DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement filed 2/12/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The applicant did not provide a copy of EP 3938256. An equivalent document is acceptable as a translation, but not as a substitute for the original document.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 10 and 20 each recite “wherein the electronic brake booster module, the first power supply, and the second power supply provide the vehicle with L3+ autonomous driving capability”. The basis for this limitation in the specification is found in paragraph [0039], which recites:
“In an example embodiment, the first power supply 145 and the second power supply 146 may be ASIL B rated. ASIL B rating is consensus rating aimed to set a baseline for power supply to important automotive sensors. Given the ASIL B rating, in some cases, the vehicle 110 may include L3+ autonomous driving capability. L3+ autonomous driving generally may indicate the vehicle 110 can manage most aspects of driving, including monitoring the environment, without human intervention. In some cases, the L3+ autonomous driving mode may be enabled on a subscription basis”.
Although the power supplies rated ASIL-B may be suitable for use in a Level 3 autonomous vehicle, power supplies are not actually capable of providing autonomous driving by themselves and there is no indication that the disclosed electronic brake booster provides autonomous driving capabilities. The written description does not explain how batteries can provide Level 3+ autonomous driving as claimed.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the vehicle control module or the electronic brake booster module determines a fallback condition based on a fault state determined based on the pedal actuation, the pedal angle, and operational status of one or more of the first power supply and the second power supply” (Lines 13-16). Claims 11 recites “wherein the electronic brake booster module or a vehicle control module of the vehicle control system determines a fallback condition based on a fault state determined based on the pedal actuation, the [brake] pedal angle, and operational status of one or more of the first power supply and the second power supply” (Lines 12-15). The term “fallback condition” is a synonym for “fault”. It is unclear whether the claim limitations “[a module] determines a fallback condition based on a fault state determined based on [criteria]” require passive observation or an active reaction.
Claims 1 and 11 each introduce the limitation “pedal angle” (Claim 1: Lines 6-7. Claim 11: Line 11). Claim 1 subsequently refers to “the pedal angle” (Lines 14-15), while claims 7, 11, and 17 each refer to “the brake pedal angle” (Claim 7: Line 4. Claim 11: Line 14. Claim 17: Line 4). It is unclear how many pedal angles are required. The Examiner suggests amending claims 1-10 and 11-20 to use the same term consistently. Suggestions include “a brake pedal angle…the brake pedal angle” or “a pedal angle…the pedal angle”.
Claims 4 and 14 each recite “wherein the private communication link determines crossover switch function” (Both claims: Line 6). It is unclear what acts by the crossover switch are encompassed by the limitation “crossover switch function”.
Claims 8 and 18 each recite “wherein the first power supply and the second power supply are operably coupled to other components of the vehicle other than the electronic brake booster module, wherein the other components further comprise additional sensors, modules, and devices outside of the vehicle control system”. These claims each require a minimum of six items located outside of the vehicle control system: Two sensors, two modules and two devices. It is unclear which sensors, modules and devices the applicant is referring to.
Claims 9 and 19 each recite “wherein the first circuit board controls brake actuation via determining if brake boosting is needed, and wherein the second circuit board controls brake modulation via determining a degree of brake boosting to achieve a target torque”. The word “via” means “by way of”. It is unclear how one might control brake actuation by way of determining if brake boosting is needed and control brake modulation by way of determining a degree of brake boosting. In addition, the limitation “determining a degree of brake boosting to achieve a target torque” would be clearer if written as --determining a degree of brake boosting needed to achieve a target torque--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 2020/0023825) in view of Kim et al (US 2021/0237706) and further in view of Heise et al (US 2013/0282249).
As per claim 1, Mitchell et al discloses a vehicle control system (Fig. 1) of a vehicle (Abstract) comprising:
an electronic brake booster module (104) to adjust front brakes (106A, 106B; [0038]) of a braking system (100) of the vehicle;
a pedal travel sensor (144; [0043]) operably coupled to a brake pedal (120) of the vehicle to measure pedal actuation;
a vehicle control module (350, Fig. 3; [0086]) configured to monitor the vehicle control system;
a first power supply ([0072]) operably coupled to the electronic brake booster module; and
wherein the electronic brake booster module further controlling brake actuation ([0061]) and controlling brake modulation ([0048]). Mitchell et al does not disclose a pedal angle sensor, two power supplies or two circuit boards.
Kim et al discloses a braking apparatus of a vehicle comprising a first power supply (60) operably coupled to the electronic brake booster module; and a second power supply (50) operably coupled to the electronic brake booster module, wherein the electronic brake booster module further comprises a first circuit board (20; ([0064]) to control brake actuation (80) and a second circuit board (10; [0064]) to control brake modulation (17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by providing redundant power supplies as taught by Kim et al in order to protect against power losses caused by the loss of a single power source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by distributing brake controls among multiple circuit boards as taught by Kim et al in order to reduce the risk from a single component failing. Mitchell et al and Kim et al do not disclose a pedal angle sensor.
Heise et al discloses a fail-safe parking brake for motor vehicles comprising a pedal travel sensor ([0040]) operably coupled to a brake pedal ([0040]) of the vehicle to measure pedal actuation; a pedal angle sensor ([0040]) operably coupled to the brake pedal of the vehicle to measure pedal angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by providing a pedal angle sensor as taught by Heise et al in order to detect brake pedal position in the event that pedal travel sensor fails.
Mitchell et al further discloses wherein the vehicle control module or the electronic brake booster module determines a fallback condition based on a fault state determined based on the pedal actuation, the pedal angle, and operational status of one or more of the first power supply and the second power supply (Power loss causes motor failure [0072] and motor failure is a trigger for backup operations (S101, [0087]) that consider brake pedal position (S102, [0088])).
As per claim 2, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the vehicle control system of claim 1. Kim et al further discloses wherein the first power supply is operably coupled to the first circuit board (60, 20; [0064]), and
wherein the second power supply is operably coupled to the second circuit board (50, 10; [0064]).
As per claim 5, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the vehicle control system of claim 1. Mitchell et al further discloses wherein the braking system further comprises rear brakes (106C, 106D; [0038]),
wherein the front brakes are hydraulic brakes (106A, 106B; [0037], [0038]), and
wherein the rear brakes are electro-mechanical brakes ([0055]), but does not disclose wherein the rear brakes have separate power supplies from the first power supply and the second power supply.
Heise et al discloses wherein the braking system further comprises rear brakes (3a, 3b; [0038]), wherein the front brakes are hydraulic brakes (2c, 2d; [0038]), and wherein the rear brakes are electro-mechanical brakes ([0038]) with separate power supplies (9, 9'; [0045]) from the first power supply and the second power supply (Drive circuit power supplies [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by providing additional parking brake power supplies as taught by Heise et al in order ensure brake functionality in the event of a main power supply loss (Heise et al: [0011]).
As per claim 8, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the vehicle control system of claim 1. Mitchell et al further discloses wherein the first power supply and the second power supply are operably coupled to other components ([0056]) of the vehicle other than the electronic brake booster module,
wherein the other components further comprise additional sensors (222, 204), modules (218, 212), and devices (2210, 110) outside of the vehicle control system.
As per claim 9, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the vehicle control system of claim 1. Mitchell et al discloses determining if brake boosting is needed ([0061]), and controls brake modulation via determining a degree of brake boosting to achieve a target torque ([0048]), but not the assignment of these functions to particular circuit boards. Kim et al discloses wherein the first circuit board controls brake actuation via determining if brake boosting is needed (80; [0096]), and wherein the second circuit board controls brake modulation via determining a degree of brake boosting to achieve a target torque (17; [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by assigning brake actuation to the first circuit board and brake modulation to the second circuit board as taught by Kim et al in order to evenly distribute the workload, as there are a finite number of options for how various functions can be assigned. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
As per claim 11, Mitchell et al discloses an electronic brake booster module (104) for a vehicle control system (Fig. 1) of a vehicle (Abstract), the electronic brake booster module comprising:
controlling brake actuation ([0061]); and
controlling brake modulation ([0048]),
wherein a first power supply ([0072]) is operably coupled to the electronic brake booster module,
wherein the electronic brake booster module is configured to adjust front brakes (106A, 106B; [0038]) of a braking system (100) of the vehicle,
wherein the electronic brake booster is further operably coupled to a pedal travel sensor (144; [0043]) operably coupled to a brake pedal (120) of the vehicle to measure pedal actuation. Mitchell et al does not disclose a pedal angle sensor, two power supplies or two circuit boards.
Kim et al discloses a braking apparatus of a vehicle comprising an electronic brake booster module (205, 207) for a vehicle control system (Fig. 3A) of a vehicle (Title), the electronic brake booster module comprising:
a first circuit board (20; [0064]) to control brake actuation (80); and
a second circuit board (10; [0064]) to control brake modulation (17),
wherein a first power supply (60) and a second power supply (50) are operably coupled to the electronic brake booster module,
wherein the electronic brake booster module is configured to adjust brakes (102) of a braking system (Abstract) of the vehicle,
wherein the electronic brake booster is further operably coupled to a pedal travel sensor (75; [0035]) operably coupled to a brake pedal (65) of the vehicle to measure pedal actuation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by providing redundant power supplies as taught by Kim et al in order to protect against power losses caused by the loss of a single power source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by distributing brake controls among multiple circuit boards as taught by Kim et al in order to reduce the risk from a single component failing. Mitchell et al and Kim et al do not disclose a pedal angle sensor.
Heise et al discloses a fail-safe parking brake for motor vehicles comprising wherein the electronic brake booster is further operably coupled to a pedal travel sensor ([0040]) operably coupled to a brake pedal ([0040]) of the vehicle to measure pedal actuation and a pedal angle sensor ([0040]) operably coupled to the pedal of the vehicle to measure pedal angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by providing a pedal angle sensor as taught by Heise et al in order to detect brake pedal position in the event that pedal travel sensor fails.
Mitchell et al further discloses wherein the electronic brake booster module or a vehicle control module (350, Fig. 3; [0086]) of the vehicle control system determines a fallback condition based on a fault state determined based on the pedal actuation, the brake pedal angle, and operational status of one or more of the first power supply and the second power supply (Power loss causes motor failure [0072] and motor failure is a trigger for backup operations (S101, [0087])) that consider brake pedal position (S102, [0088])).
As per claim 12, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 11. Kim et al further discloses wherein the first power supply is operably coupled to the first circuit board (60, 20; [0064]), and
wherein the second power supply is operably coupled to the second circuit board (50, 10; [0064]).
As per claim 15, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 11. Mitchell et al further discloses wherein the braking system further comprises rear brakes (106C, 106D; [0038]),
wherein the front brakes are hydraulic brakes (106A, 106B; [0037], [0038]), and
wherein the rear brakes are electro-mechanical brakes ([0055]), but does not disclose wherein the rear brakes have separate power supplies from the first power supply and the second power supply.
Heise et al discloses wherein the braking system further comprises rear brakes (3a, 3b; [0038]), wherein the front brakes are hydraulic brakes (2c, 2d; [0038]), and wherein the rear brakes are electro-mechanical brakes ([0038]) with separate power supplies (9, 9'; [0045]) from the first power supply and the second power supply (Drive circuit power supplies [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by providing additional parking brake power supplies as taught by Heise et al in order ensure brake functionality in the event of a main power supply loss (Heise et al: [0011]).
As per claim 18, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 11. Mitchell et al further discloses wherein the first power supply and the second power supply are operably coupled to other components ([0056]) of the vehicle other than the electronic brake booster module,
wherein the other components further comprise additional sensors (222, 204), modules (218, 212), and devices (2210, 110) outside of the vehicle control system.
As per claim 19, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 11. Mitchell et al discloses determining if brake boosting is needed ([0061]), and controls brake modulation via determining a degree of brake boosting to achieve a target torque ([0048]), but not the assignment of these functions to particular circuit boards. Kim et al discloses wherein the first circuit board controls brake actuation via determining if brake boosting is needed (80; [0096]), and wherein the second circuit board controls brake modulation via determining a degree of brake boosting to achieve a target torque (17; [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by assigning brake actuation to the first circuit board and brake modulation to the second circuit board as taught by Kim et al in order to evenly distribute the workload, as there are a finite number of options for how various functions can be assigned. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
10. Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 2020/0023825), Kim et al (US 2021/0237706), Heise et al (US 2013/0282249) and Kim et al (US 2025/0058747).
As per claim 3, Mitchell et al, Kim et al (2021) and Heise et al disclose the vehicle control system of claim 1. Although Kim et al discloses wherein the electronic brake booster module further comprises a crossover switch (40) between the first circuit board and the second circuit board, they do not disclose wherein responsive to the operational status of one of the first power supply or the second power supply being in a non-operational state, the electronic brake booster module is configured to determine the fault state to be a single power supply fault, and wherein responsive to the determining the fault state to be the single power supply fault, the electronic brake booster module is configured to execute the fallback condition to have the crossover switch transfer power to one or more of the first circuit board or the second circuit board experiencing the single power supply fault from a remaining one or more of the first circuit board or the second circuit board not experiencing the single power supply fault.
Kim et al (2025) discloses an apparatus for controlling an electro-mechanical braking system wherein the electronic brake booster module further comprises a crossover switch (50) between the first circuit board and the second circuit board,
wherein responsive to the operational status of one of the first power supply or the second power supply being in a non-operational state, the electronic brake booster module is configured to determine the fault state to be a single power supply fault ([0032]), and
wherein responsive to the determining the fault state to be the single power supply fault, the electronic brake booster module is configured to execute the fallback condition to have the crossover switch transfer power to one or more of the first circuit board or the second circuit board experiencing the single power supply fault from a remaining one or more of the first circuit board or the second circuit board not experiencing the single power supply fault ([0030], [0031], [0032], [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by using still-powered controllers to re-energize depowered controllers as taught by Kim et al (2025) in order to ensure continued operation in the event of a power loss.
As per claim 4, Mitchell et al, Kim et al (2021), Heise et al and Kim et al (2025) disclose the vehicle control system of claim 3. Kim et al (2021) further discloses wherein the first circuit board has a first controller (21) and the second circuit board has a second controller (11), wherein the first circuit board and the second circuit board communicate with one another via a private communication link (CAN network [0077]; 40; [0085]) between the first controller and the second controller, and wherein the private communication link determines crossover switch function (40; [0085]). Kim et al (2021) does not disclose microcontrollers. Heise et al discloses a first microcontroller (7; [0043]) and a second microcontroller (7’; [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controllers of Mitchell et al and Kim et al by implementing them as microcontrollers as taught by Heise et al in order to reduce cost and space requirements.
As per claim 13, Mitchell et al, Kim et al (2021) and Heise et al disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 11. Although Kim et al discloses wherein the electronic brake booster module further comprises a crossover switch (40) between the first circuit board and the second circuit board, they do not disclose wherein responsive to the operational status of one of the first power supply or the second power supply being in a non-operational state, the electronic brake booster module is configured to determine the fault state to be a single power supply fault, and wherein responsive to the determining the fault state to be the single power supply fault, the electronic brake booster module is configured to execute the fallback condition to have the crossover switch transfer power to one or more of the first circuit board or the second circuit board experiencing the single power supply fault from a remaining one or more of the first circuit board or the second circuit board not experiencing the single power supply fault.
Kim et al (2025) discloses an apparatus for controlling an electro-mechanical braking system wherein the electronic brake booster module further comprises a crossover switch (50) between the first circuit board and the second circuit board,
wherein responsive to the operational status of one of the first power supply or the second power supply being in a non-operational state, the electronic brake booster module is configured to determine the fault state to be a single power supply fault ([0032]), and
wherein responsive to the determining the fault state to be the single power supply fault, the electronic brake booster module is configured to execute the fallback condition to have the crossover switch transfer power to one or more of the first circuit board or the second circuit board experiencing the single power supply fault from a remaining one or more of the first circuit board or the second circuit board not experiencing the single power supply fault ([0030], [0031], [0032], [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al by using still-powered controllers to re-energize depowered controllers as taught by Kim et al (2025) in order to ensure continued operation in the event of a power loss.
As per claim 14, Mitchell et al, Kim et al (2021), Heise et al and Kim et al (2025) disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 13. Kim et al (2021) further discloses wherein the first circuit board has a first controller (21) and the second circuit board has a second controller (11), wherein the first circuit board and the second circuit board communicate with one another via a private communication link (CAN network [0077]; 40; [0085]) between the first controller and the second controller, and wherein the private communication link determines crossover switch function (40; [0085]). Kim et al (2021) does not disclose microcontrollers. Heise et al discloses a first microcontroller (7; [0043]) and a second microcontroller (7’; [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controllers of Mitchell et al and Kim et al by implementing them as microcontrollers as taught by Heise et al in order to reduce cost and space requirements.
11. Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 2020/0023825), Kim et al (US 2021/0237706), Heise et al (US 2013/0282249) and Buchert et al (US 2024/0208475).
As per claim 6, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the vehicle control system of claim 5. Mitchell et al discloses wherein responsive to the operational status of the power supply being in a non-operational state, the vehicle control module determines the fault state to be a power supply fault ([0072]), and wherein responsive to determining the fault state to be the power supply fault, the vehicle control module is configured to execute the fallback condition to have the front brakes operate according to a hydraulic fallback ([0072]) and the rear brakes operate according to an electro-mechanical assist fallback (S105, S106; [0092], [0093]). Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al do not disclose detecting a double power supply fault.
Buchert et al discloses methods and systems for implementing a redundant brake system wherein responsive to the operational status of both the first power supply and the second power supply being in a non-operational state, the vehicle control module determines the fault state to be a double power supply fault ([0093]), wherein responsive to determining the fault state to be the double power supply fault, the vehicle control module is configured to execute the fallback condition ([0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al and Kim et al by deploying failsafe braking operations in response to a double power failure as taught by Buchert et al in order to maintain emergency vehicle control.
As per claim 7, Mitchell et al, Kim et al, Heise et al and Buchert et al disclose the vehicle control system of claim 6. Mitchell et al further discloses wherein the hydraulic fallback provides hydraulic fluid ([0072]) into calipers ([0037]) of the front brakes based on the pedal actuation ([0072]), and
wherein the electro-mechanical assist fallback provides varying degrees of electro-mechanical braking based proportionally on the brake pedal position (S105, S106; [0092], [0093]). Mitchell et al does not disclose detecting the brake pedal angle. Heise et al further discloses detecting the brake pedal angle ([0040]).
As per claim 16, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 15. Mitchell et al discloses wherein responsive to the operational status of the power supply being in a non-operational state, the vehicle control module determines the fault state to be a power supply fault ([0072]), and wherein responsive to determining the fault state to be the power supply fault, the vehicle control module is configured to execute the fallback condition to have the front brakes operate according to a hydraulic fallback ([0072]) and the rear brakes operate according to an electro-mechanical assist fallback (S105, S106; [0092], [0093]). Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al do not disclose detecting a double power supply fault.
Buchert et al discloses methods and systems for implementing a redundant brake system wherein responsive to the operational status of both the first power supply and the second power supply being in a non-operational state, the vehicle control module determines the fault state to be a double power supply fault ([0093]), wherein responsive to determining the fault state to be the double power supply fault, the vehicle control module is configured to execute the fallback condition ([0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al and Kim et al by deploying failsafe braking operations in response to a double power failure as taught by Buchert et al in order to maintain emergency vehicle control.
As per claim 17, Mitchell et al, Kim et al, Heise et al and Buchert et al disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 16. Mitchell et al further discloses wherein the hydraulic fallback provides hydraulic fluid ([0072]) into calipers ([0037]) of the front brakes based on the pedal actuation ([0072]), and
wherein the electro-mechanical assist fallback provides varying degrees of electro-mechanical braking based proportionally on the brake pedal position (S105, S106; [0092], [0093]). Mitchell et al does not disclose detecting the brake pedal angle. Heise et al further discloses detecting the brake pedal angle ([0040]).
12. Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 2020/0023825), Kim et al (US 2021/0237706), Heise et al (US 2013/0282249) and Lee et al (US 2023/0174033).
As per claim 10, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the vehicle control system of claim 1. Although Mitchell et al discloses a hydraulic control unit (104), while Kim et al discloses an electrical control unit (13) and a hydraulic control unit (18), they do not disclose an autonomous vehicle.
Lee et al discloses an electronic stability control-based brake actuation with redundancy, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle ([0002]), wherein the electronic brake booster module is a single box ([0022]) further comprising an electrical control unit ([0022]) and a hydraulic control unit ([0022]), and wherein the electronic brake booster module, the first power supply, and the second power supply provide the vehicle with L3+ autonomous driving capability ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al by implementing it in an autonomous vehicle as taught by Lee et al in order to provide an improved passenger experience.
As per claim 20, Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al disclose the electronic brake booster module of claim 11. Although Mitchell et al discloses a hydraulic control unit (104), while Kim et al discloses an electrical control unit (13) and a hydraulic control unit (18), they do not disclose an autonomous vehicle.
Lee et al discloses an electronic stability control-based brake actuation with redundancy, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle ([0002]), wherein the electronic brake booster module is a single box ([0022]) further comprising an electrical control unit ([0022]) and a hydraulic control unit ([0022]), and wherein the electronic brake booster module, the first power supply, and the second power supply provide the vehicle with L3+ autonomous driving capability ([0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake system of Mitchell et al, Kim et al and Heise et al by implementing it in an autonomous vehicle as taught by Lee et al in order to provide an improved passenger experience.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brake systems
Geis-Esser et al (US 2025/0074380).
Stanojkovski et al (DE 102023208177).
Meyer et al (US 2022/0340118).
Linhoff (US 2015/0028666).
Nilsson (US 2008/0296106).
Power system
Heinrichs et al (US 2011/0264952).
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M BOWES whose telephone number is (571)270-0460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/STEPHEN M BOWES/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights