DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3623242.
Claim 1
EP ‘242 discloses a method for braking a vehicle through a redundant braking system (paragraph [0001] and [0021]), the vehicle including a main braking system (paragraphs [0024] and [0025]), braking actuators (paragraph [0024], braking actuators 2) and wheels, the method comprising: obtaining a motor speed in response to a fault signal received from the main braking system (paragraphs [0015], [0033] and [0035]); and generating a braking command based on the motor speed to control the braking actuators to brake the wheels.
EP ‘242 does not explicitly disclose calculating a wheel speed of the vehicle based on the motor speed and then subsequently calculating a braking command based on the calculated wheel speed.
However converting motor speed to wheel speed by applying a gear ratio is a well known routine calculation in vehicle dynamics.
Furthermore, EP ‘242 expressly teaches using motor speed as a backup wheel speed signal when the wheel speed sensor of the brake system is unavailable (paragraphs [0015] and [0044])
A person having ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that raw motor speed cannot be directly substituted for wheel speed in closed-loop braking control calculations, some calculations would have to be performed to attain an equivalent wheel speed based on the motor speed, and subsequently plug the calculated wheel speed into the control equations.
Therefore implementing this processing steps would have been an obvious design optimization to ensure consistency in the controller calculations.
Claim 2
EP ‘242 does not explicitly disclose a method according to claim 1, wherein calculating the wheel speed based on the motor speed comprises multiplying the motor speed by a drive ratio coefficient and a rolling circumference of the wheel to calculate the wheel speed. However these are simple calculations that are well known to one having ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious to implement in order to attain an accurate wheel speed value.
Claim 3
EP ‘242 does not explicitly disclose a method according to claim 2, wherein a value of the drive ratio coefficient is determined based on a model number of a decelerator of the vehicle. However it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that any make and model of vehicle will have a specific drive ratio coefficient, and determining the make and model, and thus the specific drive ratio coefficient, based on specific identifying information (model number of a decelerator in this case), would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in order to properly identify the drive ratio coefficient.
Claim 4
EP ‘242 does not explicitly disclose a method according to claim 3, wherein a value of a transmission ratio coefficient is further determined based on a gear position of a speed reducer at which the fault signal is received. However these are simple calculations that are well known to one having ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious to implement in order to calculate an accurate wheel speed value.
Claim 5
EP ‘242 discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the fault signal is issued by the main braking system in response to the main brake system failing and/or a wheel speed sensor coupled with the main brake system failing (paragraphs [0015] and [0021]).
Claim 6
EP ’242 does not explicitly disclose a method according to claim 2, wherein the motor speed is provided by a resolver sensor. However resolver sensors are a conventional means of measuring motor speed and would have been obvious to implement for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to accurately detect motor speed.
Claim 7
EP ‘242 discloses a method according to claim 6, wherein the vehicle comprises four independently controlled motors (Fig. 1, drive actuators 3) and four resolver sensors mounted respectively at each of the four independently controlled motors.
Claim 8
EP ‘242 does not explicitly disclose the claimed formulas.
However it should be readily apparent that any correction factor decided upon by one having ordinary skill in the art in the execution of the claimed method will have a represented equation. The exact equation although, would be a matter dependent upon desired result and routine experimentation. Accordingly, the formulas set forth in the current application would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate into the invention disclosed by EP ‘242, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values or ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239. See also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330; 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claim 9
EP ‘242 discloses a method for braking a vehicle through a redundant braking system, including: a memory; and a control unit which is coupled to the memory, the control unit being configured for performing the method according claim 1 (paragraph [0020]).
Claim 10
EP ‘242 discloses a computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions, wherein the instructions when executed by a control unit causes the control unit to be configured to perform the method according to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIZO BINDA VILAKAZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3926. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/SIZO B VILAKAZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747