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 Amendment
In response to the office action mailed 10/17/2025, Applicant amended Claims 1 and 3, cancelled Claim 20 and added NEW claim 21. Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s Argument “Claim 3 is amended to address the §112(b) issue.”, Examiner agrees and the rejection is withdrawn in response to the amendment.
Applicant’s Argument “The Office Action states that "Claim 4 recites: 'in respond to a state' and 'in respond to the state' in lines 4 and 8, respectively" (Office Action: item 3 at page 2). However, the "state" recited in lines 4 and 8 of claim 4 is the same as each other, and therefore, those limitations are not indefinite.”; is not persuasive. As previously indicated, the indefiniteness stems from the term “respond”, not the term “state”. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s Argument “Krueger fails to disclose "a first processor integrated with the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor" as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).” And “Krueger does not disclose "a second processor integrated with the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor" as recited in claim 1”; are not persuasive. Applicant’s specification states “The first processor 151 may be integrally provided with or installed in any one of the brake modules 110, 120, 130, and 140. For example, the first processor 151 may be provided in a housing forming any one brake module, or physically and mechanically attached to a housing forming any one brake module.” And “The second processor 152 may be integrally provided with or installed in any one of the brake modules 110, 120, 130, and 140. For example, the second processor 152 may be provided in a housing forming any one brake module or physically and mechanically attached to the housing forming any one brake module.”. Fig. 2C of the prior art shows that the respective first and second processors (200a and 200b) are physically and mechanically attached to the brake module drives (202a and 202b) as indicated by the solid arrows. ¶0032 of the prior art states “ In at least one embodiment, the first EBS controller 200 a is in electrical communication with the second EBS controller 200 b via a communication interface. The communication interface includes, but is not limited to, FlexRay™, Ethernet, and a low-power message-based interface such as, for example, a CAN bus. In this manner, the first and second EBS controllers 200 a and 200 b may share data with each other.”. Therefore a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘integrated’ as-claimed in view of applicant’s disclosure as would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art includes the first and second processors integrated with the first and second drives in the form of being ‘physically and mechanically attached’ to the respective brake module drives. The prior art clearly discloses the first and second processors integrated with the first and second drives in the form of being ‘physically and mechanically attached’ to the respective brake module drives via physical FlexRay™ wires, ethernet cables and/or CAN bus interface.
Applicants remaining arguments against the prior art claim rejections of record are not persuasive for the reason(s) presented above with respect to Claim 1.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites: “in respond to a state” and “in respond to the state” in lines 4 and 8, respectively. As a result claim scope is indefinite. For the purpose of examination over the prior art Claim 4 will be construed as “in response to a state” and “in response to the state” in lines 4 and 8, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Krueger et al. (U.S. 2018/0056960A1). Krueger discloses “The invention disclosed herein relates to vehicle braking systems and, more particularly, to a vehicle including a brake-by-wire (BBW) system.” (¶0001) and “FIG. 2C is a is a schematic view of a fault tolerant BBW system based on a full EBS controller topology according to a non-limiting embodiment” (¶0013).
Regarding Claim 1, Krueger discloses:
A brake apparatus (Fig. 2C) comprising:
a first motor (120a; ¶0027, ‘a motor that drives an electronic caliper (e-caliper’) operably coupled to a first brake (brake assembly 118a) configured to brake a first wheel (112) of a vehicle (vehicle 100);
a first drive (202a) configured to control a current (¶0029, “deliver the switching high-frequency current signals (illustrated as dashed arrows) for driving a respective electro-mechanical actuator 120a-120d”) driving the first motor to brake the first wheel;
a second motor (120b) operably coupled to a second brake (118b) configured to brake a second wheel (112) of the vehicle;
a second drive (202b) configured to control a current (¶0029, “deliver the switching high-frequency current signals (illustrated as dashed arrows) for driving a respective electro-mechanical actuator 120a-120d”) driving the second motor to brake the second wheel;
a first processor (200a) integrated with the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor, the first processor configured to receive an output of a first pedal sensor (¶0020; “The pedal assembly 116 is in signal communication with the EBS controller 200, and includes a brake pedal 124, one or more pedal force sensors 126, and one or more pedal travel sensors 128. In at least one embodiment, the pedal force sensors and the pedal travel sensor are each connected to multiple controllers installed in the vehicle to provide output redundancy.”) configured to detect movement of a brake pedal of the vehicle;
and a second processor (200b) integrated with the second drive configured to the current driving the second motor, the second processor configured to receive an output of a second pedal sensor (¶0020; “The pedal assembly 116 is in signal communication with the EBS controller 200, and includes a brake pedal 124, one or more pedal force sensors 126, and one or more pedal travel sensors 128. In at least one embodiment, the pedal force sensors and the pedal travel sensor are each connected to multiple controllers installed in the vehicle to provide output redundancy.”)configured to detect the movement of the brake pedal, wherein:
the first processor (200a) is configured to transmit a first control signal to the first drive, configured to control the current driving the first motor(¶0041-0042; “Although the power circuits 202a-202d may operate independently with respect to one another, each EBS controller 200a and 200b is configured to output a data control signal to control any of the power circuits 202a-202d.”),, in response to the output of the first pedal sensor (¶0026; “the EBS controller 200 may store a pedal position LUT, which corresponds to the measurements or readings of the pedal travel sensor 128 and contains a commanded braking request appropriate for the detected position of pedal travel sensor 128.”)
and the second processor (200b) is configured to transmit a second control signal to the second drive, configured to control the current driving the second motor(¶0041-0042; “Although the power circuits 202a-202d may operate independently with respect to one another, each EBS controller 200a and 200b is configured to output a data control signal to control any of the power circuits 202a-202d.”),, in response to the output of the second pedal sensor (¶0026; “the EBS controller 200 may store a pedal position LUT, which corresponds to the measurements or readings of the pedal travel sensor 128 and contains a commanded braking request appropriate for the detected position of pedal travel sensor 128.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Krueger discloses A method (Fig. 4); ¶0045+) of controlling a brake apparatus (Fig. 2C) including a first motor (120a; ¶0027, ‘a motor that drives an electronic caliper (e-caliper’) operably coupled to a first brake (brake assembly 118a) configured to brake a first wheel (112) of a vehicle (vehicle 100)and a second motor (120b) operably coupled to a second brake (118b) configured to brake a second wheel (112) of the vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by a first processor (200a), an output of a first pedal sensor (¶0020; “The pedal assembly 116 is in signal communication with the EBS controller 200, and includes a brake pedal 124, one or more pedal force sensors 126, and one or more pedal travel sensors 128. In at least one embodiment, the pedal force sensors and the pedal travel sensor are each connected to multiple controllers installed in the vehicle to provide output redundancy.”)configured to detect movement of a brake pedal of the vehicle;
receiving, by a second processor (200b), an output of a second pedal sensor (¶0020; “The pedal assembly 116 is in signal communication with the EBS controller 200, and includes a brake pedal 124, one or more pedal force sensors 126, and one or more pedal travel sensors 128. In at least one embodiment, the pedal force sensors and the pedal travel sensor are each connected to multiple controllers installed in the vehicle to provide output redundancy.”) configured to detect the movement of the brake pedal;
transmitting, by the first processor, a first control signal (¶0041-0042; “Although the power circuits 202a-202d may operate independently with respect to one another, each EBS controller 200a and 200b is configured to output a data control signal to control any of the power circuits 202a-202d.”)to a first drive (202a), integrated with the first processor, based on the output of the first pedal sensor (¶0026; “the EBS controller 200 may store a pedal position LUT, which corresponds to the measurements or readings of the pedal travel sensor 128 and contains a commanded braking request appropriate for the detected position of pedal travel sensor 128.”)of the vehicle;
transmitting, by the second processor, a second control signal(¶0041-0042; “Although the power circuits 202a-202d may operate independently with respect to one another, each EBS controller 200a and 200b is configured to output a data control signal to control any of the power circuits 202a-202d.”) to a second drive (202b), integrated with the second processor, based on the output of the second pedal sensor sensor (¶0026; “the EBS controller 200 may store a pedal position LUT, which corresponds to the measurements or readings of the pedal travel sensor 128 and contains a commanded braking request appropriate for the detected position of pedal travel sensor 128.”)of the vehicle;
controlling, by the first drive integrated with the first processor, a current (¶0029, “deliver the switching high-frequency current signals (illustrated as dashed arrows) for driving a respective electro-mechanical actuator 120a-120d”)driving the first motor to brake the first wheel;
and controlling, by the second drive integrated with the second processor, a current (¶0029, “deliver the switching high-frequency current signals (illustrated as dashed arrows) for driving a respective electro-mechanical actuator 120a-120d”)driving the second motor to brake the second wheel.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Krueger further discloses: wherein: the first processor is configured to transmit a first signal associated with an operation state of the first processor to the second processor, the first drive, and the second drive; and the second processor is configured to transmit a second signal associated with an operation state of the second processor to the first processor, the first drive, and the second drive and transmitting, by the first processor, a first signal associated with an operation state of the first processor to the second processor, the first drive, and the second drive; and transmitting, by the second processor, a second signal associated with an operation state of the second processor to the first processor, the first drive, and the second drive (¶0047; Fig. 4; “Referring back to operation 406, a scenario may occur where the braking event data monitored and generated by the first EBS controller does not match or substantially match the braking event data monitored and generated by the second EBS controller. In this case, the method proceeds to operation 416 where one of the first EBS controller and the second EBS controller outputs a data command signal to both the first power circuit and the second power circuit. “; also ¶0041 “n this manner, if the first EBS controller 200a is unable to properly control the first power circuit 202a, the second EBS controller 200b may provide the braking event data signal necessary to command the first power circuit 202a to output the high-frequency switched high-current signal for driving the first actuator 118a. Accordingly, the full controller BBW topology may provide additional fault tolerance functionality.”. In other words, for example responsive to a detected fault in processor 200a, drive 202a, or the communication lines; the system is configured to control the brake assembly 118a using processor 200b through the communication network; and/or vice versa.)
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Krueger further discloses wherein: the first processor is configured to transmit a third control signal to the second drive, configured to the current driving the second motor, through a first network connecting the second drive and the first processor in response to a state that the second processor is in a failure state; and the second processor is configured to transmit a fourth control signal to the first drive, configured to control the current driving the first motor, through a second network connecting the first drive and the second processor in response to a state that the first processor is in the failure state and transmitting, by the first processor, a third control signal to the second drive, configured to the current driving the second motor, through a first network connecting the second drive and the first processor in response to a state that the second processor is in a failure state; and transmitting, by the second processor, a fourth control signal to the first drive, configured to control the current driving the first motor, through a second network connecting the first drive and the second processor in response to a state that the first processor is in the failure state (¶0047; Fig. 4; “Referring back to operation 406, a scenario may occur where the braking event data monitored and generated by the first EBS controller does not match or substantially match the braking event data monitored and generated by the second EBS controller. In this case, the method proceeds to operation 416 where one of the first EBS controller and the second EBS controller outputs a data command signal to both the first power circuit and the second power circuit. “; also ¶0041 “in this manner, if the first EBS controller 200a is unable to properly control the first power circuit 202a, the second EBS controller 200b may provide the braking event data signal necessary to command the first power circuit 202a to output the high-frequency switched high-current signal for driving the first actuator 118a. Accordingly, the full controller BBW topology may provide additional fault tolerance functionality.”. In other words, for example responsive to a detected fault in processor 200a, drive 202a, or the communication lines; the system is configured to control the brake assembly 118a using processor 200b through the communication network; and/or vice versa.)
Regarding Claim 10, Krueger further discloses: wherein: the first processor and the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor are connected with a first power source (Fig. 2c, ¶0037-0039; power source 204a) of the vehicle; and the second processor and the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor are connected with a second power source (Fig. 2c, ¶0037-0039; power source 204b) of the vehicle and supplying power of a first power source (Fig. 2c, ¶0037-0039; power source 204a) of the vehicle to the first processor and the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor; and supplying power of a second power source (Fig. 2c, ¶0037-0039; power source 204b) of the vehicle to the second processor and the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor
Regarding Claim 21, Kreuger further discloses wherein: the first processor is configured to, in a normal state of the second processor, transmit a brake signal to the first motor drive based on the output of the first pedal sensor, and, in a failure state of the second processor, the brake signal to the second motor drive through a first network connecting the first processor to the second motor drive, and the second processor is configured to, in a normal state of the first processor, transmit the brake signal to the second motor drive based on the output of the second pedal sensor, and, in a failure state of the first processor, the brake signal to the first motor drive through a second network connecting the second processor to the first motor drive
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (U.S. 2018/0056960A1). Krueger discloses “Referring now to FIG. 2C, a fault tolerant BBW system 102 based on a full electronic brake system (EBS) controller topology is illustrated according to a non-limiting embodiment. The full EBS controller topology of FIG. 2C operates similar to the split EBS controller topology described above with reference to FIGS. 2A-2B. However, the full EBS system of FIG. 2C differs in that each EBS controller 200 a and 200 b electrically communicates with each power circuit 202 a-202 d. For example, both the first EBS controller 200 a and the second EBS controller 200 b may independently control the first power circuit 202 a. In this manner, if the first EBS controller 200 a is unable to properly control the first power circuit 202 a, the second EBS controller 200 b may provide the braking event data signal necessary to command the first power circuit 202 a to output the high-frequency switched high-current signal for driving the first actuator 118 a. Accordingly, the full controller BBW topology may provide additional fault tolerance functionality. “ (¶0041); and ¶0020; “The pedal assembly 116 is in signal communication with the EBS controller 200, and includes a brake pedal 124, one or more pedal force sensors 126, and one or more pedal travel sensors 128. In at least one embodiment, the pedal force sensors and the pedal travel sensor are each connected to multiple controllers installed in the vehicle to provide output redundancy.”)”. Therefore the prior art discloses a system comprising a plurality of brake pedal travel sensors, each of which are connected to the multiple (e.g. 200a and 200b) controllers for redundancy. Additionally, each of the plurality of controllers (e.g. 200a and 200b) are configured to control each of the brake motor drives (e.g. 202a and 202b) via the communication network for redundancy.
Applicant’s specification discloses “The pedal sensor(s) 30 may be implemented as a plurality of pedal sensors in preparation for damage or an error in an electrical system. For example, the pedal sensor 30 may include a first sensor and a second sensor. Each of the first sensor and second sensor may provide an electrical signal corresponding to a movement distance and/or movement speed of the brake pedal 20 to the brake apparatus 100.”. Therefore both the prior art and applicants invention include multiple pedal travel sensors for redundancy.
Regarding Claim 12, Krueger discloses all the elements of Claim 1 as indicated above. Krueger further discloses wherein: the first processor is configured to, in a normal state of the second processor, transmit a brake signal to the first motor drive based on the output of the first pedal sensor, and, in a failure state of the second processor, the brake signal to the second motor drive through a first network connecting the first processor to the second motor drive, and the second processor is configured to, in a normal state of the first processor, transmit the brake signal to the second motor drive based on the output of the second pedal sensor, and, in a failure state of the first processor, the brake signal to the first motor drive through the first network connecting the second processor to the first motor drive (Fig. 2c; ¶0020 and ¶0041).
Krueger does not explicitly teach in a failure state of the first processor, the brake signal to the first motor drive through a second network connecting the second processor to the first motor drive.
In other words Krueger does not explicitly extend the disclosed brake system redundancies (plurality of brake pedal sensors connected to a plurality of controllers) to a second network connecting the components of the system.
“The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results
Here, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include in a failure state of the first processor, the brake signal to the first motor drive through a second network connecting the second processor to the first motor drive by (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as taught by Krueger because it does no more than yield predictable results of improving reliability of the brake system by further extending the concept of redundancy to the other existing components of the prior art system since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (U.S. 2018/0056960A1) in view of Strengert et al. (U.S. 2010/0198473A1). Strengert discloses “If a wheel actuator device 30a or 30b detects that its associated brake control device 28a or 28b has failed, it no longer performs the braking operation on its wheel as a function of the control signal of its own brake control device 28a or 28b. Instead, wheel actuator device 30a or 30b begins with the evaluation of the sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b transmitted directly to it. On the basis of these sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b, wheel actuator device 30a or 30b ascertains what braking torque it should exert on its associated wheel” (¶0052; Fig. 3) and “If a situation occurs in brake system 80 such that both brake control devices 28a and 28b fail, then in this case it is also still possible to perform a braking operation controlled by sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b. This may be ensured because, after a failure of the two brake control devices 28a and 28b, the respective sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b are transmitted to wheel actuator devices 30a and 30b. “ (¶0062).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Krueger teaches all the elements of Claims 1 and 11 as indicated above. Krueger does not explicitly teach: wherein: the first drive is configured to receive the output of the first pedal sensor and control the current driving the first motor to brake the first wheel based on the output of the first pedal sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; and the second drive is configured to receive the output of the second pedal sensor and control the current driving the second motor to brake the second wheel based on the output of the second pedal sensor in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state or receiving, by the first drive integrated with the first processor, the output of the first pedal sensor; controlling, by the first drive, the current driving the first motor to brake the first wheel based on the output of the first pedal sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; receiving, by the second drive integrated with the second processor, the output of the second pedal sensor; controlling, by the second drive, the current driving the second motor to brake the second wheel based on the output of the second pedal sensor in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state
Strengert teaches: wherein: the first drive is configured to receive the output of the first pedal sensor (“wheel actuator device 30a or 30b begins with the evaluation of the sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b transmitted directly to it”) and control the current driving the first motor to brake the first wheel based on the output of the first pedal sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state (¶0052; Fig. 3; ¶0062; “If a situation occurs in brake system 80 such that both brake control devices 28a and 28b fail”); and the second drive is configured to receive the output of the second pedal sensor (“wheel actuator device 30a or 30b begins with the evaluation of the sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b transmitted directly to it”) and control the current driving the second motor to brake the second wheel based on the output of the second pedal sensor in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state (¶0052; Fig. 3; ¶0062) in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020) and receiving, by the first drive integrated with the first processor, the output of the first pedal sensor (“wheel actuator device 30a or 30b begins with the evaluation of the sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b transmitted directly to it”); controlling, by the first drive, the current driving the first motor to brake the first wheel based on the output of the first pedal sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state (¶0052; Fig. 3; ¶0062); receiving, by the second drive integrated with the second processor, the output of the second pedal sensor (“wheel actuator device 30a or 30b begins with the evaluation of the sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b transmitted directly to it”); controlling, by the second drive, the current driving the second motor to brake the second wheel based on the output of the second pedal sensor in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state (¶0052; Fig. 3; ¶0062) in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the braking control system of Krueger to incorporate the teachings of Strengert to include wherein: the first drive is configured to receive the output of the first pedal sensor and control the current driving the first motor to brake the first wheel based on the output of the first pedal sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; and the second drive is configured to receive the output of the second pedal sensor and control the current driving the second motor to brake the second wheel based on the output of the second pedal sensor in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state and receiving, by the first drive integrated with the first processor, the output of the first pedal sensor; controlling, by the first drive, the current driving the first motor to brake the first wheel based on the output of the first pedal sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; receiving, by the second drive integrated with the second processor, the output of the second pedal sensor; controlling, by the second drive, the current driving the second motor to brake the second wheel based on the output of the second pedal sensor in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020)
Claim(s) 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (U.S. 2018/0056960A1) in view of Hwang (U.S. 2021/0370895A1). Hwang discloses “The first wheel speed sensor 10 and the second wheel speed sensor 20 are disposed on each of the vehicle wheels and used to calculate the wheel speed of each wheel. The first wheel speed sensor 10 transmits a wheel speed-related signal to the main controller 50. The second wheel speed sensor transmits a wheel speed detection signal to the auxiliary controller 60.” (Fig. 1-2; ¶0017) and “When the main controller 50 loses the driving function or the braking function of the vehicle, the auxiliary controller 60 may take the place of those functions. The main controller 50 and the auxiliary controller 60 may be physically disposed adjacent to each other or may be separated and disposed at separate locations inside the vehicle. The braking unit 70 is arranged to receive a braking signal from the main controller 50 or the auxiliary controller 60 and distribute the braking force to the respective vehicle wheels.” (¶0030-0031)
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Krueger further discloses the first processor (Fig. 2c, 200a) is communicationally connected with a first wheel speed sensor (¶0022, 122a) configured to measure a rotational speed of the first wheel; and the second processor (Fig. 2c, 200b) is communicationally connected with a fourth wheel speed sensor(Fig. 2c, 122b, ¶0022) configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel
And
receiving, by the first processor (Fig. 2c, 200a), an output of the first wheel speed sensor (¶0022, 122a) configured to measure a rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the second wheel speed sensor (Fig. 2c, 122b, ¶0022) configured to measure a rotational speed of the second wheel; and receiving, by the second processor (Fig. 2c, 200b), an output of the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the fourth wheel speed sensor (Fig. 2c, 122b, ¶0022) configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel
Krueger does not explicitly teach the first processor is communicationally connected with a first wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the first wheel and a second wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the second wheel; and the second processor is communicationally connected with a third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and a fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel or receiving, by the first processor, an output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the second wheel; and receiving, by the second processor, an output of the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel.
Hwang teaches: the first processor (Fig. 2, 50) is communicationally connected with a first wheel speed sensor (10a) configured to measure a rotational speed of the first wheel and a second wheel speed sensor(10b) configured to measure a rotational speed of the second wheel; and the second processor (60) is communicationally connected with a third wheel speed sensor(20a) configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and a fourth wheel speed sensor (20b) configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in order to ensure stability of the vehicle based on ability to calculate wheel speed from a secondary wheel speed sensor in response to determining presence or abnormality of a primary wheel speed sensor on each wheel. (¶0038)
And
receiving, by the first processor(Fig. 2, 50), an output of the first wheel speed sensor (10a) configured to measure a rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the second wheel speed sensor(10b) configured to measure a rotational speed of the second wheel; and receiving, by the second processor(60), an output of the third wheel speed sensor (20a) configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the fourth wheel speed sensor (20b) configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in order to ensure stability of the vehicle based on ability to calculate wheel speed from a secondary wheel speed sensor in response to determining presence or abnormality of a primary wheel speed sensor on each wheel. (¶0038)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the brake control system of Krueger to incorporate the teachings of Hwang to include the first processor is communicationally connected with a first wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the first wheel and a second wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the second wheel; and the second processor is communicationally connected with a third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and a fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel and receiving, by the first processor, an output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure a rotational speed of the second wheel; and receiving, by the second processor, an output of the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in order to ensure stability of the vehicle based on ability to calculate wheel speed from a secondary wheel speed sensor in response to determining presence or abnormality of a primary wheel speed sensor on each wheel. (¶0038).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Krueger and Hwang teaches all the elements of Claims 5 and 15 as indicated above. Krueger further discloses “The EBS controller 200 is also configured to calculate, select, and/or otherwise determine a corresponding braking request or braking event in response to the detected and recorded measurements or readings output from the wheel sensors 122a and 122b. Based on the determined braking request or braking event, the EBS controller 200 outputs a low voltage data command signal that invokes a braking action to slow down the vehicle 100 as discussed in greater detail herein.” (¶0021; in other words, the controllers are configured to selectively (i.e. intermittently) apply a braking action to respective wheels based on the readings or outputs from the respective wheel speed sensors.)
Therefore Krueger further discloses:
wherein: the first processor (Fig. 2c, 200a) is configured to transmit a fifth control signal (Fig. 2c, ‘low voltage data command signal that invokes braking action; ¶0021-0022)to the first drive(202a), configured to control the current driving the first motor, to intermittently brake the first wheel based on an output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel (¶0021-0022); and the second processor (200b)is configured to transmit a sixth control signal(Fig. 2c, ‘low voltage data command signal that invokes braking action; ¶0021-0022) to the second drive (202b), configured to control the current driving the second motor, to intermittently brake the second wheel based on an output of the second wheel speed sensor (Fig. 2c, 122b; ¶0021-0022) configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel
and
further comprising: transmitting, by the first processor (Fig. 2c, 200a), a fifth control signal (Fig. 2c, ‘low voltage data command signal that invokes braking action; ¶0021-0022) to the first drive (202a), configured to control the current driving the first motor, to intermittently brake the first wheel based on the output of the first wheel speed sensor (Fig. 2c, 122a; ¶0021-0022) configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel; and transmitting, by the second processor (200b), a sixth control signal (Fig. 2c, ‘low voltage data command signal that invokes braking action; ¶0021-0022)to the second drive (202b), configured to control the current driving the second motor, to intermittently brake the second wheel based on the output of the second wheel speed sensor(Fig. 2c, 122b; ¶0021-0022) configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Krueger and Hwang teaches all the elements of Claims 6 and 16 as indicated above. Krueger further discloses wherein: the first processor is configured to transmit a seventh control signal to the first and second drives, configured to control the currents driving the first and second motors respectively, to intermittently brake the first and second wheels based on the output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel when the second processor is in a failure state, the second processor is configured to transmit an eighth control signal to the first and second drives, configured to control the currents driving the first and second motors respectively, to intermittently brake the first and second wheels based on the output of the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and an output of the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel when the first processor is in the failure state (¶0047; Fig. 4; “Referring back to operation 406, a scenario may occur where the braking event data monitored and generated by the first EBS controller does not match or substantially match the braking event data monitored and generated by the second EBS controller. In this case, the method proceeds to operation 416 where one of the first EBS controller and the second EBS controller outputs a data command signal to both the first power circuit and the second power circuit. “; also ¶0041 “in this manner, if the first EBS controller 200a is unable to properly control the first power circuit 202a, the second EBS controller 200b may provide the braking event data signal necessary to command the first power circuit 202a to output the high-frequency switched high-current signal for driving the first actuator 118a in addition to continuing to provide braking event data singal to command the second power circuit 202b to output the high-frequency switched high-current signal for driving the first actuator 118b. Accordingly, the full controller BBW topology may provide additional fault tolerance functionality.”. In other words, for example responsive to a detected fault in processor 200a, drive 202a, or the communication lines; the system is configured to control the brake assemblies using processor 200b through the communication network; and/or vice versa.)
And
transmitting, by the first processor, a seventh control signal to the first and second drives, configured to control the current driving the first and second motors respectively, to intermittently brake the first and second wheels based on the outputs of the first and second wheel speed sensors, configured to measure the rotational speeds of the first and second wheels respectively, in response to a state that the second processor is in a failure state; and transmitting, by the second processor, an eighth control signal to the first and second drives, configured to control the current driving the first and second motors respectively, to intermittently brake the first and second wheels based on the outputs of the third and fourth wheel speed sensors, configured to measure the rotational speeds of the first and second wheels respectively, in response to a state that the first processor is in the failure state (¶0047; Fig. 4; “Referring back to operation 406, a scenario may occur where the braking event data monitored and generated by the first EBS controller does not match or substantially match the braking event data monitored and generated by the second EBS controller. In this case, the method proceeds to operation 416 where one of the first EBS controller and the second EBS controller outputs a data command signal to both the first power circuit and the second power circuit. “; also ¶0041 “in this manner, if the first EBS controller 200a is unable to properly control the first power circuit 202a, the second EBS controller 200b may provide the braking event data signal necessary to command the first power circuit 202a to output the high-frequency switched high-current signal for driving the first actuator 118a in addition to continuing to provide braking event data singal to command the second power circuit 202b to output the high-frequency switched high-current signal for driving the first actuator 118b. Accordingly, the full controller BBW topology may provide additional fault tolerance functionality.”. In other words, for example responsive to a detected fault in processor 200a, drive 202a, or the communication lines; the system is configured to control the brake assemblies using processor 200b through the communication network; and/or vice versa.)
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (U.S. 2018/0056960A1) in view of Hwang (U.S. 2021/0370895A1) in view of Strengert et al. (U.S. 2010/0198473A1). Strengert discloses “If a wheel actuator device 30a or 30b detects that its associated brake control device 28a or 28b has failed, it no longer performs the braking operation on its wheel as a function of the control signal of its own brake control device 28a or 28b. Instead, wheel actuator device 30a or 30b begins with the evaluation of the sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b transmitted directly to it. On the basis of these sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b, wheel actuator device 30a or 30b ascertains what braking torque it should exert on its associated wheel” (¶0052; Fig. 3) and “If a situation occurs in brake system 80 such that both brake control devices 28a and 28b fail, then in this case it is also still possible to perform a braking operation controlled by sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b. This may be ensured because, after a failure of the two brake control devices 28a and 28b, the respective sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b are transmitted to wheel actuator devices 30a and 30b. “ (¶0062).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Krueger and Hwang teaches all the elements of Claims 5 and 15 as indicated above. Krueger does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor is communicationally connected with the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel; and the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor is communicationally connected with the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel or receiving, by the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor, the output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel; and receiving, by the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor, the output of the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the output of the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel
Strengert teaches: wherein: the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor is communicationally connected with the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel; and the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor is communicationally connected with the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel (Fig. 3, ¶0062, system configured such that drive units 30a/b directly receive “respective sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b are transmitted to wheel actuator devices 30a and 30b” and execute braking control in response to determination that both control devices 28a and 28b have failed) in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020)
and
receiving, by the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor, the output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel; and receiving, by the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor, the output of the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the output of the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel (Fig. 3, ¶0062, system configured such that drive units 30a/b directly receive “respective sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b are transmitted to wheel actuator devices 30a and 30b” and execute braking control in response to determination that both control devices 28a and 28b have failed) in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the braking control system of Krueger to incorporate the teachings of Strengert to include wherein: the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor is communicationally connected with the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel; and the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor is communicationally connected with the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel and receiving, by the first drive configured to control the current driving the first motor, the output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel; and receiving, by the second drive configured to control the current driving the second motor, the output of the third wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel and the output of the fourth wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020)
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Krueger and Hwang teaches all the elements of Claims 8 and 18 as indicated above. Krueger does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first drive is configured to control the current driving the first motor to intermittently brake the first wheel based on an output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; and the second drive is configured to control the current driving the second motor to intermittently brake the second wheel based on an output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state or controlling, by the first drive, the current driving the first motor to intermittently brake the first wheel based on the output of the first wheel speed sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; and controlling, by the second drive, the current driving the second motor to intermittently brake the second wheel based on the output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in a response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state
Strengert teaches: wherein: the first drive is configured to control the current driving the first motor to intermittently brake the first wheel based on an output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; and the second drive is configured to control the current driving the second motor to intermittently brake the second wheel based on an output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state (Fig. 3, ¶0062, system configured such that drive units 30a/b directly receive “respective sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b are transmitted to wheel actuator devices 30a and 30b” and execute braking control in response to determination that both control devices 28a and 28b have failed) in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020) and controlling, by the first drive, the current driving the first motor to intermittently brake the first wheel based on the output of the first wheel speed sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; and controlling, by the second drive, the current driving the second motor to intermittently brake the second wheel based on the output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in a response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state (Fig. 3, ¶0062, system configured such that drive units 30a/b directly receive “respective sensor signals 18a, 18b, 24a, 24b, 26a and 26b are transmitted to wheel actuator devices 30a and 30b” and execute braking control in response to determination that both control devices 28a and 28b have failed) in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the braking control system of Krueger to incorporate the teachings of Strengert to include wherein: the first drive is configured to control the current driving the first motor to intermittently brake the first wheel based on an output of the first wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the first wheel in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; and the second drive is configured to control the current driving the second motor to intermittently brake the second wheel based on an output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state and controlling, by the first drive, the current driving the first motor to intermittently brake the first wheel based on the output of the first wheel speed sensor in response to a state that the first and second processors are in a failure state; and controlling, by the second drive, the current driving the second motor to intermittently brake the second wheel based on the output of the second wheel speed sensor configured to measure the rotational speed of the second wheel in a response to the state that the first and second processors are in the failure state in order to “ensure that, following a failure of several components of its brake system, a vehicle is braked either automatically or a braking operation of the vehicle initiated by the driver is performed.” (¶0020)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Linhoff et al. (U.S. 2016/0325719A1) discloses “In both embodiments, the wheel speed information of all the wheels is available to each of the brake control devices independently of each other for brake pressure control.” (¶0028).
Conclusion
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights