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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on April 6, 2026. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-16 remain pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 20120325573 A1), in view of Crain et al. (US 20100314182 A1) herein Crain.
In regards to Claim 1, Miller discloses the following:
1. A braking assist method for a vehicle, (see Abstract “vehicle equipped for regenerative and non-regenerative braking”) the method comprising:
receiving a brake switch signal indicative of a state of a mechanical brake actuation system; (see at least [0018] “non-regenerative braking”, “service brakes 24” and “Braking occurs in response to a braking demand signal generated by a brake pedal position/force sensor 34”, see also Figs. 1 and 2, items 24 and 34)
receiving a motor speed signal indicative of a speed of a traction motor, (see at least [0031] “vehicle speed” and claim 1 “vehicle speed sensor” and [0024] “Vehicle speed can be sourced from a conventional drive shaft tachometer or from the brake system and anti-lock brake system controller 28.”) the traction motor for applying rotational torque to a wheel of the vehicle; (see at least Fig. 2 and [0020] “traction motor/generator 14” and claim 1 “traction motor”)
Miller discloses a vehicle speed sensor that is sourced from a conventional drive shaft tachometer. Per Miller Fig. 2 and [0020], drive shaft 17 is coupled to electric traction motor 14 via transmission 16 and optional clutch 19. Accordingly, the drive shaft speed sensor of Miller represents a speed signal indicative of the speed of traction motor 14.
Miller suggests the following:
determining from changes in a value of the received motor speed signal over time a deceleration rate of the traction motor; (see at least [0037] “On rear wheel drive hybrid or electric vehicles, regenerative braking is applied to the rear wheels (the drive wheels) when the driver depresses the brake pedal just enough to slow the vehicle at a threshold rate (<D.sub.1 ft/sec.sup.2” and [0042] “vehicle deceleration rate”)
Miller discloses using vehicle deceleration terms (see [0042] and Figs. 7, 8) and performing brake blending based on vehicle deceleration. It should also be noted, as above, that vehicle speed of Miller is sourced from a conventional drive shaft tachometer, therefore vehicle speed of Miller is equivalent to the motor speed claimed. However, Miller is silent as to the conversion of vehicle speed to vehicle deceleration. It is also noted that, mathematically, acceleration/deceleration is the first derivative of velocity with respect to time, a well-known mathematical fact.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify the teachings of Miller to use the first derivative of the drive shaft tachometer signal of Miller as a deceleration signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing the number of sensors and simplifying the system. Motor generators in electric vehicles are typically permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) that require electrical angle signals for field-oriented commutation control, or asynchronous induction motors that require rotor position to time commutation phasing. In applications that do not require wheel speed monitoring, there would be clear motivation to reduce the number of sensors required to accomplish the features of Miller by using motor speed sensing. Further, the results of this modification would have been predictable.
Further, for the sake of compact prosecution, Crain teaches these features. (see at least [0105] “controller 552 determines a speed of motor 370, and hence of vehicle 100, based on the position of a foot throttle pedal 632” and [0115] “When the foot pedal is depressed, the amount of regenerative braking is proportional to the deceleration rate of the electric motor 370”)
As best understood, Miller suggests the following (see at least Fig. 4), however the following is more explicitly taught by Crain:
and based on a determination that the mechanical brake actuation system is in an on state and on the deceleration rate of the traction motor, commanding the traction motor to apply a supplemental braking torque to the wheel, wherein an amount of the supplemental braking torque applied to the wheel is based on the deceleration rate of the traction motor. (see at least [0115] ”the amount of regenerative braking in addition with being drive mode specific distinguishes between when the foot pedal is depressed and not depressed. When the foot pedal is depressed, the amount of regenerative braking is proportional to the deceleration rate of the electric motor 370.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Crain with the invention of Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the drivability of vehicle, and/or to provide a strong engine-braking feel, and/or more provide for more efficient operation (Crain, [0114]) and/or with the motivation of reducing the difficulties posed by unbalanced braking. (Miller, [0002]-[0004])
In regards to Claim 2, Miller discloses the following:
2. The braking assist method of claim 1, wherein the mechanical brake actuation system includes a brake pedal, the method further comprising determining from the brake switch signal whether the brake pedal has been pressed by an operator of the vehicle. (see at least [0018] “non-regenerative braking”, “service brakes 24” and “Braking occurs in response to a braking demand signal generated by a brake pedal position/force sensor 34”, see also Figs. 1 and 2, items 24 and 34)
In regards to Claim 3, Miller discloses the following:
3. The braking assist method of claim 2, further comprising determining an amount of pressure applied to the brake pedal (see at least [0018] “non-regenerative braking”, “service brakes 24” and “Braking occurs in response to a braking demand signal generated by a brake pedal position/force sensor 34”) and preventing the commanding while the pressure is less than a predetermined threshold amount. (see at least [0004] “"dead band" over a portion of the brake pedal travel”)
In regards to Claim 4, Miller discloses the following:
4. The braking assist method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the supplemental braking torque to be applied is selected using at least one of a lookup table, (see at least Fig. 4 and [0036]-[0037] “look-up table”) a model, (optional) and algorithm for converting the rate of deceleration of the traction motor to the amount of the supplemental braking torque. (optional)
See also Crain. (see at least [0113] “response curves” and [0115] ”the amount of regenerative braking in addition with being drive mode specific distinguishes between when the foot pedal is depressed and not depressed. When the foot pedal is depressed, the amount of regenerative braking is proportional to the deceleration rate of the electric motor 370.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Crain with the invention of Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the drivability of vehicle, and/or to provide a strong engine-braking feel, and/or more provide for more efficient operation (Crain, [0114]) and/or with the motivation of reducing the difficulties posed by unbalanced braking. (Miller, [0002]-[0004])
In regards to Claims 9-12: Claims 9-12 are the electric vehicles performing the methods of claims 1-4, respectively, and are rejected the same or similar to claims 1-4, above.
In regards to Claims 17-19: Claims 17-19 are the braking assist systems performing the methods of claims 1-2 and 4, respectively, and are rejected the same or similar to claims 1-2 and 4, above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Crain as applied, in further view of Minamiura (JP 2012182935 A).
In regards to Claim 5, Miller does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Minamiura:
5. The braking assist method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether a current threshold of at least one of the traction motor or a battery of the vehicle has been exceeded; (see at least [0014] “allowable current value as the maximum current at which lithium metal does not deposit on the negative electrode of the battery” and [0072] “in order to protect the battery 18, it becomes necessary to quickly reduce the regenerative braking force”) and based on a determination that the current threshold has been exceeded, engaging a parking brake of the vehicle to provide an additional braking force. (see at least [0073] “In this case, it is necessary to increase the hydraulic braking force in response to the decrease in the regenerative braking force”, see also [0110] “Every time the regeneration restriction is turned on, it becomes necessary to reduce the regenerative braking torque while increasing the hydraulic braking torque”)
Examiner Note: It is noted that Minamiura does not explicitly teach a “parking” brake. However, Applicant disclosure does not provide any special definitions, structure or functionality for the claimed parking brake, nor does applicant provide any special definition for parking. The broadest reasonable interpretation of parking may therefore include stopping a vehicle for any significant length of time. Accordingly, any brake that is able to be applied to a vehicle stop condition may be within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a parking brake, as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Minamiura with the invention of Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing reduced battery performance due to the deposition of lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrodes. (Minamiura, [0007])
In regards to Claim 13: Claim 13 is the electric vehicle performing the method of claim 5, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 5, above.
Claims 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Crain as applied, in further view of Crombez (US 20080300762 A1).
In regards to Claim 6, Miller discloses the following:
6. The braking assist method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a grade of a surface being traversed by the vehicle; (see at least [0037] “Regenerative braking could also occur at the direction of a speed control device (in response to vehicle speed and slope sensors) to retard vehicle acceleration down a hill.”
Miller does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Crombez:
and preventing the commanding while the grade is greater than a predetermined threshold grade. (see at least [0012] “providing a second maximum permissible amount of non-friction braking when the vehicle is being operated upon a surface having a magnitude of inclination greater than the first predetermined threshold”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Crombez with the invention of Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing regenerative braking from causing one or more wheels to slip undesirably on a severe downgrade. (Crombez, [0004])
In regards to Claim 14: Claim 14 is the electric vehicle performing the method of claim 6, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 6, above.
In regards to Claim 20: Claim 20 is the braking assist system performing the method of claim 6, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 6, above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Crain and Crombez as applied, in further view of Cho et al. (US 20210394738 A1) herein Cho.
In regards to claim 7, Miller is silent, but Cho teaches the following:
7. The braking assist method of claim 6, wherein the determining the grade of the surface is performed using signals received from an inertial measurement unit (IMU). (see at least [0042] “sensing device 220 may use at least one of sensors such as… an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). The driving information may include… a road slope (gradient)”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Cho with the invention of Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing determination of a score for each of the road surface slopes traveled (Cho, [0014]) such that proper timing of engagement and disengagement of a disconnector is made. (Cho, [0057])
In regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 is the electric vehicle performing the method of claim 7, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 7, above.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in few of Crain as applied, in further view of Mochizuki (JP 2020062985 A).
In regards to Claim 8, Miller does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Mochizuki:
8. The braking assist method of claim 1, further comprising determining an amount of the supplemental braking torque to be applied, wherein the determined amount of supplemental braking torque, when applied, causes the vehicle to decelerate at a rate greater than a minimum threshold deceleration rate and less than a maximum deceleration rate. (see at least [0029] “if the actual deceleration RDE is lower… than the target deceleration TDE, the ECU 11 returns to step S303 and continues to increase the braking force applied to the vehicle 1 so as to further increase the actual deceleration” and [0026]-[0027] “In step S303… ECU 11 increases the amount of regeneration by the regenerative braking (the amount of power generated by the alternator 6 ) to strengthen the regenerative braking force, thereby increasing the braking force applied to the vehicle 1”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Mochizuki with the invention of Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing reduced drivability such as steering and braking when target speed is set to a high speed and the vehicle is on downhill slopes, which may cause a decrease in drivability (Mochizuki, [0004]) and/or with the motivation of reducing the difficulties posed by unbalanced braking. (Miller, [0002]-[0004]
In regards to Claim 16: Claim 16 is the electric vehicle performing the method of claim 8, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 8, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are accepted, and persuasive. The rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
June 9, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights