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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 previously Cancelled.
Claims 16-21, 27, and 29 are amended.
Claims 16-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s explanation has been fully considered. The 37 USC § 105 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 112 has not been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues:
“Wegeng, Muller, and Geuf3 - do not disclose or suggest - at least the following features recited in independent claim 16….: determining a deceleration quantity… determine a deceleration quantity of the at least one further brake from the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake and from the braking effect on the vehicle, taking vehicle parameters into account.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees Muller teaches “control quality” [See at least col. 3, lines 32-46; Col. 4 , lines 10-24]. See 35 U.S.C. § 103 below for more clarification.
Note that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(see MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
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: “a data-processing unit operatively configured to” in claim 27.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-22, 24, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over William Wegeng et al. [US20080172162, now Wegeng] with Claus Müller et al. [US10583744, now Muller, further with Matthias GEUß [US20180229699, now Geub].
Claim 16
Wegeng discloses a method for determining a deceleration quantity of a braking system of a vehicle, the braking system including at least one brake and at least one further brake, the method comprising the steps of providing a numerical value of a manipulated quantity that is supplied by the braking system, the at least one brake being designed to generate a deceleration quantity in reaction to the numerical value of this manipulated quantity [see at least Wegeng, abstract; ¶ 0009 (“In another aspect of the invention, a method is provided for precisely controlling the rate of deceleration of a vehicle having a transmission with a rotatable output member and a retarder configured to retard the speed of the rotatable output member, including measuring the actual output speed of the output member, determining a desired output speed using a plurality of user-commandable speed input devices, communicating the actual output speeds to a controller, and commanding the retarder to apply a variable amount of retarder torque to the rotatable output member based on the actual and desired output speeds to thereby achieve a controlled rate of deceleration.”); 0026 (“ In step 108, with Mode 1, i.e. a steady-state/zero deceleration condition, having been selected in the preceding step, the algorithm 100 determines the desired speed input .omega..sub.Vi by using any or all of the detectable throttle, brake, and retarder inputs or levels T.sub.i, B.sub.i, and R.sub.i, respectively, and temporarily records or stores the value .omega..sub.Vi in memory 19. The algorithm 100 utilizes the detectable throttle input T.sub.i to continuously increase or revise the stored value .omega..sub.Vi until the operator commands zero throttle, i.e. stops depressing the accelerator pedal, and utilizes the detectable braking input B.sub.i to reduce or decrease the stored value .omega..sub.Vi in relation to the duration and/or level of commanded braking. Once the target or desired speed input .omega..sub.Vi is determined, the algorithm 100 proceeds to step 110.”)];
determining a braking effect acting on the vehicle by way of the braking system in reaction to the manipulated quantity that was impressed upon the braking system [see at least Wegeng, ¶ 0002 (“Transmission output speed retarders are non-wearing auxiliary braking devices used in conjunction with a rotatable vehicle transmission output member or driveshaft in order to safely augment the conventional friction-based braking system or service brakes used on certain large vehicles, such as diesel-powered medium and heavy trucks or busses. Such speed retarding devices or retarders are useful in helping to slow or stop a vehicle, particularly under continuous-braking or start-stop conditions and while the vehicle is descending a relatively long, steep slope, such as a descending stretch of mountain highway. Without the use of a transmission output speed retarder, a conventional vehicle braking system operating continuously under such aggressive slope or traffic conditions may tend to wear more rapidly, potentially reducing the working life of the service brake.”); 0005 (“a vehicle retarder control apparatus is provided having a transmission with a rotatable output member and a detectable actual transmission output speed, a speed sensor operable for measuring the detectable actual transmission output speed, a plurality of user-commandable input devices for selecting a desired transmission output speed, including a retarder input device configured for selecting a relative amount of retarder request, and a controller having an algorithm for commanding a variable actual amount of retarder request in response to the desired output speed to thereby provide a controlled rate of deceleration to the vehicle.”); 0009];
determining a deceleration quantity of the at least one further brake from the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake and from the braking effect on the vehicle, taking vehicle parameters into account [see at least Wegeng, ¶ 0004 (“Various operator-directed control systems exist for the purpose of controlling a fixed amount of retarder capacity to be applied to the vehicle transmission. For example, an operator-actuated lever, switch, and/or brake pedal may be used to command a predetermined amount of retarder request based on, for example, a predetermined percentage of available retarder capacity or retarder torque. However, such devices may be less than optimal, as they generally require an operator to actuate a retarder mechanism each time the operator wishes to engage the retarder. Likewise, such mechanisms may provide inadequate vehicle speed control, as a given vehicle's rate of deceleration will necessarily vary along with its gross weight and/or axle ratio as the vehicle travels over different terrain and through various traffic conditions, thus requiring frequent retarder adjustments in order to maintain even a generally constant speed.”); 0005; 0009];
generating the deceleration quantity, using the at least one brake, in reaction to the numerical value of the manipulated quantity [see at least Wegeng, ¶ 0018 (generate “detectable brake level”); 0030 (“retarder is not a fixed quantity or otherwise directly related or tied to a percentage or amount of available retarder capacity”)].
Wegeng does not disclose but Muller teaches determining the deceleration quantity, corresponding to the numerical value of the manipulated quantity, of the at least one brake that arises based on the manipulated quantity, taking vehicle parameters into account [see at least Muller, Col.1, lines 20-35 (“Rail vehicles must maintain specific braking distances in traffic and, in particular, come to a stop at points signaled to them beforehand. Rail vehicles are braked according to precisely defined criteria, inter alia deceleration characteristics, the observance of which is relevant to ensuring economic and safe operation of the rail vehicles. Various types of brakes are involved in each braking operation of a modern rail vehicle (friction brake, electrodynamic brake, electromagnetic rail brake and eddy current brake). Each of these brakes has its specific advantages, such as a speed or performance range, in which it functions most effectively or most economically with regard to wear. Each brake type has in this case specific tolerances and imprecisions in applying the braking force which leads to undesirable variations in the braking force achieved over the course of the braking process.”); Col. 3, lines 32-59 (quality and determine deceleration); Col. 4 , lines 10-24 (“control quality”)].
Muller more specifically teaches determining a braking effect acting on the vehicle by way of the braking system in reaction to the manipulated quantity that was impressed upon the braking system [see at least Muller, Col. 2, lines 61-67 (“Within the context of the disclosed embodiments, a braking system was developed for a rail vehicle. This comprises a setpoint generator for the setpoint of the overall braking force, a controller for determining at least one manipulated variable based on this setpoint, and at least one actuator that transmits this manipulated variable to at least one braking device.”); and
determining a deceleration quantity of the at least one further brake from the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake and from the braking effect on the vehicle, taking vehicle parameters into account [see at least Muller, Col. 3, lines 19-31 (“ In accordance with at least one embodiment, means for at least approximately determining acceleration components of the rail vehicle as well as means for determining the actual value of the overall braking force from these acceleration components taking into account the running speed and vehicle mass are provided. The controller is designed to influence the manipulated variable to reduce the control deviation between the setpoint and the determined actual value. In so doing, the vehicle mass can be fixed; however, means can also be provided for detecting the mass of the rail vehicle which in particular can be integrated in a secondary suspension arranged between the body and the wheels of the vehicle.”)].
col. 3, lines 32-46; Col. 4 , lines 10-24
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Geub also teaches method for determining a deceleration quantity of a braking system of a vehicle, the braking system including at least one brake and at least one further brake [see at least Geub 0006 (“adjusting or controlling a brake actuation parameter”); 0030 (“For an accurate determination of the coefficient of friction it is advantageous when an actuator system is available on each axle which is provided with a higher actuating precision that the hydraulic brake system. However, it is also possible to determine the coefficient of friction of both axles of a vehicle provided with two axles with a system in which another actuator system which has a higher actuating precision than the hydraulic brake system is provided only on one axle. In this embodiment, the measurement is carried out on the first axle and the value of the second axle is calculated for example by taking into account slipping.”)];
determining the deceleration quantity, corresponding to the numerical value of the manipulated quantity, of the at least one brake that arises based on the manipulated quantity, taking vehicle parameters into account; and determining a deceleration quantity of the at least one further brake from the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake and from the braking effect on the vehicle, taking vehicle parameters into account [see at least Geub, ¶ 0002-0004 (“determining a parameter”); 0007 (“From DE 10 2010 043 320 A1 are known devices and a method for determining a measured variable for a frictional force acting on a disk brake of a motor vehicle. A sensor device arranged on the disk brake measures the displacement of the brake holder that is caused by the effect of the braking force in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the brake disk.”); 0011 (“Based on this background, the objective is to provide a system and a method for estimating the coefficient of friction of a hydraulic brake system with axle-individual pressure buildup of a motor vehicle without using vehicle parameters such as for example the vehicle mass. A brake system with axle-individual pressure buildup acts on each axle of the vehicle separately.”); 0014 (“The invention provides a solution for estimating the coefficient of friction of a hydraulic brake system with axle-individual pressure buildup of a motor vehicle, which can be obtained without the use of vehicle parameters such as for example the vehicle mass. A brake system provided with axle-individual pressure buildup acts separately on each axle of the vehicle.”); Parameters are listed such as Mass].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller, further with coefficient of friction (deceleration or deceleration variable or quantity) of Geub. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶ 0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 17
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Wegeng further discloses a braking-system model that is designed to determine the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake from the input numerical value of the manipulated quantity; entering the numerical value of the manipulated quantity into the braking-system model; wherein the determining of the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake corresponding to the numerical value of the manipulated quantity is undertaken by the braking-system model.
Wegeng does not disclose but Muller teaches entering the numerical value of the manipulated quantity into the braking-system model [see at least Muller, Abstract (“manipulated variable value”); Col 3, lines 10-18 (“ If there are a plurality of braking devices, a braking force distributor is thus advantageously provided to control the necessary individual braking forces of the different braking systems. This braking force distributor can then particularly take into account which braking device acts most effectively in which speed range or performance range, or most economically with regard to wear. In particular, a plurality of actuators can then be provided that transmit different manipulated variables to different braking devices.”); Col. 6, lines 55-65 (“In the deceleration control model (FIG. 2a), all of the forces add up to an overall force F.sub.ges which yields the resulting kinematic deceleration a (dv/dt) together with the vehicle mass m. A controller 7 receives both the actual value a as well as the setpoint a.sub.soll for this deceleration. It sends manipulated variables to a braking force distributor 8 so that the actual value of the deceleration is brought into correspondence with the setpoint. A change in the gradient resistance from switching to an ascending gradient or a descending gradient is compensated by the controller 7 with the above-described disadvantageous side effects.”)].
Muller also teaches a braking-system model that is designed to determine the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake from the input numerical value of the manipulated quantity wherein the determining of the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake corresponding to the numerical value of the manipulated quantity is undertaken by the braking-system model [see at least Muller, Col. 6, lines 55-65; Col 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 23 (“In the braking force control model (FIG. 2b) according to an exemplary embodiment of the braking system (1a) according to a disclosed embodiment, gradient resistance F(α), curve resistance F(r) and vehicle and traction resistance F(v) together with the vehicle mass m each produce acceleration components a.sub.st, a.sub.Bo and a.sub.Fz. Analogously, the sum of all braking forces F.sub.Br leads to a deceleration a.sub.Br. All of the effective acceleration components a.sub.st, a.sub.Bo, a.sub.Fz and a.sub.Br add up to an overall deceleration .sub.ges=a. The sensor 3 acting in the direction of travel for the vehicle longitudinal deceleration which is part of the braking force estimator 1 according to a disclosed embodiment only provides the sum of the deceleration components a.sub.Bo, a.sub.FZ and a.sub.Br; the gradient deceleration a.sub.st is generally not detected by the sensor 3. The recorded deceleration components are sent to the evaluation unit 5 of the braking force estimator that also receives the vehicle mass m, the current running speed v as well as the yaw rate (rate of rotation about the vertical axis) Ω.sub.z and the transverse acceleration a.sub.y as inputs. From this, the evaluation unit 5 calculates the estimated braking force F.sub.Br,est. This is supplied to the controller 7 together with a setpoint F.sub.Br,soll. By adapting the manipulated variable 7a, the controller 7 adjusts the braking forces so that the actual value F.sub.Br,est for the braking force supplied by the evaluation unit 5 is brought into correspondence with the setpoint .sub.Br,soll.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 18
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Wegeng does not disclose but Muller teaches a feasible deceleration quantity of the at least one further brake is determined based on a previously determined deceleration quantity of the at least one further brake and based on a feasible deceleration quantity having a feasible numerical value of the manipulated quantity [see at least Muller, Col. 3, line 60- Col. 4, line 9 (“In accordance with at least one embodiment, the actuator is pilot-controlled with a manipulated variable determined directly from the setpoint of the braking force without taking into account the actual value of the braking force, and it transmits a superposition of this manipulated variable with the manipulated variable determined by the controller to at least one braking device. With this pilot control, the braking force can at least be brought close to the setpoint so that the controller only has to compensate a difference. This is feasible faster and with improved control quality than finding the optimum manipulated variable without pilot control. The pilot control improves the control quality by using prior knowledge of the relationship between manipulated variable and exerted braking force. In addition, even when the controller fails, the pilot control makes it possible to improve the setpoint specification over, for example, applying a fixed default value. In accordance with at least one embodiment, the actuator is pilot-controlled with a manipulated variable determined directly from the setpoint of the braking force without taking into account the actual value of the braking force, and it transmits a superposition of this manipulated variable with the manipulated variable determined by the controller to at least one braking device. With this pilot control, the braking force can at least be brought close to the setpoint so that the controller only has to compensate a difference. This is feasible faster and with improved control quality than finding the optimum manipulated variable without pilot control. The pilot control improves the control quality by using prior knowledge of the relationship between manipulated variable and exerted braking force. In addition, even when the controller fails, the pilot control makes it possible to improve the setpoint specification over, for example, applying a fixed default value.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 19
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Wegeng does not disclose but Muller teaches the feasible numerical value of the manipulated quantity encompasses a maximally feasible numerical value of the manipulated quantity [see at least Muller, Col. 5, lines 12-32 (“Advantageously, the feedback of the actual value to the controller can increase or lower the braking force by an amount limited and adjustable in the positive and/or negative direction. One simple embodiment is for example to increase the amount of the feedback value only by a value≥0 and not however to lower it. This ensures that, on the one hand, if the feedback ceases or fails, a hazardous reduction of the braking force or extension of the braking distance cannot occur and, on the other hand, excessive braking force is not requested that exceeds the permissible limits (maximum force, use of friction, etc.). To this end, for example, the part of the controller responsible for the rudimentary control of the manipulated variable depending only on the setpoint (open-loop without feedback) and the part of the controller responsible for reducing the control deviation between the setpoint and actual value (closed-loop with feedback) can be designed as separate components. A pilot control circumventing the controller can also ensure operating safety in the event that the controller fails.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 20
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Wegeng further discloses the at least one brake and/or the at least one further brake of the braking system include(s) a friction brake [see at least Wegeng, ¶ 0002 (“Transmission output speed retarders are non-wearing auxiliary braking devices used in conjunction with a rotatable vehicle transmission output member or driveshaft in order to safely augment the conventional friction-based braking system or service brakes used on certain large vehicles, such as diesel-powered medium and heavy trucks or busses. Such speed retarding devices or retarders are useful in helping to slow or stop a vehicle, particularly under continuous-braking or start-stop conditions and while the vehicle is descending a relatively long, steep slope, such as a descending stretch of mountain highway. Without the use of a transmission output speed retarder, a conventional vehicle braking system operating continuously under such aggressive slope or traffic conditions may tend to wear more rapidly, potentially reducing the working life of the service brake.”)]
Muller also teaches the at least one brake and/or the at least one further brake of the braking system include(s) a friction brake [see at least Muller, Col. 5, lines 41-50 (“The braking system is designed for braking a rail vehicle. In accordance with at least one embodiment, it comprises at least two different brakes from the group of friction brake, electrodynamic brake, electromagnetic rail brake, eddy current brake, retarder or the like. Each of these brakes has its specific advantages, such as a speed or performance range, in which it functions most effectively or most economically with regard to wear. The required overall braking force is mixed taking into account these criteria from the contributions of the existing individual brakes (blending).”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 21
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Wegeng further discloses the vehicle parameters that are taken into account when determining the deceleration quantity of the at least one brake and/or of the at least one further brake comprise one or more of: a vehicle weight, a force-transmission capability between tires and road, an ascending incline, an operating state of a powertrain of the vehicle, or an availability of other braking systems [see at least Wegeng, ¶ 0003 (“ Other retarder methods or devices may also be used to slow a vehicle, such as exhaust brakes, engine brakes, or Jake Brakes, which act to load a vehicle engine and thereby slow its rate of rotation. “); 0019 (“The invention includes closed-loop and adaptive control logic to precisely control the deceleration of a vehicle irrespective of the vehicle's weight, mass, and/or axle ratio.”); 0021 (“ slippery or hazardous conditions, such as on an icy road, in order to maintain full manual control over the speed of the vehicle”)] .
Muller also teaches these limitations [see at least Muller, Col. 1 line 65 – col. 2, line 3 (“In accordance with at least one embodiment, additional means can be provided for detecting the longitudinal deceleration acting on the vehicle as well as the downhill force. In addition, an evaluation unit is provided that may determine the braking force based on the vehicle longitudinal deceleration and the downhill force.”); Col. 2, lines 16-28 (“It has been recognized that the downhill force is a variable that substantially influences the dynamics of braking processes and simultaneously always changes over the course of the route. The routine gradients in the field of rail vehicles can for example be 40 per thousand in Germany for high-speed traffic, and even higher for branch lines. On ascending gradients, the downhill force of the direction of travel is in the opposite direction and supports the effect of braking; on descending gradients, the downhill force runs in the direction of travel and counteracts the effect of braking. It is therefore necessary to take into account the downhill force to be able to deduce the braking force with sufficient precision from the vehicle longitudinal deceleration.”); Col. 3, lines 18-31 (“In so doing, the vehicle mass can be fixed; however, means can also be provided for detecting the mass of the rail vehicle which in particular can be integrated in a secondary suspension arranged between the body and the wheels of the vehicle.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 22
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Wegeng further discloses the at least one further brake is provided in a further vehicle part which is connected in an articulated manner to a first vehicle part, wherein a force measurement is undertaken between the first vehicle part and the further vehicle part [see at least Wegeng, ¶ 0002 (“Transmission output speed retarders are non-wearing auxiliary braking devices used in conjunction with a rotatable vehicle transmission output member or driveshaft in order to safely augment the conventional friction-based braking system or service brakes used on certain large vehicles, such as diesel-powered medium and heavy trucks (usually articulated vehicles) or busses. Such speed retarding devices or retarders are useful in helping to slow or stop a vehicle, particularly under continuous-braking or start-stop conditions and while the vehicle is descending a relatively long, steep slope, such as a descending stretch of mountain highway. Without the use of a transmission output speed retarder, a conventional vehicle braking system operating continuously under such aggressive slope or traffic conditions may tend to wear more rapidly, potentially reducing the working life of the service brake..
Muller also teaches these limitations [see at least Muller, Col. 3, lines 10-18 (“If there are a plurality of braking devices, a braking force distributor is thus advantageously provided to control the necessary individual braking forces of the different braking systems. This braking force distributor can then particularly take into account which braking device acts most effectively in which speed range or performance range, or most economically with regard to wear. In particular, a plurality of actuators can then be provided that transmit different manipulated variables to different braking devices.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 24
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Wegeng does not disclose but Muller teaches the braking-system model includes as a further input quantity a temperature of the at least one brake, a regulating distance, and/or an actuation angle [see at least Muller, Col. 1, lines 20-35; Col. 2, lines 4-8 (“The vehicle longitudinal deceleration may be the kinematic deceleration along the vehicle longitudinal axis. The vehicle longitudinal axis is always parallel to the track, i.e., it angles with the track in a transition into an ascending gradient or a descending gradient.”); Col. 2, lines 29-39].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Geub also teaches these limitations [see at least Geub, 0003 (“DE 35 02 050 A1 proposes to measure as a parameter of the braking torque the temperature which is obtained in the braking device in the moment when the braking torque is generated and to evaluate it in an evaluation device.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller, further with coefficient of friction (deceleration or deceleration variable or quantity) of Geub. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶ 0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 25
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Wegeng does not disclose but Muller teaches the braking-system model is updated based on a history of braking interventions [see at least Muller, Col. 4, line 60 – Col. 5, line 11 (“In accordance with at least one embodiment, the controller takes into account a prior history of deviations between the setpoint and actual value of the braking force from previous braking procedures when determining the manipulated variable. Accordingly, for example, to optimize the static transmission behavior from deviations between the actual value and setpoint of the braking force, an additive correction can be calculated for the manipulated variable, with which the desired stationary state of the braking force can be adjusted faster and with fewer changes to the manipulated variable in future braking procedures. This means that the controller is automatically adapted to the controlled system, and an optimum control behavior can thus be achieved. Advantageously, during a change to the setpoint, and optionally also during the reaction of the manipulated variable to this change, no deviations between the actual value and setpoint are included in the prior history so as not to influence the dynamic transmission behavior of the brake control.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 27
Claim 27 has similar limitations to claim 16, therefore claim 27 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 16.
For Clarity: An interface is a connection to exchange/communicate information between different sections/units of the system described above, [at least see Wegeng, Abstract (“communicating”); ¶ 0009 (“communicating”)].
Claim 28
Wegeng discloses a vehicle, comprising: an apparatus according to an apparatus according to wherein the vehicle is a utility vehicle, truck, trailer, bus, and/or a combination of towing vehicle and trailer, and/or wherein the vehicle is a purely electrical vehicle, a hybrid vehicle, or an internal combustion engine vehicle [see at least Wegeng, ¶ 0002 (“large vehicles, such as diesel-powered medium and heavy trucks or busses.”)].
Claim 29
Claim 29 has similar limitations to claim 16, therefore claim 29 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 16.
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over William Wegeng et al. [US20080172162, now Wegeng] with Claus Müller et al. [US10583744, now Muller, with Matthias GEUß [US20180229699, now Geub], further with Horst Eckert et al. [US20050017577, now Eckert].
Claim 23
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 16.
Neither Wegeng, Muller or Geub specifically disclose/teach but Eckert does teach wherein the at least one further brake is provided on a trailer and/or on a lift axle of the vehicle [see at least Eckert, Abstract (“A method and system for controlling brake-application energy in a tractor-trailer vehicle combination, the tractor vehicle having an electronic braking system (EBS), wherein, during braking, a set deceleration value is determined and compared with an actual deceleration value, and a current brake-application energy reference value (kappa) is determined from the comparison. To effect automatic load-dependent brake-force control for the trailer vehicle and to realize rapid adaptation of the control system to driving and load conditions, set brake-application energy values for each of the tractor and trailer vehicles are determined from the set deceleration value, from a value depending on kappa, and from brake-application energy levels for each of the tractor and trailer vehicles, using sets of performance characteristics resident in the EBS to describe the dependencies of the brake-application energy levels for the tractor and trailer vehicles on kappa and/or on the axle-load ratio of the tractor vehicle.”); ¶ 0004 (“According to EP 0 697 314 B1, during braking, the actual vehicle deceleration is measured and, if a deviation from the set vehicle deceleration is detected, the total brake pressure of the tractor vehicle is first corrected by readjusting the value of the reference factor in the band within the normal range. If the value of the reference factor reaches a limit point for the band within the normal range during such readjustment, the brake pressure for the trailer vehicle is readjusted in the predetermined braking band. Readjustment of the brake pressure for the trailer vehicle continues until the reference factor for the tractor vehicle total brake pressure corresponding to the altered trailer vehicle brake pressure is once again located in the band within the normal range.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller, with coefficient of friction (deceleration or deceleration variable or quantity) of Geub, further with the multiple brake systems in Eckert. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶ 0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient [Eckert, ¶ 0076 (“efficiently”)] braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Claim 26
Wegeng, Muller and Geub teach the method of claim 17.
Wegeng does not disclose but Muller teaches wherein the braking-system model exhibits a characteristic map and/or a physical model of the at least one brake [see at least Muller, Col. 1 lines 20-35].
Eckert more specifically teaches wherein the braking-system model exhibits a characteristic map and/or a physical model of the at least one brake [see at least Eckert, ¶ 0044-0045 (“FIGS. 3a through 3e show the physical relationships of various load conditions of a vehicle combination comprising a tractor vehicle as well as a trailer vehicle having two axles, together with values for the axle-loads (AL), the sums of the axle-loads for each vehicle of the vehicle combination and for the vehicle combination, the ALV of the tractor vehicle, the brake-application energy reference value kappa and the brake-application energy levels BDN-Z and BDN-A of the tractor and trailer vehicles. [0045] FIGS. 4a through 4c show the physical relationships of various load conditions (including empty, half-full and full) of vehicle combinations in which the trailer vehicle has one, two and three axles, and show values for the ALV, AL, total load, load distribution, and BDN-Z and BDN-A, as well as the brake-application energy reference value (kappa).”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the Adaptive Retarder Control Method And Apparatus of Wegeng with the more specific attributes of the braking system of Muller, with coefficient of friction (deceleration or deceleration variable or quantity) of Geub, further with the multiple brake systems in Eckert. Providing a safer [Wegeng, ¶ 0002], more effective [Muller, Col. 5, Lines 45-50 (‘most effectively”)] and efficient [Eckert, ¶ 0076 (“efficiently”)] braking system to be used in vehicles of all types.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights