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 ..
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 29 February 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55, with the attempt to retrieve the foreign priority document under the priority document exchange program failing on 07/29/2025. In this respect, see the Priority Document Exchange Failure Status Report dated 29 July 2025 in the electronic application file. Applicant continues to bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the priority document is filed during the pendency of the application and before the patent is issued.
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claims 5, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 5, line 3, “and state of charge (SOC) value” should apparently read, “and a state of charge (SOC) value” for grammatical correctness; in claim 9, line 7, “and SOC value” should apparently read, “and an SOC value”, for grammatical correctness; and in claim 12, the reference character “LP”, if retained, should be enclosed in parentheses (MPEP 608.01(m)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the control device in claim 1, the profile generator in claim 9 (whose function is to generate the profile), the determination units in claim 9, and the controllers in claim 9. In conjunction with FIGS. 7 and 8, see e.g., published paragraphs [0082] to [0085] of the specification for the corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1 to 17 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.
Throughout the claim set, all occurrences of the phrase “in response that”1 are grammatically incorrect and unclear, with surrounding verb tenses in the phrase’s contexts also being grammatically incorrect. The examiner believes applicant may intend, “in response to”. However, the surrounding verb tenses in the claims would need to be changed for grammatical correctness if “in response that” were changed to, “in response to” to fix the problem.
In claim 1, line 9, and similarly in line 13, “exceed[s]” is indefinite and not reasonably certain2 from the teachings of the specification which does not clarify whether “exceed”3 is being used to mean “to be greater than” or “to go beyond the limits of”, with the examiner understanding that exceed is apparently being used in some claim contexts (cf. claims 6 and 12) to mean (only?) “to be greater than” but the examiner believing that exceed may mean (in the context of claim 1) “to go beyond the limits of”. See FIG. 6. See also 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 2, lines 1ff, “concluding that longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs” is indefinite and facially subjective, since minute vibration apparently always occurs when a vehicle moves, and it is unclear by what objective standard and based on what consideration(s) it might be concluded that the vibration occurs.
In claim 3, lines 5ff, “based on a linear deceleration profile for causing the vehicle to uniformly linearly decelerate from a current vehicle speed to the predetermined normal reference deceleration to stop” is indefinite in the claim context (e.g., what in the claim is “based on” the linear deceleration profile which by the wording of claim 1 is apparently not in fact used, and particularly how can a vehicle decelerate “to” a reference deceleration? In this latter respect, perhaps ”to” should read, “according to”?)
In claim 9, lines 10ff, “depending on whether longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs” is indefinite and facially subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b), IV.), since minute vibration apparently always occurs when a vehicle moves, and it is unclear by what objective standard, and/or based on what consideration(s), it might be determined that the vibration occurs for the “depending on” clause.
In claim 9, lines 13ff, “to perform the braking of the vehicle” is indefinite and unclear, with insufficient antecedent basis (e.g., does “the braking” refer to the automatic braking operation of the vehicle, the braking of the vehicle according to the non-linear deceleration profile, the motor-alone braking, or something else entirely?
In claim 9, lines 14ff, “[perform the braking] according to the determination of the braking element determination unit and the hydraulic stop determination unit” is indefinite and unclear, with it being unclear what the (singular) “the determination” is referring to, and particularly how the units might be configured to perform any braking might possibly be performed “according to” any unit determination(s). For example, what if neither unit in fact determines (e.g., the claimed “whether” recitations includes not determining) the recited condition(s).
In claim 10, lines 7ff, “[causing the vehicle to decelerate] to the normal reference deceleration to stop” is indefinite (e.g., how can a vehicle be controlled to decelerate “to” a deceleration, from the teachings of the specification? In this latter respect, perhaps ”to” should read, “according to”?)
In claim 12, line 7, “the upper limit SoC” apparently has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear. (Note that this problem apparently arises earlier in the claim, and could apparently be corrected by changing “a predetermined upper limit SOC value” in lines 4 and 5 to “a predetermined upper limit SoC” (note mixed case of “SoC” in this instance).
In claim 16, lines 3ff, “the predetermined reference range” apparently lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9 to 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim(s) 9 to 12 and 16, while (each) reciting a statutory category of invention defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), is/are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, the recited abstract idea being that of generating a non-linear deceleration profile for automatic braking operation of the vehicle, determining whether braking of the vehicle according to the non-linear deceleration profile is able to be performed by motor-alone braking, depending on a temperature of a motor of the vehicle and SOC value of a battery of the vehicle, and determining whether to perform complete stopping of the vehicle, using a hydraulic brake, depending on whether longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs during a predetermined judgement time before an expected stopping time of the vehicle, e.g., by generating a non-linear deceleration profile for automatic braking operation of the vehicle; determining whether braking of the vehicle according to the non-linear deceleration profile is able to be performed by motor-alone braking, depending on a temperature of a motor of the vehicle and SOC value of a battery of the vehicle; determining whether to perform complete stopping of the vehicle, using a hydraulic brake, depending on whether longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs during a predetermined judgement time before an expected stopping time of the vehicle; and performing the braking of the vehicle according to the determination of the braking element determination unit and the hydraulic stop determination unit; wherein the profile generator is further configured to generate the non-linear deceleration profile including at least two deceleration sections in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at a first rate higher than a predetermined normal reference deceleration at beginning of the braking and to decelerate at a second rate lower than the predetermined normal reference deceleration in later stages of the braking based on a linear deceleration profile LP that causes the vehicle to uniformly linearly decelerate from a current vehicle speed to the predetermined normal reference deceleration to stop; wherein the at least two deceleration sections of the non-linear deceleration profile includes a first deceleration section in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at the first rate higher than the normal reference deceleration, and a second deceleration section in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at the second rate lower than the normal reference deceleration, the first deceleration section and the second deceleration section being connected to each other; wherein the braking element determination unit is further configured to determine that the motor-alone braking is not possible in response that the temperature of the motor exceeds a predetermined upper limit temperature or the SOC value of the battery exceeds a predetermined upper limit SOC value and to determine that the motor-alone braking is possible in response that the temperature of the motor is equal to or lower than the upper limit temperature and the SOC value of the battery is less than or equal to the upper limit SoC, wherein the hydraulic stop determination unit is further configured to determine that the longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs in response that a motor speed deviates from the predetermined reference range..
This abstract idea falls within the grouping(s) of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, distilled from case law, because it could be practically performed in the human mind as a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B:
Additionally, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the abstract idea is not integrated (e.g., at Step 2A, Prong II) by the recitation of additional elements/limitations into a practical application (using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)-(h)) because merely using a computer (e.g., the units and/or the controllers) as a tool to perform an abstract idea or adding the words "apply it" (by generic controllers/processors performing any kind of indefinite “braking” of the vehicle in any way) is not integrating the idea into a practical application of the idea, and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., "implementation via computers", Alice) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., performing [i.e., indefinite] braking of the vehicle based on “whether” determinations, even based on negative determinations), is recited in or encompassed by the claims.
Moreover, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/limitations/steps (e.g., at Step 2B) that are, individually or in ordered combination, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements/limitations/steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., performing braking of any kind according to any positive or negative determinations of the units, etc.) so as to not favor eligibility (MPEP § 2106.05(d)) and/or are used e.g., for data/information gathering only or for other activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the industry, for example as indicated in applicant's specification at published paragraphs [0003] to [0007], and moreover, the generically recited computer elements (e.g., the profile generator, the determination units, the controllers, etc.; see e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 USPQ2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024); see also the 2019 PEG Advanced Module at pages 89, 145, etc.) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea.
Moreover, limiting or linking the use of the idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., a braking control apparatus for a vehicle) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook[4]) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (Japan, 2009-29388; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Sawada (2014/0379190).
Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) reveals:
per claim 1, a braking control method for a vehicle, the braking control method comprising:
generating, by a control device [e.g., 5, 11, 12], a [e.g., the deceleration profile (VSP) such as shown in FIG. 9(b)] for automatic braking operation of the vehicle [e.g., the automatic driving mode for deceleration decided at S17, YES in FIG. 2];
determining, by the control device, whether motor-alone braking is possible [e.g., when the vehicle reaches the (inventive) start point at S15, YES, automatic (motor only) braking is possible, as shown in FIG. 9(b), since the frictional braking force Tf remains at zero];
performing braking of the vehicle according to the [e.g., using the motor/generator 9 for regeneration; e.g., paragraphs [0016], etc.] in response that the motor-alone braking is possible [e.g., as shown in FIG. 9(b)];
determining, by the control device, whether a motor speed exceeds a predetermined reference range during a predetermined judgement time before an expected stopping time of the vehicle [e.g., the vehicle speed VSP at S19 is determined from the rotation speed of the motor/generator 9 (paragraph [0017]), and when the motor/generator speed is above (exceeds) the speed range corresponding to the specified vehicle speed at S19, regenerative braking control is continued (e.g., paragraphs [0028], etc.), with the specified vehicle speed for “stopping” obviously being zero (0)] ; and
completely stopping the vehicle, by the control device, using the motor alone in response that the motor speed does not exceed the predetermined reference range [e.g., as shown in FIG. 9(b), where the vehicle speed VSP decreases to 0 and stops, resulting in S19, YES and completion of the braking operation, without generating a frictional braking force Tf; see also paragraph [0019], “In step S11, based on information from the navigation device 18, it is checked whether there are any points ahead of the vehicle where the vehicle should stop, such as traffic lights, intersections, toll booths, or traffic congestion. If there are any points where the vehicle should stop, the system determines the approximate number of vehicles traveling between the vehicle and the points where the vehicle should stop, and based on this, sets a target stopping position for the vehicle”; and paragraph [0038], “by predicting the braking start position, regenerative braking is started from this position (instant t0) as shown by the dotted line, which makes it possible to prevent the peak of regenerative braking energy from exceeding the battery input limit value, and makes it possible to generate the required braking force energy Ebtotal using regenerative braking alone”];
Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) may not expressly reveal the non-linear deceleration profile (e.g., since the vehicle speed VSP is shown as decreasing linearly in FIG. 9(b)), although he teaches at paragraphs [0040], etc. that, “the target vehicle deceleration when the required braking energy Ebtotal is generated only by regenerative braking is configured so that the driver can set it as he or she wishes. Therefore, the rate of decrease in vehicle speed VSP (vehicle deceleration) in Figure 9(b) can be made to match the driver's preferences, and the deceleration feeling can be made to feel natural.”
However, in the context/field of an improved regenerative braking control device, Sawada (‘190) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 11 that the vehicle may be controlled to follow a non-linear deceleration profile (non-linear speed versus time profile) by the regeneration instruction torque being made to gradually decrease in the period (between t1 and t2) immediately before the wheel speed becomes zero at the stop of the vehicle (paragraph [0132]), so that large acceleration vibrations (FIG. 10) in the deceleration direction of the vehicle (e.g., the vibrations are “back-and-forth G vibrations” caused by “pitching or the like produced when the vehicle is stopped” (paragraph [0142])) do not occur (between t2 and t3) after the vehicle stops, but rather only reduced acceleration vibrations (FIG. 11) in the deceleration direction occur immediately before the stop of the vehicle (e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0072], [0142], [0172], [0186], [0190], etc.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle so that the deceleration profile that the vehicle speed VSP was controlled to in FIG. 9(b) of Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) would have been set e.g., by the driver to be nonlinear, as taught by Sawada (‘190) and as suggested by Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) himself to accommodate the driver’s wishes, and would have decreased towards zero as a limitation torque (Tm_fin) in the time interval (t1 to t2) before the wheel speed became zero as the vehicle stopped, in order to reduce acceleration vibration (e.g., obviously jerk) of the vehicle to a smaller value (FIG. 11 in Sawada (‘190)) and thus (relatively) smoothly stop the vehicle and not make the driver uncomfortable, as taught by Sawada (‘190), 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 modified Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a braking control method for a vehicle, the braking control method comprising:
generating, by a control device [e.g., in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388), 5, 11, 12], a non-linear deceleration profile [e.g., as shown in FIG. 11 of Sawada (‘190); and in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388), the deceleration profile (VSP) such as shown in FIG. 9(b)] for automatic braking operation of the vehicle [e.g., in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388), the automatic driving mode for deceleration decided at S17, YES in FIG. 2];
determining, by the control device, whether motor-alone braking is possible [e.g., in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388), when the vehicle reaches the (inventive) start point at S15, YES, automatic (motor only) braking is possible, as shown in FIG. 9(b), since the frictional braking force Tf remains at zero];
performing braking of the vehicle according to the non-linear deceleration profile, by the control device, using a motor alone [e.g., as shown in FIG. 11 of Sawada (‘190); and in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388), using the motor/generator 9 for regeneration; e.g., paragraphs [0016], etc.] in response that the motor-alone braking is possible [e.g., in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388), as shown in FIG. 9(b)];
determining, by the control device, whether a motor speed exceeds a predetermined reference range during a predetermined judgement time before an expected stopping time of the vehicle [e.g., in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388), the vehicle speed VSP at S19 is determined from the rotation speed of the motor/generator 9 (paragraph [0017]), and when the motor/generator speed is in the speed range (e.g., VSP > 0) that exceeds the specified vehicle speed at S19, regenerative braking control is continued (e.g., paragraphs [0028], FIG. 9(b), etc.) until the vehicle is stopped, with the specified vehicle speed for “stopping” obviously being zero (0)] ; and
completely stopping the vehicle, by the control device, using the motor alone in response that the motor speed does not exceed the predetermined reference range [e.g., as shown in FIG. 11 of Sawada (‘190); and in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388), as in FIG. 9(b), where the vehicle speed VSP decreases to equal 0 (and is no longer in the range where VSP > 0) and the vehicle completely stops, resulting in S19, YES and completion of the braking operation, without generating a frictional braking force Tf; see also paragraph [0019], “In step S11, based on information from the navigation device 18, it is checked whether there are any points ahead of the vehicle where the vehicle should stop, such as traffic lights, intersections, toll booths, or traffic congestion. If there are any points where the vehicle should stop, the system determines the approximate number of vehicles traveling between the vehicle and the points where the vehicle should stop, and based on this, sets a target stopping position for the vehicle”; and paragraph [0038], “by predicting the braking start position, regenerative braking is started from this position (instant t0) as shown by the dotted line, which makes it possible to prevent the peak of regenerative braking energy from exceeding the battery input limit value, and makes it possible to generate the required braking force energy Ebtotal using regenerative braking alone”];
Claims 2 to 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (Japan, 2009-29388; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Sawada (2014/0379190) as applied (for example) to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (2023/0365002).
Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) as implemented or modified in view of Sawada (‘190) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle may not reveal the conclusion or the dependence on the longitudinal vibration and the concomitant hydraulic brake operation/usage.
However, in the context/field of an improved control apparatus for a vehicle which decelerates the vehicle in a regenerative operation using output torque of a rotary electric machine 140, Liu et al. (‘002) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 6 (see also FIG. 5) that pitching vibrations which occur after the vehicle is stopped are detected by an acceleration sensor 204 between times t21 and t23 in FIG. 6 (paragraph [0082]) in order to detect the pitch acceleration zero-crossing at S22 in FIG. 5, and that hydraulic pressure of braking apparatuses (121, 122) is increased a predetermined period after the time 23 when the pitch acceleration zero-crossing has been detected (S22) and the vehicle speed is zero (S24), in order to maintain the vehicle in the stopped state by the hydraulic pressure of the braking apparatus while also preventing increased heating and power consumption of the electric machine 140 after carrying out the vehicle-stop torque control at S26 in FIG. 5.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle so that acceleration vibrations that shake the vehicle back and forth (e.g., in the deceleration direction) when regenerative braking torque is removed as taught by Sawada (‘190) at paragraph [0005] would have been detected by an acceleration sensor (204) detecting e.g., pitch acceleration zero-crossings as taught by Liu et al. (‘002), and so that when the zero-crossing occurs (S22) and the vehicle speed is determined to be zero (S24), the vehicle-stop torque control as taught by Liu et al. (‘002) would have been executed using the motor/generator 10, and then a predetermined period after e.g., the zero-crossing was detected, the hydraulic pressure of hydraulic brake (friction brake) units 3L, 3R, 4L, 4R in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) would have been increased while the vehicle speed was zero, as taught by Liu et al. (‘002), in order to maintain the vehicle in the stopped state, 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 Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, further including concluding that longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs [e.g., the “back-and-forth G vibrations” caused by “pitching or the like produced when the vehicle is stopped”, as taught by Sawada (‘190), being obviously detected (in the deceleration direction; cf. FIGS. 10 and 11 in Sawada (‘190)) by an acceleration sensor (204) as taught by Liu et al. (‘002), e.g., before the hydraulic pressure of braking apparatuses is increased to maintain the vehicle in the stopped state, as taught at paragraph [0082], etc. and in FIG. 6 of Liu et al. (‘002)] and operating a hydraulic brake to completely stop the vehicle, by the control device, in response that the motor speed deviates from the predetermined reference range [e.g., after time t2 when VSP = 0 in Sugimoto (‘388), and the motor speed thus deviates from the range VSP > 0, when as taught by Liu et al. (‘002) at paragraph [0082] the hydraulic pressure of the braking apparatus is increased to P1 (FIG. 6) in order to maintain the vehicle in the stopped state];
per claim 3, depending from claim 2, wherein the non-linear deceleration profile includes at least two deceleration sections in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at a first rate higher than a predetermined normal reference deceleration at beginning of the braking and to decelerate at a second rate lower than the predetermined normal reference deceleration in later stages of the braking [e.g., in FIG. 11 of Sawada (‘190) the rate of deceleration of the wheel speed (slope of the wheel speed) is greater before t1 at the beginning of braking than after t1 in later stages] based on a linear deceleration profile for causing the vehicle to uniformly linearly decelerate from a current vehicle speed to the predetermined normal reference deceleration to stop [e.g., the examiner annotates, in the footnote below5, FIG. 11 in Sawada (‘190) to show the claimed linear deceleration profile, with the slope of wheel speed decrease being greater than the linear deceleration profile before t1 and less than the linear deceleration profile after t1];
per claim 4, depending from claim 3, wherein the at least two deceleration sections of the non-linear deceleration profile includes a first deceleration section in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at the first rate higher than the normal reference deceleration, and a second deceleration section in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at the second rate lower than the normal reference deceleration, the first deceleration section and the second deceleration section being connected to each other [e.g., as shown by Sawada (‘190) in FIG. 11, with the examiner annotating the connection between the sections in the footnote below6];
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (Japan, 2009-29388; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Sawada (2014/0379190) and Liu et al. (2023/0365002) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tomita et al. (2018/0257491).
Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) as implemented or modified in view of Sawada (‘190) and Liu et al. (‘002) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle may not reveal the details of the determination that the motor-alone (regenerative) braking is not possible.
However, in the context/field of an improved regenerative braking control device, Tomita et al. (‘491) teaches in conjunction with Table 1 that conditions that prohibit/suppress regeneration in a regeneration cooperation ECU 91 include 1) when the battery SOC is high (nearly fully charged), 4) when the driving motor has a high temperature, etc., to prevent degradation of the battery, to reduce the load on the motor, etc. This is because if the regeneration prohibited conditions are met as a result of the driver performing deceleration, the sum of the friction braking force of the hydraulic brakes 10 and the regenerative braking force of the regenerative brake 30 may deviate from the target braking force (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle so that regeneration (including motor-alone braking) by the controller 12 would have been prohibited/suppressed when the battery SOC was high (nearly fully charged), when the driving motor had a high temperature, etc., as taught by Tomita et al. (‘491), in order to prevent degradation of the battery, to reduce the load on the motor, to prevent the regenerative braking force of the regenerative brake 30 from deviating from the target braking force, 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 Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 5, depending from claim 2, wherein the control device is further configured to determine whether the motor-alone braking is possible based on a motor temperature of the vehicle and state of charge (SOC) value of a battery of the vehicle [e.g., as taught in Table 1 of Tomita et al. (‘491)];
per claim 6, depending from claim 2, wherein the control device is further configured to determine that the motor-alone braking is not possible [e.g., because regeneration has been prohibited as taught by Tomita et al. (‘491) e.g., to prevent degradation of the battery, to reduce the load on the motor, etc.] in response that a motor temperature exceeds a predetermined upper limit temperature [e.g., the motor temperature being “high” and obviously thus above a high temperature threshold, in Tomita et al. (‘491)] or a SOC value of the battery exceeds a predetermined upper limit SoC [e.g., the SOC being “high” and obviously thus above a high SOC threshold (nearly fully charged), in Tomita et al. (‘491)];
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (Japan, 2009-29388; EPO machine translation attached) in view of Sawada (2014/0379190) and Liu et al. (2023/0365002) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Huh et al. (2019/0359213).
Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) as implemented or modified in view of Sawada (‘190) and Liu et al. (‘002) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle may not reveal the details of the hydraulic brake operation along with the motor.
However, in the context/field of an improved inertia drive control for (automatic) deceleration when a brake pedal is released and that operates in harmony with regeneration braking control (e.g., paragraph [0007]; see also paragraph [0042]), Huh et al. (‘213) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 5 that when feedback control of the braking is implemented, a hydraulic braking torque calculator 35 checks a portion of the required deceleration torque (FIG.4) which cannot be managed by the actual motor (e.g., regeneration; paragraph [0006]) deceleration torque (e.g., because it exceeds its upper limit, as shown in FIG. 5), and calculates that portion as a hydraulic braking torque (as shown in FIG. 5) through a braking hydraulic pressure, to be implemented at the beginning of the braking feedback control (after the conversion position) by the vehicle braking system 5, until a point where the actual motor deceleration torque can cover the required deceleration torque (e.g., the point obviously denoted by the right end of the hydraulic braking pressure/torque in FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle so that, when a brake pedal was released and the required deceleration torque at the beginning of braking was greater than regenerative braking force (e.g., corresponding to the high-voltage battery input limit value, in Sugimoto (JP, ‘388)) that could be generated by the motor/generator 10, the portion of the required deceleration torque which could not be managed by the actual motor deceleration torque (Tr) would have been calculated as a hydraulic braking torque (as shown in FIG. 5) to be through the hydraulic brake device, as taught by Huh et al. (‘213), in order to perform inertia drive control through cooperative regeneration/hydraulic brake control, as taught by Huh et al. (‘213), 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 Sugimoto (JP, ‘388) regenerative braking control device of a vehicle would have rendered obvious:
per claim 7, depending from claim 3, wherein the control device is further configured to operate the hydraulic brake along with the motor to perform the braking of the vehicle according to the non-linear deceleration profile [e.g., FIG. 4 in Huh et al. (‘213)] in response that the motor-alone braking is not possible [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 of Huh et al. (‘213)];
Claims 9 to 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (2023/0365002) in view of Sawada (2014/0379190) and Tomita et al. (2018/0257491).
Liu et al. (‘092) reveals:
per claim 9, a braking control apparatus [e.g., FIG. 2] for a vehicle, the braking control apparatus comprising:
a profile generator configured to generate a [e.g., the deceleration profile shown in both FIGS. 6 and 7, which when the braking torque varies after t21 as shown in FIGS. 6 and/or 7 would also implicitly/obviously be non-linear, per Newton’s Second Law of Motion (F=ma), e.g., in a manner analogous to that shown for the non-linear deceleration profile shown in FIG. 7];
a hydraulic stop determination unit [e.g., S22 to S24 in FIG. 5 and paragraph [0082] describing the timing (E) in FIG. 6] configured to determine whether to perform complete stopping of the vehicle, using a hydraulic brake [e.g., after t24 in FIG. 6, in conjunction with the vehicle-stop torque control at S26 in FIG. 5, as described at paragraph [0082]], depending on whether [e.g., the zero-crossing of the pitch acceleration at S22 in FIG. 5] during a predetermined judgement time before an expected stopping time of the vehicle [e.g., the judgment time of the zero-crossing e.g., between t21 and t23 in FIG. 6]; and
a motor torque controller [e.g., 10, etc.] and a hydraulic brake controller [e.g., 20, etc.] configured to perform the braking of the vehicle [e.g., as shown in FIG. 6] according to the determination of the braking element determination unit and the hydraulic stop determination unit [e.g., when the control apparatus 10 determines that the regenerative braking shown in FIG. 26 is possible and the brake ECU determines that the hydraulic braking timing (E) in FIG. 6 should be performed];
It may be alleged that Liu et al. (‘002) does not explicitly indicate that the deceleration profile (vehicle velocity profile with time) generated for the torque control in FIG. 6 is non-linear, although this is shown in FIG. 7 and the examiner understands that a non-constant torque v. time profile would result in a non-linear deceleration profile during braking, in accordance with Newton’s Second Law of Motion. Liu et al. (‘002) also may not reveal the longitudinal vehicle vibration or the braking element determination unit responsive to motor temperature and battery SOC.
However, in the context/field of an improved regenerative braking control device, Sawada (‘190) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 11 that the vehicle may be controlled to follow a non-linear deceleration profile (non-linear speed versus time profile) by the regeneration instruction torque being made to decrease as a limitation torque (Tm_fin) in the period (between t1 and t2) immediately before the wheel speed becomes zero at the stop of the vehicle (paragraph [0132]), with the "vehicle speed" being determined by e.g., a motor rotation speed (e.g., paragraphs [0009], [0060], [0064], [0072], etc.), so that large acceleration vibrations (FIG. 10) in the deceleration direction of the vehicle (e.g., the vibrations are “back-and-forth G vibrations” caused by “pitching or the like produced when the vehicle is stopped” (paragraph [0142])) do not occur (between t2 and t3) after the vehicle stops, but rather only reduced acceleration vibrations (FIG. 11) occur immediately before the stop of the vehicle (e.g., paragraphs [0012], [0072], [0142], [0172], [0186], [0190], etc.)
Moreover, in the context/field of an improved regenerative braking control device, Tomita et al. (‘491) teaches in conjunction with Table 1 that conditions that prohibit/suppress regeneration in a regeneration cooperation ECU 91 include 1) when the battery SOC is high (nearly fully charged), 4) when the driving motor has a high temperature, etc., to prevent degradation of the battery, to reduce the load on the motor, etc. This is because if the regeneration prohibited conditions are met as a result of the driver performing deceleration, the sum of the friction braking force of the hydraulic brakes 10 and the regenerative braking force of the regenerative brake 30 may deviate from the target braking force (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Liu et al. (‘002) control apparatus so that the deceleration profile that the vehicle speed was controlled to in FIG. 6(B) would have been non-linear, as taught by Sawada (‘190) in FIG. 11 and as suggested by Liu et al. (‘002) himself in FIG. 7 to reflect the decrease in rotary electric machine torque output after t21, which would have decreased towards zero in the time interval after t21 before the vehicle speed (as indicated by the motor rotation speed; e.g., paragraphs [0009], etc.) became zero as the vehicle stopped, in order to reduce the vibration (e.g., obviously jerk) of the vehicle, and in particular to reduce the vibration in the “back and forth” (deceleration) direction to a smaller value as shown by Sawada (‘190) in FIGS. 10 and 11 and smoothly stop the vehicle and not make the driver uncomfortable, as taught by Sawada (‘190), 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 Liu et al. (‘002) control apparatus so that the regeneration (including motor-alone braking) effected by the control apparatus 10 would have been prohibited/suppressed when the battery SOC was high (nearly fully charged), when the driving motor had a high temperature, etc., as taught by Tomita et al. (‘491), in order to prevent degradation of the battery, to reduce the load on the motor, to prevent the regenerative braking force of the regenerative brake 30 from deviating from the target braking force, 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 Liu et al. (‘002) control apparatus would have rendered obvious:
per claim 9, a braking control apparatus [e.g., in Liu et al. (‘002), FIG. 2] for a vehicle, the braking control apparatus comprising:
a profile generator configured to generate a non-linear deceleration profile for automatic braking operation of the vehicle [e.g., FIG. 11 in Sawada (‘190); and in Liu et al. (‘002), the deceleration profile shown in both FIGS. 6 and 7, which when the braking torque varies after t21 as shown in FIGS. 6 and/or 7 would also implicitly/obviously be non-linear, per Newton’s Second Law of Motion (F=ma), e.g., in a manner analogous to that shown for the non-linear deceleration profile shown in FIG. 7];
a braking element determination unit [e.g., in the regeneration cooperation ECU 91 in Tomita et al. (‘491), for determining when regenerative braking is to be prohibited or suppressed, e.g., as in FIGS. 4, 5, Table 1, etc.] configured to determine whether braking of the vehicle according to the non-linear deceleration profile [e.g., as taught at FIG. 7 of Liu et al. (‘002) and FIG. 11 of Sawada (‘190)] is able to be performed by motor-alone braking [e.g., as taught by Liu et al. (‘002) and Sawada (‘190), e.g., to perform regenerative braking before the vehicle is stopped, or to prohibit the regenerative braking as taught by Tomita et al. (‘491)], depending on a temperature of a motor [e.g., 140 in Liu et al. (‘002); and 20 in Tomita et al. (‘491)] of the vehicle and SOC value of a battery of the vehicle [e.g., in Tomita et al. (‘491), when the battery SOC was high (nearly fully charged), when the driving motor had a high temperature, etc.];
a hydraulic stop determination unit [e.g., in Liu et al. (‘002), S22 to S24 in FIG. 5 and paragraph [0082] describing the timing (E) in FIG. 6] configured to determine whether to perform complete stopping of the vehicle, using a hydraulic brake [e.g., in Liu et al. (‘002), after t24 in FIG. 6, in conjunction with the vehicle-stop torque control at S26 in FIG. 5, as described at paragraph [0082]], depending on whether longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs [e.g., the “back-and-forth G vibrations” (in the deceleration direction; cf. FIGS. 10 and 11) caused by “pitching or the like produced when the vehicle is stopped” (paragraph [0142]) in Sawada (‘190), which is sensed as the zero-crossings of the acceleration of the vehicle in the pitch direction, etc. in Liu et al. (‘002), e.g., the zero-crossing of the pitch acceleration at S22 in FIG. 5, paragraph [0082], etc.] during a predetermined judgement time before an expected stopping time of the vehicle [e.g., in Liu et al. (‘002), the judgment time of the zero-crossing e.g., between t21 and t23 in FIG. 6]; and
a motor torque controller [e.g., 10, etc. in Liu et al. (‘002)] and a hydraulic brake controller [e.g., 20, etc. in Liu et al. (‘002)] configured to perform the braking of the vehicle [e.g., in Liu et al. (‘002), as shown in FIG. 6] according to the determination of the braking element determination unit and the hydraulic stop determination unit [e.g., in Liu et al. (‘002), when the control apparatus 10 determines that the regenerative braking shown in FIG. 26 is possible and the brake ECU determines that the hydraulic braking timing (E) in FIG. 6 should be performed];
per claim 10, depending from claim 9, wherein the profile generator is further configured to generate the non-linear deceleration profile including at least two deceleration sections in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at a first rate higher than a predetermined normal reference deceleration at beginning of the braking and to decelerate at a second rate lower than the predetermined normal reference deceleration in later stages of the braking[e.g., in FIG. 11 of Sawada (‘190) the rate of deceleration of the wheel speed (slope of the wheel speed) is greater before t1 at the beginning of braking than after t1 in later stages] based on a linear deceleration profile for causing the vehicle to uniformly linearly decelerate from a current vehicle speed to the predetermined normal reference deceleration to stop [e.g., the examiner annotates, in the footnote below7, FIG. 11 in Sawada (‘190) to show the claimed linear deceleration profile, with the slope of wheel speed decrease being greater than the linear deceleration profile before t1 and less than the linear deceleration profile after t1];
per claim 11, depending from claim 10, wherein the at least two deceleration sections of the non-linear deceleration profile includes a first deceleration section in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at the first rate higher than the normal reference deceleration, and a second deceleration section in which the vehicle is caused to decelerate at the second rate lower than the normal reference deceleration, the first deceleration section and the second deceleration section being connected to each other [e.g., as shown by Sawada (‘190) in FIG. 11, with the examiner annotating the connection between the sections in the footnote below8];
per claim 12, depending from claim 10, wherein the braking element determination unit is further configured to determine that the motor-alone braking is not possible [e.g., because regeneration has been prohibited as taught by Tomita et al. (‘491) e.g., to prevent degradation of the battery, to reduce the load on the motor, etc.] in response that the temperature of the motor exceeds a predetermined upper limit temperature [e.g., the motor temperature being “high” and obviously thus above a high temperature threshold, in Tomita et al. (‘491)] or the SOC value of the battery exceeds a predetermined upper limit SOC value [e.g., the SOC being “high” and obviously thus above a high SOC threshold (nearly fully charged), in Tomita et al. (‘491)] and to determine that the motor-alone braking is possible in response that the temperature of the motor is equal to or lower than the upper limit temperature and the SOC value of the battery is less than or equal to the upper limit SoC [e.g., when regenerative braking is obviously released from the regeneration prohibited state in FIG. 4 (and/or FIG. 5) of Tomita et al. (‘491), and the regenerative braking or Liu et al. (‘002) is again allowed (not prohibited/suppressed) to be performed];
per claim 13, depending on claim 12, wherein the motor torque controller is further configured to perform the braking of the vehicle according to the non-linear deceleration profile only with the motor [e.g., as shown in FIG. 11 of Sawada (‘190)] in response that the motor-alone braking is possible [e.g., when the regenerative braking is in a state not requiring prohibition, in Tomita et al. (‘491)];
per claim 16, depending from claim 9, wherein the hydraulic stop determination unit is further configured to determine that the longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs [e.g., at S22, YES in Liu et al. (‘002)] in response that a motor speed [e.g., paragraph [0091] in Liu et al. (‘002), “The process at step S20 shown in FIG. 5 may be executed based on the rotation speed of the rotary electric machine 140 detected by a MG resolver 203. In this case, the rotation speed of the rotary electric machine 140 detected by the MG resolver 203 may be converted to a rotation speed of the wheels 111 using a predetermined formula, whereby a similar determination process can be performed. Further, the rotation speed determination value ωs may be set for the rotation speed of the rotary electric machine detected by the MG resolver 203.”] deviates from the predetermined reference range [e.g., when in S20 of FIG. 5 in Liu et al. (‘002), ω becomes less than or equal to ωs as the claimed deviation];
per claim 17, depending from claim 16, wherein the hydraulic brake controller is further configured to operate the hydraulic brake to completely stop the vehicle [e.g., in Liu et al. (‘002), after t24 in FIG. 6, in conjunction with the vehicle-stop torque control at S26 in FIG. 5, as described at paragraph [0082]] in response that the hydraulic stop determination unit determines that the longitudinal vibration of the vehicle occurs [e.g., the “back-and-forth G vibrations” (in the deceleration direction; cf. FIGS. 10 and 11) caused by “pitching or the like produced when the vehicle is stopped” (paragraph [0142]) in Sawada (‘190), which is sensed as the zero-crossings of the acceleration of the vehicle in the pitch direction, etc. in Liu et al. (‘002), e.g., the zero-crossing of the pitch acceleration at S22 in FIG. 5, paragraph [0082], etc.];
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (2023/0365002) in view of Sawada (2014/0379190) and Tomita et al. (2018/0257491)as applied (for example) to claim 13 above, and further in view of Huh et al. (2019/0359213).
Liu et al. (‘002) as implemented or modified in view of Sawada (‘190) and Tomita et al. (‘491) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Liu et al. (‘002) control apparatus may not reveal the details of the hydraulic brake operation in addition to the motor.
However, in the context/field of an improved inertia drive control for (automatic) deceleration when a brake pedal is released and that operates in harmony with regeneration braking control (e.g., paragraph [0007]; see also paragraph [0042]), Huh et al. (‘213) teaches in conjunction with FIG. 5 that when feedback control of the braking is implemented, a hydraulic braking torque calculator 35 checks a portion of the required deceleration torque (FIG.4) which cannot be managed by the actual motor (e.g., regeneration; paragraph [0006]) deceleration torque (e.g., because it exceeds its upper limit, as shown in FIG. 5), and calculates that portion as a hydraulic braking torque (as shown in FIG. 5) through a braking hydraulic pressure, to be implemented at the beginning of the braking feedback control (after the conversion position) by the vehicle braking system 5, until a point where the actual motor deceleration torque can cover the required deceleration torque (e.g., the point obviously denoted by the right end of the hydraulic braking pressure/torque in FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Liu et al. (‘002) control apparatus so that, when a brake pedal was released and the required deceleration torque at the beginning of braking was greater than regenerative braking force that could be generated by the motor/generator 140 in Liu et al. (‘002), the portion of the required deceleration torque which could not be managed by the actual motor deceleration torque (Tr) would have been calculated as a hydraulic braking torque (as shown in FIG. 5) to be applied through the hydraulic brake device, as taught by Huh et al. (‘213), in order to perform inertia drive control through cooperative regeneration/hydraulic brake control, as taught by Huh et al. (‘213), 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 Liu et al. (‘002) control apparatus would have rendered obvious:
per claim 14, depending on claim 13, wherein the hydraulic brake controller is further configured to control the hydraulic brake in addition to the braking using the motor by the motor torque controller to achieve the braking of the vehicle according to the non-linear deceleration profile [e.g., FIG. 4 in Huh et al. (‘213); and FIG. 7 in Liu et al. (‘002) and/or FIG. 11 of Sawada (‘190)] in response that the braking element determination unit determines that the motor-alone braking is not possible [e.g., as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 of Huh et al. (‘213)];
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, Ernst (2019/0225087) reveals a method of reducing vehicle speed through recuperation braking9 of an electric machine12, in which during deceleration (as shown in FIG. 2, reproduced below/on the next page) the rotational speed of the electric machine is associated with a target rotational speed range 20:
PNG
media_image3.png
668
910
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 For example, in claims 1 (twice), 2, 6 to 8, and 12 to 17.
2 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
3 ex·ceed (ĭk-sēd′) tr.v. ex·ceed·ed, ex·ceed·ing, ex·ceeds
1. To be greater than, as in number or degree; surpass: a fortune that exceeds ten million dollars; demand that exceeded supply.
2. To go beyond the limits of: I exceeded my allowance. The car exceeded the speed limit.
3. To be better than or superior to: a material that exceeds all others in durability. See Synonyms at excel.
[From: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Retrieved 24 January 2026.]
4 See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.")
5 The examiner annotates, below/on the next page, as a straight dashed line angled downwardly, the claimed linear deceleration profile on top of a portion of FIG. 11 from Sawada (‘190):
PNG
media_image1.png
380
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
6 The examiner annotates, below/on the next page, as an arrow, the location of the claimed connection between the sections on top of a portion of FIG. 11 from Sawada (‘190):
PNG
media_image2.png
380
962
media_image2.png
Greyscale
7 The examiner annotates, below/on the next page, as a straight dashed line angled downwardly, the claimed linear deceleration profile on top of a portion of FIG. 11 from Sawada (‘190):
PNG
media_image1.png
380
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
8 The examiner annotates, below/on the next page, as an arrow, the location of the claimed connection between the sections on top of a portion of FIG. 11 from Sawada (‘190):
PNG
media_image2.png
380
962
media_image2.png
Greyscale
9 A.k.a. regenerative braking.