of record) and Petridis et al. (US-2024/0270251; hereinafter Petridis; already of record), and further in view of Nimura et al. (US-2024/0174227; hereinafter Nimura; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a regenerative braking control method of a vehicle (see Choi at least [0002] and [0045]), the method comprising:
…
… a designated preliminary obstacle (see Choi at least [0033] "The present disclosure may provide an apparatus and method of indicating an expected speed of a vehicle for calculating an expected vehicle speed at a deceleration event point using information collected from the vehicle while driving when a deceleration event such as a speed limit camera is present ahead of the vehicle and displaying the result through a display. Here, the display may be a head-up display."),
wherein when the designated preliminary obstacle is a preceding vehicle (see Choi at least [0036] "As shown in the drawing, the apparatus for indicating an expected speed of a vehicle in some forms of the present disclosure may include an information provider 10 for providing information for determining the expected speed of the vehicle at a deceleration event positioned ahead of the vehicle, a controller 20 for calculating and determining the expected speed of the vehicle at the deceleration event based on the information provided from the information provider 10, and a display unit 30 for receiving a signal indicating the determined expected speed of the vehicle from the controller 20 and displaying the expected speed of the vehicle at the deceleration event in a predetermined form of an AR image on the windshield glass." and [0046] "In some forms of the present disclosure, the driving information detector 11 of the information provider 10 may include ... a preceding vehicle detector 17 for detecting information on a preceding vehicle." and [0049] "Thus, in some forms of the present disclosure, the vehicle driving information detected by the driving information detector 11 may further include an accelerator pedal input value, a brake pedal input value, and preceding vehicle information as well as the vehicle speed and the acceleration and deceleration information."), the target deceleration is determined by blending a deceleration component for maintaining a constant time gap and a deceleration component for maintaining a proper inter-vehicle distance (see Choi at least [0048] "…The preceding vehicle information acquired by the preceding vehicle detector 17 may include information on a relative distance between an ego-vehicle for which an expected speed is indicated and the preceding vehicle or information on a relative speed therebetween." and [0054] "In some forms of the present disclosure, the controller 20 may receive the remaining distance information to the position of the speed limit section or the speed limit camera with the prescribed speed limit from the navigation device 18 and the prescribed speed limit information, and calculate the actual vehicle speed and the vehicle moving distance (which is an integrated speed value s in FIG. 2) to update the remaining distance at a time of receiving the remaining distance.") …
determining a required torque for the vehicle to decelerate at the target deceleration (see Choi at least [0045] "The acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle may be calculated based on torque of a driving device (driving torque and regenerative torque) or the like, in which case the torque may be a torque command (an engine torque command, a motor driving torque command, or a motor regenerative torque command) for the driving device. This may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and it is well known that the driving torque command, the regenerative torque command, and the like may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted in the specification."); and
generating the required torque in the vehicle using regenerative braking (see Choi at least [0045] "The acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle may be calculated based on torque of a driving device (driving torque and regenerative torque) or the like, in which case the torque may be a torque command (an engine torque command, a motor driving torque command, or a motor regenerative torque command) for the driving device...").
However, while Choi details the occurrence of a deceleration event and the implementation of a torque to decelerate the vehicle, Choi does not explicitly detail the following:
…determining, by a controller, that a designated downhill cruise condition is satisfied, in response that an accelerator pedal is released during a period of time when a regenerative braking switch is in an ON position…
…determining a target deceleration for the vehicle by selecting a minimum value among candidate decelerations determined based on a slope of a road…
…a mixing ratio that varies according to a relative speed and a relative distance with the preceding vehicle…
Oldridge, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…determining, by a controller, that a designated downhill cruise condition is satisfied, in response that an accelerator pedal is released during a period of time when a regenerative braking switch is in an ON position (see Oldridge at least [0056]-[0057] "Referring again to FIG. 3 regenerative braking can slow the vehicle and recharge the batteries at a consistent rate. During regenerative braking the system controller 12 increases or decreases regenerative braking torque linearly in response to a measured vehicle mass, a downhill road grade measured by the inclinometer 38 and any increase in acceleration due to gravity, toward maintaining a target constant deceleration rate and downhill speed seamlessly with interaction required from the driver other than his brake pedal or throttle pedal actions in response to the road situation for the vehicle. Regenerative braking that is managed by the digital electronic controller would thereby enhance the charging process. The accelerator position sensor 26 would detect when the throttle pedal is released by the driver and the brake Sensor 28 would detect when the brake pedal is depressed by the driver. The system controller 12 receives this data, and uses vehicle mass to activate and control at least one regenerative braking motor acting as a generator on a drivetrain for the vehicle... Referring again to FIG. 1, braking resistors 58 are connected to the power distribution box 56 and are activated by the system controller 12 switching solid-state control relay(s) ON or OFF during regenerative braking as shown in FIG. 3, the resistors 58 are utilized when the batteries reach (X) % SOC 20, where X is a predetermined charge level of said battery pack 48. The excess kinetic energy is then dissipated into the braking resistors 58…")…
…a slope of a road (see Oldridge at least [0052] "Adaptive power management is used while the vehicle is driving, for instance if the vehicle is driving downhill then the power requirements [kW] are substantially less and the power available can be scaled back further depending on the road grade measured by the inclinometer 38..." and [0056] "...During regenerative braking the system controller 12 increases or decreases regenerative braking torque linearly in response to a measured vehicle mass, a downhill road grade measured by the inclinometer 38 and any increase in acceleration due to gravity, toward maintaining a target constant deceleration rate and downhill speed seamlessly with interaction required from the driver other than his brake pedal or throttle pedal actions in response to the road situation for 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 modify the detection of a deceleration event and corresponding vehicle actions as disclosed by Choi with a downhill controls as taught by Oldridge with a reasonable expectation of success so as to optimize the maximum amount of energy possible via regenerative braking in specific scenarios (see Oldridge at least [0009]-[0011]).
However, neither Choi nor Oldridge explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…determining a target deceleration for the vehicle by selecting a minimum value among candidate decelerations determined…
…a mixing ratio that varies according to a relative speed and a relative distance with the preceding vehicle…
Petridis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…determining a target deceleration for the vehicle by selecting a minimum value among candidate decelerations determined (see Petridis at least [0122]-[0123] "Example 18 comprises Examples 11-17, the controller further configured to: determine the first vehicle's speed; determine that the first vehicle's speed is below a first threshold speed; and select a second regenerative braking profile, wherein the second regenerative braking profile has higher regenerative braking than the first regenerating braking profile. Example 19 comprises Examples 11-18, the controller further configured to: determine that the first vehicle's speed is above the first threshold speed but below a second threshold speed; and select a third regenerative braking profile, wherein the third regenerative braking profile has lower regenerative braking than the first regenerative braking profile.")…
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with the selection of a minimum deceleration such as taught by Petridis with a reasonable expectation of success so as to utilize the most efficient regenerative braking controls for specific encounters (see Petridis at least [0003]-[0004]).
