DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-15 as originally presented and filed on 08/15/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is February 17, 2022 (20220217).
The present application, effectively 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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application claims priority to and is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/EP2023/053895, which was filed on February 16, 2023, and which claims priority to German Patent Application No. 10 2022 103 802.5, which was filed in Germany on February 17, 2022 (20220217).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 10/11/2024 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the word “preferably”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “a few” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “few” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. According to the specification as filed para [0074] teaches:
“Advantageously, when switching the electric motor to an active short circuit, the rolling speed of the vehicle can be limited to a few km/h, especially below a walking speed, preferably below 1 km/h. Due to the low rolling speed, the vehicle can be used safely despite the failure of the brake system. Other road users can safely avoid the vehicle, so that the vehicle can almost be perceived as a stationary obstacle.”
Accordingly, for examination purposes the Examiner considers the claim to recite and amending the claim to recite “less than 1 kilometer per hour” would appear to overcome this rejection.
Those claims not cited above are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites the abbreviation “AKS” which renders the claim vague indefinite and incomplete. Abbreviations must be spelled out the first time they are presented and amending the claim to recite such would appear to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170008401 A1 to STEMMER; MARTIN in view of DE102012002023A1 TO Volkswagen et.al. (Volkswagen cited in the 10/11/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1 STEMMER teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
710
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a method of operating a vehicle when stopping the vehicle and / or when holding the vehicle at a standstill,
the vehicle comprising an electric motor (as shown in the figs. Above item 9 “motor” as explained in for example para:
“[0020] In the exemplary embodiment shown here, provision is made for two electric motors 9 on two of the wheels 7, for example the front wheels, which electric motors can be activated via a common control device 10. The electric motors 9 involve, for example, wheel-hub motors which provide traction in the vehicle which is designed here as electric vehicle.””) ,
the method comprising:
decelerating the vehicle (as explained in para:
“[0022] As soon as the ESC block 8 or the control device 10 detects any type of malfunction of one of the components of the brake system 2, or in case of the ESC block 8 one of its components, such as for example a valve or the like, the two electric motors 9 are immediately addressed by the control device 10, which receives this respective fault signal, to switch immediately to a regenerative mode. In this regenerative mode, the electric motors 9 apply a deceleration torque, causing the vehicle 1 to slow down. The vehicle 1 may hereby be brought to a standstill. Intervention by the driver of any kind is not required, rather the system spontaneously switches to this emergency stop or state of emergency operation and slows down the vehicle that has been controlled up to that point semi-autonomously. The driver receives a take-over request which prompts him to assume vehicle control again. This automatically induced, deceleration to switch the electric motor 9 into regenerative mode provides the driver with enough time to assume control, while the vehicle is actively slowed down at the same time to ensure the “fail-operational” mode.”);
switching the electric motor to an active short circuit to prevent the vehicle from rolling;
and limiting, when the electric motor is switched to the active short circuit, a rollaway speed of the vehicle to a few km/h (is considered to be taught in for example only Para:
“[0006] This problem is solved in a motor vehicle of the aforementioned type in accordance with the invention by providing at least one electric motor, via which in the event of a malfunction detected within the braking system, a deceleration torque for braking the vehicle to a standstill can be generated through automatic switching to a regenerative mode.”).
While STEMMER teaches the invention as claimed and explained above. STEMMER does not appear to expressly disclose switching the electric motor to an active short circuit to prevent the vehicle from rolling;
and limiting, when the electric motor is switched to the active short circuit, a rollaway speed of the vehicle to a few km/h (emphasis added).
In analogous art Volkswagen teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image2.png
617
944
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
436
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts switching an electric motor to an active short circuit to prevent the vehicle from rolling (in for example the figures above and para:
““Both modes have their advantages and disadvantages and can not provide optimal results for the entire working range of the electric machine. The main drawback of freewheeling mode is that the voltage generated by the electric machine may exceed the allowable traction network voltage, which may lead to the destruction of the components. This is especially true for the high-power and very field-weakened permanent-magnet electric machines. For this reason, almost exclusively the short circuit mode (also called active short circuit or AKS) is used in these electric machines. Due to internal winding inductances only a very small braking torque is formed when short-circuiting a permanently excited electric machine in the region of high rotational speeds.”).
and limiting, when the electric motor is switched to the active short circuit, a rollaway speed of the vehicle to a few km/h (in for example the figures above and the following citations:
“In the 1 is a schematic block diagram of a device 1 for operating an inverter circuit 2 an electric machine 3 shown. The device 1 includes an inverter circuit 2 , an electric machine 3 , a control device 4 for controlling the inverter circuit 2 as well as a facility 5 for detecting a rotational speed n of the electric machine 3 , The inverter circuit 2 comprises six semiconductor switching elements T1-T6, to each of which a freewheeling diode D1-D6 is connected in parallel. The semiconductor switching elements T1-T6 are connected in pairs as a half-bridge, wherein in each case a center tap of the half-bridge with a phase connection of the electric machine 3 connected is. Parallel to the semiconductor bridges an intermediate circuit capacitor C is arranged. About a traction network 6 is the inverter circuit 2 with a traction battery 7 connected via a battery contactor 8th with the traction network 6 connected is. The control device 4 generates control signals S1-S6 for the semiconductor switching elements T1-T6, wherein the control means for calculating the control signals S1-S6 to different input signals E and the rotational speed n of the electric machine 3 recourse.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the active short circuit method of slowing the vehicle disclosed in Volkswagen with the method of slowing the vehicle taught in STEMMER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “prevented uncontrollable braking torque” as taught by Volkswagen Para(s):
“In a further embodiment, a critical speed is determined at which a maximum allowable braking torque occurs, wherein the limit value for the freewheeling mode is selected to be greater than the critical speed. This ensures that no uncontrollable braking torque can occur.”.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein a regenerative deceleration is carried out to decelerate the vehicle,
wherein the deceleration is initiated automatically when a critical second fault has been detected in a brake system or a brake-by-wire system of the vehicle
or when a non-critical first fault in the brake system or the brake-by-wire system of the vehicle (F) has not been resolved (given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that STEMMER para [0006] above teaches:
“[0006] This problem is solved in a motor vehicle of the aforementioned type in accordance with the invention by providing at least one electric motor, via which in the event of a malfunction detected within the braking system, a deceleration torque for braking the vehicle to a standstill can be generated through automatic switching to a regenerative mode.”).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2019], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein the switching of the electric motor to the active short circuit is carried out after a regenerative deceleration of the vehicle (given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) see the motivation to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that STEMMER para [0006] above teaches:
“[0006] This problem is solved in a motor vehicle of the aforementioned type in accordance with the invention by providing at least one electric motor, via which in the event of a malfunction detected within the braking system, a deceleration torque for braking the vehicle to a standstill can be generated through automatic switching to a regenerative mode.”
And Volkswagen para [0007]:
“Both modes have their advantages and disadvantages and can not provide optimal results for the entire working range of the electric machine. The main drawback of freewheeling mode is that the voltage generated by the electric machine may exceed the allowable traction network voltage, which may lead to the destruction of the components. This is especially true for the high-power and very field-weakened permanent-magnet electric machines. For this reason, almost exclusively the short circuit mode (also called active short circuit or AKS) is used in these electric machines. Due to internal winding inductances only a very small braking torque is formed when short-circuiting a permanently excited electric machine in the region of high rotational speeds.”).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor is switched to the active short circuit below a certain speed limit of the electric motor or a so-called AKS speed limit (given the BRI see the teachings of Volkswagen para:
“For this purpose, the device comprises an electric machine, an inverter circuit, a control device for controlling the inverter circuit and a device for detecting a rotational speed of the electric machine, wherein upon detection of a shutdown condition, the electric machine is operated in the active short circuit mode or freewheeling mode, wherein the speed is associated with at least one threshold , wherein at speeds above the limit, the electric machine is operated in the active short-circuit mode and at speeds below the limit, the electric machine is operated in the freewheeling mode. Thus, the advantages of both modes are intelligently combined and their respective disadvantages avoided. The electric machine is preferably a permanent-magnet synchronous electric machine. A preferred application of the electric machine is the use as a prime mover in an electric or hybrid vehicle”),
and wherein, the speed limit of the electric motor for switching to the active short circuit is determined depending on a weight or a load weight of the vehicle
and / or a topology or a slope of a roadway on which the vehicle is brought to a standstill (given the BRI see the teachings of Volkswagen para:
“This low short-circuit torque can not cause the electric machine and ultimately the vehicle wheels to lock and is generally tolerated. In the lower speed range, however, each permanent-magnet electric machine has a significant increase in the short-circuit torque.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the active short circuit method of slowing the vehicle disclosed in Volkswagen with the method of slowing the vehicle taught in STEMMER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “prevented uncontrollable braking torque” as taught by Volkswagen Para(s):
“In a further embodiment, a critical speed is determined at which a maximum allowable braking torque occurs, wherein the limit value for the freewheeling mode is selected to be greater than the critical speed. This ensures that no uncontrollable braking torque can occur.”.
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein, when the electric motor is switched to the active short circuit, stator windings of the electric motor are short-circuited to connecting cables by a switch or an electronic switch or a field-effect transistor (see Volkswagen Fig. 1 inverter circuit 2 and six semiconductor switching elements T1-T6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the active short circuit method of slowing the vehicle disclosed in Volkswagen with the method of slowing the vehicle taught in STEMMER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “prevented uncontrollable braking torque” as taught by Volkswagen Para(s):
“In a further embodiment, a critical speed is determined at which a maximum allowable braking torque occurs, wherein the limit value for the freewheeling mode is selected to be greater than the critical speed. This ensures that no uncontrollable braking torque can occur.”.
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein, when the electric motor is switched to the active short circuit, a rollaway speed of the vehicle is limited to below a walking speed or below 1 km/h (given the BRI the low speed disclosed in Volkswagen appears to connote the claimed speeds, see Volkswagen Fig. 4 and para:
“Based on 4 Let the invention be further explained. First, the critical range for impermissible torques is defined. The limit results crit from the maximum permissible braking torque m at the wheels, in which the vehicle remains controllable and no wheel locking can take place at defined road conditions. Based on the short-circuit torque line, the critical speed n crit can now be determined. The lower switch-off limit for release from the active short circuit and to change to freewheel mode is set at n FL > n krit . This limit (second limit) is operated when the speed drops. For increasing speeds (change from freewheel to active short circuit), a switch-on limit n AKS is defined. This limit (first limit value) is to be defined in such a way that on the one hand a sufficient distance to n FL is ensured, on the other hand the generated voltage of the electric machine produced at n AKS is still within the range tolerable for the traction network. The described hysteresis serves primarily to eliminate switching oscillations between the short-circuit mode and the free-wheeling mode, which otherwise otherwise occur at the low-drive value (eg black ice) could. It should be noted that in case of failure of the device 5 is always switched to the active short-circuit mode as a fallback level to detect the speed n.”).)
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is passively stopped and / or held at a standstill by switching the electric motor to the active short circuit without energizing stator windings of the electric motor (see the motivation to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1 and 3 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Volkswagen expressly teaches AKS is used almost exclusively as explained in for example Volkswagen para [0007] above).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein, after switching the electric motor to the active short circuit, an accelerator pedal operation is switched off,
or wherein the active short circuit of the electric motor is interrupted during an accelerator pedal operation,
and wherein the accelerator pedal operation is switched off or permitted depending on the topology of a roadway on which the vehicle is brought to a standstill (given the BRI see the teachings of STEMMER para:
“[0008] Switching to the regenerative mode and thus to the generation of the deceleration torque and resultant forced braking action of the vehicle is implemented automatically as soon as a respective malfunction is sensed. The driver, who in the at least semi-autonomous mode does not have control over the vehicle at this moment, is not required to intervene, i.e. the driver is not intended as fallback in the motor vehicle according to the invention. Rather, switching is executed automatically, as described, thereby establishing a “fail-operational” design. As a result of the automatically forced deceleration via the electric motor, the driver, who, of course, is prompted to assume control of the vehicle in the event a malfunction is detected, is provided with adequate time to assume control, while at the same time the vehicle is decelerated automatically and actively and at a maximum brought to a standstill. The design is hereby such that the vehicle can in fact be decelerated in this emergency situation to standstill.”).
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein, after switching the electric motor to the active short circuit, a steering function of the vehicle is permitted (see STEMMER para:
“[0027] Even though it is generally possible to bring the vehicle via the examples shown only by way of example in FIGS. 1 and 2 to a standstill from the at least semi-autonomous travel without driver intervention, it is, of course, also conceivable, to terminate again the “emergency run situation”, in which the one or the several electric motors are switched to regenerative deceleration mode, when the driver has assumed control over the vehicle again in response to a take-over request, received as a result of the detection of the malfunction and outputted in a respective display or acoustically, and thus has intervened actively either by steering or braking. Since, however, a malfunction situation is involved, it is appropriate to maintain also in this case the additional deceleration via the electric motors, optionally via the activated parking brake device. While braking to the standstill, a possibly existing transmission is optionally also automatically switched to neutral gear.”).
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the method according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor of the vehicle in an active short circuit prevents the vehicle from rolling (see the teaching of Volkswagen paras:
This low short-circuit torque can not cause the electric machine and ultimately the vehicle wheels to lock and is generally tolerated. In the lower speed range, however, each permanent-magnet electric machine has a significant increase in the short-circuit torque.”).
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation A method of operating a vehicle when stopping the vehicle and / or when holding the vehicle at a standstill of the vehicle,
the vehicle comprising an electric motor,
the method comprising;
decelerating the vehicle;
and energizing a stator winding of the electric motor with phase switching of stator windings of the electric motor to prevent the vehicle from rolling (given the BRI see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation A vehicle comprising an electric motor,
wherein, by energizing a stator winding of the electric motor with phase switching of the stator windings of the electric motor, the vehicle is prevented from rolling (given the BRI see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the A computer program product, including commands which, when a computer executes the computer program product, cause the latter to perform the method according to claim 1 (given the BRI see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation a control unit comprising a computing unit and a memory unit in which a code is stored which, when at least partially executed by the computing unit, performs the method according to claim 1 (given the BRI see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation a vehicle comprising the control unit according to claim 14 (given the BRI see the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 14 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Claims 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170008401 A1 to STEMMER; MARTIN in view of DE102012002023A1 TO Volkswagen et.al. (Volkswagen cited in the 10/11/2024 IDS) as applied to the claims above in view of US 5184049 A to Kiuchi; Hiroyuki.
While it is considered that the combination of Stemmer and Volkswagen teach the invention as claimed and explained in the rejections immediately above, if applicant is of the opinion that the combination does not expressly teach stopping the vehicle and holding the vehicle stopped by using active short circuit then resort may be had to the teachings of Kiuchi to show it is notoriously old and well known to do so in for example the following citations:
“(16) The device for short-circuiting the phases of the motor coil differentiates the present invention from the referenced patent. FIGS. 3 and 4 illustrate the performance of a motor provided with a brake control circuit comprising a short-circuiting device at the time of stopping its motion, whereas FIGS. 5 and 6 show the corresponding performance of a motor for a load of a 3.5 inch optical magnetic disc provided with a brake control circuit according to the prior art and therefore devoid of such a short-circuiting device. As may be clearly seen by comparing FIGS. 3 and 4 and FIGS. 5 and 6 and as indicated by the solid line and the broken line in charts H and I in FIG. 2, the time required for a motor provided with a short-circuiting device to come to a complete stop subsequent to the application of a brake command signal is approximately seven-tenths of the time for a motor without such short-circuiting device. This represents a considerable reduction of time required for deceleration and actual stopping.
(22) As is apparent from the above description, since a motor brake control circuit according to the invention comprises a brake circuit that applies the brake to the motor by turning off the power being supplied to the motor upon detecting the first change in the signals from the first and second discriminator circuits after a reversal of the sense of rotation of the motor and additionally a coil short circuit for shortcircuiting the power terminals of the coil once a brake signal is issued from the brake circuit, the brake is forcibly and continuously applied to the motor after the detection of the reversal of the sense of rotation of the motor. With such an arrangement, the time required for the motor to come to a complete stop after the issuance of a brake command signal is considerably reduced as compared with a motor that does not have such a coil short circuit and, therefore, comes to a complete halt only by natural deceleration after detection of a reversal of the sense of rotation of the motor.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ability to keep the vehicle stopped by actively short circuiting the motor as disclosed in Kiuchi with the “stopping” taught in the combination of Stemmer and Volkswagen with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “not shifted its rotary position in a stopped condition” as taught by Kiuchi:
“(23) Further, since the motor is braked by the shortcircuited motor coil when the brake control circuit is activated, it is scarcely affected by external force such as vibration which otherwise would shift its rotary position in a stopped condition.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of operating vehicles at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20040145328 A1 to Hauf, Ronald teaches, inter alia a Drive system in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image4.png
309
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“A drive system with an electric motor is described, which includes an integrated armature short-circuit brake and a mechanical brake. If the electric motor cannot be controllably slowed down, a control signal is applied at an activation time to the integrated armature short-circuit brake and the mechanical brake, and the armature short-circuit brake is switched off when reaching a thermal load limit for the electric motor or the control electronics.”.
US 20210245606 A1 to BAER; Stanley teaches, inter alia METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CONTROLLING ELECTRIC VEHICLES in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“There is provided a method of controlling an electric vehicle. The method includes obtaining by a controller of the electric vehicle a first state indicator of a state of the electric vehicle, receiving at the controller a status indicator of an operating status of the electric vehicle, and updating by the controller the state of the electric vehicle based on the status indicator to an updated state. The updated state may be associated with a second state indicator. The method also includes determining by the controller a given braking type of a braking to be applied to the electric vehicle. This determining may be based on one or more of the second state indicator and the status indicator. The method also includes applying to the electric vehicle the braking of the given braking type. Systems for applying such braking are also provided.
[0007] The receiving the status indicator may comprise receiving an input fault indicator indicating a fault associated with an input received at the controller, the input associated with controlling the one or more electric motors; the updating the state of the electric vehicle may comprise updating the state to the updated state comprising an input-faulted state; the applying the electromagnetic braking may comprise one or more of: applying an active electromagnetic braking comprising one or more of: controlling the one or more electric motors to ramp down their rotational speed; and controlling the one or more electric motors to hold them at a zero speed; and applying a passive electromagnetic braking comprising one or more of: shorting together one or more phases of a first electric motor of the one or more electric motors; and shorting one or more phases of the first electric motor to one or more corresponding phases of a second electric motor of the one or more electric motors; and the applying the mechanical braking may comprise: moving a braking rod of the mechanical braking applicator from a disengaged configuration to an engaged configuration.”.
US 20210075286 A1 to GRAßL; Tobias teaches, inter alia a METHOD FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A PERMANENTLY-EXCITED SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE, AND MOTOR VEHICLE in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A method for operating a motor vehicle is provided, having, as a prime mover, a permanently-excited synchronous machine with windings. The synchronous machine is connected to a vehicle electrical system of the motor vehicle via a converter having a switching arrangement and a capacitor in an intermediate circuit. The switching arrangement can be controlled via a control device connected to the vehicle electrical system. The permanently-excited synchronous machine is operated as a generator while being driven by external means. Energy generated by the synchronous machine and stored in the capacitor for operating the control device and the switching arrangement is provided when a first threshold value for the voltage in the intermediate circuit is exceeded. When a second threshold value for the voltage in the intermediate circuit is exceeded, the switching arrangement is activated for short-circuiting the windings of the synchronous machine.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260106