DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
The present application’s status as a continuation of US Application 16/541,829 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Systems and Method for Intelligently Engaging Multiple Brakes by Determining a Braking Force Distribution Differential
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2) in view of Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Levi teaches A computer-implemented method, comprising, by a controller of a personal mobility vehicle (PMV) (see at least column 20 lines 45-46: “A computer-implemented method, comprising, by a personal mobility vehicle including a controller”):
receiving a user input on a brake lever of the PMV (see at least column 20 lines 49-50: “detecting that … a first brake lever … of the personal mobility vehicle has received input”);
detecting, using at least one sensor of the PMV, at least one condition affecting a braking of the PMV (see at least column 20 lines 51-54: “receiving data from a weight sensor of the personal mobility vehicle, the sensor being configured to detect a condition affecting braking of the personal mobility vehicle”);
determining a distribution differential *Examiner’s interpretation: paragraph [0026] of the instant specification states, “The term “distribution differential,” as used herein, refers to any situation where different brakes are engaged with various amounts of … force”. Therefore, any situation described where different brake forces are determined and then applied to different brakes qualifies as a “distribution differential”.* between a first braking system and a second braking system (see at least column 20 lines 56-: “determining a first brake force to be applied to the front brake and a second brake force to be applied to the rear brake based at least in part on the condition affecting the braking of the personal mobility vehicle”); and
engaging the first braking system with a first level of force and the second braking system with a second level of force based on the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system (see at least column 21 lines 4-8: “engaging … the front brake by applying the first brake force and the rear brake by applying the second brake force.”).
However, Levi does not explicitly teach based on the user input on the brake lever.
Finch teach determining a distribution differential between a first braking system and a second braking system based on the user input on the brake lever (see at least FIG. 2: process of determining front and rear friction and regenerative braking force amounts (steps 210, 212, 216, 218, 222, 226, and 228) starts with step 202: “DRIVER REQUESTED BRAKING TORQUE).
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 Levi to incorporate the teachings of Finch to determine braking amounts based on a user input. Doing so would ensure desirable vehicle stability “while maximizing the amount of recaptured kinetic energy”, as recognized by Finch in paragraph [0004].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Levi claim 16 and Finch teaches The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Levi claim 16 further teaches wherein:
the first braking system comprises a front braking system (see at least column 20 lines 46-47: “a front brake”); and
the second braking system comprises a rear braking system (see at least column 20 line 47: “a rear brake”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Levi claim 16 and Finch teaches The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Levi claim 16 further teaches wherein: the at least one sensor of the PMV is a weight sensor; and
the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises a weight distribution of a user riding the PMV as detected by the weight sensor (see at least column 20 lines 51-54: “receiving data from a weight sensor of the personal mobility vehicle, the sensor being configured to detect a condition affecting braking of the personal mobility vehicle”).
Claims 2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2) in view of Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) and claim 8 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Levi claim 16 and Finch teaches The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Levi claim 8 teaches wherein engaging the first braking system with the first level of force and the second braking system with the second level of force comprises:
applying a combination of mechanical and electrical brakes with varying levels of forces to front and rear wheels of the PMV based on the distribution differential (see at least column 19 line 61-column 20 line 5: “the front brake comprises a front mechanical brake and a front electrical brake; the rear brake comprises a rear mechanical brake and a rear electrical brake; the front mechanical brake and the rear mechanical brake comprise a mechanical brake system; the front electrical brake and the rear electrical brake comprise an electrical brake system; and wherein the controller is further configured to determine a distribution differential between the mechanical brake system and the electrical brake system.”).
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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Levi claim 8 to use mechanical and electrical brakes. Levi claim 8 is dependent on independent Levi claim 1, and independent Levi claims 1 and 16 are very similar. Using mechanical and electrical brakes would “improve user experience and user safety”, as recognized by Levi in the [Abstract].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Levi claim 16 and Finch teaches The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
However, the combination of Levi claim 16 and Finch does not explicitly teach wherein:
the first braking system comprises a mechanical braking system; and
the second braking system comprises an electrical braking system.
Levi claim 8 teaches wherein:
the first braking system comprises a mechanical braking system (see at least column 19 lines 61: “the front brake comprises a front mechanical brake”); and
the second braking system comprises an electrical braking system (see at least column 19 lines 64-65: “the rear brake comprises a rear electrical brake”).
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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Levi claim 8 to use mechanical and electrical brakes. Levi claim 8 is dependent on independent Levi claim 1, and independent Levi claims 1 and 16 are very similar. Using mechanical and electrical brakes would “improve user experience and user safety”, as recognized by Levi in the [Abstract].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Levi claim 16, Finch and Levi claim 8 teaches The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Levi claim 8 further teaches wherein:
the mechanical braking system comprises a front mechanical brake and a rear mechanical brake (see at least column 19 lines 66-67: “the front mechanical brake and the rear mechanical brake comprises a mechanical brake system”); and
the electrical braking system comprises a front electrical brake and a rear electrical brake (see at least column 20 lines 1-2: “the front electrical brake and the rear electrical brake comprise an electrical brake system”).
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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Levi claim 8 to use mechanical and electrical brakes. Levi claim 8 is dependent on independent Levi claim 1, and independent Levi claims 1 and 16 are very similar. Using mechanical and electrical brakes would “improve user experience and user safety”, as recognized by Levi in the [Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Levi claim 16 and Finch teaches The computer-implemented method of Claim 6.
However, the combination Levi claim 16 and Finch does not explicitly teach wherein:
the front braking system comprises a front mechanical brake and a front electrical brake; and
the rear braking system comprises a rear mechanical brake and a rear electrical brake
Levi claim 8 teaches wherein:
the front braking system comprises a front mechanical brake and a front electrical brake (see at least column 19 lines 62-63: “the front brake comprises a front mechanical brake and a front electrical brake”); and
the rear braking system comprises a rear mechanical brake and a rear electrical brake (see at least column 19 lines 64-65: “the rear brake comprises a rear mechanical brake and a rear electrical brake”).
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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Levi claim 8 to use mechanical and electrical brakes. Levi claim 8 is dependent on independent Levi claim 1, and independent Levi claims 1 and 16 are very similar. Using mechanical and electrical brakes would “improve user experience and user safety”, as recognized by Levi in the [Abstract].
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2) in view of Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1), claim 5 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2), and claim 12 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of claim 16 of Levi and Finch teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Levi claim 16 and Finch does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises one or more of:
a traction level of a wheel of the PMV; or
a level of wear on the wheel of the PMV.
Levi claim 5 teaches wherein the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises one or more of:
a traction level of a wheel of the PMV (see at least column 19 lines 39-42: “increasing the second brake force to be applied to the rear brake based at least in part on receiving the information from the sensor that indicates that the front wheel of the personal mobility vehicle lacks traction.”).
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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Levi claim 5 to adjust braking based on wheel traction. Doing so would “improve user experience and user safety”, as recognized by Levi in the [Abstract].
Levi claim 12 teaches wherein the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises one or more of:
a level of wear on the wheel of the PMV (see at least column 20 lines 23-25: “the condition that affects the braking of the personal mobility vehicle comprises a level of wear of at least one component of the personal mobility 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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Levi claim 5 to adjust braking based on level of wheel wear. Doing so would “improve user experience and user safety”, as recognized by Levi in the [Abstract].
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2) in view of Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1), claim 9 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2), and Prime (GB 2563856 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of claim 16 of Levi and Finch teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Levi claim 16 and Finch does not explicitly teach wherein:
the at least one sensor of the PMV is a gyroscope;
the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises the PMV moving downhill as detected by the gyroscope; and
the braking is a regenerating braking.
Levi claim 9 teaches wherein:
the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises the PMV moving downhill; and
the braking is a regenerating braking (see at least column 20 lines 6-10: “making a determination, by the controller, to engage a regenerative braking portion of the electrical brake system in response to receiving information from a sensor that indicates that the personal mobility vehicle is going downhill.”).
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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Levi claim 5 to adjust braking when going downhill. Doing so would “improve user experience and user safety”, as recognized by Levi in the [Abstract].
Prime teaches the at least one sensor of the PMV is a gyroscope (see at least FIG. 6: incline determination apparatus 300, pg 13 lines 459-461: “The incline determination apparatus 300 may comprises at least one gyroscope apparatus 301 for generating a signal indicative of the gradient on which the cycle too is travelling.”);
the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises the PMV moving downhill (see at least pg 13 lines 430-435: “The controller 207 may, for example, increase the regenerative braking force being applied to the wheels 102 by the MGUs 203 as the gradient on which the cycle too is descending gets larger. The increase in braking force caused by controller 207 may be selected and applied automatically in response to a signal indicative of an increase in surface gradient.”) as detected by the gyroscope.
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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Prime to increase regenerative braking when travelling downhill using a gyroscope. Doing so would ensure that the vehicle “descends the incline in a safe manner”, as recognized by Prime on pg 10 lines 339-340.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2) in view of Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Levi teaches A system comprising:
a brake lever of a personal mobility vehicle (PMV) (see at least column 22 line 7-8: “a first brake lever … of a personal mobility vehicle”);
a first braking system (see at least column 22 line 9: “a front brake”);
a second braking system (see at least column 22 line 9-10: “a rear brake”);
at least one sensor of the PMV (see at least column 22 lines 11-12: “a weight sensor of the personal mobility vehicle”); and
a controller configured to (see at least column 22 line 6: “a controller, cause the controller to:”):
receive a user input on the brake lever of the PMV (see at least column 22 lines 7-8: “detect that … a first brake lever … of a personal mobility vehicle has received input”);
detect, using the at least one sensor of the PMV, at least one condition affecting a braking of the PMV (see at least column 22 lines 11-13: “receive data from a weight sensor of the personal mobility vehicle, the sensor being configured to detect a condition affecting braking of the personal mobility vehicle”);
determine a distribution differential *Examiner’s interpretation: paragraph [0026] of the instant specification states, “The term “distribution differential,” as used herein, refers to any situation where different brakes are engaged with various amounts of … force”. Therefore, any situation described where different brake forces are determined and then applied to different brakes qualifies as a “distribution differential”.* between the first braking system and the second braking system (see at least column 22 lines 16-19: “determine a first brake force to be applied to the front brake and a second brake force to be applied to the rear brake based at least in part on the condition affecting the braking of the personal mobility vehicle”); and
engage the first braking system with a first level of force and the second braking system with a second level of force based on the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system (see at least column 22 lines 31-35: “engage … the front brake by applying the first brake force and the rear brake by applying the second brake force.”).
However, Levi does not explicitly teach based on the user input on the brake lever.
Finch teach determine a distribution differential between a first braking system and a second braking system based on the user input on the brake lever (see at least FIG. 2: process of determining front and rear friction and regenerative braking force amounts (steps 210, 212, 216, 218, 222, 226, and 228) starts with step 202: “DRIVER REQUESTED BRAKING TORQUE).
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 Levi to incorporate the teachings of Finch to determine braking amounts based on a user input. Doing so would ensure desirable vehicle stability “while maximizing the amount of recaptured kinetic energy”, as recognized by Finch in paragraph [0004].
Regarding claim 19, Levi teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a controller, cause the controller to (see at least column 22 lines 4-6: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a controller, cause the controller to:”):
receive a user input on a brake lever of a personal mobility vehicle (PMV) (see at least column 22 lines 7-8: “detect that … a first brake lever … of a personal mobility vehicle has received input”);
detect, using at least one sensor of the PMV, at least one condition affecting a braking of the PMV (see at least column 22 lines 12-14: “receive data from a weight sensor of the personal mobility vehicle, the sensor being configured to detect a condition affecting braking of the personal mobility vehicle”);
determine a distribution differential *Examiner’s interpretation: paragraph [0026] of the instant specification states, “The term “distribution differential,” as used herein, refers to any situation where different brakes are engaged with various amounts of … force”. Therefore, any situation described where different brake forces are determined and then applied to different brakes qualifies as a “distribution differential”.* between a first braking system and a second braking system based on the user input on the brake lever and the at least one condition affecting the braking of the PMV (see at least column 22 lines 16-20: “determine a first brake force to be applied to the front brake and second brake force to be applied to the rear brake based at least in part on the condition affecting the braking of the personal mobility vehicle”); and
engage the first braking system with a first level of force and the second braking system with a second level of force based on the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system (see at least column 22 lines 31-35: “engage … the front brake by applying the first brake force and the rear brake by applying the second brake force.”).
However, Levi does not explicitly teach based on the user input on the brake lever.
Finch teach determine a distribution differential between a first braking system and a second braking system based on the user input on the brake lever (see at least FIG. 2: process of determining front and rear friction and regenerative braking force amounts (steps 210, 212, 216, 218, 222, 226, and 228) starts with step 202: “DRIVER REQUESTED BRAKING TORQUE).
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 Levi to incorporate the teachings of Finch to determine braking amounts based on a user input. Doing so would ensure desirable vehicle stability “while maximizing the amount of recaptured kinetic energy”, as recognized by Finch in paragraph [0004].
Claims 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2) in view of Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) and claim 8 of Levi et al. (US 12122342 B2).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Levi claim 20 and Finch teaches The system of claim 16.
However, the combination of Levi claim 20 and Finch does not explicitly teach wherein to engage the first braking system with the first level of force and the second braking system with the second level of force, the controller is further configured to:
apply a combination of mechanical and electrical brakes with varying levels of forces to front and rear wheels of the PMV based on the distribution differential
Levi claim 8 teaches wherein to engage the first braking system with the first level of force and the second braking system with the second level of force, the controller is further configured to:
apply a combination of mechanical and electrical brakes with varying levels of forces to front and rear wheels of the PMV based on the distribution differential (see at least column 19 line 61-column 20 line 5: “the front brake comprises a front mechanical brake and a front electrical brake; the rear brake comprises a rear mechanical brake and a rear electrical brake; the front mechanical brake and the rear mechanical brake comprise a mechanical brake system; the front electrical brake and the rear electrical brake comprise an electrical brake system; and wherein the controller is further configured to determine a distribution differential between the mechanical brake system and the electrical brake system.”).
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 Levi claim 16 to incorporate the teachings of Levi claim 8 to use mechanical and electrical brakes. Doing so would “improve user experience and user safety”, as recognized by Levi in the [Abstract].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 17, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) in view of Prime (GB 2563856 A).
Regarding claim 1, Finch teach A (see at least FIG. 1: brake controller 102) of a personal mobility vehicle (PMV) (see at least [0021]: “any number of vehicles, such as a hybrid automobile.”):
receiving a user input (see at least FIG. 2 step 202: “DRIVER REQUESTED BRAKING TORQUE; [0020]: “the driver requests brake torque (i.e., raking)”) on a brake (see at least [0020]: “a brake pedal”) of the PMV;
detecting, (see at least [0021]: “state of charge of the battery and the current speed of the automobile”) affecting a braking (see at least [0021]: “The front regenerative braking available and rear regenerative braking available are the calculated maximum amount of braking torque that can be provided by the front regenerative braking system and the rear regenerative braking system …. These amounts are typically determined by the regenerative brake system 105, and depend on many factors, such as the state of charge of the battery and the current speed of the automobile.”) of the PMV;
determining a distribution differential (see at least FIG. 2 steps 210 and 212: “FRONT REGEN REQUEST…” FIG. 2 steps 216 and 218: “REAR REGEN REQUEST…”; FIG. 2 steps 226 and 228: “FRONT FRICTION REQUEST… AND REAR FRICTION REQUEST…”) *Examiner’s interpretation: paragraph [0026] of the instant specification states, “The term “distribution differential,” as used herein, refers to any situation where different brakes are engaged with various amounts of … force”. Therefore, any situation described where different brake forces are determined and then applied to different brakes qualifies as a “distribution differential”.* between a first braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105; [0017]: “front regenerative braking system”; FIG. 1: brake 108; [0029]: front friction brake) and a second braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105; [0017]: “rear regenerative braking system”; FIG. 1: brake 108; [0029]: rear friction brake) based on the user input on the brake (see at least FIG. 2: process begins with step 202) and the at least one condition (see at least [0021], FIG. 2: steps 212 and 210: front regen request = f (front regen available); steps 216 and 218: rear regen request = f (rear regen available); steps 226 and 228: front friction request = f (front regen request); step 228: rear friction request = f (rear regen request); [0021]: front and rear regen available depends on battery SOC) affecting the braking of the PMV; and
engaging (see at least FIG. 1, [0014]: “Brake system 103 can receive braking commands from brake controller 102. … the braking commands generated by the brake controller 102 are used to operate … a brake by wire system utilizing electronic application and control of the brake(s) 108.”; [0016]: “Regenerative brake system 105 receives braking commands from brake controller 102 and provides braking torque using the electric motor 112.”) the first braking system with a first level of force (see at least FIG. 2, steps 210 and 212: front regen request; steps 226 and 228: front friction request) and the second braking system with a second level of force (see at least FIG. 2, steps 216 and 218: rear regen request; steps 216 and 218: rear friction request) based on the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system.
However, Finch does not explicitly teach computer-implemented;
a brake lever;
using at least one sensor of the PMV.
Prime teach A computer-implemented (see at least pg 4 lines 109-113: “a vehicle comprising: at least one computer processor; and at least one computer memory storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computing apparatus to perform the method.”) method;
a brake lever (see at least pg 11 line 368: “brake lever”);
using at least one sensor (see at least pg 3 lines 90-94: “receiving, from at least one speedometer of the vehicle, data indicative of the speed of the vehicle”; pg 13 lines 439-441: “the level of regenerative braking force applied to the wheels 102 to be increased as the speed of the cycle too gets closer to a threshold maximum speed”) of the PMV.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Prime to use a sensor to determine a condition affecting braking. Doing so would ensure that the vehicle “descends the incline in a safe manner”, as recognized by Prime on pg 10 lines 339-340.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Finch further teach wherein engaging the first braking system with the first level of force and the second braking system with the second level of force comprises:
applying a combination of mechanical (see at least FIG. 1: brakes 108) and electrical brakes (see at least FIG. 1: motor 112) with varying levels of forces (see at least FIG. 2, steps 210 and 212: front regen request; steps 226 and 228: front friction request; steps 216 and 218: rear regen request; steps 216 and 218: rear friction request) to front and rear wheels (see at least [0017]: “front and rear wheels”) of the PMV based on the distribution differential.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Finch further teach wherein:
the first braking system comprises a mechanical braking system (see at least FIG. 1: friction brake system 103); and
the second braking system comprises an electrical braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 4.
Finch further teach wherein:
the mechanical braking system (see at least FIG. 1: brakes 108) comprises a front mechanical brake (see at least [0029]: front friction brake) and a rear mechanical brake (see at least [0029]: rear friction brake); and
the electrical braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105) comprises a front electrical brake (see at least [0017]: “front regenerative braking system”) and a rear electrical brake (see at least [0017]: “rear regenerative braking system”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Finch further teach wherein:
the first braking system comprises a front braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105; [0017]: “front regenerative braking system”; FIG. 1: brake 108; [0029]: front friction brake); and
the second braking system comprises a rear braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105; [0017]: “rear regenerative braking system”; FIG. 1: brake 108; [0029]: rear friction brake).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 6.
Finch further teach wherein:
the front braking system comprises a front mechanical brake (see at least [0029]: front friction brake) and a front electrical brake (see at least [0017]: “front regenerative braking system”); and
the rear braking system comprises a rear mechanical brake (see at least [0029]: rear friction brake) and a rear electrical brake (see at least [0017]: “rear regenerative braking system”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Finch further teach wherein:
the braking is a regenerating (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105) braking.
Prime further teaches the at least one sensor of the PMV is a gyroscope (see at least FIG. 6: incline determination apparatus 300, pg 13 lines 459-461: “The incline determination apparatus 300 may comprises at least one gyroscope apparatus 301 for generating a signal indicative of the gradient on which the cycle too is travelling.”);
the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises the PMV moving downhill (see at least pg 13 lines 430-435: “The controller 207 may, for example, increase the regenerative braking force being applied to the wheels 102 by the MGUs 203 as the gradient on which the cycle too is descending gets larger. The increase in braking force caused by controller 207 may be selected and applied automatically in response to a signal indicative of an increase in surface gradient.”) as detected by the gyroscope.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Prime to increase regenerative braking when travelling downhill. Doing so would ensure that the vehicle “descends the incline in a safe manner”, as recognized by Prime on pg 10 lines 339-340.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Finch further teach the at least one sensor (see at least FIG. 1: brake sensors 104) of the PMV is a brake status sensor; and
the user input on the brake lever is measured by (see at least [0013]: “Brake sensor 104 can include inputs for a brake pedal switch (not shown) that is configured to provide an indication of the brake pedal position.”) the brake status sensor.
Regarding claim 16, Finch teach A system comprising:
a brake (see at least [0020]: “a brake pedal”) of a personal mobility vehicle (PMV) (see at least [0021]: “any number of vehicles, such as a hybrid automobile.”);
a first braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105; [0017]: “front regenerative braking system”; FIG. 1: brake 108; [0029]: front friction brake);
a second braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105; [0017]: “rear regenerative braking system”; FIG. 1: brake 108; [0029]: rear friction brake);
at least one sensor (see at least FIG. 1: brake sensors 104) of the PMV; and
a controller configured to:
receive a user input (see at least FIG. 2 step 202: “DRIVER REQUESTED BRAKING TORQUE; [0020]: “the driver requests brake torque (i.e., raking)”) on the brake
detect, (see at least [0021]: “state of charge of the battery and the current speed of the automobile”) affecting a braking (see at least [0021]: “The front regenerative braking available and rear regenerative braking available are the calculated maximum amount of braking torque that can be provided by the front regenerative braking system and the rear regenerative braking system …. These amounts are typically determined by the regenerative brake system 105, and depend on many factors, such as the state of charge of the battery and the current speed of the automobile.”) of the PMV;
determine a distribution differential (see at least FIG. 2 steps 210 and 212: “FRONT REGEN REQUEST…” FIG. 2 steps 216 and 218: “REAR REGEN REQUEST…”; FIG. 2 steps 226 and 228: “FRONT FRICTION REQUEST… AND REAR FRICTION REQUEST…”) *Examiner’s interpretation: paragraph [0026] of the instant specification states, “The term “distribution differential,” as used herein, refers to any situation where different brakes are engaged with various amounts of … force”. Therefore, any situation described where different brake forces are determined and then applied to different brakes qualifies as a “distribution differential”.* between the first braking system and the second braking system based on the user input on the brake (see at least FIG. 2: process begins with step 202) and the at least one condition (see at least [0021], FIG. 2: steps 212 and 210: front regen request = f (front regen available); steps 216 and 218: rear regen request = f (rear regen available); steps 226 and 228: front friction request = f (front regen request); step 228: rear friction request = f (rear regen request); [0021]: front and rear regen available depends on battery SOC) affecting the braking of the PMV; and
engage (see at least FIG. 1, [0014]: “Brake system 103 can receive braking commands from brake controller 102. … the braking commands generated by the brake controller 102 are used to operate … a brake by wire system utilizing electronic application and control of the brake(s) 108.”; [0016]: “Regenerative brake system 105 receives braking commands from brake controller 102 and provides braking torque using the electric motor 112.”) the first braking system with a first level of force (see at least FIG. 2, steps 210 and 212: front regen request; steps 226 and 228: front friction request) and the second braking system with a second level of force (see at least FIG. 2, steps 216 and 218: rear regen request; steps 216 and 218: rear friction request) based on the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system.
However, Finch does not explicitly teach a brake lever;
using at least one sensor of the PMV.
Prime teach a brake lever (see at least pg 11 line 368: “brake lever”);
using at least one sensor (see at least pg 3 lines 90-94: “receiving, from at least one speedometer of the vehicle, data indicative of the speed of the vehicle”; pg 13 lines 439-441: “the level of regenerative braking force applied to the wheels 102 to be increased as the speed of the cycle too gets closer to a threshold maximum speed”) of the PMV.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Prime to use a sensor to determine a condition affecting braking. Doing so would ensure that the vehicle “descends the incline in a safe manner”, as recognized by Prime on pg 10 lines 339-340.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The system of Claim 16.
Finch further teaches wherein to engage the first braking system with the first level of force and the second braking system with the second level of force, the controller is further configured to:
apply a combination of mechanical (see at least FIG. 1: brakes 108) and electrical brakes (see at least FIG. 1: motor 112) with varying levels of forces (see at least FIG. 2, steps 210 and 212: front regen request; steps 226 and 228: front friction request; steps 216 and 218: rear regen request; steps 216 and 218: rear friction request) to front and rear wheels (see at least [0017]: “front and rear wheels”) of the PMV based on the distribution differential.
Regarding claim 19, Finch teach (see at least FIG. 1: brake controller 102), cause the controller to:
receive a user input (see at least FIG. 2 step 202: “DRIVER REQUESTED BRAKING TORQUE; [0020]: “the driver requests brake torque (i.e., raking)”) on a brake (see at least [0020]: “a brake pedal”) of a personal mobility vehicle (PMV);
detect, (see at least [0021]: “state of charge of the battery and the current speed of the automobile”) affecting a braking (see at least [0021]: “The front regenerative braking available and rear regenerative braking available are the calculated maximum amount of braking torque that can be provided by the front regenerative braking system and the rear regenerative braking system …. These amounts are typically determined by the regenerative brake system 105, and depend on many factors, such as the state of charge of the battery and the current speed of the automobile.”) of the PMV;
determine a distribution differential (see at least FIG. 2 steps 210 and 212: “FRONT REGEN REQUEST…” FIG. 2 steps 216 and 218: “REAR REGEN REQUEST…”; FIG. 2 steps 226 and 228: “FRONT FRICTION REQUEST… AND REAR FRICTION REQUEST…”) *Examiner’s interpretation: paragraph [0026] of the instant specification states, “The term “distribution differential,” as used herein, refers to any situation where different brakes are engaged with various amounts of … force”. Therefore, any situation described where different brake forces are determined and then applied to different brakes qualifies as a “distribution differential”.* between a first braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105; [0017]: “front regenerative braking system”; FIG. 1: brake 108; [0029]: front friction brake) and a second braking system (see at least FIG. 1: regenerative brake system 105; [0017]: “rear regenerative braking system”; FIG. 1: brake 108; [0029]: rear friction brake) based on the user input on the brake (see at least FIG. 2: process begins with step 202) and the at least one condition (see at least [0021], FIG. 2: steps 212 and 210: front regen request = f (front regen available); steps 216 and 218: rear regen request = f (rear regen available); steps 226 and 228: front friction request = f (front regen request); step 228: rear friction request = f (rear regen request); [0021]: front and rear regen available depends on battery SOC) affecting the braking of the PMV; and
engage (see at least FIG. 1, [0014]: “Brake system 103 can receive braking commands from brake controller 102. … the braking commands generated by the brake controller 102 are used to operate … a brake by wire system utilizing electronic application and control of the brake(s) 108.”; [0016]: “Regenerative brake system 105 receives braking commands from brake controller 102 and provides braking torque using the electric motor 112.”) the first braking system with a first level of force (see at least FIG. 2, steps 210 and 212: front regen request; steps 226 and 228: front friction request) and the second braking system with a second level of force (see at least FIG. 2, steps 216 and 218: rear regen request; steps 216 and 218: rear friction request) based on the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system.
However, Finch does not explicitly teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of;
a brake lever;
using at least one sensor of the PMV.
Prime teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium (see at least pg 21 lines 736-737: ““computer-readable storage medium” may mean a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”) comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (see at least pg 4 lines 109-113: “a vehicle comprising: at least one computer processor; and at least one computer memory storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computing apparatus to perform the method.”) of a controller (see at least FIG. 4: controller 207), cause the controller to:
a brake lever (see at least pg 11 line 368: “brake lever”);
using at least one sensor (see at least pg 3 lines 90-94: “receiving, from at least one speedometer of the vehicle, data indicative of the speed of the vehicle”; pg 13 lines 439-441: “the level of regenerative braking force applied to the wheels 102 to be increased as the speed of the cycle too gets closer to a threshold maximum speed”) of the PMV.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Prime to use a sensor to determine a condition affecting braking. Doing so would ensure that the vehicle “descends the incline in a safe manner”, as recognized by Prime on pg 10 lines 339-340.
Claims 3, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) in view of Prime (GB 2563856 A) and Pihl et al. (US 20130076113 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
However, the combination of Finch and Prime does not explicitly teach further comprising:
after engaging the first braking system and the second braking system, monitoring a real-time braking performance of one or more brakes of the PMV; and
dynamically adjusting the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system based on the real-time braking performance
Pihl teach further comprising:
after engaging the first braking system and the second braking system, monitoring a real-time braking performance (see at least FIG. 2, element 204, [0037]: it is investigated if rear wheels “are over-braked or not in terms of acceptable vehicle stability.” [0037]: “Acceptable vehicle stability may be defined by … increased rear wheel slip”) of one or more brakes of the PMV; and
dynamically adjusting the distribution differential (see at least [0038] “Should it be determined that the rear wheels … are indeed over-braked, the rear wheel braking toque is decreased”, and “when the rear wheel regenerative braking is reduced or limited, the loss in braking torque is automatically compensated by increased braking torque of the front hydraulically actuated friction brakes”) between the first braking system and the second braking system based on the real-time braking performance
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Pihl to adjust braking based on active braking performance. Doing so would “avoid[] any inconsistency between brake pedal position and total vehicle braking torque”, as recognized by Pihl in paragraph [0038].
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The system of Claim 16.
However, the combination of Finch and Prime does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to:
after engaging the first braking system and the second braking system, monitor a real-time braking performance of one or more brakes of the PMV; and
dynamically adjust the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system based on the real-time braking performance.
Pihl teach wherein the controller is further configured to:
after engaging the first braking system and the second braking system, monitor a real-time braking performance (see at least FIG. 2, element 204, [0037]: it is investigated if rear wheels “are over-braked or not in terms of acceptable vehicle stability.” [0037]: “Acceptable vehicle stability may be defined by … increased rear wheel slip”) of one or more brakes of the PMV; and
dynamically adjust the distribution differential (see at least [0038] “Should it be determined that the rear wheels … are indeed over-braked, the rear wheel braking toque is decreased”, and “when the rear wheel regenerative braking is reduced or limited, the loss in braking torque is automatically compensated by increased braking torque of the front hydraulically actuated friction brakes”) between the first braking system and the second braking system based on the real-time braking performance.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Pihl to adjust braking based on active braking performance. Doing so would “avoid[] any inconsistency between brake pedal position and total vehicle braking torque”, as recognized by Pihl in paragraph [0038].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 19.
However, the combination of Finch and Prime does not explicitly teach
wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the controller, further cause the controller to:
after engaging the first braking system and the second braking system, monitor a real-time braking performance of one or more brakes of the PMV; and
dynamically adjust the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system based on the real-time braking performance.
Pihl teach wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of the controller, further cause the controller to:
after engaging the first braking system and the second braking system, monitor a real-time braking performance (see at least FIG. 2, element 204, [0037]: it is investigated if rear wheels “are over-braked or not in terms of acceptable vehicle stability.” [0037]: “Acceptable vehicle stability may be defined by … increased rear wheel slip”) of one or more brakes of the PMV; and
dynamically adjust the distribution differential (see at least [0038] “Should it be determined that the rear wheels … are indeed over-braked, the rear wheel braking toque is decreased”, and “when the rear wheel regenerative braking is reduced or limited, the loss in braking torque is automatically compensated by increased braking torque of the front hydraulically actuated friction brakes”) between the first braking system and the second braking system based on the real-time braking performance.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Pihl to adjust braking based on active braking performance. Doing so would “avoid[] any inconsistency between brake pedal position and total vehicle braking torque”, as recognized by Pihl in paragraph [0038].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) in view of Prime (GB 2563856 A), Seto et al. (US 9744952 B2), and Toepfer et al. (US 5470134 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
However, the combination of Finch and Prime does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises one or more of:
a traction level of a wheel of the PMV; or
a level of wear on the wheel of the PMV.
Seto teach wherein the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises one or more of:
a traction level ((see at least Column 6 lines 16-19: “when a slipping condition of the … front wheel is detected based on a signal detected by the … front wheel slip detector, to reduce a braking force on the … front wheel”)) of a wheel of the PMV; or
a level of wear on the wheel of the PMV.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Seto et al. to decrease the front brake force when front wheel slippage is detected. Doing so would help to reduce wheel slippage, as recognized by Seto et al. in paragraph Column 6 lines 11-22.
Toepfer teach wherein the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises one or more of:
a level of wear (see at least FIG. 2 step 108, (20) column 6 lines 47-48: “a new wear-dependent brake pressure distribution, Φv , is determined in steps 108”) on the wheel of the PMV.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Toepfer to adjust braking based on brake wear. Doing so would “prevent adhesion problems”, as recognized by Toepfer in (7) column 1 lines 67-column 2 line 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) in view of Prime (GB 2563856 A) and Wagner (US 20050146207 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
Prime further teaches wherein: the at least one sensor of the PMV is a weight sensor (see at least pg 20 lines 699-700: “weight sensing apparatus 1000”).
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Prime to use a weight sensor. Doing so would “prevent the cycle … from toppling over”, as recognized by Prime on pg 10 line 694.
However, the combination of Finch and Prime does not explicitly teach the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises a weight distribution of a user riding the PMV as detected by the weight sensor.
Wagner teach the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises a weight distribution (see at least FIG. 2, [0023]: “Curve 27 gives the "ideal braking force distribution" between front axle and rear axle at a given vehicle loading.”; [0026]: “If the vehicle loading change, … results in a variation of the shape of curve 27”) of a user riding the PMV as detected by (see at least [0029]: “The loading condition of the motorcycle is constantly monitored while it runs. This can be performed, for example, by force sensors … at the wheel suspensions”) the weight sensor.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to adjust braking distribution based on load distribution. Doing so would IncorporationRationale, as recognized by Wagner in paragraph [0007].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) in view of Prime (GB 2563856 A) and Boisvert et al. (US 20180099675 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
However, the combination of Finch and Prime does not explicitly teach the at least one sensor of the PMV is an accelerometer;
the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises a speed of the PMV as detected by the accelerometer.
Boisvert teach the at least one sensor of the PMV is an accelerometer (see at least [0110]: “accelerometers”);
the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises a speed (see at least [0039]: “determine a desired slip … based at least in part on the speed of the vehicle; and control the generator to apply a braking torque … based at least in part on the desired slip.”) of the PMV as detected by (see at least [0110]: “It is contemplated that the control unit 150 could determine vehicle speed based on multiple inputs selected from, but not limited to, the following: … accelerometers.”) the accelerometer.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Boisvert to adjust braking based on speed as determined by an accelerometer. Doing so would “provide efficient regenerative braking”, as recognized by Boisvert in paragraph [0017].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) in view of Prime (GB 2563856 A) and Ginther et al. (US 10029683 B1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
However, the combination of Finch and Prime does not explicitly teach wherein:
the at least one sensor of the PMV is a camera; and
the at least one condition affecting the braking comprises presence of one or more obstacles in front of the PMV as detected by the camera.
Ginther teach wherein:
the at least one sensor of the PMV is a camera (see at least FIG. 3: forward travel sensor 68; (10) column 3 lines 51-52: “The forward travel sensor 68 can be a forward-facing sensor including any or all of: a camera”); and
the at least one condition affecting the braking (see at least (10) column 3 lines 65-67: hazardous objects in the path of the vehicle “can serve as triggers for autonomous braking events”) comprises presence of one or more obstacles (see at least (10) column 3 lines 53-58: “The one or more forward travel sensors 68 are operable to detect a detrimental riding situation in the motorcycle's travel path (e.g., … object … within a predetermined range of the motorcycle's forward travel path)”) in front of the PMV as detected by the camera.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Ginther to adjust braking based on camera detection of obstacles. Doing so would “avoid a collision with the obstruction”, as recognized by Ginther in (11) column 4 lines 17-18.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finch et al. (US 20070029874 A1) in view of Prime (GB 2563856 A) and Hall et al. (US 20180093572 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Finch and Prime teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 1.
However, the combination of Finch and Prime does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving historical data associated with the at least one condition affecting the braking,
wherein the distribution differential between the first braking system and the second braking system is further determined based on the historical data.
Hall teach further comprising:
receiving historical data (see at least [0072]: “powertrain controller 100 may use historical usage data of friction braking system 30 to determine the driving habit of the operator.”) associated with the at least one condition affecting the braking,
wherein the distribution differential (see at least [0073]: “powertrain controller 100 may adjust distribution of the regenerative braking among wheels 12, 14 and the magnitude of the regenerative braking torque applied on each wheel 12, 14.”) between the first braking system and the second braking system is further determined based on (see at least [0026]: “RBS 20 may be … configured to generate an amount of regenerative braking that can be calibrated and scaled based on the operator's preference and/or driving habit.”) the historical data.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Hall to adjust braking based on historical user braking data. Doing so would prevent “exceed[ing] the expectation of the operator” and “caus[ing] uncomfortable feelings to the operator”, as recognized by Hall in paragraph [0063].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Finch, Prime, and Hall teach The computer-implemented method of Claim 14.
Hall teach wherein the historical data comprises one or more of:
information regarding how a user of the PMV has reacted to (see at least [0072]: “such usage data may indicate how hard and/or fast the operator usually depress brake pedal 32”) a similar braking condition as the at least one condition in past; or
information regarding how users of others PMVs have reacted to the similar braking condition.
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 Finch to incorporate the teachings of Hall to adjust braking based on historical user braking data. Doing so would prevent “exceed[ing] the expectation of the operator” and “caus[ing] uncomfortable feelings to the operator”, as recognized by Hall in paragraph [0063].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andreas (US 20200369158 A1) teaches a vehicle brake system that adjusts front and rear wheel braking based on wheel load distribution (see paragraph [0072]).
Choi et al. (KR 20110108919 A) teaches a vehicle braking system that adjusts front and rear braking force based on maximum available regenerative braking power (see FIG. 1).
Meyers (US 20110295452 A1) teaches a motorcycle with a brake-by-wire system with regenerative braking for both front and rear wheels (see paragraph [0035]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662