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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim of priority for foreign application KR10-2023-0185328, filed 12/19/2023.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0020-0021] & [0032] recite “…costing…”, which appears to be a typographical error.
[0027] & [0034] recite “…one state…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error.
[0075] recites “…activated and”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[0120] recites “…in accordance with the first setting data used the one-pedal mode one…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, 16, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…selection on/off…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Claims 5-6 and 16 recite “…costing…”, which appears to be a typographical error.
Claims 10 and 19 recite “…that stop…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the manipulation device in claims 1-11 (See at least [0081] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to allow selection on/off states of a one-pedal mode…”
the input device in claims 1-11 (See at least [0085] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to allow setting of creep allowance in parking or creep prohibition in parking…”
the vehicle speed detector in claims 1-11 (See at least [0090] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to detect a vehicle speed…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6 and 9 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 6 recites “…a reduction in vehicle speed”. It is unclear whether “vehicle speed” refers to the same speed as the “vehicle speed” already recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “…apply braking force…”. It is unclear whether the “braking force” refers to the same force as the “braking force” already recited in parent claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werner of JP 7233549 B2, filed 01/14/2020, hereinafter “Werner”.
Regarding claim 12, Werner discloses:
A driving control method of a vehicle, the driving control method comprising: determining, by a controller, on/off states of a one-pedal mode and (See at least [0042]: “The vehicle 100 can be enabled to provide at least one of the "one pedal feeling" feature and the "creep" feature by changing the vehicle 100 to at least one of the "one pedal feeling" mode and the "creep" mode via a user interface of the vehicle 100 (e.g., via a driving experience switch).”)
information as to setting of creep allowance in parking/creep prohibition in parking; (See at least [0080]: “…the start of creeping of the vehicle 100 and/or the unloading of the electric machine 105 is delayed until the brake 102 has reliably brought the vehicle 100 to a standstill. It is preferable that creeping travel is not started until the accelerator pedal 107 or the brake or brake pedal 105 is operated” & [0070]: “…When creeping is controlled using the brake pedal 106 without creating brake pressure in one or more brakes 102, the torque generated through the electric machine 105 can range from creep torque to parking torque. The stopping torque is reached (at this point the vehicle 100 comes to a standstill)…”)
determining, by the controller, whether or not a vehicle speed is not higher than a predetermined reference speed for creep initiation, in response to determining that i) the one-pedal mode is in the on state and ii) creep allowance in parking is set; and (See at least [0088]: “The control unit 101 may be configured so that, if necessary, a shift from a gear stage in which driving is not possible (e.g., gear stages N and P) to one or more gear stages in which the vehicle 100 will naturally creep (e.g., gear stages D and R) is only possible when the brake pedal 106 is depressed (possibly at a driving speed below a certain creep speed)…” & [0077]: “The method 400 includes identifying 401 whether a one-pedal feeling function should be provided via the accelerator pedal 107 of the vehicle 100 or a creep function should be provided via the brake pedal 106 of the vehicle 100 . For example, the driver of the vehicle 100 may have enabled the one-pedal feeling feature and/or the creep feature via a user interface of the vehicle 100 (e.g., via a switch).”)
controlling, by the controller, a motor configured to drive the vehicle such that the motor generates a creep torque in the on state of the one-pedal mode, when the vehicle speed is not higher than the predetermined reference speed for creep initiation. (See at least [0088]: “The control unit 101 may be configured so that, if necessary, a shift from a gear stage in which driving is not possible (e.g., gear stages N and P) to one or more gear stages in which the vehicle 100 will naturally creep (e.g., gear stages D and R) is only possible when the brake pedal 106 is depressed (possibly at a driving speed below a certain creep speed)…”)
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(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki of JP 2021133727 A, filed 02/25/2020, hereinafter “Suzuki”.
Regarding claim 1, Werner teaches:
A driving control apparatus of a vehicle, the driving control apparatus comprising: a manipulation device configured to allow selection on/off states of a one-pedal mode; (See at least [0042]: “The vehicle 100 can be enabled to provide at least one of the "one pedal feeling" feature and the "creep" feature by changing the vehicle 100 to at least one of the "one pedal feeling" mode and the "creep" mode via a user interface of the vehicle 100 (e.g., via a driving experience switch).”)
an input device configured to allow setting of creep allowance in parking or creep prohibition in parking; (See at least [0080]: “…the start of creeping of the vehicle 100 and/or the unloading of the electric machine 105 is delayed until the brake 102 has reliably brought the vehicle 100 to a standstill. It is preferable that creeping travel is not started until the accelerator pedal 107 or the brake or brake pedal 105 is operated” & [0070]: “…When creeping is controlled using the brake pedal 106 without creating brake pressure in one or more brakes 102, the torque generated through the electric machine 105 can range from creep torque to parking torque. The stopping torque is reached (at this point the vehicle 100 comes to a standstill)…”)
a controller connected to the manipulation device, the input device, and a driving information detector, (See at least [0060]: “…the control unit 101 can make a fundamental decision as to whether or not a handover from the electric machine 105 to the brake 102 should take place at all during the stopping and/or parking process. This decision may be made, for example, according to comfort preferences (eg, determined by the user of the vehicle 100 via a user interface of the vehicle 100)…” & [0011]: “The control unit may be arranged to determine gradient information relating to the gradient of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling. Grade information may be determined, for example, using a grade sensor on the vehicle…”. See also [0015] regarding the control unit determining displacement of the accelerator pedal.)
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the vehicle speed (See at least [0088]: “The control unit 101 may be configured so that, if necessary, a shift from a gear stage in which driving is not possible (e.g., gear stages N and P) to one or more gear stages in which the vehicle 100 will naturally creep (e.g., gear stages D and R) is only possible when the brake pedal 106 is depressed (possibly at a driving speed below a certain creep speed)…” & [0077]: “The method 400 includes identifying 401 whether a one-pedal feeling function should be provided via the accelerator pedal 107 of the vehicle 100 or a creep function should be provided via the brake pedal 106 of the vehicle 100 . For example, the driver of the vehicle 100 may have enabled the one-pedal feeling feature and/or the creep feature via a user interface of the vehicle 100 (e.g., via a switch).”)
control a motor configured to drive the vehicle such that the motor generates a creep torque in the on state of the one-pedal mode, in response to determining that the vehicle speed is not higher than the predetermined reference speed for creep initiation. (See at least [0088]: “The control unit 101 may be configured so that, if necessary, a shift from a gear stage in which driving is not possible (e.g., gear stages N and P) to one or more gear stages in which the vehicle 100 will naturally creep (e.g., gear stages D and R) is only possible when the brake pedal 106 is depressed (possibly at a driving speed below a certain creep speed)…”)
Werner does not explicitly teach:
a vehicle speed detector configured to detect a vehicle speed; and
However, Werner teaches activating the friction brakes to generate a braking torque “only when the brake pedal depression information indicates that the vehicle needs to travel slower than the driving speed achievable with minimum torque” (See at least [0022] of Werner). Therefore, since the vehicle speed is used to determine when to activate the friction brakes, the teachings of Werner render obvious a vehicle speed detector that detects a vehicle speed, which provides the benefit of “the comfort and/or energy efficiency of the creep function can be further improved” (See [0022] of Werner).
Additionally, Suzuki teaches:
a vehicle speed detector configured to detect a vehicle speed; and (See at least [0024]: “An input port of the ECU 6 is connected to various sensors and switches such as…a vehicle speed sensor 63…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner’s system with Suzuki’s vehicle speed detector configured to detect a vehicle speed. Doing so would be obvious to “improv[e] the operability for the driver” (See [0074] of Suzuki).
Regarding claim 4, Werner and Suzuki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Suzuki additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to perform a control operation for the one-pedal mode when the vehicle is accelerated in the on state of the one-pedal mode such that the vehicle speed is not lower than a predetermined critical speed for acceleration determination, after controlling the motor to generate the creep torque. (See at least [0035]: “When the accelerator opening degree transitions from the stationary region to the creeping region while the one-pedal drive mode is in use, the ECU 6 causes the drive motor 4 to output a creeping drive torque. The creep driving torque is, for example, a torque that can cause the vehicle 1 to travel at a predetermined creep driving speed…” & [0038]: “When the accelerator opening degree transitions from the creep driving region to the one-pedal drive driving region while the one-pedal drive mode is in use, the ECU 6 controls the one-pedal drive driving torque as the powering torque of the drive motor 4 in accordance with the accelerator opening degree. The one-pedal drive driving torque is a driving torque that drives the vehicle 1 based on the accelerator opening degree, and is calculated based on the accelerator opening degree and the vehicle speed.”)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki and further in view of Ochocinski of US 20160264020 A1, filed 03/09/2015, hereinafter “Ochocinski”.
Regarding claim 2, Werner and Suzuki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Werner additionally teaches:
receive setting information as to creep allowance in parking or creep prohibition in parking selected by the driver through the input device. (See at least [0047]: “At time 301, the driver of vehicle 100 removes his foot from accelerator pedal 107, thereby signaling (via the one-pedal feeling feature) that vehicle 100 should be stopped. For comfort reasons, the digital driver request (represented by lifting the foot off the accelerator pedal 107) can be implemented in a filtered (abbreviated) form to produce a comfortable braking of the vehicle 100. The extracted driver request change curve 311 shows how the drive torque is smoothly reduced and then the (negative) deceleration torque is smoothly increased in order to bring the vehicle 100 to a stop…”)
Werner and Suzuki in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to: control operation of a display device to display a user setting menu for enabling a driver to select one of creep allowance in parking or creep prohibition in parking; and
Ochocinski teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: control operation of a display device to display a user setting menu for enabling a driver to select one of creep allowance in parking or creep prohibition in parking; and (See at least Fig. 2, [0064]: “The creep torque options selected by the user can be displayed on an instrument cluster or touch panel within the vehicle 10” & [0067]: “More than three creep torque options or less than three creep torque options may be presented for the forward drive mode, the reverse drive mode, or both. In some examples, two creep torque options, on or off, are presented for the forward drive mode and two creep torque options, on or off, are presented for the reverse drive mode.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner and Suzuki’s system with Ochocinski’s technique of displaying a user setting menu for enabling a driver to select one of creep allowance in parking or creep prohibition in parking. Doing so would be obvious for “providing a user with an ability to configure an amount of forward creep torque separately from an amount of reverse creep torque” (See [0078] of Ochocinski).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki and further in view of Zhang of US 20220363141 A1, filed 12/02/2020, hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 3, Werner and Suzuki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Werner and Suzuki in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a previous gear stage is an R-stage and whether a current stage is a D stage, when i) the on state of the one-pedal mode is selected and ii) creep allowance in parking is set; and
determine whether the vehicle speed is not higher than the predetermined reference speed for creep initiation in response to determining that i) the previous gear stage is the R-stage and ii) the current stage is the D stage.
Zhang teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a previous gear stage is an R-stage and whether a current stage is a D stage, when i) the on state of the one-pedal mode is selected and ii) creep allowance in parking is set; and (See at least [0045]: “In step S12, when it is detected that the single pedal control mode is activated, the new energy vehicle is controlled to enter a creep mode according to at least one of a gear position of the new energy vehicle, an action of a brake pedal of the new energy vehicle, and a speed of the new energy vehicle” & [0048]: “Second, in the case that the gear position of the new energy vehicle is shifted to a drive gear position (that is, the gear position is shifted from the reverse gear position to the drive gear position, or from a neutral gear position to the drive gear position), the new energy vehicle is controlled to enter the creep mode. That is, the driver's driving intention is to start driving, in such condition, it is proper to control the new vehicle to enter the creep mode firstly, and then adjust according to the operations of the driver.”)
determine whether the vehicle speed is not higher than the predetermined reference speed for creep initiation in response to determining that i) the previous gear stage is the R-stage and ii) the current stage is the D stage. (See at least [0049]: “Third, in the case that the gear position of the new energy vehicle is a drive gear position, the speed is smaller than a preset speed, and after the brake pedal is switched from a depressed state to a fully released state, the new energy vehicle is controlled to enter the creep mode.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner and Suzuki’s system with Zhang’s technique of determining whether a previous gear stage is an R-stage and whether a current stage is D stage when the on stage of the one-pedal mode is selected and creep allowance in parking is set. Doing so would be obvious to determine whether “the creep mode is more suitable” (See [0047] of Zhang).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki and further in view of Hoshi of WO 2018189896 A1, filed 04/14/2017, hereinafter “Hoshi”.
Regarding claim 5, Werner and Suzuki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Werner and Suzuki in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein: a plurality of regenerative braking levels is set in the controller; and
the controller is configured to control the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among the plurality of regenerative braking levels during execution of a control operation for the one-pedal mode, and
linearly vary a costing torque according to each of the regenerative braking levels from a predetermined coasting-variable reference speed to a predetermined stop control entrance speed in a coasting torque convergence range as a vehicle speed range i) not higher than the predetermined coasting-variable reference speed and ii) not lower than the predetermined stop control entrance speed.
Hoshi teaches:
wherein: a plurality of regenerative braking levels is set in the controller; and (See at least [0046]: “…the regeneration mode changeover switch 29 allows selection between a weak coasting regeneration mode and a strong coasting regeneration mode”)
the controller is configured to control the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among the plurality of regenerative braking levels during execution of a control operation for the one-pedal mode, and (See at least [0008]: “FIG. 10 is a characteristic diagram showing the distribution ratio of coast regeneration torque, cooperative regeneration torque, and mechanical brake (hydraulic braking torque) between a weak coast regeneration mode and a strong coast regeneration mode in the first embodiment…” & [0048]: “The "weak coast regeneration mode" refers to a mode in which the braking force generation region due to the weak coast torque TLo, which is the amount of coast regeneration due to the accelerator release operation, is set to a negative target driving force region equivalent to engine braking…”)
linearly vary a costing torque according to each of the regenerative braking levels from a predetermined coasting-variable reference speed to a predetermined stop control entrance speed in a coasting torque convergence range as a vehicle speed range i) not higher than the predetermined coasting-variable reference speed and ii) not lower than the predetermined stop control entrance speed. (See at least Fig. 6, [0048]: “…the weak coast torque TLo characteristic in the "weak coast regeneration mode" remains constant at a weak coast torque TLo equivalent to engine braking when the vehicle speed VSP decreases due to deceleration, as shown by the dashed line characteristic in FIG. As the vehicle approaches a stop, the coasting regeneration amount is gradually reduced, and when the vehicle reaches a stopping region below the coasting end vehicle speed, the drive force is shifted to a positive target drive force (creep torque)…” & [0050]: “When the "weak coast regeneration mode" is selected, when the accelerator is released to decelerate the vehicle, the weak coast torque TLo remains constant up to a low vehicle speed range. After the vehicle speed reaches the low speed range, the weak coast torque TLo gradually decreases at a gentle decreasing gradient as the vehicle speed decreases, as indicated by arrow A…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner and Suzuki’s system with Hoshi’s technique of controlling coasting torque according to different regenerative braking levels while maintaining vehicle speed within a coasting torque convergence range. Doing so would be obvious so that “only a change in deceleration occurs that does not cause discomfort to the driver” (See [0048] of Hoshi).
Regarding claim 6, Werner, Suzuki, and Hoshi in combination teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Hoshi additionally teaches:
wherein: coasting torques of the plurality of regenerative braking levels are set, in the controller, to be converged to a same torque value at the predetermined stop control entrance speed; (See at least [0049]: “…As the vehicle approaches a stop, the increased strong coast torque THi is suddenly reduced, and when the vehicle enters a stopping region below a predetermined course regeneration end vehicle speed, the drive force transitions to a positive target drive force (creep torque)…”. See also Fig. 6, where the target drive force for the weak regeneration mode and strong regeneration mode converge at “Vce”.)
the coasting torques of the plurality of regenerative braking levels are set, in the controller, to have a same value in a stop control range from the predetermined stop control entrance speed to 0 km/h; and (See at least [0049]: “…As the vehicle approaches a stop, the increased strong coast torque THi is suddenly reduced, and when the vehicle enters a stopping region below a predetermined course regeneration end vehicle speed, the drive force transitions to a positive target drive force (creep torque)…”. See also Fig. 6, where the target drive force for the weak regeneration mode and strong regeneration mode converge at “Vce”.)
the costing torques set to have the same value in the stop control range are linearly reduced in accordance with a reduction in vehicle speed. (See at least Fig. 10 & [0085-0087]: “…at time t20, the driver applies the brakes, and the braking torques generated are weak coast torque TLo, cooperative regenerative torque by cooperative braking control, and hydraulic braking torque. Then, at time t21, the transmission controller 15 starts low return control. At this time t21, the CVT input rotation speed falls below the CVT input rotation speed threshold (S102), and the motor regenerative torque cut process is initiated. In this motor regenerative torque cut process, first, the motor regenerative torque is reduced by the amount of the cooperative regenerative torque at a first rate of change Kv1.”)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki and further in view of Kim of US 20240190255 A1, filed 08/25/2023 (effectively filed 12/07/2022), hereinafter “Kim ‘255”, and Kaneko of JP 2019115226 A, filed 12/26/2017, hereinafter “Kaneko”.
Regarding claim 7, Werner and Suzuki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Werner and Suzuki in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein: a plurality of regenerative braking levels is set in the controller; and
the controller is configured to control the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among the plurality of regenerative braking levels, in response to determining that i) the one-pedal mode is in the on state and ii) creep prohibition in parking is set.
Kim ‘255 teaches:
wherein: a plurality of regenerative braking levels is set in the controller; and (See at least Fig. 4 & [0086]: “When the vehicle 1 coasts in a deceleration direction at or above a predetermined vehicle speed based on a level set by the paddle shift 70, the regenerative braking torque may be generated at four different levels: Level 0, Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 (one pedal), and each level may include a predetermined torque value for each vehicle speed.”)
the controller is configured to control the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among the plurality of regenerative braking levels, in response to determining that i) the one-pedal mode is in the on state (See at least Fig. 4 & [0086-0088]: “When the vehicle 1 coasts in a deceleration direction at or above a predetermined vehicle speed based on a level set by the paddle shift 70, the regenerative braking torque may be generated at four different levels: Level 0, Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 (one pedal), and each level may include a predetermined torque value for each vehicle speed. In detail, at the vehicle speed of 10 km/h or less, Level 0 is a level at which a load applied to the vehicle 1 is removed by maintaining the regenerative braking torque at 0 Nm during coasting. The more the driver increases the level using the second paddle shift 72, the more the regenerative braking torque generated by the drive motor 10 during coasting increases…” & [0105]: “…the regenerative braking is performed by the drive motor 10 to generate the regenerative braking torque during coasting depending on the vehicle speed…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner and Suzuki’s system with Kim ‘255’s technique of controlling the motor by a coasting torque according to different regenerative braking levels in response to determining that a one-pedal mode is in the on state. Doing so would be obvious “for improving vehicle stability and deceleration feel of the vehicle by maintaining a constant deceleration of the vehicle through hydraulic cooperative control even when regenerative braking is limited” (See [0008] of Kim ‘255).
Werner, Suzuki, and Kim ‘255 in combination do not explicitly teach:
…and ii) creep prohibition in parking is set.
Kaneko teaches:
…and ii) creep prohibition in parking is set. (See at least Fig. 3 & [0016]: “…When the output of creep torque is prohibited, braking force is applied by one-pedal control when the accelerator pedal 23 is released…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner, Suzuki, and Kim’255 ’s system with Kaneko’s technique of controlling the motor by a coasting torque when creep prohibition in parking is set. Doing so would be obvious for “improving the energy recovery efficiency” (See [0011] of Kaneko).
Regarding claim 8, Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko in combination teach all the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Kaneko additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to determining that the vehicle speed becomes lower than a predetermined stop control entrance speed in an accelerator pedal off state during control of the motor by the coasting torque, control operation of a brake device to apply a braking force until the vehicle stops. (See at least Fig. 2 & [0012]: “…when the accelerator pedal 23 is released and the accelerator opening becomes equal to or less than a predetermined opening, the vehicle controller 18 applies a braking force to the vehicle to stop it instead of outputting creep torque, thereby executing so-called one-pedal control…”. See also [0014] regarding determining whether the vehicle speed is less than the low speed determination speed.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko, and further in view of Hoshi.
Regarding claim 9, Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Kaneko additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to determining that the vehicle speed becomes lower than the predetermined stop control entrance speed, control operation of the brake device to apply braking force (See at least [0011]: “…When the accelerator opening is 0 and the vehicle is traveling at a low speed, for example, 10 km/h or less, the creep phenomenon of an automatic transmission vehicle is simulated, and a required driving force is calculated so that the motor 7 outputs a minute torque as creep torque. The required braking force is set to a larger value as the brake operation amount increases. The vehicle controller 18 sets a torque command and a friction braking command to realize the calculated required braking force…”)
Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko in combination do not explicitly teach:
…when the vehicle speed becomes lower than a predetermined reference speed for braking application.
Hoshi teaches:
…when the vehicle speed becomes lower than a predetermined reference speed for braking application. (See at least [0042-0044]: “In step S11, it is determined whether the vehicle is decelerating (vehicle G<0) and the vehicle speed (V) is less than a threshold value (V<Vlim). If G<0 and V<Vlim, the process proceeds to step S12…In step S12, low return control is executed…In step S13 following step S12, it is determined whether or not the vehicle speed VSP has reached zero. The low return process of step S12 is then repeated until the vehicle speed VSP drops to 0, and when the vehicle speed VSP drops to 0, the low return control is terminated…” & [0068]: “In parallel with this low return control, at the time t02 when the vehicle speed has decreased, switching control between the cooperative regenerative torque and the hydraulic braking torque by the cooperative regenerative control is started. As a result, the cooperative regenerative torque Tk01 is reduced and the hydraulic braking torque is increased (not shown)…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko’s system with Hoshi’s technique of controlling operation of a braking device to apply braking force when the vehicle speed becomes lower than a predetermined reference speed for braking application. Doing so would be obvious so that “only a change in deceleration occurs that does not cause discomfort to the driver” (See [0048] of Hoshi).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko, and further in view of Kuze of US 20190135103 A1, filed 11/05/2018, hereinafter “Kuze”, and Yamamoto of US 20230356601 A1, filed 09/30/2021, hereinafter “Yamamoto”.
Regarding claim 10, Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to: control operation of the brake device to increase the braking force in response to determining that stop of the vehicle has been completed by the braking force of the brake device; and
perform motor torque removal to control the motor such that a motor torque of the motor becomes zero, after the braking force increases.
Kuze teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: control operation of the brake device to increase the braking force (See at least [0105]: “When the brake torque of the ECB 20 is increased to a magnitude possible to stop the vehicle Ve on the slope at point t2, the output torque of the motor 22 is reduced gradually to zero to limit the thermal damage to the motor 22…”)
perform motor torque removal to control the motor such that a motor torque of the motor becomes zero, after the braking force increases. (See at least [0105]: “When the brake torque of the ECB 20 is increased to a magnitude possible to stop the vehicle Ve on the slope at point t2, the output torque of the motor 22 is reduced gradually to zero to limit the thermal damage to the motor 22…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko’s system with Kuze’s technique of increasing the braking force and performing motor torque removal so that a motor torque becomes zero after the braking force increases. Doing so would be obvious “to establish a reaction force against the backward movement of the vehicle Ve” and “to limit the thermal damage to the motor 22” (See [0104-0105] of Kuze).
Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, and Kuze in combination do not explicitly teach:
…in response to determining that stop of the vehicle has been completed by the braking force of the brake device; and
Yamamoto teaches:
…in response to determining that stop of the vehicle has been completed by the braking force of the brake device; and (See at least [0043]:”… as illustrated in FIG. 2, in the profile set by the brake adjustment unit 11, the total braking force is increased after time t5. This is to suppress a movement of the vehicle 90 after stopping and to hold the state where the vehicle 90 has stopped…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, and Kuze’s system with Yamamoto’s technique of increasing braking force in response to determining that stop of the vehicle has been completed by the braking force of the brake device. Doing so would obvious “to suppress a movement of the vehicle 90 after stopping and to hold the state where the vehicle 90 has stopped” (See [0042] of Yamamoto).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, Yamamoto, and further in view of Kim of US 20180141441 A1, filed 04/09/2017, hereinafter “Kim ‘441”, and Hoop of US 20210122387 A1, filed 10/28/2019, hereinafter “Hoop”.
Regarding claim 11, Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, and Yamamoto in combination teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, and Yamamoto in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to: store a motor torque maintained before execution of the motor torque removal; and
release operation of the brake device when an accelerator pedal input by a driver is subsequently generated, and
concurrently control operation of the motor to generate the stored motor torque.
Kim ‘441 teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: store a motor torque maintained before execution of the motor torque removal; and (See at least [0047]: “…a braking control method at the time of the regenerative braking cooperative control according to the present invention takes driver's request deceleration determined according to the driver's braking intent as input…”)
release operation of the brake device (See at least [0062]: “…it may be configured such that when the braking intent of the driver, which is identified from input such as a brake pedal stroke, changes during braking, the soft stop braking is released.”)
concurrently control operation of the motor to generate the stored motor torque. (See at least [0070]: “…if a decompression step for reducing the braking torque in response to the target reduced deceleration (or the decreased torque of SSB) is finished, a pressure boosting step in which the braking torque is returned to the level of the driver's request braking torque is performed again.”)
Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, Yamamoto, and Kim ‘441 in combination do not explicitly teach:
…when an accelerator pedal input by a driver is subsequently generated, and
Hoop teaches:
…when an accelerator pedal input by a driver is subsequently generated, and (See at least [0022]: “…The method described herein presents an unintended acceleration of the vehicle 10 once the vehicle has obtained zero speed in the one-pedal drive mode by applying the friction brakes 38 and by requiring a depression of the accelerator pedal 34 to exceed a threshold prior to the friction brakes 38 being released and allowing an increase in speed of the vehicle 10…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner, Suzuki, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, Yamamoto, and Kim ‘972’s system with Hoop’s technique of releasing operation of the brake device when an accelerator pedal input by a driver is subsequently generated. Doing so would be obvious to prevent “unintended acceleration of the vehicle” (See [0022] of Hoop).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 13, Werner discloses all the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Werner does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: determining, by the controller, whether a previous gear stage is an R-stage and whether a current stage is a D stage, in response to determining that i) the one-pedal mode is in the on state and ii) creep allowance in parking is set, before determining whether or not the vehicle speed is not higher than the predetermined reference speed for creep initiation,
wherein determining whether or not the vehicle speed is not higher than the predetermined reference speed for creep initiation is performed in response to determining that i) the previous gear stage is the R-stage and ii) the current stage is the D stage.
Zhang teaches:
further comprising: determining, by the controller, whether a previous gear stage is an R-stage and whether a current stage is a D stage, in response to determining that i) the one-pedal mode is in the on state and ii) creep allowance in parking is set, before determining whether or not the vehicle speed is not higher than the predetermined reference speed for creep initiation, (See at least [0045]: “In step S12, when it is detected that the single pedal control mode is activated, the new energy vehicle is controlled to enter a creep mode according to at least one of a gear position of the new energy vehicle, an action of a brake pedal of the new energy vehicle, and a speed of the new energy vehicle” & [0048]: “Second, in the case that the gear position of the new energy vehicle is shifted to a drive gear position (that is, the gear position is shifted from the reverse gear position to the drive gear position, or from a neutral gear position to the drive gear position), the new energy vehicle is controlled to enter the creep mode. That is, the driver's driving intention is to start driving, in such condition, it is proper to control the new vehicle to enter the creep mode firstly, and then adjust according to the operations of the driver.”)
wherein determining whether or not the vehicle speed is not higher than the predetermined reference speed for creep initiation is performed in response to determining that i) the previous gear stage is the R-stage and ii) the current stage is the D stage. (See at least [0049]: “Third, in the case that the gear position of the new energy vehicle is a drive gear position, the speed is smaller than a preset speed, and after the brake pedal is switched from a depressed state to a fully released state, the new energy vehicle is controlled to enter the creep mode.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner and Suzuki’s system with Zhang’s technique of determining whether a previous gear stage is an R-stage and whether a current stage is D stage when the on stage of the one-pedal mode is selected and creep allowance in parking is set. Doing so would be obvious to determine whether “the creep mode is more suitable” (See [0047] of Zhang).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 14, Werner discloses all the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Werner does not explicitly teach:
further comprising performing, by the controller, a control operation for the one-pedal mode when the vehicle is accelerated in the on state of the one-pedal mode such that the vehicle speed is not lower than a predetermined critical speed for acceleration determination, after controlling the motor to generate the creep torque.
Suzuki teaches:
further comprising performing, by the controller, a control operation for the one-pedal mode when the vehicle is accelerated in the on state of the one-pedal mode such that the vehicle speed is not lower than a predetermined critical speed for acceleration determination, after controlling the motor to generate the creep torque. (See at least [0035]: “When the accelerator opening degree transitions from the stationary region to the creeping region while the one-pedal drive mode is in use, the ECU 6 causes the drive motor 4 to output a creeping drive torque. The creep driving torque is, for example, a torque that can cause the vehicle 1 to travel at a predetermined creep driving speed…” & [0038]: “When the accelerator opening degree transitions from the creep driving region to the one-pedal drive driving region while the one-pedal drive mode is in use, the ECU 6 controls the one-pedal drive driving torque as the powering torque of the drive motor 4 in accordance with the accelerator opening degree. The one-pedal drive driving torque is a driving torque that drives the vehicle 1 based on the accelerator opening degree, and is calculated based on the accelerator opening degree and the vehicle speed.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner’s method with Suzuki’s technique of performing a control operation for the one-pedal mode when the vehicle is accelerated in the on state of the one-pedal mode such that the vehicle speed is not lower than a predetermined critical speed for acceleration determination, after controlling the motor to generate the creep torque. Doing so would be obvious to “improv[e] the operability for the driver” (See [0074] of Suzuki).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Suzuki and further in view of Hoshi.
Regarding claim 15, Werner and Suzuki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Werner and Suzuki in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising controlling, by the controller, the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among a plurality of regenerative braking levels during execution of the control operation for the one-pedal mode, thereby decelerating the vehicle.
Hoshi teaches:
further comprising controlling, by the controller, the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among a plurality of regenerative braking levels during execution of the control operation for the one-pedal mode, thereby decelerating the vehicle. (See at least [0008]: “FIG. 10 is a characteristic diagram showing the distribution ratio of coast regeneration torque, cooperative regeneration torque, and mechanical brake (hydraulic braking torque) between a weak coast regeneration mode and a strong coast regeneration mode in the first embodiment…” & [0048]: “The "weak coast regeneration mode" refers to a mode in which the braking force generation region due to the weak coast torque TLo, which is the amount of coast regeneration due to the accelerator release operation, is set to a negative target driving force region equivalent to engine braking…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner and Suzuki’s method with Hoshi’s technique of controlling, by the controller, the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among a plurality of regenerative braking levels during execution of the control operation for the one-pedal mode, thereby decelerating the vehicle. Doing so would be obvious so that “only a change in deceleration occurs that does not cause discomfort to the driver” (See [0048] of Hoshi).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Hoshi.
Regarding claim 16, Werner discloses all the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Werner does not explicitly teach:
wherein: a plurality of regenerative braking levels is set in the controller; and
the method further comprises controlling, by the controller, the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among the plurality of regenerative braking levels during execution of control operation for the one-pedal mode, and
linearly varying, by the controller, a costing torque according to each of the regenerative braking levels from a predetermined coasting-variable reference speed to a predetermined stop control entrance speed in a coasting torque convergence range as a vehicle speed range i) not higher than the predetermined coasting-variable reference speed and ii) not lower than the predetermined stop control entrance speed.
Hoshi teaches:
wherein: a plurality of regenerative braking levels is set in the controller; and (See at least [0046]: “…the regeneration mode changeover switch 29 allows selection between a weak coasting regeneration mode and a strong coasting regeneration mode”)
the method further comprises controlling, by the controller, the motor by a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among the plurality of regenerative braking levels during execution of control operation for the one-pedal mode, and (See at least [0008]: “FIG. 10 is a characteristic diagram showing the distribution ratio of coast regeneration torque, cooperative regeneration torque, and mechanical brake (hydraulic braking torque) between a weak coast regeneration mode and a strong coast regeneration mode in the first embodiment…” & [0048]: “The "weak coast regeneration mode" refers to a mode in which the braking force generation region due to the weak coast torque TLo, which is the amount of coast regeneration due to the accelerator release operation, is set to a negative target driving force region equivalent to engine braking…”)
linearly varying, by the controller, a costing torque according to each of the regenerative braking levels from a predetermined coasting-variable reference speed to a predetermined stop control entrance speed in a coasting torque convergence range as a vehicle speed range i) not higher than the predetermined coasting-variable reference speed and ii) not lower than the predetermined stop control entrance speed. (See at least Fig. 6, [0048]: “…the weak coast torque TLo characteristic in the "weak coast regeneration mode" remains constant at a weak coast torque TLo equivalent to engine braking when the vehicle speed VSP decreases due to deceleration, as shown by the dashed line characteristic in FIG. As the vehicle approaches a stop, the coasting regeneration amount is gradually reduced, and when the vehicle reaches a stopping region below the coasting end vehicle speed, the drive force is shifted to a positive target drive force (creep torque)…” & [0050]: “When the "weak coast regeneration mode" is selected, when the accelerator is released to decelerate the vehicle, the weak coast torque TLo remains constant up to a low vehicle speed range. After the vehicle speed reaches the low speed range, the weak coast torque TLo gradually decreases at a gentle decreasing gradient as the vehicle speed decreases, as indicated by arrow A…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner’s method with Hoshi’s technique of controlling coasting torque according to different regenerative braking levels while maintaining vehicle speed within a coasting torque convergence range. Doing so would be obvious so that “only a change in deceleration occurs that does not cause discomfort to the driver” (See [0048] of Hoshi).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Kim ‘255.
Regarding claim 17, Werner discloses all the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
Werner does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: controlling, by the controller, the motor using a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among a plurality of regenerative braking levels, under a condition that the plurality of regenerative braking levels is set in the controller, in response to determining that i) the one-pedal mode is in the on state and ii) creep prohibition in parking is set.
Kim ‘255 teaches:
further comprising: controlling, by the controller, the motor using a coasting torque corresponding to a regenerative braking level currently selected from among a plurality of regenerative braking levels, under a condition that the plurality of regenerative braking levels is set in the controller, in response to determining that i) the one-pedal mode is in the on state (See at least Fig. 4 & [0086-0088]: “When the vehicle 1 coasts in a deceleration direction at or above a predetermined vehicle speed based on a level set by the paddle shift 70, the regenerative braking torque may be generated at four different levels: Level 0, Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 (one pedal), and each level may include a predetermined torque value for each vehicle speed. In detail, at the vehicle speed of 10 km/h or less, Level 0 is a level at which a load applied to the vehicle 1 is removed by maintaining the regenerative braking torque at 0 Nm during coasting. The more the driver increases the level using the second paddle shift 72, the more the regenerative braking torque generated by the drive motor 10 during coasting increases…” & [0105]: “…the regenerative braking is performed by the drive motor 10 to generate the regenerative braking torque during coasting depending on the vehicle speed…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner’s method with Kim ‘255’s technique of controlling the motor by a coasting torque according to different regenerative braking levels in response to determining that a one-pedal mode is in the on state. Doing so would be obvious “for improving vehicle stability and deceleration feel of the vehicle by maintaining a constant deceleration of the vehicle through hydraulic cooperative control even when regenerative braking is limited” (See [0008] of Kim).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Kim ‘255 and further in view of Kaneko.
Regarding claim 18, Werner and Kim ‘255 in combination teach all the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above.
Werner and Kim ‘255 in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle speed becomes lower than a predetermined stop control entrance speed in an accelerator pedal off state during control of the motor by the coasting torque; and
controlling, by the controller, operation of a brake device to apply a braking force until the vehicle stops, upon determining that the vehicle speed becomes lower than the predetermined stop control entrance speed.
Kaneko teaches:
further comprising: determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle speed becomes lower than a predetermined stop control entrance speed in an accelerator pedal off state during control of the motor by the coasting torque; and (See at least Fig. 2 & [0012]: “…when the accelerator pedal 23 is released and the accelerator opening becomes equal to or less than a predetermined opening, the vehicle controller 18 applies a braking force to the vehicle to stop it instead of outputting creep torque, thereby executing so-called one-pedal control…”. See also [0014] regarding determining whether the vehicle speed is less than the low speed determination speed.)
controlling, by the controller, operation of a brake device to apply a braking force until the vehicle stops, upon determining that the vehicle speed becomes lower than the predetermined stop control entrance speed. (See at least Fig. 2 & [0012]: “…when the accelerator pedal 23 is released and the accelerator opening becomes equal to or less than a predetermined opening, the vehicle controller 18 applies a braking force to the vehicle to stop it instead of outputting creep torque, thereby executing so-called one-pedal control…”. See also [0014] regarding determining whether the vehicle speed is less than the low speed determination speed.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner and Kim ‘255’s method with Kaneko’s technique of applying a braking force until the vehicle stops upon determining that the vehicle speed becomes lower than the predetermined stop control entrance speed. Doing so would be obvious for “improving the energy recovery efficiency” (See [0011] of Kaneko).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Kim ‘255 and Kaneko and further in view of Kuze and Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 19, Werner, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko in combination teach all the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above.
Werner, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: controlling, by the controller, operation of the brake device to increase the braking force, upon determining that stop of the vehicle has been completed by the braking force of the brake device; and
performing, by the controller, motor torque removal to control the motor such that a motor torque of the motor becomes zero, after the braking force increases.
Kuze teaches:
further comprising: controlling, by the controller, operation of the brake device to increase the braking force, (See at least [0105]: “When the brake torque of the ECB 20 is increased to a magnitude possible to stop the vehicle Ve on the slope at point t2, the output torque of the motor 22 is reduced gradually to zero to limit the thermal damage to the motor 22…”)
performing, by the controller, motor torque removal to control the motor such that a motor torque of the motor becomes zero, after the braking force increases. (See at least [0105]: “When the brake torque of the ECB 20 is increased to a magnitude possible to stop the vehicle Ve on the slope at point t2, the output torque of the motor 22 is reduced gradually to zero to limit the thermal damage to the motor 22…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner, Kim ‘255, and Kaneko’s method with Kuze’s technique of increasing braking force and performing motor torque removal so that motor torque becomes zero after the braking force increases. Doing so would be obvious “to establish a reaction force against the backward movement of the vehicle Ve” and “to limit the thermal damage to the motor 22” (See [0104-0105] of Kuze).
Werner, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, and Kuze in combination do not explicitly teach:
…upon determining that stop of the vehicle has been completed by the braking force of the brake device; and
Yamamoto teaches:
upon determining that stop of the vehicle has been completed by the braking force of the brake device; and (See at least [0043]:”… as illustrated in FIG. 2, in the profile set by the brake adjustment unit 11, the total braking force is increased after time t5. This is to suppress a movement of the vehicle 90 after stopping and to hold the state where the vehicle 90 has stopped…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, and Kuze’s method with Yamamoto’s technique of increasing braking force upon determining that stop of the vehicle has been completed by the braking force of the brake device. Doing so would obvious “to suppress a movement of the vehicle 90 after stopping and to hold the state where the vehicle 90 has stopped” (See [0042] of Yamamoto).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner in view of Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, and Yamamoto, and further in view of Kim ‘972 and Hoop.
Regarding claim 20, Werner, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, and Yamamoto in combination teach all the limitations of claim 19 as discussed above.
Werner, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, and Yamamoto in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: storing, by the controller, a motor torque maintained just before execution of the motor torque removal; and
releasing, by the controller, operation of the brake device when an accelerator pedal input by a driver is subsequently generated, and simultaneously controls operation of the motor to generate the stored motor torque.
Kim ‘972 teaches: further comprising: storing, by the controller, a motor torque maintained just before execution of the motor torque removal; and (See at least [0047]: “…a braking control method at the time of the regenerative braking cooperative control according to the present invention takes driver's request deceleration determined according to the driver's braking intent as input…”)
releasing, by the controller, operation of the brake device (See at least [0062]: “…it may be configured such that when the braking intent of the driver, which is identified from input such as a brake pedal stroke, changes during braking, the soft stop braking is released.”)
simultaneously controls operation of the motor to generate the stored motor torque. (See at least [0070]: “…if a decompression step for reducing the braking torque in response to the target reduced deceleration (or the decreased torque of SSB) is finished, a pressure boosting step in which the braking torque is returned to the level of the driver's request braking torque is performed again.”)
Werner, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, Yamamoto, and Kim ‘972 in combination do not explicitly teach:
…when an accelerator pedal input by a driver is subsequently generated, and
Hoop teaches:
…when an accelerator pedal input by a driver is subsequently generated, and (See at least [0022]: “…The method described herein presents an unintended acceleration of the vehicle 10 once the vehicle has obtained zero speed in the one-pedal drive mode by applying the friction brakes 38 and by requiring a depression of the accelerator pedal 34 to exceed a threshold prior to the friction brakes 38 being released and allowing an increase in speed of the vehicle 10…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Werner, Kim ‘255, Kaneko, Kuze, Yamamoto, and Kim ‘972’s method with Hoop’s technique of releasing operation of the brake device when an accelerator pedal input by a driver is subsequently generated. Doing so would be obvious to prevent “unintended acceleration of the vehicle” (See [0022] of Hoop).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220097670 A1 is directed to controlling braking torque based on a predetermined speed versus time profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikki Molina whose telephone number is (571) 272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT. 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, Aniss Chad, can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662