DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 04/14/2026.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-22 received on 04/14/2026are considered in this Office Action.
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-22 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In response to the Applicant’s amendment to Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
The claim limitation of “control, based on the first regenerative braking torque and the second regenerative braking torque, regenerative braking of the vehicle” applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application as supported by paragraphs [0006]-[0008] of the specification, which is reproduced below.
[0006] Therefore, vehicles may use one of a front-wheel drive axle and a rear-wheel drive axle as a main drive axle and the other as an auxiliary drive axle. In some implementations, when four-wheel drive is implemented, regenerative braking torque may be applied only to the main drive axle, and a portion of the regenerative braking torque may be applied to the auxiliary drive axle only under special circumstances.
[0007] According to these implementations, if regenerative braking torque is excessively applied to either of the drive axles, wheel slip may occur, thereby impairing vehicle safety, and ultimately, the regenerative braking torque may be released and a loss of fuel efficiency may occur.
[0008] improving braking safety by appropriately distributing and applying regenerative braking power to a main drive axle and an auxiliary drive axle
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velazquez (US 10518775 B1), in view of Crombez (US 20190337391 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Velazquez teaches a vehicle control apparatus (FIG. 1) comprising:
a processor (col 3 line 19: “The vehicle 20 includes a controller 40”); and
a storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to (col 3 lines 25-32: “The controller 40 generally includes any number of microprocessors, ASICs, ICs, memory (e.g., FLASH, ROM, RAM, EPROM and/or EEPROM) and software code to co-act with one another to perform a series of operations. The controller 40 also includes predetermined data, or “lookup tables” that are based on calculations and test data, and are stored within the memory.”):
collect driving information of a vehicle (col 4 lines 1-28: “The vehicle 20 may include one or more sensors 48 configured to determine accelerations of the vehicle. For example, the sensors 48 may include a yaw-rate sensor, a lateral-acceleration sensor, and a longitudinal-acceleration sensor […] The steering system 49 may include one or more sensors configured to output a signal indicative of steering angle to the controller 40. The steering sensor may measure rotation of the steering shaft”);
determine, based on the driving information and a plurality of modifying factors, a braking distribution ratio between a main drive axle and an auxiliary drive axle of the vehicle (FIG. 2; col 4 lines 30-32: “the vehicle 20 can divide the regenerative braking torque between the primary axle 22 and the secondary axle 24”; col 5 lines 3-7: “The controller 40 is configured to determine a proportion of the brake torque to the primary drive axle 22 and the secondary drive axle 24. The proportion of the brake torque to the primary drive axle can be calculated using equation 1: braking torque primary axle=braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle.”; col 5 lines 14-26: “The brake torque is sent to a secondary axle torque proportion module generally denoted by box 50. The module 50 determines the proportion of the brake torque to be provided by the secondary drive axle 24, i.e., braking torque secondary axle. The module 50 may calculate a commanded secondary axle brake torque by modifying the received brake torque request by a base-split modifier (BSM) 52, a lateral acceleration modifier (LAM) 54, efficiency modifier (EM) 56, a yaw modifier (YM) 58, and/or the slip modifier (SM) 60. The commanded braking torque secondary axle may be calculated using equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”; col 5 lines 31-47: “determine the base-split modifier 52 based on vehicle speed and longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle 20. A plurality of base-split values may be stored in a lookup table 61, which may be a 3D lookup table […] determine the lateral-acceleration modifier 54 based on a steering angle of the steering system 49 and lateral acceleration of the vehicle […] ”, wherein various factors are used to determine the optimized ratio);
determine, based on the braking distribution ratio, first regenerative braking torque for the main drive axle and second regenerative braking torque for the auxiliary drive axle (cols 6-7 lines 63-5: “The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes based on operating conditions. The aggregator then outputs regenerative braking commands for the primary and secondary axles to another control module, e.g., powertrain control module, that determines and commands the appropriate regenerative torques to the electric machines to regeneratively brake the vehicle 20); and
control, based on the first regenerative braking torque and the second regenerative braking torque, regenerative braking of the vehicle (col 5 lines 24-26: “equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”; col 7 lines 1-5: “The aggregator then outputs regenerative braking commands for the primary and secondary axles to another control module, e.g., powertrain control module, that determines and commands the appropriate regenerative torques to the electric machines to regeneratively brake the vehicle 20”; claim 9: “a controller programmed to, responsive to a braking torque request, (i) command a regenerative torque to the secondary axle that is derived from the braking torque request,”), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the braking distribution ratio by (col 3 lines 25-29: “The controller 40 generally includes any number of microprocessors, ASICs, ICs, memory (e.g., FLASH, ROM, RAM, EPROM and/or EEPROM) and software code to co-act with one another to perform a series of operations”):
determining, (Velazquez FIG. 2; FIG. 3; col 5 lines 24-26: “equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”, wherein modifier indicates plurality of distribution ratio candidate values as if BSM were a value of 0.5, the maximum value the multiplication of modifiers (BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM) can be is 0.5, thus the candidate values being less than 0.5); and
selecting, based on main drive axle information of the vehicle, one of the plurality of distribution ratio candidate values as the braking distribution ratio (Velazquez FIG. 2; Velazquez col 6 lines 8-17: “The motor efficiencies can be stored as multiple 3D lookup tables that are a function motor speed, torque, battery voltage, motor temperature, etc. The output of these tables is a value of efficiency for each axle. We can then take a ratio of the secondary and primary efficiency, e.g., efficiency ratio (Eff_ratio)=secondary axle efficiency/primary axle efficiency. If Eff_ratio=1, both axles are equally efficient so the current split is maintained, i.e., efficiency modifier=1. If Eff_ratio=0: the secondary axle has 0% efficiency so send all torque to the primary axle, i.e., efficiency modifier=0”), but fails to specifically teach a plurality of distribution maps.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Crombez teaches a plurality of distribution maps (Abstract: “the controller(s) generate the torque split ratio by a predetermined lookup table that maps a plurality of torque split ratios to lateral accelerations, the coefficients, and other parameters”; para. [0012]: “generating the torque split ratio by the predetermined lookup table that maps a plurality of torque split ratios to respective lateral accelerations, among other vehicle, road, and wheel dynamics and conditions”) and determining, based on the plurality of distribution maps, a plurality of distribution ratio candidate values (para. [0071]: “The controller(s) and/or contemplated function and/or lookup table in further variation are also modified to extrapolate and/or interpolate, and to generate additional and/or a plurality of intermediate and/or extended TSRs 265, in response to other detected accelerations and/or FCs 260 […] it may be preferred to enable the function(s) and/or lookup table(s) to generate a maximum and a minimum TSR 265, which may be established according to the configuration and performance capabilities of HEV 100.”)
Velazquez and Crombez are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of adjusting the braking distribution based on the vehicle dynamics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the continuous function which combines various modifiers of Velazquez and incorporate the teachings of with discrete lookup tables of Crombez because they both perform the function of determining a braking ratio and one could have substituted the mechanisms and the result of the substitution would have been predictable in selecting one of the plurality of distribution ratio candidate values as the braking distribution ratio.
Regarding claim 3, Velazquez in view of Crombez teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1. Velazquez further teaches wherein the plurality of distribution maps comprise a distribution map for fuel efficiency and drivability of the vehicle (Velazquez col 1 lines 6-12: “This disclosure relates to electrified vehicles that include primary and secondary drive axles powered by at least primary and secondary electric machines, and more specifically to splitting regenerative braking torque between the primary and secondary electric machines based on efficiency of the electric machines and/or vehicle stability”, wherein the modifiers aim to optimize fuel efficiency and drivability of the vehicle), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to (col 3 lines 25-29: “The controller 40 generally includes any number of microprocessors, ASICs, ICs, memory (e.g., FLASH, ROM, RAM, EPROM and/or EEPROM) and software code to co-act with one another to perform a series of operations”):
input, into the distribution map, required driving amount information included in the driving information (FIG. 2; col 5 lines 17-25: “The module 50 may calculate a commanded secondary axle brake torque by modifying the received brake torque request by a base-split modifier (BSM) 52, a lateral acceleration modifier (LAM) 54, efficiency modifier (EM) 56, a yaw modifier (YM) 58, and/or the slip modifier (SM) 60. The commanded braking torque secondary axle may be calculated using equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM.”); and
determine, based on an output from the distribution map, a distribution ratio candidate value (col 4 lines 14-17: “The brake torque is sent to a secondary axle torque proportion module generally denoted by box 50. The module 50 determines the proportion of the brake torque to be provided by the secondary drive axle 24).
Regarding claim 4, Velazquez in view of Crombez teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1. The combination of Velazquez and Crombez teaches wherein the plurality of distribution maps comprise a distribution map for braking safety associated with the vehicle turning at a high speed (Velazquez col 5 lines 24-26: “equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”; Velazquez col 5 lines 44-54: “The controller 40 may also be programmed to determine the lateral-acceleration modifier 54 based on a steering angle of the steering system 49 and lateral acceleration of the vehicle. The lateral acceleration may be measured by the at least one sensor 48. A plurality of lateral-acceleration modifier values may be stored in a lookup table 62. The lookup table 62 includes values of the modifier 54 for a sensed steering angle and lateral acceleration. In the illustrated embodiment, the lateral-acceleration modifier 54 decreases in response to lateral acceleration increasing and/or steering angle increasing”; Crombez para. [0010]: “generate the torque split ratio by the predetermined lookup table mapping a plurality of torque split ratios to one or more of the accelerations, steering angle, yaw rate, vehicle speed, vehicle configuration, and/or other vehicle conditions and parameters”, wherein the combination teaches the 5-D map created based on the modifiers as explain in claim 1, and vehicle turning at a high speed would decrease the lateral acceleration modifier thus narrowing the 5-D map to 4-D map with relatively low lateral-acceleration modifier), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
input, into the distribution map, vehicle speed information and steering angle information included in the driving information (Velazquez FIG. 2; Velazquez col 5 lines 31-47: “determine the base-split modifier 52 based on vehicle speed and longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle 20. A plurality of base-split values may be stored in a lookup table 61, which may be a 3D lookup table […] determine the lateral-acceleration modifier 54 based on a steering angle of the steering system 49 and lateral acceleration of the vehicle […] ”); and determine, based on an output from the distribution map, a distribution ratio candidate value (Velazquez col 5 lines 17-25: “The module 50 may calculate a commanded secondary axle brake torque by modifying the received brake torque request by a base-split modifier (BSM) 52, a lateral acceleration modifier (LAM) 54, efficiency modifier (EM) 56, a yaw modifier (YM) 58, and/or the slip modifier (SM) 60. The commanded braking torque secondary axle may be calculated using equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM.”).
Regarding claim 5, Velazquez in view of Crombez teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1. The combination of Velazquez and Crombez teaches wherein the plurality of distribution maps comprise a distribution map for braking safety associated with the vehicle decelerating at a high speed (col 5 lines 31-47: “The controller 40 may be programmed to determine the base-split modifier 52 based on vehicle speed and longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle 20. A plurality of base-split values may be stored in a lookup table 61, which may be a 3D lookup table. The lookup table 61 includes values of the base-split modifier 52 for a sensed vehicle speed and longitudinal acceleration. The longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle may be measured by the at least one sensor 48. In the illustrated embodiment, the base-split modifier 52 decreases responsive to an absolute value of longitudinal acceleration increasing. For a given longitudinal acceleration, the base-split modifier 52 may also decrease responsive to vehicle speed increasing”, wherein decelerating at a high speed would decrease the base-split modifier modifier thus indicating distribution map with relatively low base-split modifier), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to (col 3 lines 25-29: “The controller 40 generally includes any number of microprocessors, ASICs, ICs, memory (e.g., FLASH, ROM, RAM, EPROM and/or EEPROM) and software code to co-act with one another to perform a series of operations”):
input, into the distribution map, vehicle speed information and required braking amount information included in the driving information (Velazquez FIG. 2; Velazquez col 5 lines 31-47: “determine the base-split modifier 52 based on vehicle speed and longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle 20. A plurality of base-split values may be stored in a lookup table 61, which may be a 3D lookup table […] determine the lateral-acceleration modifier 54 based on a steering angle of the steering system 49 and lateral acceleration of the vehicle […] ”); and
determine, based on an output from the distribution map, a distribution ratio candidate value (Velazquez col 5 lines 17-25: “The module 50 may calculate a commanded secondary axle brake torque by modifying the received brake torque request by a base-split modifier (BSM) 52, a lateral acceleration modifier (LAM) 54, efficiency modifier (EM) 56, a yaw modifier (YM) 58, and/or the slip modifier (SM) 60. The commanded braking torque secondary axle may be calculated using equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM.”).
Regarding claim 11, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 13, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicle control apparatus of claim 3, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicle control apparatus of claim 4, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicle control apparatus of claim 5, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 21, Velazquez in view of Crombez teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1. Velazquez further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
determine, based on a signal detected by a brake pedal sensor of the vehicle, a total required braking amount (FIG. 2-3 “Braking torque request”; col 4-5 lines 66-2: “Referring to FIG. 2, the controls begin in response to a braking torque request. The braking torque request may be generated by the driver via the brake pedal 44 or by the controller 40.”); and
perform hydraulic braking based on a value obtained by subtracting, from the total required braking amount, a regenerative braking amount resulting from the regenerative braking controlled based on the first regenerative braking torque and the second regenerative braking torque (col 3 lines 58-60: “The vehicle 20 is configured to decelerate using regenerative braking, friction braking, or a combination thereof”; cols 6-7 lines 63-5: “The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes based on operating conditions.”, wherein total braking = regenerative braking + friction braking as indicated by braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes).
Regarding claim 22, Velazquez in view of Crombez teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 21. Velazquez further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
transmit, to a motor controller of the vehicle, a regenerative braking control signal (col 7 lines 1-5: “The aggregator then outputs regenerative braking commands for the primary and secondary axles to another control module, e.g., powertrain control module, that determines and commands the appropriate regenerative torques to the electric machines to regeneratively brake the vehicle 20”);
receive, from the motor controller, the regenerative braking amount (col 2 lines 45-50: “The primary and secondary electric machines 28, 34 are capable of acting as motors to propel the vehicle 20 and are capable of acting as generators to brake the vehicle via regenerative braking. The primary and secondary electric machines 28, 34 may be permanent magnet synchronous alternating current (AC) machines”); and
determine, based on the value obtained by subtracting the regenerative braking amount from the total required braking amount, a control signal for the hydraulic braking (col 3 lines 58-60: “The vehicle 20 is configured to decelerate using regenerative braking, friction braking, or a combination thereof”; cols 6-7 lines 63-5: “The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes based on operating conditions.”; col 3 lines 64-67: “The aggregator of the controller 40 may be programmed to decelerate the vehicle using regenerative braking whenever possible and apply the friction brakes 42 only when needed.”, wherein “apply the friction brakes 42 only when needed” indicates based on the value obtained by subtracting the regenerative braking amount from the total required braking amount).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velazquez, in view of Crombez, and further in view of Satterthwaite (US20180244159A1).
Regarding claim 7, Velazquez in view of Crombez teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1. Velazquez further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to (col 3 lines 25-29: “The controller 40 generally includes any number of microprocessors, ASICs, ICs, memory (e.g., FLASH, ROM, RAM, EPROM and/or EEPROM) and software code to co-act with one another to perform a series of operations”):
determine, based on the braking distribution ratio, a main drive axle distribution ratio and an auxiliary drive axle distribution ratio (FIG. 2; col 5 lines 3-7: “equation 1: braking torque primary axle=braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle”; col 5 lines 24-26: “braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”, wherein the braking distribution ratio indicates a main drive axle distribution ratio and an auxiliary drive axle distribution ratio);
determine, based on a signal detected by a brake pedal sensor of the vehicle, a total required braking amount (cols 4-5 lines 67-4: “The braking torque request may be generated by the driver via the brake pedal 44 or by the controller 40. The controller 40 is configured to determine a proportion of the brake torque to the primary drive axle 22 and the secondary drive axle 24”), but fails to specifically teach determine an allowable predicted value of regenerative braking of the main drive axle and an allowable predicted value of regenerative braking of the auxiliary drive axle, based on the total required braking amount, the main drive axle distribution ratio, and the auxiliary drive axle distribution ratio.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Satterthwaite teaches determine an allowable predicted value of regenerative braking of the main drive axle and an allowable predicted value of regenerative braking of the auxiliary drive axle, based on the total required braking amount, the main drive axle distribution ratio, and the auxiliary drive axle distribution ratio (FIG. 1; FIG. 4; para. [0054]: “With reference to both FIGS. 4 and 5, at step 106, a potential range of brake force distribution is determined. In determining the range, first, the maximum brake force distribution range (X) for an axle is determined, that is, the proportion of braking force which can be applied at each axle.”; para. [0059]: “With further reference to FIG. 4, at step 107, the maximum braking force that both machines 20, 22 can achieve (available window) within the brake force distribution range calculated at step 106 is determined. Then, at step 109, in the event that there is sufficient capacity to retard the vehicle in accordance with the braking demand using regenerative braking alone, then the process continues to step 114.”; para. [0062]: “step 114, the controller calculates the actual brake force distribution within the range based on the operating conditions of the respective machine and the braking demand. Ordinarily, the controller may attempt to apply a maximum brake force to the front axle since generators have increased efficiency for increased capacity […] The controller may thus select an appropriate brake force distribution between the front and rear axles in accordance with the conditions of the machines within the previously-calculated brake force distribution range. The controller may seek to for example to maximise the energy recovered during braking”, wherein both machines indicate the axles, and maximization of energy determined based on the brake force distribution indicates determine an allowable predicted value of regenerative braking of the main drive axle and an allowable predicted value of regenerative braking of the auxiliary drive axle, as the ratio selected indicates regenerative braking between the front/main and rear/auxiliary axle).
Satterthwaite is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of adjusting the braking distribution based on the vehicle dynamics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Velazquez in view of Crombez and incorporate the teachings of Satterthwaite and determine the allowable regeneration energy capacity. Doing so would result in identification of whether regeneration is sufficient (Satterthwaite, FIG. 4), and thus allow controlling the available brake force distribution in this way, the energy recovered during braking can be maximised without impairing the stability of the vehicle (Satterthwaite, para. [0066]).
Regarding claim 17, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicle control apparatus of claim 7, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velazquez, in view of Crombez, and further in view of Satterthwaite (US20180244159A1), and further in view of SEO (US20210122248A1).
Regarding claim 8, Velazquez in view of Crombez and further in view of Satterthwaite teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 7. Velazquez further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to (col 3 lines 25-29: “The controller 40 generally includes any number of microprocessors, ASICs, ICs, memory (e.g., FLASH, ROM, RAM, EPROM and/or EEPROM) and software code to co-act with one another to perform a series of operations”):
determine, based on the main drive axle distribution ratio, (FIG. 2; col 5 lines 3-7: “equation 1: braking torque primary axle=braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle”; col 5 lines 24-26: “braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”); and determine, based on the auxiliary drive axle distribution ratio, (FIG. 2; col 5 lines 24-26: “braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”), but fails to specifically teach cost regenerative torque.
However, in the same field of endeavor, SEO teaches cost regenerative torque (FIG. 3; para. [0003]: “In addition to regenerative braking, hydraulic braking, which is caused by operation of a brake by a user, and regenerative braking, which is caused by a coast regenerative torque which occurs during coasting, may be performed”; Claim 2: “wherein the braking of the vehicle is performed based on a coast regenerative torque generated from a motor at a moment when tip-out caused by release of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle occurs.”, wherein the coast regenerative torque corresponds to braking when release of acceleration pedal occurs).
SEO is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of regenerative braking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Velazquez in view of Crombez and further in view of Satterthwaite and incorporate the teachings of SEO and account for the coast regenerative torque, which is a type of regenerative braking and thus have the same braking distribution ratio. Doing so would increase the amount of regeneration braking (SEO, para. [0003]) thus enhancing fuel efficiency (SEO, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Velazquez in view of Crombez and further in view of Satterthwaite and further in view of SEO teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 8. The combination of Velazquez, Satterthwaite and SEO teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the vehicle control apparatus to (col 3 lines 25-29: “The controller 40 generally includes any number of microprocessors, ASICs, ICs, memory (e.g., FLASH, ROM, RAM, EPROM and/or EEPROM) and software code to co-act with one another to perform a series of operations”)
determine the first regenerative braking torque and the second regenerative braking torque (Velazquez FIG. 2; col 5 lines 3-7: “equation 1: braking torque primary axle=braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle”; col 5 lines 24-26: “braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”) by:
determining an allowable amount of regenerative braking of the main drive axle and an allowable amount of regenerative braking of the auxiliary drive axle, based on the allowable predicted value of regenerative braking of the main drive axle, the allowable predicted value of regenerative braking of the auxiliary drive axle, the cost regenerative torque for the main drive axle, and the cost regenerative torque for the auxiliary drive axle (SEO FIG. 2; SEO para. [0066]: “The calculation unit 230 may calculate a difference between the upper limit of the regenerative braking torque and the coast regenerative torque and may set the difference to the allowable regenerative braking torque”; Velazquez “BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”, wherein SEO teaches total allowable predicted value, and Velazquez teaches the ratio between the main and auxiliary drive axles, thus indicating determining an allowable amount of regenerative braking of the main drive axle and an allowable amount of regenerative braking of the auxiliary drive axle);
determining the first regenerative braking torque for the main drive axle further based on the allowable amount of regenerative braking of the main drive axle (SEO para. [0067]: “may calculate the target amount of the regenerative braking torque which is varied according to the pressure of the master cylinder, in addition to the hydraulic braking force according to the pressure of the master cylinder (operations S160 and S220)”; Velazquez FIG. 2; col 5 lines 3-7: “equation 1: braking torque primary axle=braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle”); and
determining the second regenerative braking torque for the auxiliary drive axle further based on the allowable amount of regenerative braking of the auxiliary drive axle (Velazquez col 5 lines 24-26: “braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”).
Regarding claim 18, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicle control apparatus of claim 8, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicle control apparatus of claim 9, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velazquez, in view of Crombez, and further in view of CHO (US20220402366A1).
Regarding claim 10, Velazquez in view of Crombez teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach adjust the braking distribution ratio based on whether a disconnector, which is configured to disconnect the auxiliary drive axle from a motor, is operational.
However, in the same field of endeavor, CHO teaches adjust the braking distribution ratio based on whether a disconnector, which is configured to disconnect the auxiliary drive axle from a motor, is operational (FIG. 5; para. [0110]: “According to embodiments, “S5002” may include allocating the regenerative braking necessary for braking to any one of the first motor or the second motor, when the disconnector is released (S3002). The description of the above step is identical to or similar to the description made with reference to FIGS. 1 to 4 .”).
CHO is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of adjusting the braking distribution based on the vehicle dynamics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Velazquez in view of Crombez and incorporate the teachings of CHO and adjust the braking distribution based on whether the disconnector is operational. Doing so will enhance efficiency by properly distributing regenerative braking into a front wheel or a rear wheel by controlling a disconnector of a vehicle (CHO para. [0004] and [0008]).
Regarding claim 20, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the vehicle control apparatus of claim 10, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, closest prior arts, Velazquez (US 10518775 B1), taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole.
Velazquez teaches determining the braking distribution ratio based on various driving information (FIG. 2; col 4 lines 30-32: “the vehicle 20 can divide the regenerative braking torque between the primary axle 22 and the secondary axle 24”; col 5 lines 3-7: “The controller 40 is configured to determine a proportion of the brake torque to the primary drive axle 22 and the secondary drive axle 24. The proportion of the brake torque to the primary drive axle can be calculated using equation 1: braking torque primary axle=braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle.”; col 5 lines 14-26: “The brake torque is sent to a secondary axle torque proportion module generally denoted by box 50. The module 50 determines the proportion of the brake torque to be provided by the secondary drive axle 24, i.e., braking torque secondary axle. The module 50 may calculate a commanded secondary axle brake torque by modifying the received brake torque request by a base-split modifier (BSM) 52, a lateral acceleration modifier (LAM) 54, efficiency modifier (EM) 56, a yaw modifier (YM) 58, and/or the slip modifier (SM) 60. The commanded braking torque secondary axle may be calculated using equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM”; col 5 lines 31-47: “determine the base-split modifier 52 based on vehicle speed and longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle 20. A plurality of base-split values may be stored in a lookup table 61, which may be a 3D lookup table […] determine the lateral-acceleration modifier 54 based on a steering angle of the steering system 49 and lateral acceleration of the vehicle […] ”), but fails to specifically teach determining the braking distribution ratio, for a front-wheel drive axle, to be one of: a minimum value, of the plurality of distribution ratio candidate values, based on the main drive axle of the vehicle being the front-wheel drive axle, or a maximum value, of the plurality of distribution ratio candidate values, based on the main drive axle of the vehicle being a rear-wheel drive axle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights