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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heim (EP 3260336 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Heim discloses a computer system (4) 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).
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).
Regarding claim 3, Heim discloses the method of claim 2, wherein controlling the set of auxiliary brake in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition of the vehicle is performed by employing a control procedure 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 discloses 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).
Regarding claim 9, Heim discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
by the processor device (4), when the set of auxiliary brake 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 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 discloses 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 discloses 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heim (EP 3260336 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Roudeau (US 20160046291 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Heim discloses the method of claim 2, Heim further discloses wherein the vehicle comprises a driveline adapted to propel the vehicle (see Paras. 0002 and 0043).
Heim does not disclose the remaining limitations of claim 5.
Roudeau teaches the control procedure comprises:
by the processor device, 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);
by the processor device, 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, 0052-53, and 0039); and
by the processor device, 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 (see Paras. 0013-14 and 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the control procedure taught by Roudeau with the method of claim 2, wherein the vehicle comprises a driveline adapted to propel the vehicle that is disclosed in Heim, 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 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 6, Heim, as modified, teaches the method of claim 5.
Heim does not disclose 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 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 filling date of the claimed invention to combine the threshold determination taught by Roudeau with the method of claim 5 as modified in Heim, 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 Para. 0008) and to disengage and re-engage the transmission transparently for the user (see 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 discloses the method of claim 2.
Heim does not disclose the remaining limitations of claim 7.
Roudeau teaches wherein determining whether or not the vehicle can be controlled in accordance with the obtained acceleration condition using the set of auxiliary brake 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 filling 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 claim 2 as disclosed in Heim, 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 the remaining limitations of claim 8.
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 filling 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 claim 7, as modified in Heim, 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 Para. 0008).
Conclusion
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
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616