Neither Choi nor Oldridge nor Petridis explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…a mixing ratio that varies according to a relative speed and a relative distance with the preceding vehicle…
Nimura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a mixing ratio that varies according to a relative speed and a relative distance with the preceding vehicle (see Nimura at least [0147]-[0149])…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with adjustments according to speed and distance such as taught by Nimura with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of refining vehicle controls (see Nimura at least [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 20 (detailed below), wherein, upon concluding that the designated downhill cruise condition is not satisfied (see Oldridge at least [0052] "Adaptive power management is used while the vehicle is driving, for instance if the vehicle is driving downhill then the power requirements [kW] are substantially less and the power available can be scaled back further depending on the road grade measured by the inclinometer 38. As shown by the plot in FIG. 4, the power required to drive an electric vehicle up a 3% Grade 102 is substantially higher than 0% Grade 104, and substantially lower if driven down a −3% Grade 106. Also shown in FIG. 4 is the fact that more power is required to operate an electric vehicle as its mass increases, as measured by the vehicle mass sensor 36."), the target deceleration is set to the minimum value among the candidate decelerations (see Petridis at least [0122]-[0123] "Example 18 comprises Examples 11-17, the controller further configured to: determine the first vehicle's speed; determine that the first vehicle's speed is below a first threshold speed; and select a second regenerative braking profile, wherein the second regenerative braking profile has higher regenerative braking than the first regenerating braking profile. Example 19 comprises Examples 11-18, the controller further configured to: determine that the first vehicle's speed is above the first threshold speed but below a second threshold speed; and select a third regenerative braking profile, wherein the third regenerative braking profile has lower regenerative braking than the first regenerative braking profile.") determined depending on the slope of the road on which the vehicle is running (see Oldridge at least [0052] "Adaptive power management is used while the vehicle is driving, for instance if the vehicle is driving downhill then the power requirements [kW] are substantially less and the power available can be scaled back further depending on the road grade measured by the inclinometer 38…" and [0056] "...During regenerative braking the system controller 12 increases or decreases regenerative braking torque linearly in response to a measured vehicle mass, a downhill road grade measured by the inclinometer 38 and any increase in acceleration due to gravity, toward maintaining a target constant deceleration rate and downhill speed seamlessly with interaction required from the driver other than his brake pedal or throttle pedal actions in response to the road situation for the vehicle...") and the designated preliminary obstacle (see Choi at least [0036] "As shown in the drawing, the apparatus for indicating an expected speed of a vehicle in some forms of the present disclosure may include an information provider 10 for providing information for determining the expected speed of the vehicle at a deceleration event positioned ahead of the vehicle, a controller 20 for calculating and determining the expected speed of the vehicle at the deceleration event based on the information provided from the information provider 10, and a display unit 30 for receiving a signal indicating the determined expected speed of the vehicle from the controller 20 and displaying the expected speed of the vehicle at the deceleration event in a predetermined form of an AR image on the windshield glass." and [0046] "In some forms of the present disclosure, the driving information detector 11 of the information provider 10 may include ... a preceding vehicle detector 17 for detecting information on a preceding vehicle." and [0049] "Thus, in some forms of the present disclosure, the vehicle driving information detected by the driving information detector 11 may further include an accelerator pedal input value, a brake pedal input value, and preceding vehicle information as well as the vehicle speed and the acceleration and deceleration information.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with slope determinations such as further taught by Oldridge with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with the selection of a minimum deceleration such as taught by Petridis with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 3, wherein
in response that the road on which the vehicle is running is a flat road or an uphill road (Oldridge), one of the candidate decelerations is determined a deceleration for coasting (see Choi at least [0045] "The acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle may be calculated based on torque of a driving device (driving torque and regenerative torque) or the like, in which case the torque may be a torque command (an engine torque command, a motor driving torque command, or a motor regenerative torque command) for the driving device. This may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and it is well known that the driving torque command, the regenerative torque command, and the like may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted in the specification."); and
the deceleration for coasting is a predetermined constant value (see Oldridge at least [0056] "Referring again to FIG. 3 regenerative braking can slow the vehicle and recharge the batteries at a consistent rate. During regenerative braking the system controller 12 increases or decreases regenerative braking torque linearly in response to a measured vehicle mass, a downhill road grade measured by the inclinometer 38 and any increase in acceleration due to gravity, toward maintaining a target constant deceleration rate and downhill speed seamlessly with interaction required from the driver other than his brake pedal or throttle pedal actions in response to the road situation for 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 further modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with a steady deceleration such as further taught by Oldridge with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 3, wherein
in response that the road on which the vehicle is running is a downhill road (Oldridge), one of the candidate decelerations is determined as the deceleration for downhill cruising (see Choi at least [0045] "The acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle may be calculated based on torque of a driving device (driving torque and regenerative torque) or the like, in which case the torque may be a torque command (an engine torque command, a motor driving torque command, or a motor regenerative torque command) for the driving device. This may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and it is well known that the driving torque command, the regenerative torque command, and the like may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted in the specification."); and
the deceleration for downhill cruising is set depending on a difference between the target vehicle speed and the current vehicle speed (see Choi at least [0067] "For example, when a vehicle travels at a speed of 100 km/h on a road with a speed limit of 80 km/h and then receives information on the speed limit camera 500 m ahead the speed limit camera to decelerate the vehicle, if the expected speed of the vehicle at the position of a speed limit camera after 500 m, the vehicle may be predicted to be in an over speed state at the position of the speed limit camera...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with the determination of a road’s slope such as further taught by Oldridge with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 3, wherein
in response that the designated preliminary obstacle is a speed camera, one of the candidate decelerations is determined a deceleration for stationary obstacles (see Choi at least [0067] "For example, when a vehicle travels at a speed of 100 km/h on a road with a speed limit of 80 km/h and then receives information on the speed limit camera 500 m ahead the speed limit camera to decelerate the vehicle, if the expected speed of the vehicle at the position of a speed limit camera after 500 m, the vehicle may be predicted to be in an over speed state at the position of the speed limit camera. In this case, as shown in FIG. 4, the driver may be warned by providing an effect of changing indicated color of the speed limit camera and the region of the vehicle on the road or blinking the indicated portion."); and
the deceleration for stationary obstacles is set to a deceleration required for the vehicle to reach a speed limit of the speed camera, in response that the vehicle reaches an enforcement position of the speed camera (see Choi at least [0067] "For example, when a vehicle travels at a speed of 100 km/h on a road with a speed limit of 80 km/h and then receives information on the speed limit camera 500 m ahead the speed limit camera to decelerate the vehicle, if the expected speed of the vehicle at the position of a speed limit camera after 500 m, the vehicle may be predicted to be in an over speed state at the position of the speed limit camera...").
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 6, wherein the deceleration for stationary obstacles is determined by a following Equation (see Choi at least [0052]-[0053]):
acam =
(
v
c
a
m
2
–
v
c
u
r
2
)
2
*
m
a
x
(
d
c
a
m
,
d
m
i
n
)
,
wherein
acam: deceleration for stationary obstacles;
vcam: speed limit of limit camera;
vcur: current vehicle speed;
dcam: distance from current position of vehicle to speed camera; and
dmin: minimum distance for preventing division by zero.
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 1, wherein the deceleration component for maintaining the proper inter-vehicle distance is calculated based on one selected from a first mode configured to be advantageous in maintaining the proper inter-vehicle distance with the preceding vehicle during braking of the preceding vehicle, and on a second mode configured to be advantageous in maintaining the proper inter-vehicle distance with the preceding vehicle during cruising of the preceding vehicle (see Choi at least [0048] "…The preceding vehicle information acquired by the preceding vehicle detector 17 may include information on a relative distance between an ego-vehicle for which an expected speed is indicated and the preceding vehicle or information on a relative speed therebetween.").
Regarding claim 12, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 3, wherein, upon concluding that the designated downhill cruise condition is satisfied (Oldridge), in response that the designated preliminary obstacle is present ahead (Choi), the target deceleration is set to the minimum value among the candidate decelerations (Petridis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with the downhill cruise condition detection as further taught by Oldridge with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with the selection of a minimum deceleration such as taught by Petridis with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach a regenerative braking control system of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a controller configured to execute the regenerative braking control method of claim 1 (see Choi at least Abs and [0036]),
a regenerative braking switch configured to provide a signal indicating user's selection of activation of a regenerative braking function of the vehicle to the controller (see Oldridge at least [0057] "Dynamic braking is the use of the electric traction motors of a vehicle as generators when slowing. The dynamic braking is termed rheostatic if the generated electrical power is dissipated as heat in brake grid resistors, and regenerative if the power is returned to the supply line. Referring again to FIG. 1, braking resistors 58 are connected to the power distribution box 56 and are activated by the system controller 12 switching solid-state control relay(s) ON or OFF during regenerative braking as shown in FIG. 3, the resistors 58 are utilized when the batteries reach (X) % SOC 20, where X is a predetermined charge level of said battery pack 48...");
an accelerator pedal sensor configured to detect release of the accelerator pedal and to provide information related to the accelerator pedal to the controller (see Oldridge at least [0056] "…The accelerator position sensor 26 would detect when the throttle pedal is released by the driver and the brake Sensor 28 would detect when the brake pedal is depressed by the driver. The system controller 12 receives this data, and uses vehicle mass to activate and control at least one regenerative braking motor acting as a generator on a drivetrain for the vehicle..."); and
a motor and a retarder controlled by the controller and configured to generate the required torque in the vehicle (see Choi at least [0045] "The acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle may be calculated based on torque of a driving device (driving torque and regenerative torque) or the like, in which case the torque may be a torque command (an engine torque command, a motor driving torque command, or a motor regenerative torque command) for the driving device. This may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and it is well known that the driving torque command, the regenerative torque command, and the like may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted in the specification.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the regenerative braking control techniques as disclosed by Choi with the regenerative braking activation requests as further taught by Oldridge with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control system of claim 17, further including:
a navigation system configured to provide information related to speed cameras ahead on a road on which the vehicle is running (see Choi at least [0050] "The navigation device 18 may provide the deceleration event information of the forward side of the vehicle along with the current position information while the vehicle travels in the state in which a driver sets a destination and a travel path to the destination is generated. Here, the deceleration event information may include position information of a speed limit section and a speed limit camera ahead of the vehicle on the travel path, a prescribed speed limit, and the remaining distance information to the position of the deceleration event (the speed limit section, the speed limit camera, or the like) from the current vehicle position."); and
at least one of a front camera or a front radio detection and ranging (RADAR) configured to detect information related to preceding vehicles ahead on the road on which the vehicle is running (see Choi at least [0048] "…In detail, the preceding vehicle detector 17 may include a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor or a laser detection and ranging (LADAR) sensor installed in the vehicle...").
Regarding claim 19, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control system of claim 17, further including a mode selection switch configured to select determination of the target deceleration as a different value (see Petridis at least [0083] "In some examples, the exhaust system comprises an exhaust gas recovery system, which is enabled by an EGR switch (not shown). The EGR switch enables some or all exhaust gas, or the thermal energy of the exhaust gas, to be recirculated through the exhaust system to further compound the heating effect of the eEGH 924. The eEGH 924 typically comprises a heating element disposed within, or near, a catalyst. eEGHs are required in various use cases and will demand a power supply between 0-4 KW (0 to 4000 Watts) for example, depending on the use case. For example, the heating elements within the eEGHs will have a thermal output of 0-4 kW (0 to 4000 Watts). An eEGH typically has low inductance and therefore the power output (or thermal power output) can be changed rapidly..." and [0122]-[0123] "Example 18 comprises Examples 11-17, the controller further configured to: determine the first vehicle's speed; determine that the first vehicle's speed is below a first threshold speed; and select a second regenerative braking profile, wherein the second regenerative braking profile has higher regenerative braking than the first regenerating braking profile. Example 19 comprises Examples 11-18, the controller further configured to: determine that the first vehicle's speed is above the first threshold speed but below a second threshold speed; and select a third regenerative braking profile, wherein the third regenerative braking profile has lower regenerative braking than the first regenerative braking profile."), in response that a preceding vehicle is present ahead (see Choi at least [0036] "As shown in the drawing, the apparatus for indicating an expected speed of a vehicle in some forms of the present disclosure may include an information provider 10 for providing information for determining the expected speed of the vehicle at a deceleration event positioned ahead of the vehicle, a controller 20 for calculating and determining the expected speed of the vehicle at the deceleration event based on the information provided from the information provider 10, and a display unit 30 for receiving a signal indicating the determined expected speed of the vehicle from the controller 20 and displaying the expected speed of the vehicle at the deceleration event in a predetermined form of an AR image on the windshield glass." and [0046] "In some forms of the present disclosure, the driving information detector 11 of the information provider 10 may include ... a preceding vehicle detector 17 for detecting information on a preceding vehicle." and [0049] "Thus, in some forms of the present disclosure, the vehicle driving information detected by the driving information detector 11 may further include an accelerator pedal input value, a brake pedal input value, and preceding vehicle information as well as the vehicle speed and the acceleration and deceleration information.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with the selection of a specific deceleration such as taught by Petridis with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 1, wherein the designated downhill cruise condition is satisfied (see Oldridge at least [0052] "Adaptive power management is used while the vehicle is driving, for instance if the vehicle is driving downhill then the power requirements [kW] are substantially less and the power available can be scaled back further depending on the road grade measured by the inclinometer 38..." and [0056] "...During regenerative braking the system controller 12 increases or decreases regenerative braking torque linearly in response to a measured vehicle mass, a downhill road grade measured by the inclinometer 38 and any increase in acceleration due to gravity, toward maintaining a target constant deceleration rate and downhill speed seamlessly with interaction required from the driver other than his brake pedal or throttle pedal actions in response to the road situation for the vehicle..."), in response that a current vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a target vehicle speed (see Choi at least [0066] “When comparing the expected speed of the vehicle with the speed limit and predicting over speed at the forward deceleration event (the speed limit camera), the display controller 31 may warn the driver by providing an effect of changing an indicated color of the deceleration event (the speed limit camera) and the vehicle region on the road to setting color or blinking an indicated portion, as shown in FIG. 4.”), the target vehicle speed being determined by adding a designated pre-input vehicle speed value to a vehicle speed at a moment that the accelerator pedal is released (see Choi at least [0052]-[0053] “FIG. 2 is a diagram for explaining a method of determining an expected speed of a vehicle in some forms of the present disclosure, and the controller 20 may determine the expected speed of the vehicle using vehicle speed information and vehicle acceleration and deceleration information that are acquired by the driving information detector 11, and the remaining distance information to the position of the deceleration event (the speed limit section, the speed limit camera, or the like) provided by the navigation device 18 according to Equation (1) below... Here, v* is the expected speed of the vehicle at a deceleration event point, v is a real-time vehicle speed (an actual vehicle speed) detected while the vehicle travels after detecting the deceleration event, a is acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle, and s is the remaining distance (which is the updated remaining distance) to the forward deceleration event point from the current vehicle position.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Choi with a downhill controls as further taught by Oldridge with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US-2023/0373295; hereinafter Yamazaki; already of record).
Regarding claim 16, Choi in view of Oldridge and Petridis and Nimura teach the regenerative braking control method of claim 1. However, while Choi discloses the reduction of a vehicle’s speed via regenerative braking under certain conditions, neither Choi nor Oldridge nor Petridis nor Nimura explicitly disclose or teach the following:
in generating the required torque in the vehicle, in response that the vehicle speed is reduced to a designated conversion speed or less than the designated conversion speed, regenerative braking torque is substituted with retarder torque.
Yamazaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
in generating the required torque in the vehicle, in response that the vehicle speed is reduced to a designated conversion speed or less than the designated conversion speed, regenerative braking torque is substituted with retarder torque (see Yamazaki at least [0063] "After the four-wheel drive vehicle starts to decelerate, from the time when the vehicle speed falls below the threshold V_thr, the requested brake torque changes from the state in which the regenerative brake torque dominates the requested brake torque to the state in which the friction brake torque dominates the requested 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 modify the regenerative braking control method as disclosed by Choi with an override to prevent regenerative braking from occurring under a certain speed such as taught by Yamazaki so as to provide stable braking to a vehicle (see Yamazaki at least [0015]-[0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, Nimura provides equations similar those in claim 10, however none of the references (Choi, Oldridge, Petridis, Nimura) individually or in any reasonable combination recite the combination of variables as claimed. Therefore claim 10 (and dependent claim 11) would be allowable upon overcoming the 112(b) rejection of independent claim 1 provided above and amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13 and claim 14, Tokimasa et al. (US-2009/0048755; hereinafter Tokimasa; already of record) teaches individual concepts as recited in the claims as previously indicated, and Nishihara et al. (US-5,747,686) teaches the specific concept of a reference torque and its individual components, however none of the references (Choi, Oldridge, Petridis, Nimura, Tokimasa, Nishihara) individually or in any reasonable combination recite the concept as claimed. Therefore claims 13-14 (and dependent claim 15, further relying upon Han et al. (US-2020/0047736; hereinafter Han; already of record)) would be allowable upon overcoming the 112(b) rejection of independent claim 1 provided above and amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishihara et al. (US-5,747,686) teaches monitoring of tire pressure according to a specific tire’s diameter, and additionally analyzing an available torque at any respective wheel according to its diameter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights