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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed 3 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is FINAL.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Drawings
The drawings were objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the drawings to overcome or render moot each of the objections to the drawings. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9-10 were objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended the claims to overcome or render moot each of the objections. Accordingly, the objection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitations of claims 3, 6, 8, and 17-20 included contingent limitations. The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome this interpretation. Accordingly the claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 were 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.
The Applicant has amended most of the claims to overcome or render moot each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-17, 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn. However, claims 8-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 10 was rejected for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. In view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, and 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille (DE-10325623-A1, hereinafter “Schille”, provided in the IDS, however correspond to machine translation) in view of Najafi et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0256544, hereinafter “Najafi”).
Claim(s) 3, 7-8 and 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille and Najafi in further view of Steer et al. (WO 2016/030699, hereinafter “Steer”).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille and Najafi in further view of Li et al. (CN-113147712-A, hereinafter “Li”).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille and Najafi in further view of Meng et al. (“Modeling and Simulation of Brake Judder Considering the Effects of Thermo-Mechanical Coupling”, hereinafter “Meng”).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille and Najafi in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0316543, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Claim(s) 13 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Steer in further view of Li.
Claim(s) 15 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Steer in further view of Meng.
Claim(s) 16 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Li in further view Meng.
Claim(s) 18 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi, and Steer in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0316543, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Claim(s) 19 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Li in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0316543, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Claim(s) 20 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Meng in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0316543, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 3 December, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue:
The prior art does not teach at least the element of claim 1 as amended:
determining a condition of a coating of the brake disc of the wheel brake on the basis of the brake pressure applied to the wheel
brake and a deceleration of the motor vehicle resulting therefrom
Schille generally teaches that brake pressure applied to a wheel brake causes vehicle deceleration, and that the combination of pressure and deceleration can lead to defects in a surface of a brake disk, this is not however equivalent to "determining a condition of a coating ... on the basis of the brake pressure applied to the wheel break and a deceleration."
That is to say Schille at most discloses that defects may occur, and that defects may be minimized by actuating the brake pads, however the occurrence and minimization of defects is not determining or detecting the defect. At most Schille teaches the conditions that may lead to a defect occurring, but does not teach how to detect if a defect already exists within the coating.
Najafi does not remedy the above deficiencies of Schille, specifically Najafi teaches at most that the brake disc may be coated in a coating, but again does not teach either the determining a condition of the brake coating.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Schille teaches that the brake disk may have a lining (i.e. a coating) and the lining can have defects (see Schille [0002] “…This configuration, which is proven per se, results in certain disadvantages, for example in the form of different wear of the brake linings, which can lead to critical operating states and to a reduction in braking comfort and accordingly have to be eliminated or avoided. In addition, disk brakes in particular are subject to particular wear phenomena and damage, such as, for example, a disk shock, fluctuation in friction ring thickness, application of a brake lining, corrosion, etc., which negatively affect the braking behavior of such brake systems over their service life.” and [0024] “As has already been explained above, damage resulting from the production process, conventional wear, impacts, lining application and/or corrosion can lead to non-uniformities in the brake disks, which are concrete among other things in thickness variations. When the brake actuators are actuated, the said rub-off phenomena can then occur. As mentioned, these rub phenomena can excite the chassis, the steering system and/or the body of the motor vehicle as a function of vehicle speed and deceleration to unwanted chassis, steering system and/or body oscillations, which at least irritate the vehicle driver.”).
Schille further teaches a method of detecting a defect in a brake disk surface as a whole, which includes the lining, and further operating a brake system based on the detection so as to increase comfort (see Schille ([0011] “The object of the invention is therefore to provide a method for operating a brake system on a motor vehicle taking into account manufacturing-, wear- and/or damage-related thickness fluctuations on relevant brake disks of the front and/or rear axle, with which chassis, steering wheel and/or body oscillations which are excited by rub phenomena in the brake system can be prevented to the greatest extent without additional active mechanical processing of the brake linings or brake disks, or their comfort-accelerating effect can be reduced.” See also [0012-0013] “In this method, it is now provided that brake pressure signals and/or wheel speed signals provided by suitable sensors during a braking process are detected by the control unit, and when periodic fluctuations occur in these signals, the presence of manufacturing-, wear- and/or damage-induced thickness fluctuations on the brake disks of the front and/or rear axle is deduced…[0013] To avoid disadvantages of braking, steering and/or driving comfort, it is provided according to the invention that, when such fluctuations are detected, the actuators on the individual brake disks are controlled in such a way that, while maintaining a selected overall deceleration of the vehicle, the braking forces to be applied by the wheel brakes on the front and rear axles are distributed in such a way that no chassis, steering wheel and/or body oscillations excited by the brake system occur during a braking process or are at least reduced when they occur. Such a reduction comprises both a reduced oscillation frequency band and the oscillation amplitude level to be determined.” See also [0015] for teaching of detecting brake pressure and wheel speeds to deduce the wear or damage of the brake disks. )
Detecting the defect in the brake disk is necessarily detecting a defect of the brake disk coating as the coating is the outer surface of the brake disk. Further, the examiner cited Najafi for teaching a brake disk coating. The combination of Schille and Najafi teach detecting a defect of the brake disk coating as Schille teaches detecting the defect in the brake disk outer surface based on brake pressure and the deceleration, wherein the brake outer surface being the coating of the combination of Schille and Najafi.
Applicant further argues with respect to claim 3:
The prior art does not teach at least the element of claim 3 as amended:
further comprising detecting a defect in the coating based on the deceleration deviating from a deceleration target value
Steer generally teaches how a person would capture and record deceleration deviations, however again Steer, alone or in combination with the other cited art, does not suggest how or why said data would be utilized to determine a coating defect.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Schille and Najafi teach detecting a defect in the coating, and teach that the defect may be detected based on the brake pressure and the change in velocity (deceleration). While Schille and Najafi teach that the defect can be calculated based on the brake pressure and a change in the velocity (deceleration), the combination does not explicitly teach determining if the deceleration deviates from a deceleration target value.
Steer teaches determining there are anomalies in the braking system if the deceleration deviates from a deceleration target value stored for the brake pressure. (see at least Steer page 1, wherein it is determined if the brakes are operating within normal parameters, For example Figure 5 and page 32, lines 5-10 “While the data collection process described above determines and stores the braking event duration, average deceleration and average braking demand values for each braking event on the vehicle, it will be appreciated by the skilled person that the brake monitoring system 25 can be used to capture the raw data and/or intermediate data required to determine those values, and the calculated values can be determined by the data processing system “ See also abstract “A method for monitoring the braking performance of a vehicle. The method includes, for at least some of the braking events: determining a braking demand (118); determining vehicle deceleration (118); defining a first data set of braking events, wherein each braking event in the data set includes a determined braking demand and a determined vehicle deceleration; applying a statistical trend analysis method to the data set to generate a vehicle deceleration and braking demand trend (208); providing a vehicle deceleration and braking demand reference; and comparing at least one trend value with at least one reference value. From this comparison it is possible to determine if the braking system is operating within an acceptable limit. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of the defect using the brake pressure and the change in velocity (deceleration) taught in the combination of Schille and Najafi, with the teaching of Steer to use a deceleration target value for determining the defect or anomaly, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Steer teaches, the trend of deceleration and braking demand provides consistent and reliable results so that brake maintenance can be scheduled as needed (see at least Steer page 4, lines 5-10).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “calculating a deceleration force acting on the motor vehicle is calculated”. The examiner recommends removing “is calculated” at the end of the phrase. Claims 12 and 13has the same recitation and is objected to for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 9, and 18 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.
The term “several times ” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several times” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner will interpret the term “several” to mean more than one.
Claim 9 recites “a brake disc” in line 7. However, claim 9, line 5 previously recited “a brake disc”. It is unclear if the brake disc referred to in line 7 is the same or different than the brake disc referred to in line 5.
Claim 9 recites “the wheel brake” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 previously recited “at least one wheel brake”. It is not clear if the wheel brake is one of the “at least one wheel brake”.
Claim 18 recites “a defect” in line 2. Claim 18 depends from claim 3 which previously recited “a defect”. It is not clear if the defect of claim 18 is the same or different from that recited in claim 3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille (DE-10325623-A1, hereinafter “Schille”, provided in the IDS, however correspond to machine translation) in view of Najafi et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0256544, hereinafter “Najafi”).
Regarding claim 1, Schille teaches a method for operating a braking system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
operating the braking system (see at least Schille [0011-0012] “The object of the invention is therefore to provide a method for operating a brake system on a motor vehicle taking into account manufacturing-, wear- and/or damage-related thickness fluctuations on relevant brake disks of the front and/or rear axle, with which chassis, steering wheel and/or body oscillations which are excited by rub phenomena in the brake system can be prevented to the greatest extent without additional active mechanical processing of the brake linings or brake disks, or their comfort-accelerating effect can be reduced….The invention accordingly relates to a control method for actuating a motor vehicle brake system, in which individual actuators that can be actuated by pressure medium are assigned to the wheel brakes of the motor vehicle, which actuators are in turn controlled by an electronic control unit. In this method, it is now provided that brake pressure signals and/or wheel speed signals provided by suitable sensors during a braking process are detected by the control unit, and when periodic fluctuations occur in these signals, the presence of manufacturing-, wear- and/or damage-induced thickness fluctuations on the brake disks of the front and/or rear axle is deduced.”)
applying a brake pressure to a wheel brake to generate a braking force acting on a brake disc of the wheel brake (see at least Schille [0011-0012] “The object of the invention is therefore to provide a method for operating a brake system on a motor vehicle taking into account manufacturing-, wear- and/or damage-related thickness fluctuations on relevant brake disks of the front and/or rear axle, with which chassis, steering wheel and/or body oscillations which are excited by rub phenomena in the brake system can be prevented to the greatest extent without additional active mechanical processing of the brake linings or brake disks, or their comfort-accelerating effect can be reduced….The invention accordingly relates to a control method for actuating a motor vehicle brake system, in which individual actuators that can be actuated by pressure medium are assigned to the wheel brakes of the motor vehicle, which actuators are in turn controlled by an electronic control unit. In this method, it is now provided that brake pressure signals and/or wheel speed signals provided by suitable sensors during a braking process are detected by the control unit, and when periodic fluctuations occur in these signals, the presence of manufacturing-, wear- and/or damage-induced thickness fluctuations on the brake disks of the front and/or rear axle is deduced.” See also Figure 1 and [0014] “In one embodiment of the method according to the invention, it is additionally provided that during a braking process of the motor vehicle, the current rotational speed of the vehicle wheels and/or the pressure fluctuations are detected at the actuators of the disc brake, that, starting from a total vehicle deceleration selected by a current actuation of the brake pedal and in evaluation of the detected variables wheel speed and/or pressure fluctuation, a calculation of the actuating pressures for actuating the individual brake actuators is carried out such that, in the case of a vibration excitation situation which is critical with respect to the natural frequency of the chassis, of the steering system and/or of the body and the 1st order of the wheel speeds or of the driving speed, the total braking force is distributed between the wheel brakes of the front axle and of the rear axle in such a way that the excitation frequency of a brake judder corresponds not, or only briefly, to the natural frequency of the chassis, of the steering system and/or of the body. In this way, it is avoided that noticeable resonant oscillation effects occur.”)
at least temporarily adjusting the brake pressure depending on a setting of an operating element (see at least Schille [0014-0015] “In one embodiment of the method according to the invention, it is additionally provided that during a braking process of the motor vehicle, the current rotational speed of the vehicle wheels and/or the pressure fluctuations are detected at the actuators of the disc brake, that, starting from a total vehicle deceleration selected by a current actuation of the brake pedal and in evaluation of the detected variables wheel speed and/or pressure fluctuation, a calculation of the actuating pressures for actuating the individual brake actuators is carried out such that, in the case of a vibration excitation situation which is critical with respect to the natural frequency of the chassis, of the steering system and/or of the body and the 1st order of the wheel speeds or of the driving speed, the total braking force is distributed between the wheel brakes of the front axle and of the rear axle in such a way that the excitation frequency of a brake judder corresponds not, or only briefly, to the natural frequency of the chassis, of the steering system and/or of the body. In this way, it is avoided that noticeable resonant oscillation effects occur…. [0015] The brake pressures to be detected are preferably detected by pressure sensors which are in contact with the brake fluid, while the wheel speeds are measured by suitable rotational speed sensors.””) and
determining a condition [[of a coating]] of the brake disc of the wheel brake on the basis of the brake pressure applied to the wheel brake and a deceleration of the motor vehicle resulting therefrom (see at least Schille Figure 1 wherein it is determined there is brake judder at a actuation pressure Pw over the speed range of V1 to V3 (i.e. the deceleration from V1 to V3) and [0024] “As has already been explained above, damage resulting from the production process, conventional wear, impacts, lining application and/or corrosion can lead to non-uniformities in the brake disks, which are concrete among other things in thickness variations. When the brake actuators are actuated, the said rub-off phenomena can then occur. As mentioned, these rub phenomena can excite the chassis, the steering system and/or the body of the motor vehicle as a function of vehicle speed and deceleration to unwanted chassis, steering system and/or body oscillations, which at least irritate the vehicle driver.” See also [0029-0031] “ the excitation frequency 1st order of a vehicle wheel speed and the associated vehicle speed v are plotted against an actuation pressure P...The solid, linearly increasing line 1 indicates the course of the wheel longitudinal or vehicle steering natural frequency &ohgr; via the stated actuation pressure P, at which, owing to the stated brake disk damage, the brake judder leads to undesired oscillations in the vehicle steering system. The ellipse 5 surrounding this line 1, on the other hand, represents the tolerance band in which the course indicated by the line 1 can have different values ….If, in normal comfort braking with a uniform brake force distribution to the disc brakes of front and rear axles, braking is carried out for a certain period of time, for example at a brake medium actuation pressure P 2 the wheel suspension and steering device, in the resulting speed reduction according to the vertical line 2, pass through the frequency range &ohgr; 1 to &ohgr; 3 in the tolerance band 5, in which the brake judder over the speed range v 1 to v 3 can excite the wheel suspension and steering device to undesired oscillations.”)
While Schille teaches determining the non-uniformity of the surface of a brake disc and further teaches determining the “damage resulting from the production process, conventional wear, impacts, lining application and/or corrosion can lead to non-uniformities in the brake disks.” Wherein the examiner notes that lining or corrosion could be considered coating (see at least Schille [0024]) However, to further prosecution, the examiner has provided Najafi to teach that a surface of a brake disc is a coating.
Thus, the examiner notes that Najafi teaches coating the brake disc (see at least Najafi [0040] “In the context of the present description of the present invention, a dedicated material, (also called dedicated coating material) is in particular a material that can be used for producing a coating by using laser cladding coating techniques, preferably EHLA, the being able to provide an improved performance to the substrate surface which is being coated, in particular for improving corrosion and wear resistance of brake discs. Hence, a dedicated material is selected having properties that allows attaining the desired performance of the brake disc during its use, when the material is applied as coating. In other words, the dedicated material is preferably selected for improving performance of brake discs, therefore for attaining good adhesion to the substrate surface to be coated (e.g. the substrate surface can be for instance cast iron), good corrosion resistance, good wear resistance, good thermal shock resistance, good crack resistance and high material stability under all the typical brake disc usage condition, such as high thermomechanical stress, wet and dry conditions and interaction with a braking pad material). Examples of such dedicated materials are the alloy materials mentioned by Vecchio et al. in WO 2021/007209 A1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille with the teaching of Najafi, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Najafi teaches providing a brake disc with coating improves corrosion resistance improves performance of the brake discs (see at least Najafi [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schille and Najafi teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the coating of the brake disc is a laser coating (see at least Najafi [0040] “In the context of the present description of the present invention, a dedicated material, (also called dedicated coating material) is in particular a material that can be used for producing a coating by using laser cladding coating techniques, preferably EHLA, the being able to provide an improved performance to the substrate surface which is being coated, in particular for improving corrosion and wear resistance of brake discs. Hence, a dedicated material is selected having properties that allows attaining the desired performance of the brake disc during its use, when the material is applied as coating. In other words, the dedicated material is preferably selected for improving performance of brake discs, therefore for attaining good adhesion to the substrate surface to be coated (e.g. the substrate surface can be for instance cast iron), good corrosion resistance, good wear resistance, good thermal shock resistance, good crack resistance and high material stability under all the typical brake disc usage condition, such as high thermomechanical stress, wet and dry conditions and interaction with a braking pad material). Examples of such dedicated materials are the alloy materials mentioned by Vecchio et al. in WO 2021/007209 A1.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above. The examiner notes that Schille describes a control device (see at least Schille[0019-0020] “To carry out all the calculations mentioned in this description, the control unit is preferably based on calculation programs stored there which access constants and/or variables and/or learning algorithms stored in tables and/or mathematical functions.”)
Claim(s) 3, 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille and Najafi in further view of Steer et al. (WO 2016/030699, hereinafter “Steer”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schille and Najafi teach further detecting a defect in the coating, and teach that the defect may be detected based on the brake pressure and the change in velocity (deceleration), however the combination does not explicitly teach determining if the deceleration deviates from a deceleration target value.
Steer teaches determining there are anomalies in the braking system if the deceleration deviates from a deceleration target value stored for the brake pressure. (see at least Steer page 1, wherein it is determined if the brakes are operating within normal parameters, For example Figure 5 and page 32, lines 5-10 “While the data collection process described above determines and stores the braking event duration, average deceleration and average braking demand values for each braking event on the vehicle, it will be appreciated by the skilled person that the brake monitoring system 25 can be used to capture the raw data and/or intermediate data required to determine those values, and the calculated values can be determined by the data processing system “ See also abstract “A method for monitoring the braking performance of a vehicle. The method includes, for at least some of the braking events: determining a braking demand (118); determining vehicle deceleration (118); defining a first data set of braking events, wherein each braking event in the data set includes a determined braking demand and a determined vehicle deceleration; applying a statistical trend analysis method to the data set to generate a vehicle deceleration and braking demand trend (208); providing a vehicle deceleration and braking demand reference; and comparing at least one trend value with at least one reference value. From this comparison it is possible to determine if the braking system is operating within an acceptable limit. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of the defect using the brake pressure and the change in velocity (deceleration) taught in the combination of Schille and Najafi, with the teaching of Steer to use a deceleration target value for determining the defect or anomaly, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Steer teaches, the trend of deceleration and braking demand provides consistent and reliable results so that brake maintenance can be scheduled as needed (see at least Steer page 4, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schille and Najafi teach method according to claim 1, but do not teach wherein a deceleration target value and/or the coefficient target value are determined and stored during a running-in operation of the braking system.
Steer teaches wherein a deceleration target value and/or the coefficient target value are determined and stored during a running-in operation of the braking system (see at least Steer page 1, wherein it is determined if the brakes are operating withing normal parameters, For example Figure 5 and page 32, lines 5-10 “While the data collection process described above determines and stores the braking event duration, average deceleration and average braking demand values for each braking event on the vehicle, it will be appreciated by the skilled person that the brake monitoring system 25 can be used to capture the raw data and/or intermediate data required to determine those values, and the calculated values can be determined by the data processing system “ See also abstract “A method for monitoring the braking performance of a vehicle. The method includes, for at least some of the braking events: determining a braking demand (118); determining vehicle deceleration (118); defining a first data set of braking events, wherein each braking event in the data set includes a determined braking demand and a determined vehicle deceleration; applying a statistical trend analysis method to the data set to generate a vehicle deceleration and braking demand trend (208); providing a vehicle deceleration and braking demand reference; and comparing at least one trend value with at least one reference value. From this comparison it is possible to determine if the braking system is operating within an acceptable limit” See also Steer pages 8-9.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Schille and Najafi teach the method according to claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose the method further comprising detecting the defect in the coating is when the deceleration deviates several times from a deceleration target value and/or a friction coefficient deviates several times from a coefficient target value.
Steer teaches that determining that the braking system is not operating satisfactorily when the deceleration deviates several times from the deceleration target value and/or the friction coefficient deviates several times from the coefficient target value (See at least Steer pages 8-9 “The method includes defining a new data set of braking events, wherein each braking event in the data set includes a determined braking demand and a determined vehicle deceleration; and applying the statistical trend analysis technique to the new data set to generate a new vehicle deceleration and braking demand trend. The method includes comparing the new vehicle deceleration and braking demand trend with a previously generated vehicle deceleration and braking demand trend. The method includes comparing at least one value from the new vehicle deceleration and braking demand trend with at least one value from the vehicle deceleration and braking demand reference to determine if the braking system is operating satisfactorily…. The method includes comparing a plurality of vehicle deceleration and braking demand trends for a vehicle, determining the rate of change in trend vehicle deceleration for a predetermined value of braking demand value, such as at 6.5 bar, and generating a vehicle maintenance event schedule, at least in part, on the basis of that comparison. From the rate of change of braking performance, an estimate can be made as to when the trend deceleration value is likely to equal the reference deceleration value. …This can include plotting a plurality of data trends on a vehicle deceleration vs braking demand graph. By comparing the braking performance for different time periods, that is different data sets of braking events, it is possible to determine changes in braking performance over time.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille and Najafi with the teaching of Steer, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Steer teaches, this allows for determining changes of braking performance over time and provides statistically significant results including improving confidence and reducing sampling errors as is known in the area of statistics.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schille and Najafi teach detecting a defect in the coating, and teach that the defect may be detected based on the brake pressure and the change in velocity (deceleration), however the combination does not explicitly teach determining if the deceleration deviates from a deceleration target value.
Steer teaches determining there are anomalies in the braking system if the deceleration deviates from a deceleration target value stored for the brake pressure. (see at least Steer page 1, wherein it is determined if the brakes are operating within normal parameters, For example Figure 5 and page 32, lines 5-10 “While the data collection process described above determines and stores the braking event duration, average deceleration and average braking demand values for each braking event on the vehicle, it will be appreciated by the skilled person that the brake monitoring system 25 can be used to capture the raw data and/or intermediate data required to determine those values, and the calculated values can be determined by the data processing system “ See also abstract “A method for monitoring the braking performance of a vehicle. The method includes, for at least some of the braking events: determining a braking demand (118); determining vehicle deceleration (118); defining a first data set of braking events, wherein each braking event in the data set includes a determined braking demand and a determined vehicle deceleration; applying a statistical trend analysis method to the data set to generate a vehicle deceleration and braking demand trend (208); providing a vehicle deceleration and braking demand reference; and comparing at least one trend value with at least one reference value. From this comparison it is possible to determine if the braking system is operating within an acceptable limit. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination of the defect using the brake pressure and the change in velocity (deceleration) taught in the combination of Schille and Najafi, with the teaching of Steer to use a deceleration target value for determining the defect or anomaly, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Steer teaches, the trend of deceleration and braking demand provides consistent and reliable results so that brake maintenance can be scheduled as needed (see at least Steer page 4, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille and Najafi in further view of Li et al. (CN-113147712-A, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 4 and 12, the combination of Schille and Najafi teach the method according to claim 1 (and claim 2), but do not teach further comprising determining a vehicle weight of the motor vehicle and calculating a deceleration force acting on the motor vehicle is calculated based on the vehicle weight from the deceleration of the motor vehicle.
Li discloses further comprising determining a vehicle weight of the motor vehicle and calculating a deceleration force acting on the motor vehicle based on the vehicle weight from the deceleration of the motor vehicle (see at least Li 248-268 “Step B1: Calculate the current second weight of the vehicle based on the current passenger weight information of the vehicle and the first weight of the vehicle; and determine the current friction coefficient of the vehicle based on the driving road information and driving weather information….Step B2: Determine the second braking information corresponding to the vehicle according to the first braking result, the second weight and the friction coefficient…. In one embodiment, the second braking information includes the second braking force to be applied. The above step B2 can be specifically executed as the following steps C1-C5:” See also lines 299-303 “Step C5: Calculate the second braking force corresponding to the vehicle based on the second deceleration and the current second weight of the vehicle, and use the second braking force as the second braking information….Among them, using the mechanical formula: F2=m2*a2, the second braking force corresponding to the vehicle can be calculated. F2 is the second braking force, m2 is the second weight, and a2 is the second deceleration.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination Of Schille and Najafi with the teaching of Li to consider weight in the determination of the deceleration force, because as Li teaches weight can affect braking performance and can affect the needed braking force to decelerate as required (see Li lines 23-27).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille and Najafi in further view of Meng et al. (“Modeling and Simulation of Brake Judder Considering the Effects of Thermo-Mechanical Coupling”, hereinafter “Meng”).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 14, the combination of Schille and Najafi teach the method according to claim 1 (and claim 2), but do not explicitly teach further comprising determining a friction coefficient of the wheel brake based on the brake pressure and a deceleration force.
Meng teaches further comprising determining a friction coefficient of the wheel brake based on the brake pressure and a deceleration force (see at least Meng p 3642, last paragraph “From Eq. (11), it can be seen that the friction coefficient between disc and pads plays an important role in brake judder analysis. In order to obtain accurate simulation results, the friction coefficient of disc brake is necessary to know and it can be measured in brake inertial dynamometer. Friction coefficient of disc brake can be calculated by
PNG
media_image1.png
26
155
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where, M is brake torque, P is brake hydraulic pressure, s is the piston area and Re is the brake equivalent radius. According to experiment results of brake judder, friction coefficients of disc brake is calculated and shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, it can be seen that friction coefficient increases with the decreasing braking speed of the disc, and decreases with the increasing brake pressure. In the process of braking, the disc surface temperature is less than 300°C, and friction heating usually plays little role on brake friction coefficient in this temperature range [36]”. The examiner notes that brake torque corresponds to the deceleration force.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille and Najafi with the teaching of Meng, because as Meng teaches determining a semi-empirical model of a disc brake assembly are taught by this relationship which can be used for further analysis of the disc brake assembly (see Meng Pages 3642-3643).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille and Najafi in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0316543, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, the combination of Schille and Najafi teach the method according to claim 1 (and claim 2), but do not explicitly disclose further comprising determining a defect in the coating based on a friction coefficient deviating from a coefficient target value.
Suzuki teaches determining a defect in the coating based on a friction coefficient deviating from a coefficient target value (see at least Suzuki [0006] “ However, according to the above composition, there has been a possibility that the effect of braking is reduced, wear of a rotor and judder (brake vibration) deteriorate due to an increase in attacking property on a rotor caused by a large amount of hard raw material, or a friction coefficient becomes unstable, and unpleasant noise occurs.” The examiner notes that a friction coefficient that is unstable deviates from a coefficient target value or expected value. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille and Najafi with the teaching of Suzuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Suzuki teaches, an unstable friction coefficient indicates a brake performance issue.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Steer in further view of Li.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schille Najafi and Steer teach the method according to claim 3, but does not teach further comprising determining a vehicle weight of the motor vehicle and calculating a deceleration force acting on the motor vehicle is calculated based on the vehicle weight from the deceleration of the motor vehicle.
Li discloses further comprising determining a vehicle weight of the motor vehicle and calculating a deceleration force acting on the motor vehicle is calculated based on the vehicle weight from the deceleration of the motor vehicle (see at least Li 248-268 “Step B1: Calculate the current second weight of the vehicle based on the current passenger weight information of the vehicle and the first weight of the vehicle; and determine the current friction coefficient of the vehicle based on the driving road information and driving weather information….Step B2: Determine the second braking information corresponding to the vehicle according to the first braking result, the second weight and the friction coefficient…. In one embodiment, the second braking information includes the second braking force to be applied. The above step B2 can be specifically executed as the following steps C1-C5:” See also lines 299-303 “Step C5: Calculate the second braking force corresponding to the vehicle based on the second deceleration and the current second weight of the vehicle, and use the second braking force as the second braking information….Among them, using the mechanical formula: F2=m2*a2, the second braking force corresponding to the vehicle can be calculated. F2 is the second braking force, m2 is the second weight, and a2 is the second deceleration.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination Of Schille, Najafi and Steer with the teaching of Li to consider weight in the determination of the deceleration force, because as Li teaches weight can affect braking performance and can affect the needed braking force to decelerate as required (see Li lines 23-27).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Steer in further view of Meng.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schille, Najafi, and Steer teach the method according to claim 3, but do not teach further comprising determining a friction coefficient of the wheel brake based on the brake pressure and the deceleration force.
Meng teaches determining a friction coefficient of the wheel brake based on the brake pressure and the deceleration force (see at least Meng p 3642, last paragraph “From Eq. (11), it can be seen that the friction coefficient between disc and pads plays an important role in brake judder analysis. In order to obtain accurate simulation results, the friction coefficient of disc brake is necessary to know and it can be measured in brake inertial dynamometer. Friction coefficient of disc brake can be calculated by
PNG
media_image1.png
26
155
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where, M is brake torque, P is brake hydraulic pressure, s is the piston area and Re is the brake equivalent radius. According to experiment results of brake judder, friction coefficients of disc brake is calculated and shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, it can be seen that friction coefficient increases with the decreasing braking speed of the disc, and decreases with the increasing brake pressure. In the process of braking, the disc surface temperature is less than 300°C, and friction heating usually plays little role on brake friction coefficient in this temperature range [36]”. The examiner notes that brake torque corresponds to the deceleration force.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille, Najafi and Steer with the teaching of Meng, because as Meng teaches determining a semi-empirical model of a disc brake assembly are taught by this relationship which can be used for further analysis of the disc brake assembly (see Meng Pages 3642-3643).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Li in further view Meng.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Schille, Najafi, and Li teach the method according to claim 4, but do not explicitly teach further determining a friction coefficient of the wheel brake is determined based on the brake pressure and a deceleration force.
Meng teaches determining a friction coefficient of the wheel brake based on the brake pressure and the deceleration force (see at least Meng p 3642, last paragraph “From Eq. (11), it can be seen that the friction coefficient between disc and pads plays an important role in brake judder analysis. In order to obtain accurate simulation results, the friction coefficient of disc brake is necessary to know and it can be measured in brake inertial dynamometer. Friction coefficient of disc brake can be calculated by
PNG
media_image1.png
26
155
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where, M is brake torque, P is brake hydraulic pressure, s is the piston area and Re is the brake equivalent radius. According to experiment results of brake judder, friction coefficients of disc brake is calculated and shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, it can be seen that friction coefficient increases with the decreasing braking speed of the disc, and decreases with the increasing brake pressure. In the process of braking, the disc surface temperature is less than 300°C, and friction heating usually plays little role on brake friction coefficient in this temperature range [36]”. The examiner notes that brake torque corresponds to the deceleration force.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille, Najafi and Li with the teaching of Meng, because as Meng teaches determining a semi-empirical model of a disc brake assembly are taught by this relationship which can be used for further analysis of the disc brake assembly (see Meng Pages 3642-3643).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi, and Steer in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0316543, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 18 the combination of Schille, Najafi and Steer teach the method according to claim 3, but do not explicitly disclose further comprising determining a defect in the coating based on a friction coefficient deviating from a coefficient target value.
Suzuki teaches further comprising determining a defect in the coating based on a friction coefficient deviating from a coefficient target value (see at least Suzuki [0006] “ However, according to the above composition, there has been a possibility that the effect of braking is reduced, wear of a rotor and judder (brake vibration) deteriorate due to an increase in attacking property on a rotor caused by a large amount of hard raw material, or a friction coefficient becomes unstable, and unpleasant noise occurs.” The examiner notes that a friction coefficient that is unstable deviates from a coefficient target value or expected value. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille, Najafi and Steer with the teaching of Suzuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Suzuki teaches, an unstable friction coefficient indicates a brake performance issue.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Li in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0316543, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Schille, Najafi and Li teach the method according to claim 4, but do not explicitly disclose further comprising determining a defect in the coating based on a friction coefficient deviating from a coefficient target value.
Suzuki teaches further comprising determining a defect in the coating based on a friction coefficient deviating from a coefficient target value (see at least Suzuki [0006] “ However, according to the above composition, there has been a possibility that the effect of braking is reduced, wear of a rotor and judder (brake vibration) deteriorate due to an increase in attacking property on a rotor caused by a large amount of hard raw material, or a friction coefficient becomes unstable, and unpleasant noise occurs.” The examiner notes that a friction coefficient that is unstable deviates from a coefficient target value or expected value. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille, Najafi and Li with the teaching of Suzuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Suzuki teaches, an unstable friction coefficient indicates a brake performance issue.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schille, Najafi and Meng in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0316543, hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Schille, Najafi and Meng teach the method according to claim 5, but do not explicitly disclose wherein, further comprising determining a defect in the coating based on a friction coefficient deviating from a coefficient target value.
Suzuki teaches further comprising determining a defect in the coating based on a friction coefficient deviating from a coefficient target value (see at least Suzuki [0006] “ However, according to the above composition, there has been a possibility that the effect of braking is reduced, wear of a rotor and judder (brake vibration) deteriorate due to an increase in attacking property on a rotor caused by a large amount of hard raw material, or a friction coefficient becomes unstable, and unpleasant noise occurs.” The examiner notes that a friction coefficient that is unstable deviates from a coefficient target value or expected value. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schille, Najafi and Meng with the teaching of Suzuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Suzuki teaches, an unstable friction coefficient indicates a brake performance issue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2019101712 A1 is cited for teaching “When setting the target deceleration in the brake system, however, it should be noted that due to a changing friction coefficient between the brake linings and the brake discs, different decelerations may occur at the same brake cylinder pressure.” [0012]
DE 102004030641 B4 is cited for teaching “The invention is based on the consideration that the actual deceleration deviates from the target deceleration of the brake actuators of a motor vehicle due to wear, aging and renewal of brake elements such as brake linings. In order to be able to keep the ratio of the deceleration components of the brake actuators as precisely as possible at predetermined ratios, this deviation should be continuously detected in order to be able to readjust the brake actuators via this detection of the deviation. This deviation should be recorded and readjusted dynamically, because the deviation of the brake actuators occurs continuously and is vehicle-specific due to the influencing factors described. This implies that the deviation should suitably take place in the vehicle itself and also continuously like the changes in the brakes.” [0008]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights