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 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: “cooling system” in claim 20 (e.g., see specification published paragraph [0035] for structure).
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 1 to 20 are 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.
In claim 1, line 12, in claim 9, line 17, and in claim 15, line 13, “[determining a] axle friction brake bias capacity” is indefinite and not reasonably certain1, with indeterminate metes and bounds, from the teachings of the specification (e.g., “bias” from what particular baseline and in what direction/respect so as to not be facially subjective2, “[axle friction brake bias] capacity” defined particularly how for the brake system and using what objective standard to define the/any “capacity” of the bias so that e.g., the determining of the capacity is not facially subjective, etc.?)
Here, the examiner notes that, from a Google search3, “axle friction brake bias capacity” is apparently not a term of art.
In this respect, the specification indicates this at published paragraphs [0078] and [0080] to [0083]:
[0078] . . . The requested friction brake split determiner 148 or other elements of the brake controller 104 may generate the requested friction brake split 138 based on the target friction brake split 142, an axle friction brake bias capacity 150, and/or a cooling parameter 152, as described further below.
[0080] The brake controller 104 may use an axle friction brake bias capacity map 154 to determine the axle friction brake bias capacity 150 based on sensor data 106 indicating second factors associated with a current operating state of the machine 102. . . .
[0081] . . . For example, the brake controller 104 may determine or modify the axle friction brake bias capacity 150 based in part on a wheel speed differential. Accordingly, if such a wheel speed differential indicates that there may be slippage between a speed of front wheels relative to a speed of the rear wheels that may cause traction and/or machine control issues, the brake controller 104 may adjust the axle friction brake bias capacity 150 to indicate a higher capacity for bias towards the front friction brakes 110 relative to the rear friction brakes 112. Such a higher capacity for bias towards the front friction brakes 110 relative to the rear friction brakes 112 may indicate a preference towards relatively balanced usage of the front friction brakes 110 and rear electric brakes 114, which may provide improved traction and machine control relative to lower usage of the front friction brakes 110 and higher usage of the rear friction brakes 110 in combination with rear electric brakes 114.
[0082] The axle friction brake bias capacity 150 may be a value, such as a percentage or a value on a scale of 0 to 1, that indicates a capacity for a bias towards usage of friction brakes on one axle relative to usage of friction brakes on a different axle. As an example, the axle friction brake bias capacity 150 may be a front friction brake bias capacity indicating a capacity for a bias towards the front friction brakes 110 relative to the rear friction brakes 112. In this example, higher values of the axle friction brake bias capacity 150 may indicate that the front friction brakes 110 may handle more braking torque than the rear friction brakes 112, while lower values of the front friction brake bias capacity 150 may indicate that torque should be more evenly distributed between the front friction brakes 110 and the rear friction brakes 112.
[0083] For example, an axle friction brake bias capacity 150 of 0% may indicate that there is no capacity for bias towards the front friction brakes 110 relative to the rear friction brakes 112, such that the front friction brakes 110 and the rear friction brakes 112 should apply the same amount of torque during braking operations. However, an axle friction brake bias capacity 150 of 100% may indicate that there is full capacity for bias towards the front friction brakes 110 relative to the rear friction brakes 112. An axle friction brake bias capacity 150 between 0% and 100% may accordingly indicate a corresponding amount of capacity for bias towards the front friction brakes 110 relative to the rear friction brakes 112.
However, any permissive (e.g., “may”) definition in the specification does not apparently limit/define the scope (i.e., metes and bounds) of the claim term with the required reasonable certainty. Moreover, any permissive determination of the axle friction brake bias capacity from the wheel speed differential in the description of paragraph [0081] is apparently vague and unclear. In this respect, it is unclear from the teachings of the specification what this “capacity” for apparent “bias” is, and how the capacity is defined/determinable so as to not be facially subjective, and it is unclear from what baseline (and in what direction or respect) any “bias”, or “capacity” for “bias”, might be determined so as to not be facially subjective. In this respect, while applicant may be his own lexicographer, he must define his specific terms, "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision". See e.g., MPEP 2111.01, IV., A.
In claim 8, lines 2ff, in claim 14, lines 2ff, and in claim 20, lines 4ff, “a cooling parameter indicating a thermally balanced torque split between the front friction brakes and the rear friction brakes” is fully indefinite and not reasonably certain from the teachings of the specification that does not clarify i) to whom or what, and in what particular way, a “parameter” might “indicate” anything, ii) particularly how the “thermally balanced torque split” might be indicated by the parameter so as to not be facially subjective and possibly cover any cooling parameter and/or intrinsic cooling characteristic, iii) what “balance” might mean in the claim context (e.g., does balance mean that e.g., thermal characteristics of the front and rear friction brakes are the same, or maybe only that they are not as imbalanced as they might be?), and iv) particularly how it might be determined that any torque split between the front and rear friction brakes is or is not “thermally balanced”.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 to 5, 8 to 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim(s) 1 to 5, 8 to 10, 13, and 14, while (each) reciting a statutory category of invention defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), is/are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, the recited abstract idea being that of determining braking torque associated with a braking operation to be performed by one or more of a set of braking systems of the machine; allocating[4] the braking torque between an electric brake ratio and a friction brake ratio; determining a target friction brake split based on the electric brake ratio and a target machine axle split; determining an axle friction brake bias capacity based on sensor data indicating a temperature and a temperature increase rate associated with one of the front friction brakes or the rear friction brakes; determining a requested friction brake split based on the target friction brake split and the axle friction brake bias capacity; and allocating, based on the requested friction brake split, the friction brake ratio between a front friction brake ratio and a rear friction brake ratio, e.g., by determining braking torque associated with a braking operation to be performed by one or more of a set of braking systems of the machine, the set of braking systems comprising: electric brakes, front friction brakes associated with a front axle of the machine, and rear friction brakes associated with a rear axle of the machine; allocating the braking torque between an electric brake ratio and a friction brake ratio; determining a target friction brake split based on the electric brake ratio and a target machine axle split; determining an axle friction brake bias capacity based on sensor data indicating a temperature and a temperature increase rate associated with one of the front friction brakes or the rear friction brakes; determining a requested friction brake split based on the target friction brake split and the axle friction brake bias capacity; and allocating, based on the requested friction brake split, the friction brake ratio between a front friction brake ratio and a rear friction brake ratio; further comprising determining the target machine axle split based on second sensor data indicating: a grade value indicating a grade of a ground surface being traveled by the machine, and a payload value indicating a weight or mass of a payload carried by the machine; wherein the target machine axle split is determined based on a target machine axle split map that indicates predetermined values of the target machine axle split that correspond to combinations of different grade values and different payload values; wherein the axle friction brake bias capacity is determined based on an axle friction brake bias capacity map that indicates predetermined values of the axle friction brake bias capacity that correspond to combinations of different values of the temperature and the temperature increase rate; wherein the axle friction brake bias capacity indicates a capacity for bias towards usage of the front friction brakes relative to the rear friction brakes; wherein the requested friction brake split is further determined based on a cooling parameter indicating a thermally balanced torque split between the front friction brakes and the rear friction brakes; and a brake controller of a machine, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining braking torque associated with a braking operation to be performed by one or more of a set of braking systems of the machine, the set of braking systems comprising: electric brakes, front friction brakes associated with a front axle of the machine, and rear friction brakes associated with a rear axle of the machine; allocating the braking torque between an electric brake ratio and a friction brake ratio; determining a target friction brake split based on the electric brake ratio and a target machine axle split; determining an axle friction brake bias capacity based on sensor data indicating a temperature and a temperature increase rate associated with one of the front friction brakes or the rear friction brakes; determining a requested friction brake split based on the target friction brake split and the axle friction brake bias capacity; and allocating, based on the requested friction brake split, the friction brake ratio between a front friction brake ratio and a rear friction brake ratio; wherein the operations further comprise determining the target machine axle split based on second sensor data indicating: a grade value indicating a grade of a ground surface being traveled by the machine, and a payload value indicating a weight or mass of a payload carried by the machine; wherein the electric brakes are associated with the rear axle; wherein the requested friction brake split is further determined based on a cooling parameter indicating a thermally balanced torque split between the front friction brakes and the rear friction brakes.
This abstract idea falls within the grouping(s) of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, distilled from case law, because it could be practically performed in the human mind as a mental process of determining.
Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B:
Additionally, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the abstract idea is not integrated (e.g., at Step 2A, Prong II) by the recitation of additional elements/limitations into a practical application (using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)-(h)) because merely using a computer as a tool (e.g., in a brake controller) to perform an abstract idea or adding the words "apply it" is not integrating the idea into a practical application of the idea, and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., "implementation via computers", Alice; and/or a technological environment of vehicles having braking systems having electric brakes and friction brakes associated with one or more vehicle axles used in braking operations) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity, is recited in or encompassed by the claims.
Moreover, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/limitations/steps (e.g., at Step 2B) that are, individually or in ordered combination, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements/limitations/steps are recited at a high level of generality so as to not favor eligibility (MPEP § 2106.05(d)) and/or are used e.g., for data/information gathering only or for other activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the industry (e.g., vehicles having braking systems with electric brakes and friction brakes associated with one or more vehicle axles used in braking operations), for example as indicated in applicant's specification at published paragraphs [0002] to [0004], and moreover, the generically recited computer elements (e.g., a processor, a memory, etc.; see e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 USPQ2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024); see also the 2019 PEG Advanced Module at pages 89, 145, etc.) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea.
Moreover, limiting or linking the use of the idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., a brake controller used in a conventional vehicle having braking systems with electric brakes and friction brakes associated with one or more vehicle axles used in braking operations) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook[5]) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad.
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.
Claims 1, 5 to 7, 9, 11 to 13, 15, and 17 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (6,406,105) in view of Ito (Japan, 2004-352112; EPO machine translation attached).
Shimada et al. (‘105) reveals:
per claim 1, a method, performed by a brake controller [e.g., 24, 50] of a machine [e.g., the vehicle of FIG. 1], comprising:
determining braking torque [e.g., the demanded brake torque Tbd] associated with a braking operation to be performed by one or more of a set of braking systems of the machine [e.g., 10f, 10r, 36fl, 38fl, 36fr, 38fr, 36rl, 38rl, 36rr, 38rr], the set of braking systems comprising:
electric brakes [e.g., 10f, 10r],
front friction brakes [e.g., 36fl, 38fl, 36fr, 38fr] associated with a front axle [e.g., 14fl, 14fr] of the machine, and
rear friction brakes [e.g., 36rl, 38rl, 36rr, 38rr] associated with a rear axle [e.g., 14rl, 14rr] of the machine;
allocating the braking torque between an electric brake ratio [e.g., with the electric brake ratio being 100% of the braking torque at S40, YES and S80, YES in FIG. 2, and being less than 100% at S70, NO and S80, NO in FIG. 2] and a friction brake ratio [e.g., with the friction brake ratio being 0% of the braking torque at S40, YES and S80, YES in FIG. 2, and being more than 0% at S70, NO and S80, NO in FIG. 2];
determining a target friction brake split [e.g., the split between Tmf and Tmr at S100 (e.g., the lower alternative)] based on the electric brake ratio [e.g., based on the electric brake ratio being less than 100% at S80, NO in FIG. 2] and a target machine axle split [e.g., the limit value α as “predetermined for the ratio of the brake torque applied to the rear wheels to the brake torque applied to the front wheels. The limit value α is generally determined to be smaller than 1, so that the rear wheels are less braked than the front wheels” (e.g., column 6, lines 21ff)];
Shimada et al. (‘105) may not reveal the determining of the axle friction brake bias capacity or the requested friction brake split, or the allocating of the friction brake ratio.
However, in the context/field of an improved brake control device, Ito (JP, ‘112) teaches in conjunction with FIGS. 2, 6, etc. that the pad temperatures (Tn) and pad temperature rises/gradients (TΔ) of each wheel brake are determined based on pad temperatures read by temperature sensors 50 – 53 at each wheel brake, and a braking force distribution control change is effected (e.g., at S12 in FIG. 2; and at the bottom time trace in FIG. 6) so that e.g., the temperature rise gradient is controlled to be the same for both the front and rear wheels by changing the braking force distribution (paragraph [0058]). See also claim 3 (where the temperature margin between the pad temperature and the limit value for each braking device is calculated to determine a reduction in braking effectiveness of the braking device and to accordingly reduce the braking force burden on the wheel with reduced braking effectiveness by controlling the braking force distribution) and claim 4 (where the temperature rise gradient is calculated e.g., from current and previous wheel pad temperatures Tn), and the change control of the braking force distribution is performed based on e.g., the temperature margin (Tm in FIG. 3) and the temperature rise gradient TΔ at each wheel, e.g., to reduce the braking force burden (braking force distribution) on the braked wheel that has become hot (with small margin; paragraphs [0046], [0059], etc.), and to reduce the braking force loads on the braked wheel with the large temperature rise gradient (paragraph [0068]), whereby the braking force distribution is (becomes) more geared to the wheels with the lower temperatures/temperature rise gradients (paragraph [0057]). See e.g., paragraphs [0006], [0007], [0046], [0049], [0057] to [0059], [0061], [0062], [0067], [0068], etc.
For example, in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112), annotated below/on the next page by the examiner with Google machine translations, when the temperature rise would be greater at the front brakes than at the rear brakes (see dashed lines) to thereby cause the front brake temperature to exceed the limit temperature, the braking force distribution change control reduces the braking force burden on the front wheels and increases the braking force burden on the rear wheels, such that the brake force distribution (“allocation” in FIG. 6 translation) is “bias[ed]” (this is the word used by the Google machine translation of FIG. 6) or changed toward the rear wheel side, in order to thus control “the temperature rise gradients to be the same for both the front and the rear wheels by changing the braking force distribution” (paragraph [0058]), as shown in an annotated version (i.e., annotated with Google machine translations) of FIG. 6 below/on the next page:
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
PNG
media_image2.png
888
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Shimada et al. (‘105) brake system of a hybrid type vehicle so that i) temperature sensors for detecting brake pad temperatures (Tn) at the (front and rear) wheels would have been provided, as taught by Ito (JP, ‘112), ii) so that temperature rise gradients (TΔ) would have been determined using the currently read pad temperature and a previously read pad temperature at each wheel, as taught by Ito (JP, ‘112) e.g., at paragraph [0032], and so that iiia) when the braking effectiveness at a front wheels or a rear wheels was reduced due to the brake pad friction material being [too] hot with a small temperature margin Tm, and/or iiib) when the friction material temperature rise gradient of the brake at the front wheels or the rear wheels was larger than the other, the limit value α in Shimada et al. (‘105) as the predetermined for the ratio of the brake torque applied to the rear wheels to the brake torque applied to the front wheels at S100 and as a braking force distribution (shown as the “allocation” at the bottom of FIG. 6 in Ito (JP, ‘112)) would have been changed (e.g., for example, biased more to the rear wheels when the front brake was too hot/had a larger temperature rise gradient, in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112)) in order to reduce the braking force load/burden on the hot wheels and/or the wheels with the larger temperature rise gradient and increase the braking burden on the other wheels, as taught by Ito (JP, ‘112) e.g., at paragraph [0057], so that the braking force distribution (i.e., α in Shimada et al. (‘105)) would become more geared to the wheels with the lower temperatures/temperature rise gradients (paragraph [0057] in Ito (JP, ‘112)), in order to suppress the temperature rise (e.g., above a temperature limit value Tlim) of the hot wheels and/or in order to provide the same temperature rise gradients for both the front and rear wheels to provide stable braking performance, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Shimada et al. (‘105) brake system of a hybrid type vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a method, performed by a brake controller [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 24, 50] of a machine [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the vehicle of FIG. 1], comprising:
determining braking torque [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the demanded brake torque Tbd] associated with a braking operation to be performed by one or more of a set of braking systems of the machine [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 10f, 10r, 36fl, 38fl, 36fr, 38fr, 36rl, 38rl, 36rr, 38rr], the set of braking systems comprising:
electric brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 10f, 10r],
front friction brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 36fl, 38fl, 36fr, 38fr] associated with a front axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 14fl, 14fr] of the machine, and
rear friction brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 36rl, 38rl, 36rr, 38rr] associated with a rear axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 14rl, 14rr] of the machine;
allocating the braking torque between an electric brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), with the electric brake ratio being 100% of the braking torque at S40, YES and S80, YES in FIG. 2, and being less than 100% at S70, NO and S80, NO in FIG. 2] and a friction brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), with the friction brake ratio being 0% of the braking torque at S40, YES and S80, YES in FIG. 2, and being more than 0% at S70, NO and S80, NO in FIG. 2];
determining a target friction brake split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the split between Tmf and Tmr at S100 (e.g., the lower alternative)] based on the electric brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), based on the electric brake ratio being less than 100% of the braking torque at S80, NO in FIG. 2, since the front and rear maximum regenerative braking torque will not meet/satisfy the demanded braking torque Tbd] and a target machine axle split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the limit value α as “predetermined for the ratio of the brake torque applied to the rear wheels to the brake torque applied to the front wheels. The limit value α is generally determined to be smaller than 1, so that the rear wheels are less braked than the front wheels” (e.g., column 6, lines 21ff)];
determining an[6] axle friction brake bias capacity [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), determining for each front or rear wheel (on an axle) the temperature margin Tm and the temperature rise gradient TΔ so that the “thermal capacity of the front wheel braking device and the rear wheel braking device can be used as effectively as possible” based on capacity values determined (at S2 to S12) by both Tm and TΔ, e.g., as shown in FIG. 6, and by biasing the braking force distribution in accordance with the braking force distribution correction amount in S12, wherein the braking force distribution is changed i) so as to reduce the braking force burden on a braked wheel that is detected as having a temperature rise within the braking effectiveness reduction range, and ii) to increase the braking force load reduction amount for braking wheels with larger temperature rise average values TΔa calculated (e.g., paragraphs [0065] to [0068], etc.)] based on sensor data indicating a temperature [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), based on Tn, Tn-1, etc. at S1, S8, etc. in FIG. 2] and a temperature increase rate [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), based on TΔ at S8 in FIG. 2] associated with one of the front friction brakes or the rear friction brakes [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), in FIGS. 2, 6, etc. associated with both the front and rear wheels which are monitored for both temperature margin and temperature rise gradient];
determining a requested friction brake split [e.g., the braking force distribution correction amount in paragraph [0036] and the bottom time trace in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112) obtained by biasing the braking force distribution in accordance with the braking force distribution correction amount in S12, wherein the braking force distribution is changed i) so as to reduce the braking force burden on a braked wheel that is detected as having a temperature rise within the braking effectiveness reduction range, and ii) to increase the braking force load reduction amount for braking wheels with larger temperature rise average values TΔa calculated (e.g., paragraphs [0065] to [0068], etc.)] based on the target friction brake split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), based on the limit value α as “predetermined for the ratio of the brake torque applied to the rear wheels to the brake torque applied to the front wheels” in S100 of FIG. 2, and the braking force distribution in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112) before the correction amount is applied after time t0] and the axle friction brake bias capacity [e.g., the remaining thermal capacity of the brakes as determined from the temperature margin Tm and the temperature rise gradient TΔ at each wheel, in Ito (JP, ‘112)]; and
allocating, based on the requested friction brake split, the friction brake ratio between a front friction brake ratio and a rear friction brake ratio [e.g., as shown in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112), in the time period between the correction of the braking distribution amount (e.g., after t0) until the time t3 when the brake is released; and while the answer at S80 in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105) is NO such that Tmf and Tmr are split according to the limit value α as at the bottom of S100 to establish target front and braking force burdens Tmf and Tmr, and then the braking distribution correction amount at the bottom of FIG. 6 in Ito (JP, ‘112) is implemented to reduce the braking force burden (e.g., Tmf or Tmr) on the wheels with the lower temperature margin or the larger temperature rise gradient, so that the braking force distribution amount (i.e., of α) becomes more geared to the wheels with the lower temperatures];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein the axle friction brake bias capacity indicates a capacity for bias towards usage of the front friction brakes relative to the rear friction brakes [e.g., paragraph [0062] and FIGS. 6, 8, etc. in Ito et al. (JP, ‘112), when the braking force burden is obviously to be reduced on the rear wheels (because of their temperature margin and/or rise gradient), so that the front wheel braking force distribution is increased (to effectively use the heat/thermal capacity of the braking device(s)) compared to the normal distribution; e.g., paragraph [0057] in Ito et al. (JP, ‘112)];
per claim 6, depending from claim 1, further comprising causing:
the electric brakes to apply a first portion of the braking torque indicated by the electric brake ratio [e.g., Tref, Trer in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105)],
the front friction brakes to apply a second portion of the braking torque indicated by the front friction brake ratio [e.g., Tmf in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105), corrected by the braking force distribution correction amount (based on temperature), as taught at Step S12 and FIG. 6 by Ito et al. (JP, ‘112)], and
the rear friction brakes to apply a third portion of the braking torque indicated by the rear friction brake ratio [e.g., Tmr in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105), corrected by the braking force distribution correction amount (based on temperature), as taught at Step S12 and FIG. 6 by Ito et al. (JP, ‘112)];
per claim 7, depending from claim 6, wherein:
the electric brakes comprise:
front electric brakes associated with the front axle [e.g., 10f in FIG. 1 of Shimada et al. (‘105), implementing Tref in FIG. 2]; and
rear electric brakes associated with the rear axle [e.g., 10r in FIG. 1 of Shimada et al. (‘105), implementing Trer in FIG. 2],
the target friction brake split is further determined based on an electric brake split [e.g., the split between Tref and Trer of FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105), and in particular the split between Trefmax and Trermax at S100 as an electric brake split, where the target friction brake split is the split between Tmf and Tmr of Shimada et al. (‘105) as corrected by Ito (JP, 112) for temperature, where corrected Tmf is based in Trefmax and corrected Tmr is based of Trermax] indicating respective usage levels of the front electric brakes and the rear electric brakes [e.g., in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105) Tref = Trefmax (at S60) and Trer = Trermax (at S100), where Tref and Trer are the target regenerative brake torques that 10f and 10r are controlled to], and
the first portion of the braking torque indicated by the electric brake ratio comprises respective portions of the braking torque allocated to the front electric brakes [e.g., Tref in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105)] and the rear electric brakes [e.g., Trer in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105)] based on the electric brake split [e.g., the split between Tref and Trer, in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105) e.g., based on Trefmax and Trermax];
per claim 9, a brake controller [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 24, 50] of a machine [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the vehicle of FIG. 1], comprising:
one or more processors [e.g., the microcomputers 24, 50 Shimada et al. (‘105)]; and
memory storing computer-executable instructions [e.g., the “software” (column 6, line 11) loaded into the microcomputer 24, 50 of Shimada at el. (‘105), where the microcomputer 24, 50 would have obviously included memory for storing the software, as was conventional] that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
determining braking torque [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the demanded brake torque Tbd] associated with a braking operation to be performed by one or more of a set of braking systems of the machine [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 10f, 10r, 36fl, 38fl, 36fr, 38fr, 36rl, 38rl, 36rr, 38rr], the set of braking systems comprising:
electric brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 10f, 10r],
front friction brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 36fl, 38fl, 36fr, 38fr] associated with a front axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 14fl, 14fr] of the machine, and
rear friction brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 36rl, 38rl, 36rr, 38rr] associated with a rear axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 14rl, 14rr] of the machine;
allocating the braking torque between an electric brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), with the electric brake ratio being 100%of the braking torque at S40, YES and S80, YES in FIG. 2, and being less than 100% at S70, NO and S80, NO in FIG. 2] and a friction brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), with the friction brake ratio being 0% of the braking torque at S40, YES and S80, YES in FIG. 2, and being more than 0% at S70, NO and S80, NO in FIG. 2];
determining a target friction brake split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the split between Tmf and Tmr at S100 (e.g., the lower alternative)] based on the electric brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), based on the electric brake ratio being less than 100% of the braking torque at S80, NO in FIG. 2, since the front and rear maximum regenerative braking torque will not meet/satisfy the demanded braking torque Tbd] and a target machine axle split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the limit value α as “predetermined for the ratio of the brake torque applied to the rear wheels to the brake torque applied to the front wheels. The limit value α is generally determined to be smaller than 1, so that the rear wheels are less braked than the front wheels” (e.g., column 6, lines 21ff)];
determining an[7] axle friction brake bias capacity [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), determining for each front or rear wheel (on an axle) the temperature margin Tm and the temperature rise gradient TΔ so that the “thermal capacity of the front wheel braking device and the rear wheel braking device can be used as effectively as possible” based on capacity values determined (at S2 to S12) by both Tm and TΔ, e.g., as shown in FIG. 6, and by biasing the braking force distribution in accordance with the braking force distribution correction amount in S12, wherein the braking force distribution is changed i) so as to reduce the braking force burden on a braked wheel that is detected as having a temperature rise within the braking effectiveness reduction range, and ii) to increase the braking force load reduction amount for braking wheels with larger temperature rise average values TΔa calculated (e.g., paragraphs [0065] to [0068], etc.)] based on sensor data indicating a temperature [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), based on Tn, Tn-1, etc. at S1, S8, etc. in FIG. 2] and a temperature increase rate [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), based on TΔ at S8 in FIG. 2] associated with one of the front friction brakes or the rear friction brakes [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), in FIGS. 2, 6, etc. associated with both the front and rear wheels which are monitored for both temperature margin and temperature rise gradient];
determining a requested friction brake split [e.g., the braking force distribution correction amount in paragraph [0036] and the bottom time trace in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112) obtained by biasing the braking force distribution in accordance with the braking force distribution correction amount in S12, wherein the braking force distribution is changed i) so as to reduce the braking force burden on a braked wheel that is detected as having a temperature rise within the braking effectiveness reduction range, and ii) to increase the braking force load reduction amount for braking wheels with larger temperature rise average values TΔa calculated (e.g., paragraphs [0065] to [0068], etc.)] based on the target friction brake split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), based on the limit value α as “predetermined for the ratio of the brake torque applied to the rear wheels to the brake torque applied to the front wheels” in S100 of FIG. 2, and the braking force distribution in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112) before the correction amount is applied after time t0] and the axle friction brake bias capacity [e.g., the remaining thermal capacity of the brakes as determined from the temperature margin Tm and the temperature rise gradient TΔ at each wheel, in Ito (JP, ‘112)]; and
allocating, based on the requested friction brake split, the friction brake ratio between a front friction brake ratio and a rear friction brake ratio [e.g., as shown in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112), in the time period between the correction of the braking distribution amount (e.g., after t0) until the time t3 when the brake is released; and while the answer at S80 in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105) is NO such that Tmf and Tmr are split according to the limit value α as at the bottom of S100 to establish target front and braking force burdens Tmf and Tmr, and then the braking distribution correction amount at the bottom of FIG. 6 in Ito (JP, ‘112) is implemented to reduce the braking force burden (e.g., Tmf or Tmr) on the wheels with the lower temperature margin or the larger temperature rise gradient, so that the braking force distribution amount (i.e., of α) becomes more geared to the wheels with the lower temperatures];
per claim 11, depending from claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise causing:
the electric brakes to apply a first portion of the braking torque indicated by the electric brake ratio [e.g., Tref, Trer in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105)],
the front friction brakes to apply a second portion of the braking torque indicated by the front friction brake ratio [e.g., Tmf in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105), corrected by the braking force distribution correction amount (based on temperature), as taught at Step S12 and FIG. 6 by Ito et al. (JP, ‘112)], and
the rear friction brakes to apply a third portion of the braking torque indicated by the rear friction brake ratio [e.g., Tmr in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105), corrected by the braking force distribution correction amount (based on temperature), as taught at Step S12 and FIG. 6 by Ito et al. (JP, ‘112)];
per claim 12, depending from claim 11, wherein:
the electric brakes comprise:
front electric brakes associated with the front axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 10f]; and
rear electric brakes associated with the rear axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 10r],
the target friction brake split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the split between Tmf and Tmr at S100 (e.g., the lower alternative)] is further determined based on an electric brake split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105) in the lower alternative of S100 in FIG. 2, based on the split between Tref (=Trefmax) and Trer (=Trermax)] indicating respective usage levels of the front electric brakes and the rear electric brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), a target regeneration brake torque Tref for the front motor-generator 10f, a target regeneration brake torque Trer for the rear motor-generator 10r (e.g., column 5, lines 61ff)], and
the first portion of the braking torque indicated by the electric brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the front and rear maximum regenerative braking torque at S80, NO in FIG. 2 will not meet/satisfy the demanded braking torque Tbd and is thus constitutes an electric brake ratio that is less than 100% of the braking torque] comprises respective portions of the braking torque allocated to the front electric brakes and the rear electric brakes based on the electric brake split [e.g., comprise respective portions Tref and Trer, in Shimada et al. (‘105)];
per claim 13, depending on claim 9, wherein the electric brakes are associated with the rear axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the rear motor-generator 10r];
per claim 15, a machine comprising:
electric brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 10f, 10r];
front friction brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 36fl, 38fl, 36fr, 38fr] associated with a front axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 14fl, 14fr];
rear friction brakes [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 36rl, 38rl, 36rr, 38rr] associated with a rear axle [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 14rl, 14rr]; and
a brake controller [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 24, 50] configured to manage the electric brakes, the front friction brakes, and the rear friction brakes by:
determining braking torque [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the demanded brake torque Tbd] associated with a braking operation to be performed by the machine [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), 10f, 10r, 36fl, 38fl, 36fr, 38fr, 36rl, 38rl, 36rr, 38rr];
allocating the braking torque between an electric brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), with the electric brake ratio being 100% of the braking torque at S40, YES and S80, YES in FIG. 2, and being less than 100% at S70, NO and S80, NO in FIG. 2] and a friction brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), with the friction brake ratio being 0% at S40, YES and S80, YES in FIG. 2, and being more than 0% of the braking torque at S70, NO and S80, NO in FIG. 2];
determining a target friction brake split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the split between Tmf and Tmr at S100 (e.g., the lower alternative)] based on the electric brake ratio [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), based on the electric brake ratio being less than 100% of the braking torque at S80, NO in FIG. 2, since the front and rear maximum regenerative braking torque will not meet/satisfy the demanded braking torque Tbd] and a target machine axle split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), the limit value α as “predetermined for the ratio of the brake torque applied to the rear wheels to the brake torque applied to the front wheels. The limit value α is generally determined to be smaller than 1, so that the rear wheels are less braked than the front wheels” (e.g., column 6, lines 21ff)];
determining an[8] axle friction brake bias capacity [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), determining for each front or rear wheel (on an axle) the temperature margin Tm and the temperature rise gradient TΔ so that the “thermal capacity of the front wheel braking device and the rear wheel braking device can be used as effectively as possible” based on capacity values determined (at S2 to S12) by both Tm and TΔ, e.g., as shown in FIG. 6, and by biasing the braking force distribution in accordance with the braking force distribution correction amount in S12, wherein the braking force distribution is changed i) so as to reduce the braking force burden on a braked wheel that is detected as having a temperature rise within the braking effectiveness reduction range, and ii) to increase the braking force load reduction amount for braking wheels with larger temperature rise average values TΔa calculated (e.g., paragraphs [0065] to [0068], etc.)] based on sensor data indicating a temperature [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), based on Tn, Tn-1, etc. at S1, S8, etc. in FIG. 2] and a temperature increase rate [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), based on TΔ at S8 in FIG. 2] associated with one of the front friction brakes or the rear friction brakes [e.g., in Ito (JP, ‘112), in FIGS. 2, 6, etc. associated with both the front and rear wheels which are monitored for both temperature margin and temperature rise gradient];
determining a requested friction brake split [e.g., the braking force distribution correction amount in paragraph [0036] and the bottom time trace in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112) obtained by biasing the braking force distribution in accordance with the braking force distribution correction amount in S12, wherein the braking force distribution is changed i) so as to reduce the braking force burden on a braked wheel that is detected as having a temperature rise within the braking effectiveness reduction range, and ii) to increase the braking force load reduction amount for braking wheels with larger temperature rise average values TΔa calculated (e.g., paragraphs [0065] to [0068], etc.)] based on the target friction brake split [e.g., in Shimada et al. (‘105), based on the limit value α as “predetermined for the ratio of the brake torque applied to the rear wheels to the brake torque applied to the front wheels” in S100 of FIG. 2, and the braking force distribution in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112) before the correction amount is applied after time t0] and the axle friction brake bias capacity [e.g., the remaining thermal capacity of the brakes as determined from the temperature margin Tm and the temperature rise gradient TΔ at each wheel, in Ito (JP, ‘112)]; and
allocating, based on the requested friction brake split, the friction brake ratio between a front friction brake ratio and a rear friction brake ratio[e.g., as shown in FIG. 6 of Ito (JP, ‘112), in the time period between the correction of the braking distribution amount (e.g., after t0) until the time t3 when the brake is released; and while the answer at S80 in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105) is NO such that Tmf and Tmr are split according to the limit value α as at the bottom of S100 to establish target front and braking force burdens Tmf and Tmr, and then the braking distribution correction amount at the bottom of FIG. 6 in Ito (JP, ‘112) is implemented to reduce the braking force burden (e.g., Tmf or Tmr) on the wheels with the lower temperature margin or the larger temperature rise gradient, so that the braking force distribution amount (i.e., of α) becomes more geared to the wheels with the lower temperatures];
per claim 17, depending from claim 15, wherein the brake controller is further configured to:
cause the electric brakes to apply a first portion of the braking torque indicated by the electric brake ratio [e.g., Tref, Trer in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105)];
cause the front friction brakes to apply a second portion of the braking torque indicated by the front friction brake ratio [e.g., Tmf in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105), corrected by the braking force distribution correction amount (based on temperature), as taught at Step S12 and FIG. 6 by Ito et al. (JP, ‘112)]; and
cause the rear friction brakes to apply a third portion of the braking torque indicated by the rear friction brake ratio [e.g., Tmr in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105), corrected by the braking force distribution correction amount (based on temperature), as taught at Step S12 and FIG. 6 by Ito et al. (JP, ‘112)];
per claim 18, depending from claim 17, wherein:
the electric brakes comprise:
front electric brakes [e.g., 10f in FIG. 1 of Shimada et al. (‘105), implementing Tref in FIG. 2] associated with the front axle; and
rear electric brakes associated with the rear axle [e.g., 10r in FIG. 1 of Shimada et al. (‘105), implementing Trer in FIG. 2],
the target friction brake split is further determined based on an electric brake split [e.g., the split between Tref and Trer of FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105), and in particular the split between Trefmax and Trermax at S100 as an electric brake split, where the target friction brake split is the split between Tmf and Tmr of Shimada et al. (‘105) as corrected by Ito (JP, 112) for temperature, where corrected Tmf is based in Trefmax and corrected Tmr is based of Trermax] indicating respective usage levels of the front electric brakes and the rear electric brakes [e.g., in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105) Tref = Trefmax (at S60) and Trer = Trermax (at S100), where Tref and Trer are the target regenerative brake torques that 10f and 10r are controlled to], and
the first portion of the braking torque indicated by the electric brake ratio comprises respective portions of the braking torque allocated to the front electric brakes [e.g., Tref in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105)] and the rear electric brakes [e.g., Trer in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105)] based on the electric brake split [e.g., the split between Tref and Trer, in FIG. 2 of Shimada et al. (‘105) e.g., based on Trefmax and Trermax];
per claim 19, depending on claim 15, wherein the electric brakes are associated with the rear axle [e.g., 10r in FIG. 1 of Shimada et al. (‘105), implementing Trer in FIG. 2];
Claims 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (6,406,105) in view of Ito (Japan, 2004-352112; EPO machine translation attached) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Cho (2021/0354671).
Shimada et al. (‘105) as implemented or modified in view of Ito (JP, ‘112) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Shimada et al. (‘105) brake system of a hybrid type vehicle may not reveal the use of a “cooling parameter”, etc. as claimed, although this limitation is apparently indefinite, and Ito (JP, ‘112) teaches at paragraph [0047] that, “Normally, the rate at which the temperature of the brakes rises varies among the four wheels due to factors such as the cooling structure, weight, and road surface gradient. If the temperature rise gradient is large, the time required to reach the region where the braking effectiveness is reduced will be shorter.”
However, in the context/field of an improved braking control system and method for a vehicle, Cho (‘671) teaches that the disk temperature of a brake may be calculated using the cooling coefficient of the disk (Equation 9), and that the distribution of braking pressure between the front and rear wheels may be controlled so as to maintain the disk temperature difference between the front and rear wheel disks to less than a reference value, whereby levels of wear of the brake pads of the front wheels and the rear wheels may be uniformly maintained, thereby enhancing braking stability of the vehicle (e.g., FIG. 2, paragraphs [0089], etc.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Shimada et al. (‘105) brake system of a hybrid type vehicle so that a cooling coefficient would have been determined, as taught by Cho (‘671), and so that the brake force distribution would have been additionally controlled (at S108 in FIG. 2 of Cho (‘671)) based on the cooling coefficient (Equation 9) to maintain a temperature difference of the front and rear brake disks to within a reference value, as taught by Cho (‘671), in order that levels of wear of the brake pads of the front wheels and the rear wheels may be uniformly maintained, thereby enhancing braking stability of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Shimada et al. (‘105) brake system of a hybrid type vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, wherein the requested friction brake split is further determined based on a cooling parameter indicating a thermally balanced torque split between the front friction brakes and the rear friction brakes [e.g., to maintain the front and rear disk temperature difference within a reference value at S109 in FIG. 2 by using the cooling coefficient of Equation 9 at S105, as taught by Cho (‘671)];
per claim 14, depending from claim 9, wherein the requested friction brake split is further determined based on a cooling parameter indicating a thermally balanced torque split between the front friction brakes and the rear friction brakes [e.g., to maintain the front and rear disk temperature difference within a reference value at S109 in FIG. 2 by using the cooling coefficient of Equation 9 at S105, as taught by Cho (‘671)];
per claim 20, depending from claim 15, further comprising:
at least one cooling system configured to cool at least one of the front friction brakes or the rear friction brakes [e.g., the cooling structure at paragraph [0047] in Ito (JP, ‘112); the convective heat transfer (e.g., obviously as a passive cooling system) and the disk thermal capacity in Cho (‘671), and the conventional disk brakes in Shimada et al. (‘105) which are convectively cooled (e.g., through the conventional use of ventilated disks, etc.), as is well-known and conventional]
wherein the requested friction brake split is further determined based on a cooling parameter indicating a thermally balanced torque split between the front friction brakes and the rear friction brakes [e.g., to maintain the front and rear disk temperature difference within a reference value at S109 in FIG. 2 by using the cooling coefficient of Equation 9 at S105, as taught by Cho (‘671)];
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would apparently be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is 571-270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
2 See MPEP 2173.05(b), IV.
3 This Google search (reproduced below/on the next page) was conducted on 22 December 2025:
PNG
media_image1.png
330
1172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
4 Here, the examiner merely notes that “allocating” in the specification is performed by “determiners” (120, 132) within the brake controller 104. As such, the allocations are merely e.g., numerical allocations.
5 See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.")
6 It has been established that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
7 It has been established that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
8 It has been established that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).