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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzourakis (US 11,046,330) in view of Ulrich (US 2022/0169222), and Kurbasa (US 2020/0307534)
As to claim 1 Katzourakis discloses an apparatus for controlling an autonomous vehicle brake, comprising:
a first brake controller configured to control a brake module of a vehicle by receiving a deceleration command from a controller for controlling driving of the vehicle(Abstract “A vehicle actuator system includes an actuator, a first actuator controller that is operable to control operation of the actuator and is operable to determine a first value for a parameter that relates to operation of the actuator”, Column 4 lines 59-65 “To cause operation of the vehicle 100 according to these desired states, supervisor 220 transmits commands to the various actuators. The command may be, for example, in the form of a request for a specific action. As an example, a request for braking may specify a desired braking force, a desired deceleration rate, or a desired fluid pressure to be supplied to the pistons of the brakes.”);
a second brake controller configured to control the brake module of the vehicle by receiving a deceleration command from the controller(Column 4 lines 59-65 “To cause operation of the vehicle 100 according to these desired states, supervisor 220 transmits commands to the various actuators. The command may be, for example, in the form of a request for a specific action. As an example, a request for braking may specify a desired braking force, a desired deceleration rate, or a desired fluid pressure to be supplied to the pistons of the brakes.”, Column 10 lines 35-48 “FIG. 6 is an illustration showing a braking system 618 that includes a supervisor 620, a primary brake control module 622, a secondary brake control module 624, braking actuators 651, 652, 653, 654, and pressurized fluid lines 656 (i.e., brake lines) that deliver pressurized fluid from the primary brake control module 622 and/or the secondary brake control module 624 in order to cause operation of the braking actuators, 651, 652, 653, 654, which may be fluid pressure operated pistons that cause engagement of friction braking components, such as brake pads and rotors, to cause deceleration of one or more road wheels of a vehicle, such as the road wheels 104 of the vehicle 100. The braking system 618 is similar to the vehicle actuator system 518 except as described otherwise herein.”),; and
a sensor unit configured to detect a driving state of the vehicle to transmit the detected driving state to each of the first and second brake controllers independently(Column 1 lines 50-Column 2 lines 1-2 “Another aspect of the disclosure is a vehicle actuator system that includes an actuator, a first actuator controller that is operable to control operation of the actuator based on a desired value for a parameter, a second actuator controller that is operable to control operation of the actuator, and one or more sensors that are operable to determine an actual value that corresponds to the parameter, wherein a fault is identified in response to determining that the actual value does not agree with the desired value. The first actuator controller is switched from an activated state in which the first actuator controller is responsible for control of the actuator to a deactivated state in which the first actuator controller is not responsible for control of the actuator in response to identification of the fault. The second actuator controller is switched from a deactivated state in which the second actuator controller is not responsible for control of the actuator to an activated state in which the second actuator controller is responsible for control of the actuator in response to identification of the fault.”)., wherein:
Katzourakis does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor unit comprises:
a first sensor configured to detect a state of the vehicle and to transmit the detected sate to the first brake controller, and a second sensor configured to detect the state of the vehicle and to transmit the detected state to the second brake controller, and wherein the first brake controller, when holding control of the brake module, is configured to receive the state of the vehicle from the first sensor and to control the brake module, and the second brake controller, when holding control of the brake module, is configured to receive the state of the vehicle from the second sensor and to control the brake module
Ulrich teaches wherein the sensor unit comprises:
a first sensor configured to detect a state of the vehicle and to transmit the detected sate to the first brake controller (Paragraph 57 “The two sensor arrangements 126 and 128 of the brake actuation units 114 are preferably each inherently safe, i.e. a faulty signal is recognized. The precise safety requirements can be derived from a risk analysis in the actual application, but in general the starting point should be an ASIL D requirement according to ISO 26262. This in turn means that the two sensors or sensor arrangements 126 and 128 must each contain redundant signal paths.”), and
a second sensor configured to detect the state of the vehicle and to transmit the detected state to the second brake controller(Paragraph 57 “The two sensor arrangements 126 and 128 of the brake actuation units 114 are preferably each inherently safe, i.e. a faulty signal is recognized. The precise safety requirements can be derived from a risk analysis in the actual application, but in general the starting point should be an ASIL D requirement according to ISO 26262. This in turn means that the two sensors or sensor arrangements 126 and 128 must each contain redundant signal paths.”) , and
wherein the first brake controller, when holding control of the brake module, is configured to receive the state of the vehicle from the first sensor and to control the brake module (Paragraph 37 “perform at least part of the method, preferably the primary braking system comprises a first electronic control unit, wherein the first control unit is configured to check the actuation information with respect to its validity and/or plausibility, and/or actuate the primary braking system to implement a brake request.”), and the second brake controller, when holding control of the brake module, is configured to receive the state of the vehicle from the second sensor and to control the brake module (Paragraph 20 “According to a further embodiment, it is provided that the secondary braking system is configured so as, on failure of the primary braking system, to decelerate the vehicle according to a brake request determined from the second actuation information. Accordingly, the second braking system is not dependent on the first braking system for implementation of a brake request, but may completely replace the first braking system in the case of a failure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Katzourakis to include the teachings of multiple distinct controllers for the purpose of providing redundant control of the braking system in response to failure of the primary control system.
Katzourakis does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sensor is directly connected to the first brake controller and the second sensor is directly connected to the second brake controller so that each brake controller receives the detected state independently form its corresponding sensor.
Kurbasa Teaches wherein the first sensor is directly connected to the first brake controller and the second sensor is directly connected to the second brake controller so that each brake controller receives the detected state independently form its corresponding sensor (Abstract “The present disclosure relates to a wheel speed sensor system (1), comprising: one or more first wheel speed sensors (2a, 2b), a first application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (4) configured to receive one or more first wheel speed signals from the one or more first wheel speed sensors (2a, 2b) and to convert the one or more first wheel speed signals to first wheel speed data, and a first electronic control unit (ECU) (6) configured to receive the first wheel speed data from the first ASIC (4) via a data link (8) between the first ECU (6) and the first ASIC (4); and one or more second wheel speed sensors (3a, 3b), a second ASIC (5) configured to receive one or more second wheel speed signals from the one or more second wheel speed sensors (3a, 3b) and to convert the one or more second wheel speed signals to second wheel speed data, and a second ECU (7) configured to receive the second wheel speed data from the second ASIC (5) via a data link (9) between the second ECU (7) and the second ASIC (5).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Katzourakis to include the teachings of multiple sensors connected to each controller independently for the purpose of providing redundant control of the braking system in response to failure of the primary control system.
As to claim 3 Ulrich teaches an apparatus wherein the first brake controller and the second brake controller are commonly connected to the controller through respective communication networks so as to receive respective deceleration commands from the controller (Paragraph 37).
As to claim 4 Ulrich teaches an apparatus wherein the first brake controller and the second brake controller switch control of the brake module depending on whether a communication error occurs therebetween (Paragraph 52).
As to claim 5 Ulrich teaches an apparatus wherein when a communication error occurs between the first brake controller and the second brake controller, the second brake controller is configured to acquire the control of the brake module(Paragraph 85).
As to claim 6 Ulrich teaches an apparatus wherein the first brake controller is configured to transfer the control of the brake module to the second brake controller when a predetermined first control transfer condition is satisfied(Paragraph 52, 85)..
As to claim 7 Ulrich teaches an apparatus wherein the second brake controller is configured to transfer the control of the brake module to the first brake controller when a predetermined second control transfer condition is satisfied (Paragraph 70, 84).
As to claim 8 Ulrich teaches an apparatus wherein the first brake controller is configured to operate in a degradation mode when both the predetermined first control transfer condition and the predetermined second control transfer condition are satisfied(Paragraph 70, 84).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzourakis (US 11,046,330) in view of Ulrich (US 2022/0169222), and Kurbasa (US 2020/0307534) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of VandenBerg III (US 2019/0168724)
As to claim 2 VandenBerg III teaches an apparatus wherein the state of the vehicle is an inertia of the vehicle (Paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Katzourakis to include the teachings of using the inertia of the vehicle for the purpose of determining the state of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights