DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the Response to Restriction Requirement filed 4/19/2026.
Claims 25-37, 39, and 40 have been elected.
Claims 25-37, 39, and 40 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/19/2026, 1/28/2026, and 11/1/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 11/1/2024 has been entered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures are referenced in the specification filed 11/1/2024 that do not exist in the drawings filed 11/1/2024. Specifically, Figure 2c, Figures 12b-d, and Figure 13b are referenced in the specification on pages 7, 28, and 29; however, these figures do not exist in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a central control unit of claims 25 and 40.
The central control unit is being interpreted consistent with Applicant’s specification at lines 3-5 on page 11 of the specification filed 11/1/2024 which recites “In particular, the central control unit has a central computer, wherein the central computer preferably has redundant microcontrollers and/or a large memory, in particular on the order of gigabytes.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 25, 29, 32, 33, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites uses non-standard symbols, e.g., dashes (-) and open circles (°). The use of these non-standard symbols impacts clarity and claim tracking during prosecution. The Applicant is advised to use standard legal sub-lettering or numbering schemes.
Claim 25 recites the limitation of at least axle of the vehicle in the sixth line of claim 25. This limitation should instead recite “at least one axle of the vehicle.”
Claim 29 recites the limitation of an automated application is enabled to be carried out via learning algorithms or artificial intelligence (AI), both before the vehicle is put into operation and subsequently during normal operation without faults, as well as adapted operation when a fault occurs (emphasis added). The emphasized limitations create ambiguity, such that it cannot be reasonably determined what happens when. For example, it cannot be determined if the system switches to a fixed adapted mode during a fault, or the learning algorithms are actively learning and adapting while the fault is occurring.
Claims 32 and 33 introduce the limitations of a brake unit as separate and distinct from the “brake unit” of claim 25, from which claims 32 and 33 depend. It is recommended to amend these limitations to be clearly distinct from one another, e.g., a first brake unit, a second brake unit, etc., for clarity.
Claim 37 recites the limitation of wherein the central control unit includes redundant microcontrollers and a memory dimensioned in the gigabyte range, and is designed to acquire sensor data during vehicle operation and to adapt control of the braking function on the basis of the acquired sensor data by means of an artificial intelligence method that is capable of being implemented by the redundant microcontrollers of the central control unit, wherein adaptation of the control of the braking function is performed when the vehicle is parked, based on the acquired sensor data, a characteristic map is determined, wherein the characteristic map is adaptable based on the acquired sensor data and the artificial intelligence process if a deviation from a current characteristic map is detected (emphasis added). The emphasized limitation does not read clearly. Specifically, it cannot be reasonably determined if the emphasized limitation is part of the “wherein” clause or a separate and distinct step.
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.
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 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 37 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation of distance control (Automated Cruise Control, ACC). The limitations of “Automated Cruise Control, ACC” render the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the terms “Automated Cruise Control” and “ACC” are required limitations or merely alternative, optional examples of the “distance control.”
Claims 29 and 37 recite the limitation the gigabyte range. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a gigabyte range cannot be considered an inherent feature of a memory. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine the scope of a “gigabyte range,” e.g., does this limitation cover 1-999 gigabytes of memory?
Claim 30 recites the limitation of the wheels. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, while claim 25 recites “at least one wheel,” a plurality of wheels is not claimed, and it cannot be reasonably determined whether the limitation of “the wheels” of claim 30 is referencing some or all of the wheels of the vehicle.
Claim 31 recites the limitations of wherein 20-40% of a total braking torque acts on the rear axle and wherein a total braking torque at the rear axle is provided exclusively by the at least one electric traction motor (emphasis added). It is unclear how to interpret the limitations of “total braking torque” with respect to the rear axle. If the “total braking torque” limitations are intended to be separate and distinct, such that the first instance of “total braking torque” pertains to the vehicle and the second instance of “total braking torque” pertains to the rear axle, this should be clearly indicated in the claim language.
Claim 33 recites the limitation of all brake units; however, claim 25, from which claim 33 depends, recites a single “brake unit.” It cannot be determined which brake units are being referenced by the limitation of “all brake units” and if this limitation includes the “common electrohydraulic brake unit” of claim 33.
Claim 37 recites the limitation of wherein the central control unit includes redundant microcontrollers and a memory dimensioned in the gigabyte range, and is designed to acquire sensor data during vehicle operation and to adapt control of the braking function on the basis of the acquired sensor data by means of an artificial intelligence method that is capable of being implemented by the redundant microcontrollers of the central control unit, wherein adaptation of the control of the braking function is performed when the vehicle is parked, based on the acquired sensor data, a characteristic map is determined, wherein the characteristic map is adaptable based on the acquired sensor data and the artificial intelligence process if a deviation from a current characteristic map is detected. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the artificial intelligence process” in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is referencing the “artificial intelligence method” previously recited.
Claim 37 recites the limitation of a characteristic map is determined, wherein the characteristic map is adaptable based on the acquired sensor data and the artificial intelligence process if a deviation from a current characteristic map is detected. The limitations of a “characteristic map” and “current characteristic map” cannot be reasonably distinguished from one another. Specifically, given that the “characteristic map” is determined and adapted based on the acquired sensor data, it is unclear how the “characteristic map” would not be interpreted as a “current” characteristic map.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 25, 27-29, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2021/0221343 A1), hereinafter Yao, in view of Logan et al. (US 2010/0235065 A1), hereinafter Logan.
Claim 25
Yao discloses the claimed driving dynamics system for a vehicle (see Figure 1, depicting hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) 10), comprising a wheel brake (i.e. friction brake 60) for dissipative braking of a wheel of the vehicle (see ¶0023, with respect to Figure 1, regarding that based on inputs from brake pedal 58, controller commands torque to friction brakes 60, which are disposed about each wheel 42). Yao merely recites friction brakes, without going into explicit detail regarding the structural configuration required to operate the friction brakes, and thus does not explicitly disclose a brake unit which is associated with the wheel brake, and which is designed to generate a dissipative braking torque by means of the wheel brake. However, a particular actuator for “generating a dissipative braking torque by means of the wheel brake” is inherently taught by the friction braking torque generated by the friction brake of Yao, and it would be obvious to modify the actuator of Yao to be a “brake unit,” in light of Logan.
Specifically, Logan teaches a known friction brake (similar to the wheel brake of Yao) as vehicle brake assembly 10 in which frictional forces applied by brake pads 20, 22 slow the rotation of rotor 14 and hence rotation of the tire-wheel assembly (see ¶0012-0013, with respect to Figure 1). Logan further teaches a brake unit is associated with vehicle brake assembly 10, and which is designed to generate a dissipative braking torque by means of vehicle brake assembly 10 (see ¶0021, regarding hydraulic control unit 90 of hydraulic unit 70 receives commands from EBCM 70 and drives hydraulic pump 92 accordingly, such that each of the different vehicle brake assemblies (i.e. each of the vehicle wheels) may be controlled all in unison, on a wheel-by-wheel basis, or in groups (e.g., from wheels controlled separately from rear wheels); ¶0022, regarding that hydraulic fluid pressure in supply lines 74 is modulated to provide a frictional stopping force). Logan further teaches that vehicle brake assembly 10 may be part of an electrohydraulic braking (EHB) or electromechanical braking (EMB) system (see ¶0012); therefore, the “brake unit” may be taught by either hydraulic unit 72 or electronic module/electric motor, described in ¶0037 of Logan.
Since the systems of Yao and Logan are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a braking force to a friction brake of a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inherent actuator of the wheel brake of Yao to be a brake unit which is associated with the wheel brake, and which is designed to generate a dissipative braking torque by means of the wheel brake, in the same manner that a hydraulic unit in Logan is used to actuate a friction brake, with the predictable result of using known technology to operate calipers for achieving a frictional brake force (¶0012-0013 of Logan). Additionally, using a particular “brake unit” to actuate the friction braking torque of the friction brake of Yao would be “obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. Specifically, while Yao is silent on the particular “brake unit” used for actuation of the friction brake, there are a finite number of known ways to actuate a friction brake, and a person having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known use of a “brake unit” with a reasonable expectation of success.
Yao, as modified by Logan, further discloses that the claimed method comprises:
at least one electric traction motor (i.e. electric motor/generator (M/G) 18) which is enabled to be controlled to generate a regenerative braking torque for at least one wheel or at least axle of the vehicle (see ¶0026, regarding M/G 18 acts as a generator during times of regenerative braking where M/G 18 is utilized to slow HEV 10, such that rotational energy from spinning wheels 42 is transferred back through gearbox 24, torque converter 22, and is converted into electrical energy for storage in battery 20); and
a central control unit (i.e. controller 50) designed to control the brake unit and the electric traction motor for a braking function in combination with one another such that a combined braking torque is enabled to be generated by means of the brake unit and the electric traction motor (see ¶0023, regarding controller 50 commands torque to M/G 18 and friction brakes 60, where control logic represented in Figure 2 is performed by controller 50, as described in ¶0022; ¶0032-0033, regarding the RBS-ABS event control system of Figure 2 controls both regenerative braking and friction braking during an anti-lock braking event);
wherein the braking function relates to a braking control process in which a basic braking torque and a controlled additional braking torque are controlled and/or regulated simultaneously and additively (see ¶0038-0043, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that a combination of a regenerative braking torque Tregen and friction braking torque Tbrake is generated from a total torque demand output u); and
wherein the braking function is selected from among the following functions:
automatic emergency brake, wherein a total braking torque is distributed unevenly between the rear axle and the front axle with electronic brake force distribution (EBD) control; or
anti-lock braking system (ABS) with basic braking torque assistance via the at least one traction motor (see ¶0038, regarding that both regenerative braking and friction braking are controlled during anti-lock braking event by converting the regenerative braking control variable to an effective control variable; ¶0046, regarding equation (6) determines how much regenerative braking torque is delivered in combination with friction braking torque). Only one of the limitations of an “automatic emergency brake” or “anti-lock braking system” is required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Yao is applied to teach the limitation of the “anti-lock braking system.”
Claim 27
Logan further teaches that the brake unit comprises an electric motor drive and is embodied as an electrohydraulic brake unit or as an electromechanical brake unit (see ¶0012, regarding that vehicle brake assembly 10 is embodied as an electromechanical braking (EMB) system that uses brake-by-wire technology to operate motor driven calipers; ¶0037).
Claim 28
Yao further discloses that during the braking control process, a total braking torque is built up or reduced simultaneously by the basic braking torque and the controlled additional braking torque (see ¶0042, with respect to block 102 of Figure 2, regarding that when there is a difference between actual and desired wheel slip, ABS controller C(s) outputs signal u indicative of a total torque demand, such that regenerative braking torque Tregen and friction braking torque Tbrake combine to generate the total brake torque, as described in ¶0043). It is clear that signal u of Yao may be built up or reduced based on the detected wheel slip.
Claim 29
Logan further teaches that electronic brake control module (ECBM) 70 (similar to the central control unit of Yao) is coupled to at least one brake unit control unit of the brake unit (see Figure 2, depicting the “coupling” of ECBM 70 to hydraulic unit 72, where hydraulic unit 72 may be modified to be an electronic module that operates an electric motor, as described in ¶0037).
Claim 29 recites wherein the central control unit is configured redundantly with three microcontrollers to implement a 2-out-of-3 architecture; and/or
the central control unit is connected to the brake unit and the electrical traction motor via multiple data lines; and/or
the central control unit includes a microcontroller and a memory dimensioned in the gigabyte range, such that an automated application is enabled to be carried out via learning algorithms or artificial intelligence (AI), both before the vehicle is put into operation and subsequently during normal operation without faults, as well as adapted operation when a fault occurs; and/or
the central control unit is coupled to at least one brake unit control unit of the brake unit.
The limitations of “and/or” require only one of these limitations to be taught by prior art; therefore, Logan in combination with Yao is applied to teach the limitation of “the central control unit is coupled to at least one brake unit control unit of the brake unit.”
Claim 35
Logan further teaches a common electrohydraulic brake unit is associated with wheel brakes of two wheels of a first axle of the vehicle (see Figure 2, depicting hydraulic unit 72 associated with vehicle brake assembly 10 that is controlled in groups, e.g., front wheels are controlled separately from rear wheels, as described in ¶0021), wherein for the wheel brakes of the first axle, wheel-specific dissipative braking torques are adjustable by means of solenoid valves in hydraulic lines between the electrohydraulic brake unit and the wheel brakes of the first axle (see ¶0037, regarding brake command signals are provided to hydraulic control unit 90 of hydraulic unit 72 to drive solenoids, valves, etc. in order to control fluid pressure in hydraulic lines 74; ¶0021, regarding that different vehicle brake assemblies associated with each wheel are controlled in groups, e.g., front wheels are controlled separately from rear wheels, or on a wheel-by-wheel basis), wherein the electrohydraulic brake unit is also connectable via a hydraulic line to wheel brakes of two wheels of a second axle of the vehicle (see ¶0037, with respect to Figure 2, regarding brake command signals are provided to hydraulic control unit 90 of hydraulic unit 72 to drive solenoids, valves, etc. in order to control fluid pressure in hydraulic lines 74 to affect brake force that brake pads 20, 22 exert against rotor 14), and wherein common, non-wheel-specific dissipative braking torques are able to be set for the wheel brakes of the second axle (see ¶0021, regarding that different vehicle brake assemblies associated with each wheel are controlled in groups, e.g., front wheels are controlled separately from rear wheels, or all in unison). The claim language merely describes the capability of the system, without limiting the “braking function” of claim 25; therefore, the configuration of the system of Logan may be reasonably applied to teach the limitations of claim 35.
Claim 36
Yao further teaches that the central control unit is designed to distribute the basic braking torque and the controlled additional braking torque to the brake unit and the at least one electric traction motor as a function of vehicle deceleration and/or as a function of a coefficient of friction of the road (see ¶0062, regarding that RBS-ABS event control system selects the friction braking control variable from either left wheel or right wheel from which of the wheels is experiencing the lowest coefficient of friction between the road surface and the wheels mu). Only one of the limitations of “vehicle deceleration” or “coefficient of friction of the road” is required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Yao is applied to teach the limitation of “coefficient of friction of the road.”
Claim 39
Yao discloses the claimed vehicle with the driving dynamics system (see Figure 1) according to claim 25, as discussed in the rejection of claim 25.
Claim 40
The combination of Yao and Logan teaches the claimed method for operating a driving dynamics system, as discussed in the rejection of claim 25.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Logan, and in further view of Riedel et al. (US 2016/0185228 A1), hereinafter Riedel.
Claim 26
As discussed in the rejection of claim 25, Yao, as modified by Logan, discloses that the “central control unit is designed to control the brake unit and the at least one electric traction motor for a braking function in combination with one another” (see ¶0023, regarding controller 50 commands torque to M/G 18 and friction brakes 60, where control logic represented in Figure 2 is performed by controller 50, as described in ¶0022; ¶0032-0033, regarding the RBS-ABS event control system of Figure 2 controls both regenerative braking and friction braking during an anti-lock braking event), where the “braking function” is selected as the “anti-lock braking system (ABS) with basic braking torque assistance via the at least one traction motor” (see ¶0038, regarding that both regenerative braking and friction braking are controlled during anti-lock braking event by converting the regenerative braking control variable to an effective control variable; ¶0046, regarding equation (6) determines how much regenerative braking torque is delivered in combination with friction braking torque). However, Yao does not disclose an additional “function,” in which the central control unit is designed to control the brake unit and the at least one electric traction motor in combination with one another for a function selected from among the following functions:
electronic stability program (ESP);
electronic brakeforce distribution (EBD);
anti-skid control (ASC);
distance control (Automated Cruise Control, ACC);
recuperation management for axle- or wheel-specific recuperation;
basic braking with thermal management;
yaw moment control in case of failure of a wheel brake; or
yaw moment intervention control for steering assistance.
However, this additional function does not influence the claimed “braking function” of claim 25; therefore, prior art may be reasonably combined to teach this additional function in which both a brake unit and electric traction motor are controlled in combination, in light of Riedel.
Specifically, Riedel teaches that regulating device 40 (similar to the central control unit of Yao) is designed to control brake device 28, defined as including friction brake 30 assigned to wheel 14 in ¶0040 (similar to the brake unit of Yao and Logan), and electric motor 18, defined as acting as a recuperative brake in ¶0044 (similar to the electric traction motor of Yao) in combination with one another for a function selected from among the following functions:
anti-skid control (ASC) (see ¶0060-0061, regarding that during anti-lock braking operation, regulating device 40 regulates a first braking torque portion applied to wheel 14 by friction brake 30 and a second braking torque portion which is applied to wheel 14 by recuperative brake); or
recuperation management for axle- or wheel-specific recuperation (see ¶0065, regarding that individual wheels 14, 16 are regulated on an individual basis, where friction brake 30 and recuperative brake are both applied to a wheel, as described in ¶0060-0061).
Only one of the listed “functions” are required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Riedel may be reasonably applied to either limitation of “anti-skid control (ASC)” or “recuperation management for axle- or wheel-specific recuperation.”
Since the systems of Yao and Riedel are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling a friction brake and a regenerative brake in combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the central control unit of Yao to perform an additional function in which the central control unit is designed to control the brake unit and the at least one electric traction motor in combination with one another for a function selected from among the following functions: electronic stability program (ESP); electronic brakeforce distribution (EBD); anti-skid control (ASC); distance control (Automated Cruise Control, ACC); recuperation management for axle- or wheel-specific recuperation; basic braking with thermal management; yaw moment control in case of failure of a wheel brake; or yaw moment intervention control for steering assistance, in the same manner that Riedel teaches a friction brake and recuperative brake are controlled during anti-lock braking operation, such that individual wheels are regulated, with the predictable result of providing an operating mode of the vehicle that is particularly efficient in terms of consumption of energy (¶0111 of Riedel).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Logan, and in further view of Kim (US 2011/0074204 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Claim 30
Yao further discloses that the central control unit is configured to receive data from wheel speed sensors of the wheels of the vehicle and/or further sensor signals, wherein the further sensor signals are provided by yaw moment sensors, acceleration sensors, and/or weight sensors (see ¶0021, regarding controller 50 receives wheel speeds (WS1, WS2) via sensors). Only one of the limitations of “wheel speed sensors” or “further sensor signals” is required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Yao is applied to teach the limitation of “wheel speed sensors.”
Yao, as modified by Logan, is silent to the configuration of dedicated controllers for the “traction motor” and “brake unit” and thus does not further disclose that the central control unit is configured to transmit target signals to a motor control unit of the at least one traction motor and to a brake unit control unit of the brake unit in the braking function. However, this configuration is common in the art of braking systems and would be an obvious modification in light of Kim.
Specifically, Kim teaches an electric vehicle in Figure 3 that comprises a central ECU 100 (similar to the central control unit) that is configured to transmit target signals to a motor control unit (i.e. EMB ECU 80) of EMB actuator 10 (similar to the traction motor of Yao) and to a brake unit control unit (i.e. hydraulic module 90) of hydraulic disk brake 20 (similar to the brake unit of Yao and Logan) that perform both regenerative braking and operation of the hydraulic disc brake simultaneously (similar to the braking function of Yao) (see ¶0049, with respect to Figure 3).
Since the systems of Yao and Kim are directed to the same purpose, i.e. simultaneously generating regenerative braking and friction braking, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the central control unit of Yao to be further configured to transmit target signals to a motor control unit of the at least one traction motor and to a brake unit control unit of the brake unit in the braking function, in light of the system configuration of Kim, with the predictable result of providing known respective control modules for affecting braking operations in a regenerative braking system and a friction braking system (¶0049, with respect to Figure 3) that may be controlled to improve operation and safety in these conventional braking systems (¶0031-0032 of Kim).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Logan, and in further view of Tonoli et al. (US 7,819,210 B2), hereinafter Tonoli.
Claim 32
Logan further teaches that vehicle brake assembly 10 (similar to the wheel brake of the wheel of the vehicle of Yao) is associated with its own brake unit, wherein the brake unit is electromechanical (see ¶0037, regarding that an electronic module is associated with a particular wheel, where the vehicle brake assembly is part of an electromechanical braking (EMB) system; ¶0021, regarding that brake assemblies are controlled on a wheel-by-wheel basis). However, Logan in combination with Yao does not teach that for two wheels of the vehicle, including the wheel of the vehicle, the brake unit associated with the wheel brake and a brake unit associated with a second wheel brake and a respective electric traction motor are integrated into respective wheel modules; wherein in case of failure of a brake unit or electric traction motor of one of the wheel modules, the wheel module that has not failed takes over generating braking torque and controlling braking torque for ABS.
Tonoli teaches the known configuration in which for two wheels of the vehicle (see Figures 7a-b, depicting embodiments in which electromechanical module 100 is provided on at least two wheels 104), second electromechanical actuating means 101 (similar to the brake unit of Yao) associated with friction means 7 of wheel 104 (similar to the wheel brake of Yao) and a brake unit associated with a second wheel brake and a respective electric traction motor are integrated into respective wheel modules (see col. 7, lines 34-51, with respect to Figure 1, regarding second electromechanical actuating means 101 is provided for the purpose of performing the braking function on the same wheel 104 on which first electromechanical means 102 performs the driving function, where first electromechanical means 102 includes first electric motor 105 that is supplied with electrical power from first battery pack 106 and a torque exerted by second electric motor 3 of second electromechanical actuating means 101 results in a braking function being performed on braking disk 7 of wheel 104, as described in col. 8, lines 1-19), wherein in case of failure of a brake unit or electric traction motor of one of the wheel modules, the wheel module that has not failed takes over generating braking torque and controlling braking torque for ABS (see col. 9, lines 34-47, regarding that electromechanical ABS system can be implemented regulating the braking force with the current control on electric motor 3, such that in response to a failure on electric motor 3, driving motor 105 is used to stop the vehicle; col. 21, lines 12-32, with respect to Figures 7a and 7b, regarding that sensing means 130 supplies corresponding signals to electromechanical modules 100 based on collected data). Due to the centralized sensing unit in the multi-module vehicle configuration depicted in Figure 7b of Tonoli, it is clear that the remaining functioning modules are also controlled to bring the vehicle to a stop.
Since the systems of Logan and Tonoli are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling braking operations at individual wheels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Yao and Logan, such that for two wheels of the vehicle, including the wheel of the vehicle, the brake unit associated with the wheel brake and a brake unit associated with a second wheel brake and a respective electric traction motor are integrated into respective wheel modules; wherein in case of failure of a brake unit or electric traction motor of one of the wheel modules, the wheel module that has not failed takes over generating braking torque and controlling braking torque for ABS, in the same manner that a combination of an electromechanical actuating means and an electric motor configured to perform driving and braking operations of Tonoli are incorporated on a wheel module and provided with fault detection and response operations, with the predictable result of adequately integrating driving and braking functions by a single control unit (col. 5, lines 24-50 of Tonoli).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Logan, and in further view of Brandmeier et al. (US 5,961,190), hereinafter Brandmeier.
Claim 33
Logan further teaches a common electrohydraulic brake unit is associated with wheel brakes of two wheels of a front axle of the vehicle (see Figure 2, depicting hydraulic unit 72 associated with vehicle brake assembly 10 associated with wheels LF, RF), wherein a hydraulic connection is provided to a brake unit for generating braking torque at at least one wheel of a rear axle of the vehicle by means of a hydraulic brake unit, wherein the hydraulic connection is switchable by means of a solenoid valve (see ¶0037, regarding that brake command signals are provided to hydraulic control unit 90 of hydraulic unit 72 via electronic brake control module (ECBM) 70 for driving solenoids, valves, etc. in order to control fluid pressure in hydraulic lines 74, depicted as connected to vehicle brake assembly 10 associated with LR, RR; ¶0021, regarding that brake assemblies may be controlled in groups, e.g. front wheels are controlled separately from the rear wheels). The claim language merely describes the capability of the system, without limiting the “braking function” of claim 25; therefore, the configuration of the system of Logan may be reasonably applied to teach the limitations of claim 33.
Logan does not further teach that all brake units have individual control units and are able to be controlled by an electrical control signal from the central control unit. However, this limitation does not influence the claimed operation; therefore, prior art may be reasonably combined to teach this known configuration, in light of Brandmeier.
Specifically, Brandmeier teaches this known configuration in Figure 1, in which all brake units have individual control units and are able to be controlled by an electrical control signal from ECU 22 (similar to the central control unit of Yao) (see col. 3, lines 19-25, regarding each wheel brake device comprises an actuator 1-4 and associated control part 10, 11, 12, and 13, where control parts contain a microprocessor, as described in col. 4, lines 16-18, and receive signals generated by control unit 22 that controls additional safety functions of the brakes, as described in col. 3, lines 41-61). Brandmeier is applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Since the systems of Logan and Brandmeier are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling braking functions at each wheel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Logan and Yao, such that all brake units have individual control units and are able to be controlled by an electrical control signal from the central control unit, in light of Brandmeier, with the predictable result of ensuring safe braking of a motor vehicle even in the event of a breakdown of one or more actuators of the wheel brake devices (col. 1, lines 6-17 of Brandmeier). Further, the configuration of Brandmeier inherently provides for the advantage of reduced latency from localized control.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Logan, and in further view of Fey et al. (US 2008/0312790 A1), hereinafter Fey.
Claim 34
Logan further teaches a central brake unit is associated with wheel brakes of four wheels of the vehicle (see Figure 1, depicting hydraulic unit 72 associated with vehicle brake assemblies 10 for wheels LF, RF, LR, RR), wherein the central brake unit has an electrohydraulic design (see ¶0016, regarding vehicle brake system 50 that includes hydraulic unit 72 is an electrohydraulic braking (EHB) system), wherein the central brake unit has its own control unit (see Figure 2, depicting hydraulic unit 72 with hydraulic control unit 90) and is able to be controlled exclusively by electronic brake control module (ECBM) 70 (similar to the central control unit of Yao) via an electrical control signal (see ¶0020, regarding that electronic module 70 transmits commands to hydraulic unit 72). The claim language merely describes the capability of the system, without limiting the “braking function” of claim 25; therefore, the configuration of the system of Logan may be reasonably applied to teach the limitations of claim 34.
Logan does not further teach that the central brake unit further is redundantly configured with two power supplies and/or two control units; however, this feature does not influence the “braking function” operation and thus would be an obvious modification of Logan, in light of Fey.
Specifically, Fey teaches a control unit (similar to the central brake unit of Logan) for motor vehicle brakes that comprises anti-lock control (ABS) in an electronic controller and hydraulic unit coupled in a rigid way (see ¶0015) that is redundantly configured with two power supplies and/or two control units (see ¶0015, regarding the electronic controller includes a redundant microprocessor system, where each microprocessor monitors each other for the purpose of error detection, as described in ¶0020). Only one of the limitations of “two power supplies” or “two control units” is required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Fey is applied to the limitation of “two control units.”
Since the systems of Logan and Fey are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing brake control operations via a central brake unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the central brake unit of Logan to be redundantly configured with two power supplies and/or two control units, in the same manner that a control unit for vehicle brakes in Fey is configured as a redundant microprocessor system, with the predictable result of providing a fail-safe system (¶0020 of Fey).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 31, the closest prior art of record, Yao and Logan, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed central control unit is configured to control the at least one electric traction motor for regenerative braking of the vehicle when the vehicle speed is above 80 km/h for braking in normal operation;
wherein during regenerative braking, an electronic brakeforce distribution (EBD) is simultaneously implemented on a front axle and a rear axle of the vehicle;
wherein 20-40% of a total braking torque acts on the rear axle and 60-80% of the total braking torque acts on the front axle of the vehicle, wherein a total braking torque at the rear axle is provided exclusively by the at least one electric traction motor, in light of the overall claim.
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), no reasonable combination of prior art can be applied to the limitations of claim 31, in light of the overall claim.
With respect to claim 37, the closest prior art of record, Yao and Logan, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed central control unit includes redundant microcontrollers and a memory dimensioned in the gigabyte range, and is designed to acquire sensor data during vehicle operation and to adapt control of the braking function on the basis of the acquired sensor data by means of an artificial intelligence method that is capable of being implemented by the redundant microcontrollers of the central control unit, wherein adaptation of the control of the braking function is performed when the vehicle is parked, based on the acquired sensor data, a characteristic map is determined, wherein the characteristic map is adaptable based on the acquired sensor data and the artificial intelligence process if a deviation from a current characteristic map is detected, in light of the overall claim.
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), no reasonable combination of prior art can be applied to the limitations of claim 37, in light of the overall claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Lian et al. (US 2018/0312146 A1) teaches that when failure of a motor is detected, ABS control on all motors on the axle where the failing motors are located is cut off and hydraulic braking is combined with the normal axle motors for ABS control using regenerative braking feedback (see ¶0042), Lubbers (US 2008/0100129 A1) teaches blending regenerative braking and frictional braking in accordance with a predetermined brake blending and balancing algorithm (see ¶0041), and Gabor et al. (US 2016/0016565 A1) teaches simultaneously applying regenerative braking torque and anti-lock braking torque in response to input from a braking sensor (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights