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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the examiner does not interpret the “friction brake” or the “road surface detection sensor” of the amended claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See e.g., MPEP 2181.
Second, the amended (and new) claims overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), description requirement, which is withdrawn.
Third, the claim amendments overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as detailed by applicant, but new issues (and at least one repeated issue) remain in this respect, as detailed below.
Fourth, the claim amendments and new claims distinguish over the previously applied combinations of references. Accordingly the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. However, the examiner cites new art and makes new rejections in this respect, as detailed below.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the now claimed “friction brake configured to apply a friction braking force to the front wheel and the rear wheel”, the examiner understands this friction brake to not comprise e.g., only a single braking brake disc/caliper (or other friction members) at one wheel, but rather to include e.g., brake disks/calipers (or other friction members) at a front wheel and at a rear wheel of the vehicle, e.g., when the claim is read in light of the specification (e.g., see published paragraph [0025] which indicates that, the singular “friction brake mechanism 40 includes brake discs 40dFL, 40dFR, 40dRL, and 40dRR (hereinafter simply referred to as “brake discs 40d”) respectively fixed to the wheels 50, and brake calipers 40cFL, 40cFR, 40cRL, and 40cRR (hereinafter simply referred to as “brake calipers 40c”) each fixed to the vehicle body.” See also e.g., MPEP 2111.01, V.)
Applicant may wish to change “friction brake” (singular) to “friction brakes” in the claims, in order for the claim language to be more grammatically standard and less grammatically strained, in order to avoid unforeseen consequences of using non-standard grammar (e.g., using the singular form of a noun (i.e., a thing) to refer to plural things[1]) that the examiner may not be able to foresee.
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: i) in claim 1, line 1, the superfluous comma after “apparatus,” should be deleted, for grammatical correctness; ii) in claim 8, line 5, “is smaller the” should read, “is smaller than the”, for grammatical correctness; and iii) in claim 11, line 5, , “is smaller the” should read, “is smaller than the”, for grammatical correctness. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 to 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 4, “the front wheel” apparently has no proper antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 1, lines 8ff and line 18 (two occurrences), and similarly in 6, lines 7ff, “the regenerative braking device” apparently has no proper antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 1, line 9, and similarly in claim 6, line 8, “the friction braking device” apparently has no proper antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 1, lines 12ff, “the road surface detector” apparently has no proper antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 1, due to the lack of a clarifying conjunction (e.g., an “or” or an “and”) at the end of line 21, it is unclear whether the acts/steps recited in lines 20 to 26 constitute a conjunctive or disjunctive list.2 In this respect, the examiner has difficulty in even formulating a broadest reasonable interpretation, since i) he believes the conjunction “and” is intended, but ii) the conjunctive “or” would give the broadest reading, and iii) the same language does not apparently appear in the specification in a manner that might clarify the issue. See e.g., MPEP 2173.02, I. (“For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”)
In claim 1, line 23, “the additional braking force” apparently has no proper antecedent basis and is unclear (e.g., for example, what is the “additional braking force” additional to?).
In claim 6, line 1, and in claim 9, line 1, "applied for" is indefinite and unclear in the claim context (e.g., applied for, in what way particularly?)
In claim 6, line 3, “the front wheel” apparently has no proper antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 7, lines 2ff, and in claim 10, lines 2ff, “execute the rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process such that the reduction in the regenerative braking force is replaced by an increased friction braking force by the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel” in indefinite in the claim context and from the teachings of the specification (e.g., how can the rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process, which is apparently defined in the independent claims as generating the maximum regeneratable braking force, possibly include i) the reduction of that maximum and ii) friction braking force that is not a regeneratable braking force for the rear wheel?)
In claim 7, lines 2 and 3, and in claim 10, lines 2 and 3, “the reduction” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 7, line 3, and in claim 10, line 3, “an increased friction braking force” is indefinite and unclear (e.g., increased from what baseline particularly, in the rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process?)
In claim 9, line 3, “the rear wheel” apparently has no proper antecedent basis and is unclear.
In claim 9, line 13, and in claim 11, line 2, “is in the dry road surface” is indefinite and unclear from the teachings of the specification.
In claim 12, line 3, “additional braking force” is indefinite in the claim context and from the teachings of the specification. For example, it is unclear what “additional braking force” in claim 12 is additional to, and (due to the lack of a definite article) whether the “additional braking force” is the same as, different from, additional to, permissively the same as, permissively different from, permissively additional to, necessarily the same as, necessarily different from, necessarily additional to, etc. the already recited “additional braking force” recited in claim 1.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The wording of claim 11 is identical to claim 8 from which it depends except in line 2, the phrase “the road surface condition is the dry road surface” of claim 8 has been changed to, “the road surface condition is in the dry road surface” in claim 11, which does not apparently change the claim scope (of claim 11) in any definite way. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (“Cooperative control of regenerative braking and friction braking for a hybrid electric vehicle”, Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2016, Vol. 230(1), pages 103–116) in view of Asanuma et al. (5,318,355) and Yamasaki et al. (2020/0307645).
Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) reveals:
per claim 1, a vehicle braking control apparatus [e.g., FIG. 1], of a vehicle comprising a regenerative brake [e.g., the electric motor in FIGS. 1 and 4] configured to apply a regenerative braking force to a rear wheel [e.g., FIGS. 3 and 1] and a friction brake [e.g., the mechanically operated friction brake system at the front and rear axles in FIG. 4] configured to apply a friction braking force to the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., FIG. 3], comprising:
a controller [e.g., the hardware of FIG. 1 implementing the control of FIG. 6[3]] configured to execute cooperative control [e.g., the sharing of brake force in FIG. 3, and also as was conventional in FIG. 7] between the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device so as to generate a target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., page 108, “Fb is the total braking force to be generated by the system for the given brake pedal displacement Lp”],
wherein the controller is configured to execute:
in a state[e.g., as shown in FIG. 3[4], the target braking force (that is, “the total braking force to be generated” as at page 108, including any friction brake braking force, is greater than the regenerative brake (rear axle) braking force whenever the pedal displacement is greater than P; the “whenever” also occurs in FIG. 7 at any pedal displacement], generating the target braking force for braking the vehicle by,
performing a rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process of generating the maximum regenerable braking force for the rear wheel [e.g., at pedal displacements greater than P, a maximum amount of regenerative brake (rear axle) braking force is produced, as shown in FIG. 3];
performing a first friction-braking force generating process of generating the friction braking force to generate at least some of the additional braking force needed to achieve the target braking force with both the front wheel and the rear wheel by using the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., whenever the pedal displacement is greater than P (FIG. 3) at least some additional braking is generated with both the front axle friction brake and the rear axle friction brake, as shown in FIG. 3];
Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) does not reveal that the braking force generating processes are performed whenever the road surface condition is detected to have a friction coefficient above a predetermined value, or the particular sensor that would detect a road surface condition in front of the vehicle in a forward direction of the vehicle is the dry road state.
However, in the context/field of an improved brake system in an electric vehicle which utilizes both regenerative braking at the (rear) driving wheels and hydraulic (friction) braking at all four wheels, Asanuma et al. (‘355) teaches in conjunction with FIGS. 3, 9, and 10, that plural braking modes (e.g., a usual Mode 3, and also other Modes 2 and 1 for roads of low coefficient of friction μ, or for use during a steering condition, or during hard braking) may be employed in the vehicle, and when it is determined that the road coefficient of friction μ is “sufficiently large” (column 15, line 24) at S511 and S512 (and the vehicle is not experiencing hard braking and/or steering), the Mode 3 (FIG. 3) is utilized at S517 (in which regenerative braking at the rear wheels [only] is performed first up to RG Limit followed by friction braking at both the front and rear wheels for larger braking amounts, e.g., column 10, line 32 to column 11, line 6) in order to increase the efficiency of recovery of energy, whereas another mode (i.e., Mode 2 or Mode 1, which does not use only rear regenerative braking first) is used for roads with low coefficients of friction, for hard braking, and/or during a steering condition, in order to enhance braking responsiveness and steering stability, while enhancing the effect of recovery of the energy by the regenerative braking.
Moreover, in the context/field of an improved vehicle control device having a road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 and a motor that generates electrical power by regeneration (paragraph [0029]) as part of a vehicle braking and driving device 300 (FIG. 1), Yamasaki et al. (‘645) teaches at paragraphs [0035], [0042], etc. that a road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 may calculate, in real time, the coefficient of friction on the road surface on the basis of, for example, the image and the temperature frontward of the vehicle detected by the vehicle exterior sensor 150 (e.g., a camera or a LIDAR), and may calculate the road surface friction coefficient frontward of the vehicle for a road determined to be in a dry state using the database shown in FIG. 3, wherein as taught at paragraph [0033], the coefficient of friction on the road surface may serve as an indicator of “behavior instability” e.g., when the coefficient is determined to be low (paragraph [0053]), and obviously/conversely (to one of ordinary skill in the art) may also serve is an indicator of behavior stability when the road is “dry” (e.g., paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0039], [0042], etc.) and the coefficient of friction is high(er).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) hybrid electric vehicle with cooperative control of regenerative and friction braking so that when road surface friction coefficient was determined to be sufficiently large, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355), the braking mode of FIG. 3 would have been used (as a usual mode) in which regenerative braking at the rear wheels [only] is performed first followed by friction braking at both the front and rear wheels when it was determined that the road coefficient of friction μ was “sufficiently large”, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355), in order to increase the efficiency of recovery of energy, and so that when the road coefficient of friction μ was low, or for hard braking, or during a steering condition, other braking modes which did not use only rear regenerative braking first would have been utilized, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355), in order to enhance braking responsiveness and steering stability while enhancing the effect of recovery of the energy by the regenerative braking, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) hybrid electric vehicle with cooperative control of regenerative and friction braking so that, in order to calculate the road surface coefficient of friction, the road surface friction coefficient calculator and vehicle exterior sensor of Yamasaki et al. (‘645) would have been utilized to calculate the road surface friction coefficient frontward of the vehicle, in the manner taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645), in order to control the braking mode(s) (e.g., as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355)), in order that the road surface friction coefficient could be calculated in real time as the vehicle was traveling [forwardly] on the frontward road, as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645), to improve real-time braking control, wherein the real time coefficient of friction of the road surface would have obviously been indicative of “behavior instability” e.g., when the road coefficient of friction was low, as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645) at paragraphs [0033], [0053], etc., and would have obviously been conversely indicative of behavior stability when it was high, to those having ordinary skill in the art, that is, when the road was “dry” (e.g., paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0039], [0042], etc. of Yamasaki et al. (‘645)) and the coefficient of friction is high(er), with a reasonable expectation of success, as a use of an art-recognized equivalent sensor for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06), and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) hybrid electric vehicle with cooperative control of regenerative and friction braking would have revealed or rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a vehicle braking control apparatus [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), FIG. 1], of a vehicle comprising a regenerative brake [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), the electric motor in FIGS. 1 and 4] configured to apply a regenerative braking force to a rear wheel [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), FIGS. 3 and 1] and a friction brake [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), the mechanically operated friction brake system at the front and rear axles in FIG. 4] configured to apply a friction braking force to the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), FIG. 3], comprising:
a road surface detection sensor [e.g., the vehicle exterior sensor 150 in Yamasaki et al. (‘645), such as a camera or LIDAR] configured to detect a road surface condition in front of the vehicle in a forward direction of the vehicle [e.g., the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) may calculate, in real time, the coefficient of friction on the road surface on the basis of, for example, the image and the temperature frontward of the vehicle detected by the vehicle exterior sensor 150]; and
a controller [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), the hardware of FIG. 1 implementing the control of FIG. 6[5]] configured to execute cooperative control [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), the sharing of brake force in FIG. 3, and also as was conventional in FIG. 7] between the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device so as to generate a target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), page 108, “Fb is the total braking force to be generated by the system for the given brake pedal displacement Lp”],
wherein the controller is configured to execute:
determining whether the road surface condition detected by the road surface detector is a dry road surface [e.g., the “dry” road surface state in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) determined from the road surface condition/coefficient of friction by the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210, in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) (e.g., paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0039], [0042], etc.)] in which the friction coefficient of the road surface is higher than a predetermined value [e.g., “sufficiently large” in Asanuma et al. (‘355); and indicative of a “dry” road surface state in Yamasaki et al. (‘645)]; and
in a state in which the road surface condition is the dry road surface [e.g., as taught S517 in FIG. 10 of Asanuma et al. (‘355) when the road coefficient of friction μ is “sufficiently large” (column 15, line 24, see also S511 and S512) and the road is thus obviously “dry” as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645) and the Mode 3 (corresponding to FIG. 3 in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016)) utilizing regenerative braking at the rear wheels [only] performed first followed by friction braking at both the front and rear wheels is therefore used in preference to other braking modes] and whenever the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative braking device [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), as shown in FIG. 3[6], the target braking force (that is, “the total braking force to be generated” Fb as at page 108, including any/all friction brake braking force, is greater than the regenerative brake (rear axle) braking force whenever the pedal displacement is greater than P; the “whenever” also occurs in FIG. 7 at any pedal displacement], generating the target braking force for braking the vehicle by,
performing a rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process of generating the maximum regenerable braking force for the rear wheel [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), at pedal displacements greater than P, a maximum amount of regenerative brake (rear axle) braking force is produced, as shown in FIG. 3];
performing a first friction-braking force generating process of generating the friction braking force to generate at least some of the additional braking force needed to achieve the target braking force with both the front wheel and the rear wheel by using the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), whenever the pedal displacement is greater than P (FIG. 3) at least some additional braking is generated with both the front axle friction brake and the rear axle friction brake, as shown in FIG. 3];
per claim 2, depending from claim 1,
wherein, in the state in which the road surface condition is the dry road surface and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative brake [e.g., in FIG. 3 of Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016), when the brake pedal displacement is greater than P and the road coefficient of friction μ is “sufficiently large” as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355) obviously because the road is “dry” as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645)], the controller is configured to execute generating the friction braking force so that a friction braking force generated by the friction brake of the rear wheel is smaller a friction braking force generated by the friction brake of the front wheel [e.g., when β in Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) is 0.6 (Table 4) and thus the front braking Fbf of the brake system is greater than the rear braking Fbr of the brake system per page 110 (i.e., substituting 0.6 for β in the equations between (19) and (20), Fbf = 0.6*Fb and Fbr = 0.4*Fb, to show the conventional/usual braking forces at the front and rear wheel brakes, and/or in the equation (20), to show that the front wheel braking force is 1.5 times the rear wheel braking force when β = 0.6, and/or in equations (22) and (23), to additionally show the rear braking force additionally having the regenerative braking)];
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (“Cooperative control of regenerative braking and friction braking for a hybrid electric vehicle”, Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2016, Vol. 230(1), pages 103–116) in view of Asanuma et al. (5,318,355) and Yamasaki et al. (2020/0307645) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lubbers (2008/0100129).
Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) as implemented or modified in view of Asanuma et al. (‘355) and Yamasaki et al. (‘645) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) hybrid electric vehicle with cooperative control of regenerative and friction braking may not reveal an additional braking force that employs the friction brake of only the front wheel, although this limitation is indefinitely recited.
However, in the context/field an improved vehicle regenerative brake control system, Lubbers (‘129) teaches e.g., in FIG. 3[7] (see also FIGS. 6 and 8) that between an initial phase I that uses only rear regenerative braking and a final phase III that uses regenerative braking up to the maximum regenerative torque in combination front and rear friction brakes being actuated at a proportional ratio (e.g., as conventionally provided in motor vehicles by relatively expensive proportional valves and pressure transducers, paragraph [0059)) of the desired brake balance line 53, an intermediate phase II (of additional braking after the maximum regenerative braking torque is achieved) is provided where only the front friction brakes are utilized, in order to provide balancing of the system at the “desired balance” (point B) of front/rear brake force distribution when additional braking beyond the maximum regenerative torque is demanded by the driver (e.g., paragraphs [0047], [0048], etc.).
It would have been obvious before the effective fining date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) hybrid electric vehicle with cooperative control of regenerative and friction braking so that between the first braking phase (brake pedal depression less than P) and the final braking phase (brake pedal depression more than P) as shown e.g., in FIG. 3, an intermediate phase as taught by phase II in Lubbers (‘129) would have been provided where only the front friction brakes would have been utilized, as taught by Lubbers (‘129) in his FIG. 3 (between points Ⓐ and Ⓑ), in order to provide balancing of the system at the “desired balance” (point B) of front/rear brake force distribution when additional braking beyond the maximum regenerative torque is demanded by the driver, as taught by Lubbers (‘129), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Kumar et al. (J Automobile Engineering 2016) hybrid electric vehicle with cooperative control of regenerative and friction braking would have revealed or rendered obvious:
per claim 12, depending from claim 1, where the controller is further configured to execute performing a second friction-braking force generating process [e.g., between the points Ⓐ and Ⓑ in FIG. 3 of Lubbers (‘129)] of generating additional braking force to achieve the target braking force by increasing the friction force of the friction brake of the front wheel only [e.g., paragraph [0047] in Lubbers (‘129), “more specifically actuates friction braking on the opposite axle, i.e., the front wheel brakes 12a and 12b to provide balancing of the system 10”];
Claims 6 to 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lubbers (2008/0100129) in view of Asanuma et al. (5,318,355) and Yamasaki et al. (2020/0307645).
Lubbers (‘129) reveals:
per claim 6, a vehicle braking control apparatus [e.g., FIG. 1], applied for a vehicle comprising a regenerative brake [e.g., 19, 104] configured to apply a regenerative braking force to a rear wheel [e.g., 20, 21] and a friction brake [e.g., 12a to 13b] configured to apply a friction braking force to the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., 17 to 21], comprising:
a controller [e.g., 26, 27, etc.] configured to execute cooperative control between the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device so as to generate a target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 2, 3, 6, 8, etc.],
wherein the controller is configured to execute:
in a state in which [e.g., beyond the point Ⓑ in FIGS. 3 or 6 in Lubbers et al. (‘129); see e.g., see also FIG. 8], generating the target braking force for braking the vehicle by,
a rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process of generating a maximum regenerable braking force for the rear wheel [e.g., which occurs, in FIGS. 3, 6, etc. at the point Ⓐ and up until (and/or beyond) the point Ⓑ];
a regenerative-braking-force replacing process of replacing the maximum regenerative braking force in which a part of the maximum regenerative braking force is replaced by generating the friction braking force for both the front wheel and the rear wheel by using the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., paragraph [0064], “In the third phase of control (phase III), the blending of front and rear friction braking may also include the reduction, or phasing out, of rear regenerative braking at higher decelerations, for example for stability control of the vehicle. This reduction in rear regenerative braking may coincide with or precede the application of rear friction braking”, and of course, coincident with the blending of front and rear friction braking on the line 54 (or obviously on the line 52 in FIG. 3, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to promote stability control of the vehicle) extending from the point Ⓑ to the maximum braking amount (“1.0” in FIGS. 6 or 3); see also paragraph [0048], “During the brake apply in phase III, regenerative braking may gradually decrease if the regenerative braking force can no longer assist the friction braking. This may be the result of the energy storage device becoming capacitized where no additional energy can be stored”, wherein the decrease in regenerative braking would have obviously been replaced by friction braking, so that the braking force distribution would have obviously proceeded along the line 52]; and
a front-and-rear-friction-braking-force generating process of generating the friction braking force for both the front wheel and the rear wheel by using the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., along the line 52 in FIG. 3 or the line 54 in FIG. 6, after the point Ⓑ];
Lubbers et al. (‘129) does not reveal that the braking force generating processes are performed whenever the road surface condition is detected to have a friction coefficient above a predetermined value, or that the road surface condition in front of the vehicle in a forward direction of the vehicle is the dry road state.
