DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Non-Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on November 6th, 2024 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-14 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 5th, 2024 has been considered and entered.
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 driver module for operating” in at least claim 1
“a first communication module for receiving” In at least claim 1
“a second communication module for receiving” in at least claim 1
“a third communication module for receiving” in at least claim 1
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.
The published specification provides corresponding structure for a driver module in at least paragraph 17.
The published specification provides corresponding structure for a first communication module in at least paragraph 39.
The published specification provides corresponding structure for a second communication module in at least paragraph 40.
The published specification provides corresponding structure for a third communication module in at least paragraph 73.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 5-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alfter (US 20190344762 A1) (“Alfter”).
With respect to claim 1, Alfter teaches a control apparatus for an actuator arrangement of a vehicle, the control apparatus comprising:
a driver module for operating the actuator arrangement; a first communication module for receiving first data; and a second communication module for receiving second data, wherein the control apparatus is adapted for controlling the actuator arrangement in a first operation mode on basis of the first data together with the second data (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 57-59 “As shown in FIG. 2, the control unit ECU comprises a first processor system 202 with at least one main processor and a second processor system 204 with at least one back-up processor. The first processor system 202 and the second processor system 204 can be realised by different processor cores of a multicore processor. Alternatively to this, the first processor system 202 and the second processor system 204 can be realised by separate integrated circuits (e.g. separate ASICs). The two processor systems 202, 204 can be provided on separate circuit boards or on the same circuit board inside a housing of the control unit ECU. Each of the two processor systems 202, 204 is configured to control the two EPB actuators 13, 43. In the present exemplary embodiment the second processor system 204 is configured exclusively for control of the two EPB actuators 13, 43, while the first processor system 202 also facilitates the control of at least one other motor vehicle function unit. This other function unit is configured to brake the motor vehicle or to hold it stationary in a redundant manner to the EPB actuators 13, 43. In this respect let reference be made to the two subsystems SYS-1 and/or SYS-2 from FIG. 2 by way of example. The first processor system 202 can be configured specifically to operate an electric actuator, such as an electric motor with downstream linear transmission or an electric motor with downstream pump piston, of at least one of the two subsystems SYS-1 and/or SYS-2. Furthermore, the first processor system 202 is able to control the EPB actuators 13, 43 as part of the regular EPB function of the subsystem SYS-3 and independently of this subsystem SYS-3 (thus in particular independently of an operation of the actuating element 80). A separate H- bridge 206, 208 is provided in the control unit ECU for each of the two EPB actuators 13, 43. The H- bridges 206, 208 can comprise power transistors in a known manner. To control the two H- bridges 206, 208 an H-bridge driver 210 is provided. The H-bridge driver 210 is generally configured to convert control signals from one of the two processor systems 202, 204 into electrical driver signals (in the form of control voltages) for the two H- bridges 206, 208. Other details with regard to the two H- bridges 206, 208 and the H-bridge driver 210 can be gathered from DE 10 2014 204 287 A1, for example. The disclosure content of this printed publication in regard to the components 206, 208 and 210 is hereby incorporated into the present disclosure content.”), and
wherein the control apparatus is adapted for controlling the actuator arrangement in a second operation mode on basis of the second data from the second communication module without the first communication module (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 68-71 “In a first step 302, the first processor system 202 determines in a continuous loop whether the EPB actuators 13, 43 are to be operated. If this is the case, for example because a user operates the actuating element 80 of the EPB subsystem SYS-3 or because the control unit ECU automatically detects a requirement to operate the EPB actuators 13, 43, the method is continued in step 304. In step 304 it is determined by the monitoring device 214 whether the first processor system 202 is fully functional. It should be pointed out that the two steps 302 and 304 can also proceed in another way, e.g. nested or parallel to one another or in reverse order. If no failure of the first processor system 202 is detected by the monitoring unit 214 in step 304, the changeover device 212 is left in a position or brought into a position in step 308 in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable, in particular can be closed, by means of the first processor system 202. It should be pointed out that the normal state of the changeover device 212 can be selected so that the first processor system 202 is permitted to access the H-bridge driver 210. In step 310 the EPB actuators 13, 43 are then operated by means of the first processor system 202. The method is then continued in step 302. However, if a lack of functionality of the first processor system 202, for example its failure, is determined by the monitoring device 214 in step 304, the method is continued in step 312. In step 312 the changeover device 212 is left in a switching state or is brought into a switching state in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable by means of the second processor system 204. Thereupon an operation, in particular closure, of the EPB actuators 13, 43 takes place by means of the second processor system 204, before the method is continued in step 302. Alternatively or additionally to this, an error message can also result following step 314. To enable the second processor system 204 to detect the necessity of operation of the EPB actuators 13, 43 in step 314, various configurations are possible. For example, the second processor system 204 can be coupled in parallel to the first processor system 202 to the input device 80. Furthermore, the second processor system 204 in many configurations can detect the lack of functionality of the first processor system 202 autonomously or at the indication of the monitoring device 214 and in this case close the EPB actuators 13, 43 automatically for safety reasons in step 314. This variant is explained in greater detail below with reference to the flow diagram 400 according to FIG. 4. FIG. 4 specifically shows an exemplary embodiment of a further method aspect in connection with an autonomous RCP operating mode (“parking without driver”).”).
With respect to claim 2, Alfter teaches wherein the actuator arrangement is adapted to be controlled by actuator commands, wherein, in the first operation mode, the actuator commands are received by the first communication module, and wherein, in the second operation mode, the actuator commands are received by the second communication module (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 68-71 “In a first step 302, the first processor system 202 determines in a continuous loop whether the EPB actuators 13, 43 are to be operated. If this is the case, for example because a user operates the actuating element 80 of the EPB subsystem SYS-3 or because the control unit ECU automatically detects a requirement to operate the EPB actuators 13, 43, the method is continued in step 304. In step 304 it is determined by the monitoring device 214 whether the first processor system 202 is fully functional. It should be pointed out that the two steps 302 and 304 can also proceed in another way, e.g. nested or parallel to one another or in reverse order. If no failure of the first processor system 202 is detected by the monitoring unit 214 in step 304, the changeover device 212 is left in a position or brought into a position in step 308 in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable, in particular can be closed, by means of the first processor system 202. It should be pointed out that the normal state of the changeover device 212 can be selected so that the first processor system 202 is permitted to access the H-bridge driver 210. In step 310 the EPB actuators 13, 43 are then operated by means of the first processor system 202. The method is then continued in step 302. However, if a lack of functionality of the first processor system 202, for example its failure, is determined by the monitoring device 214 in step 304, the method is continued in step 312. In step 312 the changeover device 212 is left in a switching state or is brought into a switching state in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable by means of the second processor system 204. Thereupon an operation, in particular closure, of the EPB actuators 13, 43 takes place by means of the second processor system 204, before the method is continued in step 302. Alternatively or additionally to this, an error message can also result following step 314. To enable the second processor system 204 to detect the necessity of operation of the EPB actuators 13, 43 in step 314, various configurations are possible. For example, the second processor system 204 can be coupled in parallel to the first processor system 202 to the input device 80. Furthermore, the second processor system 204 in many configurations can detect the lack of functionality of the first processor system 202 autonomously or at the indication of the monitoring device 214 and in this case close the EPB actuators 13, 43 automatically for safety reasons in step 314. This variant is explained in greater detail below with reference to the flow diagram 400 according to FIG. 4. FIG. 4 specifically shows an exemplary embodiment of a further method aspect in connection with an autonomous RCP operating mode (“parking without driver”).”).
With respect to claim 5, Alfter teaches wherein the driver module comprises two separate driver submodules adapted for operating two separate actuators of the actuator arrangement (See at least Alfter Paragraph 59 “A separate H- bridge 206, 208 is provided in the control unit ECU for each of the two EPB actuators 13, 43. The H- bridges 206, 208 can comprise power transistors in a known manner. To control the two H- bridges 206, 208 an H-bridge driver 210 is provided. The H-bridge driver 210 is generally configured to convert control signals from one of the two processor systems 202, 204 into electrical driver signals (in the form of control voltages) for the two H- bridges 206, 208. Other details with regard to the two H- bridges 206, 208 and the H-bridge driver 210 can be gathered from DE 10 2014 204 287 A1, for example. The disclosure content of this printed publication in regard to the components 206, 208 and 210 is hereby incorporated into the present disclosure content.”).
With respect to claim 6, Alfter teaches wherein the driver module is adapted for receiving signals from the actuator arrangement or wherein the two separate driver submodules are adapted for receiving signals from the two separate actuators (See at least Alfter Paragraph 59 “A separate H- bridge 206, 208 is provided in the control unit ECU for each of the two EPB actuators 13, 43. The H- bridges 206, 208 can comprise power transistors in a known manner. To control the two H- bridges 206, 208 an H-bridge driver 210 is provided. The H-bridge driver 210 is generally configured to convert control signals from one of the two processor systems 202, 204 into electrical driver signals (in the form of control voltages) for the two H- bridges 206, 208. Other details with regard to the two H- bridges 206, 208 and the H-bridge driver 210 can be gathered from DE 10 2014 204 287 A1, for example. The disclosure content of this printed publication in regard to the components 206, 208 and 210 is hereby incorporated into the present disclosure content.”).
With respect to claim 7, Alfter teaches wherein the actuator arrangement is a brake arrangement for the vehicle or wherein the actuators are brake actuators (See at least Alfter Paragraph 15 “As explained above, the first processor system is configured to control, in addition to the at least one EPB actuator, at least one other motor vehicle function unit. This other function unit can be configured to brake the motor vehicle or to hold it stationary in a redundant manner to EPB. For example, the other motor vehicle function unit can be configured to implement one or more of the following functions: electric brake boosting (EBB); anti-blocking control (ABS); vehicle dynamics control (ESC); control of an automatic transmission (especially in connection with a parking lock); and electric brake force generation (e.g. BBW).”).
With respect to claim 9, Alfter teaches a memory for storing parameters or variables, and wherein the first communication module is adapted to access the memory (See at least Alfter Paragraph 10 “Each processor system can comprise at least one processor or at least one processor core. Each processor system can further comprise a storage device, on which program code for execution by the pertinent processor is stored. In some variants a common storage device can be provided for both processor devices. The two processor systems can comprise different processor cores of a single multicore processor or be comprised by two separate integrated circuits (e.g. two ASICs).”).
With respect to claim 10, Alfter teaches wherein the control apparatus is an integrated circuit (IC} (See at least Alfter Paragraph 10 “Each processor system can comprise at least one processor or at least one processor core. Each processor system can further comprise a storage device, on which program code for execution by the pertinent processor is stored. In some variants a common storage device can be provided for both processor devices. The two processor systems can comprise different processor cores of a single multicore processor or be comprised by two separate integrated circuits (e.g. two ASICs).”).
With respect to claim 11, Alfter teaches wherein the first operation mode is a highly automated parking (HAP) mode and the second operation mode is a HAP error mode (See at least Alfter FIGS> 2-4, Claim 15 “the control unit is configured to detect autonomous or partly autonomous driving operation and to enable an operability of the at least one EPB actuator by the second processor unit if autonomous or partly autonomous driving operation is detected.” | Claim 16 “the autonomous or partly autonomous driving operation comprises an autonomous or partly autonomous parking or manoeuvring of the vehicle, in particular without the presence of a driver.” | Paragraphs 68-71).
With respect to claim 12, Alfter teaches a control arrangement for an actuator arrangement of a vehicle, the control arrangement comprising:
a control apparatus; and a data processing unit, wherein the control apparatus includes: a driver module for operating the actuator arrangement a first communication module for receiving first data; and a second communication module for receiving second data, wherein the control apparatus is adapted for controlling the actuator arrangement in a first operation mode on basis of the first data together with the second data (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 57-59 “As shown in FIG. 2, the control unit ECU comprises a first processor system 202 with at least one main processor and a second processor system 204 with at least one back-up processor. The first processor system 202 and the second processor system 204 can be realised by different processor cores of a multicore processor. Alternatively to this, the first processor system 202 and the second processor system 204 can be realised by separate integrated circuits (e.g. separate ASICs). The two processor systems 202, 204 can be provided on separate circuit boards or on the same circuit board inside a housing of the control unit ECU. Each of the two processor systems 202, 204 is configured to control the two EPB actuators 13, 43. In the present exemplary embodiment the second processor system 204 is configured exclusively for control of the two EPB actuators 13, 43, while the first processor system 202 also facilitates the control of at least one other motor vehicle function unit. This other function unit is configured to brake the motor vehicle or to hold it stationary in a redundant manner to the EPB actuators 13, 43. In this respect let reference be made to the two subsystems SYS-1 and/or SYS-2 from FIG. 2 by way of example. The first processor system 202 can be configured specifically to operate an electric actuator, such as an electric motor with downstream linear transmission or an electric motor with downstream pump piston, of at least one of the two subsystems SYS-1 and/or SYS-2. Furthermore, the first processor system 202 is able to control the EPB actuators 13, 43 as part of the regular EPB function of the subsystem SYS-3 and independently of this subsystem SYS-3 (thus in particular independently of an operation of the actuating element 80). A separate H- bridge 206, 208 is provided in the control unit ECU for each of the two EPB actuators 13, 43. The H- bridges 206, 208 can comprise power transistors in a known manner. To control the two H- bridges 206, 208 an H-bridge driver 210 is provided. The H-bridge driver 210 is generally configured to convert control signals from one of the two processor systems 202, 204 into electrical driver signals (in the form of control voltages) for the two H- bridges 206, 208. Other details with regard to the two H- bridges 206, 208 and the H-bridge driver 210 can be gathered from DE 10 2014 204 287 A1, for example. The disclosure content of this printed publication in regard to the components 206, 208 and 210 is hereby incorporated into the present disclosure content.”),
wherein the control apparatus is adapted for controlling the actuator arrangement in a second operation mode on basis of the second data from the second communication module without the first communication module (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 68-71 “In a first step 302, the first processor system 202 determines in a continuous loop whether the EPB actuators 13, 43 are to be operated. If this is the case, for example because a user operates the actuating element 80 of the EPB subsystem SYS-3 or because the control unit ECU automatically detects a requirement to operate the EPB actuators 13, 43, the method is continued in step 304. In step 304 it is determined by the monitoring device 214 whether the first processor system 202 is fully functional. It should be pointed out that the two steps 302 and 304 can also proceed in another way, e.g. nested or parallel to one another or in reverse order. If no failure of the first processor system 202 is detected by the monitoring unit 214 in step 304, the changeover device 212 is left in a position or brought into a position in step 308 in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable, in particular can be closed, by means of the first processor system 202. It should be pointed out that the normal state of the changeover device 212 can be selected so that the first processor system 202 is permitted to access the H-bridge driver 210. In step 310 the EPB actuators 13, 43 are then operated by means of the first processor system 202. The method is then continued in step 302. However, if a lack of functionality of the first processor system 202, for example its failure, is determined by the monitoring device 214 in step 304, the method is continued in step 312. In step 312 the changeover device 212 is left in a switching state or is brought into a switching state in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable by means of the second processor system 204. Thereupon an operation, in particular closure, of the EPB actuators 13, 43 takes place by means of the second processor system 204, before the method is continued in step 302. Alternatively or additionally to this, an error message can also result following step 314. To enable the second processor system 204 to detect the necessity of operation of the EPB actuators 13, 43 in step 314, various configurations are possible. For example, the second processor system 204 can be coupled in parallel to the first processor system 202 to the input device 80. Furthermore, the second processor system 204 in many configurations can detect the lack of functionality of the first processor system 202 autonomously or at the indication of the monitoring device 214 and in this case close the EPB actuators 13, 43 automatically for safety reasons in step 314. This variant is explained in greater detail below with reference to the flow diagram 400 according to FIG. 4. FIG. 4 specifically shows an exemplary embodiment of a further method aspect in connection with an autonomous RCP operating mode (“parking without driver”).”), and
wherein the data processing unit is connected to the first communication module and the second communication module (See at least Alfter Paragraph 60 “The two processor systems 202, 204 are connected to the H-bridge driver 210 via a bus system (via a so-called CAN bus, for example). A changeover device 212 is provided functionally between the two processor systems 202, 204 on one side and the H-bridge driver 210 on the other side. In the present exemplary embodiment, the changeover device 212 is configured as a bus multiplexer in order to enable access to the EPB actuators 13, 43 either via the first processor system 202 or the second processor system 204.”).
With respect to claim 13, Alfter teaches wherein the data processing unit is adapted for providing actuator commands or receiving feedback data from the first communication module in a first operation mode and for providing actuator commands or receiving feedback data from the second communication module in a second operation mode (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 68-71 “In a first step 302, the first processor system 202 determines in a continuous loop whether the EPB actuators 13, 43 are to be operated. If this is the case, for example because a user operates the actuating element 80 of the EPB subsystem SYS-3 or because the control unit ECU automatically detects a requirement to operate the EPB actuators 13, 43, the method is continued in step 304. In step 304 it is determined by the monitoring device 214 whether the first processor system 202 is fully functional. It should be pointed out that the two steps 302 and 304 can also proceed in another way, e.g. nested or parallel to one another or in reverse order. If no failure of the first processor system 202 is detected by the monitoring unit 214 in step 304, the changeover device 212 is left in a position or brought into a position in step 308 in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable, in particular can be closed, by means of the first processor system 202. It should be pointed out that the normal state of the changeover device 212 can be selected so that the first processor system 202 is permitted to access the H-bridge driver 210. In step 310 the EPB actuators 13, 43 are then operated by means of the first processor system 202. The method is then continued in step 302. However, if a lack of functionality of the first processor system 202, for example its failure, is determined by the monitoring device 214 in step 304, the method is continued in step 312. In step 312 the changeover device 212 is left in a switching state or is brought into a switching state in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable by means of the second processor system 204. Thereupon an operation, in particular closure, of the EPB actuators 13, 43 takes place by means of the second processor system 204, before the method is continued in step 302. Alternatively or additionally to this, an error message can also result following step 314. To enable the second processor system 204 to detect the necessity of operation of the EPB actuators 13, 43 in step 314, various configurations are possible. For example, the second processor system 204 can be coupled in parallel to the first processor system 202 to the input device 80. Furthermore, the second processor system 204 in many configurations can detect the lack of functionality of the first processor system 202 autonomously or at the indication of the monitoring device 214 and in this case close the EPB actuators 13, 43 automatically for safety reasons in step 314. This variant is explained in greater detail below with reference to the flow diagram 400 according to FIG. 4. FIG. 4 specifically shows an exemplary embodiment of a further method aspect in connection with an autonomous RCP operating mode (“parking without driver”).”).
With respect to claim 14, Alfter teaches a control apparatus including a driver module for operating the actuator arrangement,
a first communication module for receiving first data, and a second communication module for receiving second data, the process comprising: controlling the actuator arrangement in a first operation mode on basis of the first data together with the second data (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 57-59 “As shown in FIG. 2, the control unit ECU comprises a first processor system 202 with at least one main processor and a second processor system 204 with at least one back-up processor. The first processor system 202 and the second processor system 204 can be realised by different processor cores of a multicore processor. Alternatively to this, the first processor system 202 and the second processor system 204 can be realised by separate integrated circuits (e.g. separate ASICs). The two processor systems 202, 204 can be provided on separate circuit boards or on the same circuit board inside a housing of the control unit ECU. Each of the two processor systems 202, 204 is configured to control the two EPB actuators 13, 43. In the present exemplary embodiment the second processor system 204 is configured exclusively for control of the two EPB actuators 13, 43, while the first processor system 202 also facilitates the control of at least one other motor vehicle function unit. This other function unit is configured to brake the motor vehicle or to hold it stationary in a redundant manner to the EPB actuators 13, 43. In this respect let reference be made to the two subsystems SYS-1 and/or SYS-2 from FIG. 2 by way of example. The first processor system 202 can be configured specifically to operate an electric actuator, such as an electric motor with downstream linear transmission or an electric motor with downstream pump piston, of at least one of the two subsystems SYS-1 and/or SYS-2. Furthermore, the first processor system 202 is able to control the EPB actuators 13, 43 as part of the regular EPB function of the subsystem SYS-3 and independently of this subsystem SYS-3 (thus in particular independently of an operation of the actuating element 80). A separate H- bridge 206, 208 is provided in the control unit ECU for each of the two EPB actuators 13, 43. The H- bridges 206, 208 can comprise power transistors in a known manner. To control the two H- bridges 206, 208 an H-bridge driver 210 is provided. The H-bridge driver 210 is generally configured to convert control signals from one of the two processor systems 202, 204 into electrical driver signals (in the form of control voltages) for the two H- bridges 206, 208. Other details with regard to the two H- bridges 206, 208 and the H-bridge driver 210 can be gathered from DE 10 2014 204 287 A1, for example. The disclosure content of this printed publication in regard to the components 206, 208 and 210 is hereby incorporated into the present disclosure content.”);
controlling the actuator arrangement in a second operation mode on basis of the second data from the second communication module without the first communication module; and providing actuator commands or receiving feedback data is received from the first communication module in the first operation mode and from the second communication module in the second operation mode (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 68-71 “In a first step 302, the first processor system 202 determines in a continuous loop whether the EPB actuators 13, 43 are to be operated. If this is the case, for example because a user operates the actuating element 80 of the EPB subsystem SYS-3 or because the control unit ECU automatically detects a requirement to operate the EPB actuators 13, 43, the method is continued in step 304. In step 304 it is determined by the monitoring device 214 whether the first processor system 202 is fully functional. It should be pointed out that the two steps 302 and 304 can also proceed in another way, e.g. nested or parallel to one another or in reverse order. If no failure of the first processor system 202 is detected by the monitoring unit 214 in step 304, the changeover device 212 is left in a position or brought into a position in step 308 in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable, in particular can be closed, by means of the first processor system 202. It should be pointed out that the normal state of the changeover device 212 can be selected so that the first processor system 202 is permitted to access the H-bridge driver 210. In step 310 the EPB actuators 13, 43 are then operated by means of the first processor system 202. The method is then continued in step 302. However, if a lack of functionality of the first processor system 202, for example its failure, is determined by the monitoring device 214 in step 304, the method is continued in step 312. In step 312 the changeover device 212 is left in a switching state or is brought into a switching state in which the EPB actuators 13, 43 are operable by means of the second processor system 204. Thereupon an operation, in particular closure, of the EPB actuators 13, 43 takes place by means of the second processor system 204, before the method is continued in step 302. Alternatively or additionally to this, an error message can also result following step 314. To enable the second processor system 204 to detect the necessity of operation of the EPB actuators 13, 43 in step 314, various configurations are possible. For example, the second processor system 204 can be coupled in parallel to the first processor system 202 to the input device 80. Furthermore, the second processor system 204 in many configurations can detect the lack of functionality of the first processor system 202 autonomously or at the indication of the monitoring device 214 and in this case close the EPB actuators 13, 43 automatically for safety reasons in step 314. This variant is explained in greater detail below with reference to the flow diagram 400 according to FIG. 4. FIG. 4 specifically shows an exemplary embodiment of a further method aspect in connection with an autonomous RCP operating mode (“parking without driver”).”).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfter (US 20190344762 A1) (“Alfter”) in view of Dominke (US 20030114969 A1) (“Dominke”).
With respect to claim 3, Alfter teaches a first operation mode and a second operation mode (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 68-71).
Alfter fails to explicitly disclose wherein the actuator arrangement is adapted to provide feedback data as a feedback to the actuator commands, wherein, in the first operation mode, the feedback data is provided by the first communication module, and wherein, in the second operation mode, the feedback data is provided by the second communication module.
Dominke teaches wherein the actuator arrangement is adapted to provide feedback data as a feedback to the actuator commands, and that the feedback data is provided by the first communication module and the second communication module (See at least Dominke FIG. 9 and Paragraph 110 “Microcomputers RM H1, RMH2 and RMH3 assume the control and regulation functions of the feedback actuator. Microcomputers RMv1, RMv2 and RMv3 together constitute the redundant computer system for the triggering and regulation of the feedback actuator. Feedback actuator microcomputers RMH1 exchange their calculated data via communication links, KH12, KH13, and KH23. Microcomputers RMv1 of the steering actuator communicate in the same way via communication links Kv12, Kv31, and Kv23. The microcomputers shown, RMv1 and RMH1, include the necessary peripheral components for acquiring all sensor signals. Moreover they also include the essential processing functions for calculating trigger signals UH1 and UH2 for steering wheel motors LRM and Uv1 and Uv2 for triggering steering motors LM. In the variant shown, the feedback actuator is implemented by two independent motors LRM1 and LRM2, which are controlled by independent power electronics units LELRM1 and LELRM2. Both motors are connected to the same shaft. The steering actuator is also redundantly constructed through two motors LM1 and LM2 and the associated power electronics units LELM1, and LELM2. Power for the electronics components of the SbW steering system is supplied by independent power supplies UB1 and UB2.”).
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 apparatus of Alfter to include wherein the actuator arrangement is adapted to provide feedback data as a feedback to the actuator commands, and that the feedback data is provided by the first communication module and the second communication module, as taught by Dominke as disclosed above, such that in the first operation mode, the feedback data is provided by the first communication module, and in the second operation mode, the feedback data is provided by the second communication module, in order to ensure optimal data gathering in various modes to ensure safe vehicle operation (Dominke Paragraph 7 “Particularly the discrete means of acquiring various measured variables, including steering wheel angle, steering angle, restoring moment, make it easier to carry out a plausibility check of the different measured values, and to detect the occurrence of any erroneous values. This increases the reliability and failsafe nature of a steer-by-wire steering system functioning according to the present invention.”).
With respect to claim 4, Alfter teaches a first communication module and a second communication module (See at least Alfter FIGS. 2-4 and Paragraphs 68-71).
Alfter fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first communication module is a serial interface or wherein the second communication module is a parallel interface.
Dominke teaches wherein the first communication module is a serial interface or wherein the second communication module is a parallel interface (See at least Dominke FIG. 9 and Paragraph 110 “Microcomputers RM H1, RMH2 and RMH3 assume the control and regulation functions of the feedback actuator. Microcomputers RMv1, RMv2 and RMv3 together constitute the redundant computer system for the triggering and regulation of the feedback actuator. Feedback actuator microcomputers RMH1 exchange their calculated data via communication links, KH12, KH13, and KH23. Microcomputers RMv1 of the steering actuator communicate in the same way via communication links Kv12, Kv31, and Kv23. The microcomputers shown, RMv1 and RMH1, include the necessary peripheral components for acquiring all sensor signals. Moreover they also include the essential processing functions for calculating trigger signals UH1 and UH2 for steering wheel motors LRM and Uv1 and Uv2 for triggering steering motors LM. In the variant shown, the feedback actuator is implemented by two independent motors LRM1 and LRM2, which are controlled by independent power electronics units LELRM1 and LELRM2. Both motors are connected to the same shaft. The steering actuator is also redundantly constructed through two motors LM1 and LM2 and the associated power electronics units LELM1, and LELM2. Power for the electronics components of the SbW steering system is supplied by independent power supplies UB1 and UB2.”).
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 apparatus of Alfter to include wherein the first communication module is a serial interface or wherein the second communication module is a parallel interface, as taught by Dominke as disclosed above, in order to ensure optimal data gathering in various modes to ensure safe vehicle operation (Dominke Paragraph 7 “Particularly the discrete means of acquiring various measured variables, including steering wheel angle, steering angle, restoring moment, make it easier to carry out a plausibility check of the different measured values, and to detect the occurrence of any erroneous values. This increases the reliability and failsafe nature of a steer-by-wire steering system functioning according to the present invention.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfter (US 20190344762 A1) (“Alfter”) in view of Ibuka (US 20210229685 A1) (“Ibuka”).
With respect to claim 8, Alfter fails to explicitly disclose a third communication module for receiving third data comprising high-level actuator commands from the driver or a human machine interface (HMI) in at a third operation mode.
Ibuka teaches a third communication module for receiving third data comprising high-level actuator commands from the driver or a human machine interface (HMI) in at a third operation mode (See at least Ibuka Paragraph 75 “The control output value 602 of an actuator (for example, the power plant 50) becomes zero at the timing (TM1 of FIG. 6) when the fallback control is started. In a period (output suppression period) from the start (TM1 of FIG. 6) of the fallback control to the confirmation (TM3 of FIG. 6) of driving takeover, an output value 604 based on the operation by the driver will be maintained at zero even if the driver inputs an operation at timing TM2. When the fallback control is started in this step, the control apparatus 1A will continue executing the fallback control even when the communication state of the communication line 402 a (the second communication line) has recovered while the fallback control is being executed.”).
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 apparatus of Alfter to include a third communication module for receiving third data comprising high-level actuator commands from the driver or a human machine interface (HMI) in at a third operation mode, as taught by Ibuka as disclosed above, in order to ensure safe operation of the vehicle (Ibuka Paragraph 5 “In consideration of the above problem, the present invention provides a vehicle control technique that can perform fallback control without switching the main subject of travel control of a vehicle.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667