DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Paragraphs [0050] and [0052]-[0053] of the specification describe Fig. 3 as being with respect to a “braking system 110”, however, there is no reference numeral 110 in Fig. 3 (or any of the figures), and as such, the reference numeral 110 should be added to at least Fig. 3 or removed from the specification.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 uses the reference numeral 100 to indicate the same vehicle twice and in two separate ways, and as such, one of the reference numerals should be removed from the figure for clarity [e.g., one of the reference numerals is redundant and serves no apparent purpose].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “send a second response signal”, and should be corrected to read “sending a second response signal” for clarity/readability.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim provides that the automated driving system is configured to output a first brake signal, and the brake controller is configured to output a second brake signal, and then subsequently provides that the actuator controller is configured to control the actuator in response to at least one of the first and second brake signals. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to where the respective first and second brake signals that are output from the automated driving system and brake controller are being output to [e.g., it is not exactly clear as to whether the claim intends to describe that the outputs are being sent to the wheel side braking apparatus or the actuator controller of the wheel side braking apparatus].
Regarding claims 2, 5, 12-13 and 15, each claim attempts to describe one or more signals via the term “external”. The claims are rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to what degree and/or extent the term “external” is applicable [e.g., it is not exactly clear as to what the signal(s) is/are “external” with respect to, and/or without a clear point of reference, the term “external” at best appears to be unnecessary and/or only serves to cause confusion].
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a second response signal”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether there should be a first response signal in the claim(s) [e.g., claim 4 depends from claim 1, not claim 3].
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “an external request-off signal received from the brake controller” twice. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether the latter external request-off signal is intended to be distinct from (or in reference to) the previously established external request-off signal, and/or as to exactly how many distinct external request-off signals are being established in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “a third response signal”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether there should be a first response signal and second response signal in the claim(s).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “a second bus interface” and “a second bus”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether there should be a first bus interface and a first bus in the claim(s) [e.g., claim 9 depends from claim 1, not claim 7 or claim 8].
Regarding claim 18, the claim attempts to describe the receiving of at least one brake signal. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to what component(s) is/are necessarily receiving the at least one brake signal [e.g., is the claim attempting to provide that the wheel side braking apparatus is receiving the at least one brake signal, or that a component of the wheel side braking apparatus is receiving the at least one brake signal?].
Regarding claim 19, the claim attempts to describe the sending of a first response signal to the automated driving system. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to where the first response signal is necessarily being sent from.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “a second response signal”. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to whether there should be a first response signal in the claim(s) [e.g., claim 20 depends from claim 18, not claim 19].
The claim further attempts to describe the sending of a second response signal to the brake controller. The claim is rendered indefinite such that it is not exactly clear as to where the second response signal is necessarily being sent from.
Note that notwithstanding the substantial outstanding 112(b)/clarity issues in the claims, the examiner has still applied what appears to be the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 114248746 A (Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Wu (Figure 2) teaches a wheel side braking apparatus (4) (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]), wherein the wheel side braking apparatus is configured to directly [e.g., directly in a functional, electrical sense] connect to both an automated driving system (described but not illustrated) and a brake controller (1) (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]), the automated driving system is configured to output a first brake signal (described but not illustrated), and the brake controller is configured to output a second brake signal [e.g., the second brake signal indicated via one or more of the arrows extending from the brake controller 1 per Fig. 2] (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]) [e.g., “The vehicle braking system of the present invention is brake-by-wire, which can be controlled by the driver or by the vehicle's automatic driving system”]; and
wherein the wheel side braking apparatus comprises an actuator (5) and an actuator controller (2 and/or 3), wherein the actuator controller is configured to control the actuator to output braking force to brake a vehicle (described but not illustrated) in response to at least one of the first brake signal or the second brake signal (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]-[n0022]) [e.g., “when the control device 1 is in normal operation mode, the hydraulic control module 2 controls the solenoid valve circuit 11 and the parking control module 3 controls the electromechanical actuator 5”]; [e.g., “When the parking control module 3 fails to meet the expected braking force control of the electromechanical actuator 5, the hydraulic control module 2 controls the H-bridge drive circuit 12 to act on the electromechanical actuator 5”]; [e.g., “The vehicle braking system of the present invention is brake-by-wire, which can be controlled by the driver or by the vehicle's automatic driving system”].
Regarding claim 11, Wu (Figure 2) teaches a vehicle (described but not illustrated), wherein the vehicle comprises a wheel side braking apparatus (4), an automated driving system (described but not illustrated), and a brake controller (1) (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]);
the automated driving system is configured to send a first brake signal (described but not illustrated) to the wheel side braking apparatus, wherein the first brake signal is used to control the wheel side braking apparatus to brake the vehicle (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]) [e.g., “The vehicle braking system of the present invention is brake-by-wire, which can be controlled by the driver or by the vehicle's automatic driving system”];
the brake controller is configured to send a second brake signal [e.g., the second brake signal indicated via one or more of the arrows extending from the brake controller 1 per Fig. 2] to the wheel side braking apparatus, wherein the second brake signal is used to control the wheel side braking apparatus to brake the vehicle (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]) [e.g., “The vehicle braking system of the present invention is brake-by-wire, which can be controlled by the driver or by the vehicle's automatic driving system”];
the wheel side braking apparatus is configured to brake the vehicle based on an indication of either the first brake signal or the second brake signal (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]-[n0022]) [e.g., “The vehicle braking system of the present invention is brake-by-wire, which can be controlled by the driver or by the vehicle's automatic driving system”].
Regarding claim 18, Wu (Figure 2) teaches a method, comprising:
receiving at least one of a first brake signal from an automated driving system (described but not illustrated) or a second brake signal [e.g., the second brake signal indicated via one or more of the arrows extending from the brake controller 1 per Fig. 2] from a brake controller (1) (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]) [e.g., “The vehicle braking system of the present invention is brake-by-wire, which can be controlled by the driver or by the vehicle's automatic driving system”]; and
outputting, by a wheel side braking apparatus (4), a braking force to brake a vehicle (described but not illustrated) in response to at least one of the first brake signal or the second brake signal (see Fig. 2 in conjunction with paragraphs [n0013]-[n0014], [n0021]-[n0022]) [e.g., “The vehicle braking system of the present invention is brake-by-wire, which can be controlled by the driver or by the vehicle's automatic driving system”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over CN 114248746 A (Wu).
Regarding claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20, Wu teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Wu fails to explicitly teach the subject matter of the dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 (which have been accordingly grouped and summarized below for the sake of brevity), including:
wherein the actuator controller is further configured to control the actuator to output the braking force or control the braking of the vehicle based on signal communication between the automated driving system, brake controller, and wheel side braking apparatus (or based on various respective request or status signals being sent to, from, and/or between the automated driving system, brake controller, and wheel side braking apparatus to coordinate control [e.g., the stopping or sending] of an output of one of the first or second brake signals to the wheel side braking apparatus) (claims 2, 5 and 12-16);
wherein the actuator controller(s) is/are further configured to send (or wherein the method further comprises sending) various [e.g., first, second, third, etc.] response signals to the automated driving system and/or brake controller to indicate (or communicate, update, etc.) a braking status of the wheel side braking apparatus with respect to whether the vehicle is being braked via the first or second brake signal, and coordinate control [e.g., the stopping or sending] of an output of one of the first or second brake signals to the wheel side braking apparatus based on one or more of the response signals and/or signal communication between the automated driving system, brake controller, and wheel side braking apparatus (claims 3-4, 6 and 19-20); and
wherein the automated driving system, brake controller, and wheel side braking apparatus are connected via various [e.g., first, second, third, etc.] buses/bus interfaces that facilitate signal communication between the automated driving system, brake controller, and wheel side braking apparatus, and such that at least the first and second bus interfaces are disposed on a surface of a housing that accommodates the actuator controller and control circuit(s) thereof (claims 7-10 and 17)
[e.g., since Wu fails to provide an illustration of the described automatic driving system and/or an explicit description of the network configuration of the automatic driving system with respect to the illustrated brake controller and wheel side braking apparatus, Wu fails to explicitly teach the subject matter of the dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20];
[e.g., the substantive feature(s) of the dependent claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 pertain(s) to the provision of multiplexing buses, and Wu fails to explicitly teach or suggest wherein the various control modules/components are configured to communicate bi-directionally (e.g., sending and receiving signals) over a shared network];
[e.g., further note, with respect to the subject matter of claim 10, that a housing that accommodates the actuator controller and control circuit(s) thereof has been regarded as reasonably inferable and/or non-inventive subject matter, such that the provision of including a housing to accommodate electrical and/or electronic components is a foundational, standard (or customary) practice in the relevant art(s) concerning vehicle control systems, for the purpose(s) of protecting said electrical and/or electronic components from vibration, heat, contaminants, moisture, interference, etc.].
However, the aforementioned technical feature(s) is/are merely with respect to the well-known, conventional, and foundational provision of multiplexing buses in automotive and/or vehicle control systems, such that the various control modules/components of the vehicle control system are configured to communicate bi-directionally [e.g., sending and receiving signals] over a shared network, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or merely involve routine skill in the art to accordingly configure the various respective systems/control modules/controllers of the vehicle control system per Wu to communicate bi-directionally with one another as a modification (or an alternative), so as to achieve one or more of reduced wiring complexity, weight, and/or costs, and enhanced real-time communication between the various respective systems/control modules/controllers via optimizing and/or maximizing the network bandwidth efficiency of the brake-by-wire braking system, resulting in one or more of reduced overall network latency, synchronized (or further synchronized) control over the braking system/components, improved diagnostic capability, and/or improved vehicle braking/stopping performance [e.g., the vehicle braking/stopping performance improved via ensuring that the respective brake signals/commands work in harmony with each other and thereby prevent (or reduce the likelihood of) the occurrence of one or more safety issues (or concerns, failures, etc.) that could (or would) be caused by conflicting brake signals/commands] (implicit in view of well-known and/or basic engineering logic/principles concerning the provision of multiplexing buses in automotive and/or vehicle control systems).
Additionally (or alternatively), the provision of multiplexing buses in automotive and/or vehicle control systems, of which is the substantive feature of the respective dependent claims, is considered non-inventive, would not yield any unexpected result(s)/effect(s), and/or would have been readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art [e.g., so as to achieve one or more of the well-known and/or readily foreseeable technical effects discussed above], without the exercise of inventive skill, for the same reasons indicated above.
Pertinent Prior Art / Examiner Comment
While not relied upon per the detailed rejection above, the examiner notes the following prior art reference to further support the examiner’s assertion(s) concerning the provision of multiplexing buses being well-known, conventional, and foundational, especially in the field(s) of endeavor concerning automotive and/or vehicle control systems:
US 5974351 A (Croft) [e.g., Croft (Figures 1-4) teaches an analogous vehicle, and wherein the various modules of the vehicle, including a braking system module (14), are interconnected in a network such that information is exchanged between the modules and such that the modules can perform their functions in an integrated manner] (see Fig. 1-4 in conjunction with column 1, line 52 through column 2, line 46).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D TAYLOR JR whose telephone number is (469)295-9192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9a-5p (central time).
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/ANTHONY DONALD TAYLOR JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747