However, in the context/field of an improved brake system in an electric vehicle which utilizes both regenerative braking at the (rear) driving wheels and hydraulic (friction) braking at all four wheels, Asanuma et al. (‘355) teaches in conjunction with FIGS. 3, 9, and 10, that plural braking modes (e.g., a usual Mode 3, and also other Modes 2 and 1 for roads of low coefficient of friction μ, or for use during a steering condition, or during hard braking) may be employed in the vehicle, and when it is determined that the road coefficient of friction μ is “sufficiently large” (column 15, line 24) at S511 and S512 (and the vehicle is not experiencing hard braking and/or steering), the Mode 3 (FIG. 3) is utilized at S517 (in which regenerative braking at the rear wheels [only] is performed first up to RG Limit followed by friction braking at both the front and rear wheels for larger braking amounts, e.g., column 10, line 32 to column 11, line 6) in order to increase the efficiency of recovery of energy, whereas another mode (i.e., Mode 2 or Mode 1, which does not use only rear regenerative braking first) is used for roads with low coefficients of friction, for hard braking, and/or during a steering condition, in order to enhance braking responsiveness and steering stability, while enhancing the effect of recovery of the energy by the regenerative braking.
Moreover, in the context/field of an improved vehicle control device having a road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 and a motor that generates electrical power by regeneration (paragraph [0029]) as part of a vehicle braking and driving device 300 (FIG. 1), Yamasaki et al. (‘645) teaches at paragraphs [0035], [0042], etc. that a road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 may calculate, in real time, the coefficient of friction on the road surface on the basis of, for example, the image and the temperature frontward of the vehicle detected by the vehicle exterior sensor 150 (e.g., a camera or a LIDAR), and may calculate the road surface friction coefficient frontward of the vehicle for a road determined to be in a dry state using the database shown in FIG. 3, wherein as taught at paragraph [0033], the coefficient of friction on the road surface may serve as an indicator of “behavior instability” e.g., when the coefficient is determined to be low (paragraph [0053]), and obviously/conversely (to one of ordinary skill in the art) may also serve is an indicator of behavior stability when the road is “dry” (e.g., paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0039], [0042], etc.) and the coefficient of friction is high(er).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Lubbers (‘129) vehicle regenerative brake control system so that when road surface friction coefficient was determined to be sufficiently large, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355), the braking mode of FIGS. 3 or 6 (or similarly of FIG. 8 as described more fully below, if/when the regenerative braking force could no longer assist the friction braking, e.g., as a result of the energy storage device 24 becoming capacitized where no additional energy can be stored therein, see e.g., paragraphs [0048], [0080], etc.) would have been used (as a usual mode) in which regenerative braking at the e.g., rear wheels [only] is performed first (e.g., up to the point Ⓐ) followed by friction braking at both the front and rear wheels when it was determined that the road coefficient of friction μ was “sufficiently large”, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355), in order to increase the efficiency of recovery of energy, and so that when the road coefficient of friction μ was low, or for hard braking, or during a steering condition, other braking modes which did not use only e.g., rear regenerative braking first would have been utilized, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355), in order to enhance braking responsiveness and steering stability while enhancing the effect of recovery of the energy by the regenerative braking, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Lubbers (‘129) vehicle regenerative brake control system so that, in order to calculate the road surface coefficient of friction, the road surface friction coefficient calculator and vehicle exterior sensor of Yamasaki et al. (‘645) would have been utilized to calculate the road surface friction coefficient frontward of the vehicle, in the manner taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645), in order to control the braking mode(s) (e.g., as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355)) in Lubbers (‘129), in order that the road surface friction coefficient could be calculated in real time as the vehicle was traveling [forwardly] on the frontward road, as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645), to improve real-time braking control, wherein the real time coefficient of friction of the road surface would have obviously been indicative of “behavior instability” e.g., when the road coefficient of friction was low, as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645) at paragraphs [0033], [0053], etc., and would have obviously been conversely indicative of behavior stability when it was high, to those having ordinary skill in the art, that is, when the road was “dry” (e.g., paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0039], [0042], etc. of Yamasaki et al. (‘645)) and the coefficient of friction is high(er), with a reasonable expectation of success, as a use of an art-recognized equivalent sensor for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06), and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Lubbers (‘129) vehicle regenerative brake control system would have revealed or rendered obvious:
per claim 6, a vehicle braking control apparatus [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), FIG. 1], applied for a vehicle comprising a regenerative brake [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), 19, 104] configured to apply a regenerative braking force to a rear wheel [e.g., 20, 21] and a friction brake [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), 12a to 13b] configured to apply a friction braking force to the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), 17 to 21], comprising:
a road surface detection sensor [e.g., the wheel speed sensors 23 as used e.g., at S511 and S512 in FIGS. 9 and 10 of Asanuma et al. (‘355); and the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 using the vehicle exterior sensor 150 (such as a camera or LIDAR) of Yamasaki et al. (‘645)] configured to detect a road surface condition in front of the vehicle in a forward direction of the vehicle [e.g., the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) may calculate, in real time, the coefficient of friction on the road surface on the basis of, for example, the image and the temperature frontward of the vehicle detected by the vehicle exterior sensor 150]; and
a controller [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), 26, 27, etc.] configured to execute cooperative control between the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device so as to generate a target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), as shown in FIGS. 2, 3, and 6],
wherein the controller is configured to execute:
determining whether the road surface condition detected by the road surface detection sensor is a dry road surface [e.g., the “dry” road surface state in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) determined from the road surface condition/coefficient of friction by the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210, in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) (e.g., paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0039], [0042], etc.)] in which the friction coefficient of the road surface is higher than a predetermined value [e.g., “sufficiently large” in Asanuma et al. (‘355); and indicative of a “dry” road surface state in Yamasaki et al. (‘645)]; and
in a state in which the road surface condition is the dry road surface [e.g., as taught S517 in FIG. 10 of Asanuma et al. (‘355) when the road coefficient of friction μ is “sufficiently large” (column 15, line 24, see also S511 and S512) and the road is thus obviously “dry” as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645) and the Mode 3 (corresponding to FIGS. 3 or 6 in Lubbers (‘129)) utilizing regenerative braking at the rear wheels [only] performed first followed by friction braking at both the front and rear wheels is therefore used in preference to other braking modes, as taught by Asanuma et al. (‘355)] and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative brake [e.g., beyond the point Ⓑ (on lines 52 or 54) in FIGS. 3 and 6 of Lubbers (‘129)], generating the target braking force for braking the vehicle by,
a rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process of generating a maximum regenerable braking force for the rear wheel [e.g., which occurs, in Lubbers (‘129), in FIGS. 3 and 6, at the point Ⓐ and up until (and/or beyond) the point Ⓑ];
a regenerative-braking-force replacing process of replacing the maximum regenerative braking force in which a part of the maximum regenerative braking force is replaced by generating the friction braking force for both the front wheel and the rear wheel by using the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., paragraph [0064] in Lubbers (‘129), “In the third phase of control (phase III), the blending of front and rear friction braking may also include the reduction, or phasing out, of rear regenerative braking at higher decelerations, for example for stability control of the vehicle. This reduction in rear regenerative braking may coincide with or precede the application of rear friction braking”, and of course, coincident with the blending of front and rear friction braking on the line 54 (or obviously on the line 52 in FIG. 3, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to promote stability control of the vehicle) extending from the point Ⓑ to the maximum braking amount (“1.0” in FIGS. 6 or 3); see also paragraph [0048], “During the brake apply in phase III, regenerative braking may gradually decrease if the regenerative braking force can no longer assist the friction braking. This may be the result of the energy storage device becoming capacitized where no additional energy can be stored”, wherein the decrease in regenerative braking would have obviously been replaced by friction braking, so that the braking force distribution would have obviously proceeded along the line 52]; and
a front-and-rear-friction-braking-force generating process of generating the friction braking force for both the front wheel and the rear wheel by using the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., along the line 52 in FIG. 3 or the line 54 in FIG. 6 of Lubbers (‘129), after the point Ⓑ];
per claim 7, depending from claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to execute the rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process such that the reduction in the regenerative braking force is replaced by an increased friction braking force by the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., paragraph [0064] in Lubbers (‘129), “In the third phase of control (phase III), the blending of front and rear friction braking may also include the reduction, or phasing out, of rear regenerative braking at higher decelerations, for example for stability control of the vehicle. This reduction in rear regenerative braking may coincide with or precede the application of rear friction braking”, and of course, coincident with the blending of front and rear friction braking on the line 54 (or obviously on the line 52 in FIG. 3, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to promote stability control of the vehicle) extending from the point Ⓑ to the maximum braking amount (“1.0” in FIGS. 6 or 3); see also paragraph [0048], “During the brake apply in phase III, regenerative braking may gradually decrease if the regenerative braking force can no longer assist the friction braking. This may be the result of the energy storage device becoming capacitized where no additional energy can be stored”, wherein the decrease in regenerative braking would have obviously been replaced by friction braking, so that the braking force distribution would have obviously proceeded along the line 52];
per claim 8, depending from claim 6, wherein, in the state in which the road surface condition is the dry road surface and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative brake, the controller is configured to execute generating the friction braking force so that the friction braking force generated by the friction brake of the rear wheel is smaller the friction braking force generated by the friction brake of the front wheel [e.g., as shown by the slope of the line 52 in FIG. 3 of Lubbers (‘129), wherein it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to use the suggestion at paragraph [0064] in Lubbers (‘129) to reduce the regenerative braking in phase III of FIG. 3 and to replace it with the proportioned ratio (e.g., lines 52, 53, less than 1:1 as depicted in FIG. 3 and as described/inferable at e.g., paragraph [0059]) of rear/front friction braking, as taught by Lubbers (‘129), for the purpose of stability control of the vehicle];
per claim 9, a vehicle braking control apparatus, applied for a vehicle comprising a regenerative brake configured to apply a regenerative braking force to a front wheel [e.g., as shown in FIG. 8 of Lubbers (‘129)] and a friction brake [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), 12a to 13b] configured to apply a friction braking force to the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), 17 to 21], comprising:
a road surface detection sensor [e.g., the wheel speed sensors 23 as used e.g., at S511 and S512 in FIGS. 9 and 10 of Asanuma et al. (‘355); and the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 using the vehicle exterior sensor 150 (such as a camera or LIDAR) of Yamasaki et al. (‘645)] configured to detect a road surface condition in front of the vehicle in a forward direction of the vehicle [e.g., the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210 in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) may calculate, in real time, the coefficient of friction on the road surface on the basis of, for example, the image and the temperature frontward of the vehicle detected by the vehicle exterior sensor 150]; and
a controller [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), 26, 27, etc.] configured to execute cooperative control between the regenerative brake and the friction brake so as to generate a target braking force for braking the vehicle [e.g., in Lubbers (‘129), as shown in FIGS. 2, 8, etc.],
wherein the controller is configured to execute:
determining whether the road surface condition detected by the road surface detection sensor is a dry road surface [e.g., the “dry” road surface state in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) determined from the road surface condition/coefficient of friction by the road surface friction coefficient calculator 210, in Yamasaki et al. (‘645) (e.g., paragraphs [0034], [0038], [0039], [0042], etc.)] in which the friction coefficient of the road surface is higher than a predetermined value [e.g., “sufficiently large” in Asanuma et al. (‘355); and indicative of a “dry” road surface state in Yamasaki et al. (‘645)]; and
in a state in which the road surface condition is in the dry road surface [e.g., as taught S517 in FIG. 10 of Asanuma et al. (‘355) when the road coefficient of friction μ is “sufficiently large” (column 15, line 24, see also S511 and S512) and the road is thus obviously “dry” as taught by Yamasaki et al. (‘645) and the Mode 3 (corresponding to FIG. 8 in Lubbers (‘129)) utilizing regenerative braking at the e.g., rear or front[8] wheels [only] performed first followed by friction braking at both the front and rear wheels is therefore used in preference to other braking modes] and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative brake [e.g., beyond the point Ⓑ (on lines 52 or 54) in FIGS. 3 and 6 of Lubbers (‘129); and similarly on the lines 56, 59 in FIG. 8], generating the target braking force for braking the vehicle by,
a front-regenerative-braking-force generating process of generating a maximum regenerable braking force for the front wheel [e.g., which occurs, in Lubbers (‘129), in FIG. 8, at the point Ⓐ and up until (and/or beyond) the point Ⓑ];
a regenerative-braking-force replacing process of replacing the maximum regenerative braking force in which a part of the maximum regenerative braking force is replaced by generating the friction braking force for both the front wheel and the rear wheel by using the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., paragraph [0048], [0064], [0080], etc. in Lubbers (‘129), “During the brake apply in phase III, regenerative braking may gradually decrease if the regenerative braking force can no longer assist the friction braking. This may be the result of the energy storage device becoming capacitized where no additional energy can be stored”, “when braking the vehicle in the third phase of control, the desired amount of regenerative braking decreases as an amount of braking applied by the second set of friction brakes increases”, etc., wherein the decrease in regenerative braking would have obviously been replaced by friction braking in the line 56, 59 in FIG. 8, so that the braking force distribution would have obviously proceeded along the line 56, 59 up to maximum braking; and for providing braking stability control of the vehicle by decreasing the magnitude of regenerative braking in phase III as taught at paragraph [0064] of Lubbers (‘129)]; and
a front-and-rear-friction-braking-force generating process of generating the friction braking force for both the front wheel and the rear wheel by using the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., along the line 56, 59 in FIG. 8 of Lubbers (‘129), after the point Ⓑ];
per claim 10, depending from claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to execute the rear-regenerative-braking-force generating process such that the reduction in the regenerative braking force is replaced by an increased friction braking force by the friction brake of both the front wheel and the rear wheel [e.g., as described by Lubbers (‘129) when braking increases along the line 56, 59 (FIG. 8) and regenerative braking decreases (e.g., paragraphs [0048], [0080], [0064], etc.)];
per claim 11, depending from claim 8, wherein, in the state in which the road surface condition is in the dry road surface and the target braking force is greater than the regenerative braking force generated by the regenerative brake, the controller is configured to execute generating the friction braking force so that the friction braking force generated by the friction brake of the rear wheel is smaller the friction braking force generated by the friction brake of the front wheel [e.g., as shown by the slope of the line 52 in FIG. 3 of Lubbers (‘129), see also FIG. 8, wherein it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to use the suggestion at paragraph [0064] in Lubbers (‘129) to reduce the regenerative braking in phase III of FIG. 3 and to replace it with the proportioned ratio (e.g., lines 52, 53, less than 1:1 as depicted in FIG. 3 and as described/inferable at e.g., paragraph [0059]) of rear/front friction braking, as taught by Lubbers (‘129), for the purpose of stability control of the vehicle];
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Aoki et al. (5,399,000) is similar to Asanuma et al. (‘355).
Aoki et al. (5,433,512) is similar to Aoki et al. (‘000) and reveals in FIG. 4A a Mode 3 braking mode in which friction force is generated with both the front and rear hydraulic pressure apparently whenever the braking force (target) is above the regenerative (braking) limit of the rear wheels, as reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image3.png
450
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 In this respect, it has been established that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2 For general descriptions of the manner in which conjunctive/disjunctive lists are treated in patent claims, see e.g., SuperGuide v. DirecTV, 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004), where to construe the phrase “at least one of a desired program start time, a desired program end time, a desired program service, and a desired program type”, the Court reasoned and concluded: “The phrase “at least one of” precedes a series of categories of criteria, and the patentee used the term “and” to separate the categories of criteria, which connotes a conjunctive list. A common treatise on grammar teaches that “an article of a preposition applying to all the members of the series must either be used only before the first term or else be repeated before each term.” Will[ia]m Strunk, Jr. & E. B. White, The Elements of Style 27 (4th ed. 2000). Thus, “[i]n spring, summer, or winter” means “in spring, in summer, or in winter.” Id. Applying this grammatical principle here, the phrase “at least one of” modifies each member of the list, i.e., each category in the list. Therefore, the district court correctly interpreted this phrase as requiring that the user select at least one value for each category; that is, at least one of a desired program start time, a desired program end time, a desired program service, and a desired program type.” See also Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017; informative), “For claims written in the format of “at least one of A and B,” the Federal Circuit made clear in SuperGuide that the plain and ordinary meaning is the conjunctive phrase “at least one of A and at least one of B.” 358 F.3d at 887. An Examiner may adopt a different meaning if called for based upon the usual claim construction considerations, including analyzing the specification for any definition or disavowal. See id. (examining the specification to determine whether it supports the plain and ordinary meaning); id. at 888 (“Lastly, we decline to enlarge the claim scope from its plain and ordinary meaning based on the prosecution history in this case because the ’211 patentee did not clearly and explicitly define the term ‘and’ in the covered criteria list as ‘or.’”); see generally Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313—19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding claim terms should be read in the context of the claims, the rest of the specification, the prosecution history, and in some cases extrinsic evidence). However, like any claim construction straying from the ordinary meaning, the Examiner should set forth the reasoning for such an interpretation, including citations and explanations of relevant portions of the claims, specification, or prosecution history. See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.01(V) (“an Office action should acknowledge and identify the special definition in this situation”).” (Emphasis added)
3 There is apparently a typographical error in FIG. 6, where the equation “(AB = Lp/PR – OA)” should apparently read, “(BC = Lp/PR – OA)” to match the flow chart legend “Friction brake equivalent to master cylinder plunger displacement” and the equations (e.g., at page 108) in the paper text. (For example, there is apparently no AB in the paper text, and this nomenclature, e.g., see FIG. 4, would apparently describe brake booster relative displacement, see FIG. 4, which not particularly described.)
4 FIG. 3 is reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image1.png
686
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
5 There is apparently a typographical error in FIG. 6, where the equation “(AB = Lp/PR – OA)” should apparently read, “(BC = Lp/PR – OA)” to match the flow chart legend “Friction brake equivalent to master cylinder plunger displacement” and the equations (e.g., at page 108) in the paper text. (For example, there is apparently no AB in the paper text, and this nomenclature, e.g., see FIG. 4, would apparently describe brake booster relative displacement which not particularly described.)
6 FIG. 3 is reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image1.png
686
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
7 FIG. 3 of Lubbers (‘129) is reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner:
PNG
media_image2.png
686
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
8 See e.g., column 24, lines 65ff in Asanuma et al. (‘355).
Prosecution Insights