DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, pages 6-8, filed May 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Heim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 Over Heim in view of Roudeau, as set forth below.
Heim does not disclose the newly added limitations in amended independent claims 1 and 2 directed to estimating a first vehicle acceleration with the driveline engaged, estimating a second vehicle acceleration with at least a portion of the driveline disengaged, determining whether to engage or disengage the driveline by comparing the first and second vehicle accelerations with the acceleration indicated by the acceleration condition.
Applicant argues that Roudeau does not compare each estimated acceleration against a separately obtained acceleration condition but instead determines whether a longitudinal acceleration difference is near zero for transparent driveline switching (see Roudeau Paras. 0013-14 and 0055).
The rejection does not rely on Roudeau alone for the claimed acceleration condition. Heim teaches obtaining and using an acceleration condition for auxiliary-brake control. Roudeau is relied upon for teaching estimation of vehicle acceleration under different driveline states and determining whether to engage or disengage the driveline based on those acceleration estimates and a difference between those acceleration estimates. It would have been obvious to apply Roudeau’s driveline-state acceleration estimation and selection technique within Heim’s acceleration-condition-based auxiliary-brake control.
Applicant further argues that combining Heim and Roudeau would require impermissible hindsight because Roudeau is directed to transparent free-wheeling transitions. This argument is not persuasive. Roudeau expressly provides the reason to use its driveline engagement/disengagement control, namely reducing fuel consumption when engine torque is not necessary and enabling free-wheeling operation (see Roudeau Paras. 0008 and 0037), while also allowing disengagement and re-engagement of the transmission transparently for the user (see Roudeau Para. 0091). The combination uses Roudeau’s driveline-state estimation and engagement/disengagement control in Heim’s known acceleration-condition-based auxiliary-brake control system for the same fuel-saving/free-wheeling purpose taught by Roudeau, not based on Applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-14 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heim in view of Roudeau.
This action is made final. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection because applicant amended independent claims 1 and 2 to include limitations previously recited in dependent claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1,” while claim 1 is directed to a computer system. Therefore, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 6 is directed to a method, whereas claim 1 is directed to a computer system. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
For purposes of prior art examination only, claim 6 is interpreted as intended to depend from claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heim et al. (EP 3260336 A1), in view of Roudeau et al. (US 20160046291 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Heim discloses a computer system (see fig. 1) comprising a processor device (4) configured to control an acceleration of a vehicle (see Paras. 0006 and 0030), the vehicle comprising a set of auxiliary brakes (see Para. 0002), comprising at least one auxiliary brake (6), for retarding the vehicle, wherein the processor device (4) is further configured to:
obtain an acceleration condition of the vehicle, the acceleration condition being
indicative of any one out of (see Paras. 0007-8):
an acceleration of the vehicle, the absolute value of which is below a
predetermined acceleration limit value (see Paras. 0021, 0059 and 0061);
a predefined positive acceleration of the vehicle (see Paras. 0020 and 0051-55
examples); and
a predefined negative acceleration of the vehicle (see Paras. 0019 and 0044-50
examples);
wherein the processor device (4) is further configured to:
obtain drive condition information of the vehicle (see Paras. 0016, 0041-43,
0060, and 0062), and on the basis of the drive condition information, determine whether
or not the vehicle can be controlled in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition using the set of auxiliary brakes (see Paras. 0009, 0013, 0060, and 0062);
and in response to determining that the vehicle can be controlled in accordance
with the obtained acceleration condition using the set of auxiliary brakes, control the set
of auxiliary brakes in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition of the vehicle (see Paras. 0010-12, and 0038-40).
Heim does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle comprises a driveline adapted to propel the vehicle, and wherein the processor device is further configured to control the set of auxiliary brakes in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition of the vehicle by employing a control procedure comprising:
estimating a first vehicle acceleration of the vehicle that can be obtained with the driveline of the vehicle being engaged;
estimating a second vehicle acceleration of the vehicle that can be obtained with at least a portion of the driveline of the vehicle being disengaged; and
determining whether to engage the driveline of the vehicle or to disengage at least a portion of the driveline of the vehicle by comparing the first vehicle acceleration and the second vehicle acceleration with the acceleration indicated by the acceleration condition.
Roudeau teaches wherein the vehicle comprises a driveline adapted to propel the vehicle, including an internal combustion engine connected to driving wheels by a transmission (see Paras. 0009 and 0034).
Roudeau further teaches a control procedure for a vehicle driveline in which vehicle acceleration is estimated under different driveline states, including a coupled/engaged driveline state and a decoupled/free-wheeling driveline state. In particular, Roudeau teaches estimating a first vehicle acceleration of the vehicle that can be obtained with the driveline of the vehicle being engaged (see Paras. 0012, 0040, and 0043), estimating a second vehicle acceleration of the vehicle that can be obtained with at least a portion of the driveline of the vehicle being disengaged (see Paras. 0011, 0039, and 0052-53), and determining whether to open or close the transmission chain based on the acceleration behavior associated with the coupled/engaged and decoupled/free-wheeling driveline states, including determining a difference in longitudinal acceleration between free-wheeling activated and free-wheeling deactivated states (see Paras. 0013-14 and 0055), and controlling the opening (see Paras. 0061-62) or closing (see Paras. 0077-79) of the transmission chain based on that acceleration difference.
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 computer system of Heim to include Roudeau’s control procedure for estimating vehicle acceleration under engaged and disengaged driveline states and determining whether to engage or disengage the driveline based on those acceleration estimates and a difference between the acceleration estimates, and to apply that driveline-state determination within Heim’s acceleration-condition-based auxiliary brake control, in order to reduce fuel consumption when engine torque is not necessary for moving or stopping the vehicle while maintaining desired vehicle acceleration/deceleration behavior (see Roudeau Para. 0008), and to operate the vehicle in a free-wheeling driving mode, or sailing mode, which maintains movement of the vehicle without tractive force (see Roudeau Paras. 0037 and 0091).
Regarding independent claim 2, Heim discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling an acceleration of a vehicle (see Paras. 0006 and 0030), the vehicle comprising a set of auxiliary brakes (see Para. 0002), comprising at least one auxiliary brake (6), for retarding the vehicle, the method further comprising:
by a processor device (4) of a computer system, obtaining an acceleration condition of the vehicle, the acceleration condition being indicative of any one out of (see Paras. 0007-8):
an acceleration of the vehicle, the absolute value of which is below a predetermined acceleration limit value (see Paras. 0021, 0059, and 0061);
a predefined positive acceleration of the vehicle (see Paras. 0020 and 0051-55 examples); and a predefined negative acceleration of the vehicle (see Paras. 0019 and 0044-50 examples);
by the processor device (4), obtaining drive condition information of the vehicle (see Paras. 0016, 0041-43, 0060, and 0062), and on the basis of the drive condition information, determining whether or not the vehicle can be controlled in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition using the set of auxiliary brakes (see Paras. 0009, 0013, 0060, and 0062);
and by the processor device (4), in response to determining that the vehicle can be controlled in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition using the set of auxiliary brakes, controlling the set of auxiliary brakes in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition of the vehicle (see Paras. 0010-12, and 0038-40).
Roudeau teaches wherein the vehicle comprises a driveline adapted to propel the vehicle, including an internal combustion engine connected to driving wheels by a transmission (see Paras. 0009 and 0034).
Roudeau further teaches a control procedure for a vehicle driveline in which vehicle acceleration is estimated under different driveline states, including a coupled/engaged driveline state and a decoupled/free-wheeling driveline state. In particular, Roudeau teaches estimating a first vehicle acceleration of the vehicle that can be obtained with the driveline of the vehicle being engaged (see Paras. 0012, 0040, and 0043), estimating a second vehicle acceleration of the vehicle that can be obtained with at least a portion of the driveline of the vehicle being disengaged (see Paras. 0011, 0039, and 0052-53), and determining whether to open or close the transmission chain based on the acceleration behavior associated with the coupled/engaged and decoupled/free-wheeling driveline states, including determining a difference in longitudinal acceleration between free-wheeling activated and free-wheeling deactivated states (see Paras. 0013-14 and 0055), and controlling the opening (see Paras. 0061-62) or closing (see Paras. 0077-79) of the transmission chain based on that acceleration difference.
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 method of Heim to include Roudeau’s control procedure for estimating vehicle acceleration under engaged and disengaged driveline states and determining whether to engage or disengage the driveline based on those acceleration estimates and a difference between the acceleration estimates, and to apply that driveline-state determination within Heim’s acceleration-condition-based auxiliary brake control method, in order to reduce fuel consumption when engine torque is not necessary for moving or stopping the vehicle while maintaining desired vehicle acceleration/deceleration behavior (see Roudeau Para. 0008), and to operate the vehicle in a free-wheeling driving mode, or sailing mode, which maintains movement of the vehicle without tractive force (see Roudeau Paras. 0037 and 0091).
Regarding claim 3, Heim as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein controlling the set of auxiliary brakes in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition of the vehicle is performed by the control procedure, further comprising:
by the processor device (4), obtaining a current acceleration of the vehicle (see Paras. 0011 and 0039-40);
by the processor device (4), when the current acceleration exceeds the acceleration indicated by the acceleration condition, applying an increased braking load on at least one of the set of auxiliary brakes (see Paras. 0011-12 and 0038-40); and
by the processor device (4), when the current acceleration is less than the acceleration indicated by the acceleration condition, applying a decreased braking load on at least one of the set of auxiliary brakes (see Paras. 0011-12 and 0038-40).
Regarding claim 4, Heim as modified teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
by the processor device (4), receiving a signal indicative of current acceleration of the vehicle (see Paras. 0039-40); and
wherein controlling the set of auxiliary brakes is performed using a closed loop control that uses the signal indicative of the current acceleration and the obtained acceleration condition (see Paras. 0011-12 and 0039-40).
For purposes of prior art examination only, claim 6 is interpreted as intended to depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Heim as modified discloses the method of claim 2.
Heim does not disclose wherein determining whether to engage the driveline of the vehicle or to disengage at least a portion of the driveline of the vehicle comprises: determining to engage the driveline of the vehicle when the driveline of the vehicle is disengaged and a difference between the first vehicle acceleration and the second vehicle acceleration is above a first threshold; and determining to disengage at least a portion of the driveline of the vehicle when the driveline of the vehicle is engaged and when the difference between the first vehicle acceleration and the second vehicle acceleration is above a second threshold.
Roudeau teaches wherein determining whether to engage the driveline of the vehicle or to disengage at least a portion of the driveline of the vehicle comprises:
determining to engage the driveline of the vehicle when the driveline of the vehicle is disengaged and a difference between the first vehicle acceleration and the second vehicle acceleration is above a first threshold (see Paras. 0020, 0077-79, and 086-89); and
determining to disengage at least a portion of the driveline of the vehicle when the driveline of the vehicle is engaged and when the difference between the first vehicle acceleration and the second vehicle acceleration is above a second threshold (see Paras. 0015, 0020, 0061-62, and 0068-74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the threshold determination taught by Roudeau with the method of Heim, as modified above, in order to minimize the fuel consumption of a motor vehicle when the engine torque is not necessary for moving or stopping the vehicle (see Roudeau Para. 0008) and to disengage and re-engage the transmission transparently for the user (see Roudeau Para. 0091), thereby enabling operation in a free-wheeling driving mode while maintaining a desired vehicle acceleration/deceleration behavior via the acceleration condition of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Heim as modified discloses the method of claim 2.
Heim does not disclose wherein determining whether or not the vehicle can be controlled in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition using the set of auxiliary brakes comprises detecting that there is an absence of a requested load of the engine of the vehicle
Roudeau teaches wherein determining whether or not the vehicle can be controlled in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition using the set of auxiliary brakes comprises detecting that there is an absence of a requested load of the engine of the vehicle (see Paras. 0003 and 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine detecting that there is an absence of a requested load of the engine of the vehicle taught by Roudeau with the method of Heim, as modified above, in order to ensure auxiliary brake control is applied specifically during conditions where engine torque is not necessary for moving or stopping the vehicle (see Para. 0008) and to operate the vehicle in a “free-wheeling” driving mode (“sailing mode”), which maintains the movement of the vehicle without tractive force (see Para. 0037).
Regarding claim 8, Heim as modified teaches the method of claim 7.
Heim does not disclose wherein detecting that there is an absence of a requested load of the engine of the vehicle comprises: by the processor device, detecting that an accelerator pedal of the vehicle is in a released state.
Roudeau teaches wherein detecting that there is an absence of a requested load of the engine of the vehicle comprises: by the processor device, detecting that an accelerator pedal of the vehicle is in a released state (see Para. 0088, “complete release of the accelerator pedal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine detecting that an accelerator pedal of the vehicle is in a released state, as taught by Roudeau, with the method of Heim, as modified above, in order to utilize a known input device (accelerator pedal) for a known purpose (determining desired load) to yield predictable results of ensuring that there is no requested load in the released state.
Regarding claim 9, Heim as modified by Roudeau, teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
by the processor device (4), when the set of auxiliary brakes is controlled in accordance with the acceleration condition indicating the predefined negative acceleration of the vehicle (see Paras. 0019 and 0044-50 examples), and in response to obtaining an indication to adjust the negative acceleration condition of the vehicle (see Paras. 0034-36 and 0051-55 examples), adjusting the predefined negative acceleration of the vehicle with a predefined negative acceleration modifier (see Paras. 0018-19 and 0035-36).
Regarding claim 10, Heim as modified by Roudeau, teaches a vehicle (see Para. 0006) comprising a set of auxiliary brakes (see Para. 0002) and the computer system (4) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Heim as modified by Roudeau, teaches the vehicle of claim 10:
wherein the vehicle comprises a user interface for setting an acceleration condition (see Paras. 0007 and 0025);
wherein the user interface is adapted to assume at least three discrete positions (see Paras. 0025, and 0035); and wherein at least three discrete positions are mapped to a respective acceleration condition (see Paras. 0018-0019, 0021, 0025 and 0035).
Regarding claim 12, Heim as modified by Roudeau, discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processor device (4), the method of claim 2 (see Paras. 0032 and 0038-40).
Regarding claim 13, Heim as modified by Roudeau, teaches a control system comprising one or more control units configured to perform the method of claim 2 (see Paras. 0032 and 0038-40).
Regarding claim 14, Heim as modified by Roudeau, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device (4), cause the processor device (4) to perform the method of claim 2 (see Paras. 0032, and 0038-40).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/K.A.A./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights