Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the application’s arguments concerning claims 17 and 19, these claims were not amended with equivalent limitations to amended claim 1. As such the applicant’s arguments concerning the “another braking system” are not persuasive for claims 17 and 19 given that they do not recite such a limitations. The previous 103 rejection of Lewandowski in view of Glinka is maintained.
The previous 112(b) rejections regarding the wording time period threshold are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
This action is made non-final as a new grounds of rejection are provided below which were not necessitated by the amendments alone:
Upon further review claims 5 and 7 were found to recite relative terminology which renders their scopes of protection unclear and further an issued patent (US 12384339 B2) was found which provides grounds for non-statutory double patenting as while the independent claims of 339 recite controlling braking (determining using a first metallic or second non-metallic braking system) for a vehicle based on an upcoming based on the expected “kinetic energy” value to be absorbed (by the brakes) during the upcoming event; dependent claims 2 makes clear that the two brake systems are a metallic (steel/friction brakes) and a carbon brake; claim 4 recites that the determination of which brake is based on a threshold determination (kinetic energy is above a threshold) to use the carbon brake, and claim 7 recites that the expected energy is based on the length of the upcoming braking thus these claims together render obvious the implementing of a carbon braking in response to an upcoming braking event being above a duration threshold and using a metallic brake when an upcoming braking event is below a duration threshold. Thus while not identical 339’s claimed invention , 339’s claimed invention renders obvious the applicant’s current claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites a “nominal” weight and adjusting of the time threshold based on a given vehicles weight being above or below the “nominal” weight; neither the claims nor the specification make clear what constitutes a “nominal” weight for a vehicle. As such what constitutes a “nominal” weight is a subjective only to the readers own judgement, as such the bounds of protection varies from one reader to the next and the scope of claim 5 is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7, it similar to claim 5 recites a “nominal” speed; and subsequently adjusting of the time threshold based on if the current speed is above or below the nominal speed. Neither the claim nor the specification make clear what constitutes the “nominal” speed of a vehicle; as such what constitutes a “nominal” speed is left only to the reader’s own judgement, as such the bounds of protection would vary from one reader to the next and scope of claim 7 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230373479 A1, “ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL WITH LOAD”, Lewandowski et al and further in view of US 20190023151 A1. “Vehicle Having A Brake Device”, Glinka.
Regarding Claim 1, Lewandowski teaches “A vehicle auxiliary braking system, comprising a friction” brake arrangement, the friction” brake arrangement comprising a rotatable friction” brake disc operably connectable to at least one wheel of a vehicle and brake pads operable to engage with the rotatablefriction” brake disc,”( Lewandowski [0026] The brake system 120 is typically a conventional vehicle braking subsystem and resists the motion of the vehicle 100 to thereby slow and/or stop the vehicle 100. The brake system 120 may include friction brakes such as disc brakes, drum brakes, band brakes, etc.; regenerative brakes; any other suitable type of brakes; or a combination. The brake system 120 can include an electronic control unit (ECU) or the like that is in communication with and receives input from the computer 105 and/or a human operator. The human operator may control the brake system 120 via, e.g., a brake pedal.); “the vehicle auxiliary braking system further comprising a control unit comprising processing circuitry configured to: determine a time period for an upcoming vehicle braking operation to be initiated at a brake start position at future point in time; and control the brake pads to engage with the rotatable“friction” brake disc at the brake start position in response to the time period exceeding a predetermined threshold time period.”( [0034] The computer 105 can be programmed to operate the adaptive cruise control, i.e., to actuate the propulsion system 115 and the brake system 120 according to an adaptive-cruise-control algorithm stored on the computer 105. The computer 105 can be programmed to operate the adaptive cruise control according to the parameters of the adaptive cruise control. For example, the parameters can include a target speed and a following distance. The computer 105 can be programmed to, according to the adaptive cruise control, actuate the propulsion system 115 and/or the brake system 120 to maintain a speed of the vehicle 100 at the target speed and to accelerate up to the target speed.” Lewandowski teaches the computer operating the braking system as part of the ACC + [0040] which teaches that the operation is triggered/based on the vehicle reaching a certain time (exceeding a threshold time period) until encountering a change (in grade, speed limit, turn/direction, etc))
Lewandowski however does not specifically teach that the braking assembly/disc brake is a carbon disc.
Glinka teaches a vehicle braking system which includes using a carbon disc and braking pads to brake the vehicle. ([0006]-[0007] the brake disc materials includes/can be carbon fiber)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Lewandowski to implement the carbon disc brake of Glinka as the friction braking system called for generally in Lewandowski. One would be motivated to implement a carbon disc brake in particular in order to reduce the overall weight of the system and to increase the temperatures the brake disc can withstand without damaging. Glinka teaches these improvements in ([0005] For this purpose, a vehicle with a braking device is provided, which has at least one friction brake unit, an electrical brake unit, and a brake control device, wherein the friction brake unit has at least brake components made of a composite material and the brake control device comprises a monitoring device, which is provided for monitoring a braking operation performed by the electrical brake unit. As a result, an advantageous weight reduction can be achieved with an at least unchanged level of reliability of the braking device compared to conventional braking devices for vehicles. The invention is based on the consideration that with a targeted use of the electrical brake unit as a priority relative to the friction brake unit, an advantageous relief thereof can be achieved. ... The invention is based on the further consideration that a brake component made of a composite material is quite capable of being operated undamaged in a high temperature range—typically at temperatures above 800° C. Although these temperatures are well above the typical temperatures at which oxidation of conventional, commercially available composite materials and disadvantages associated therewith occur, such exceeding of these critical oxidation limit temperatures is less critical in these only rare applications of emergency braking without the participation of the electrical brake unit. The high reliability of the electrical brake unit means the friction brake unit can be relaxed to the extent that it does not exceed the appropriate oxidation limit temperature in most braking cases—also called “service braking operations”. Therefore, commercially available, lightweight composite materials designed for average operating temperatures below 550° C. can be used for the design of a reliable braking device.)
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 1-10, 13, 17, 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12384339 (US 12384339 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
To summarize the below 339B2 recites the selective braking of a first (metallic) and second (non-metallic) brake systems based on the expected amount of kinetic energy for an upcoming braking event (Claim 1 of 339B2); Claim 2 of 339B2 recites that non-metallic brake is in particular a carbon brake; Claim 4 of 339B2 recites that when the expected kinetic energy for the upcoming braking event is a above a threshold the second brakes (Carbon brakes) are utilized; claim 8 of 339B2 then recites that the expected energy of an upcoming braking event is determined based on the expected duration.
To put into rough conditional statements 339B2’s claims recite:
339B2 Claim 1: using 1st or 2nd Brake = F(expected kinetic energy of upcoming brake)
339B2 Claim 2: 2nd brake = carbon brake
339B2 Claim 4: if expected kinetic energy >= threshold then use 2nd brake else use the 1st brake
339B2 Claim 8: expected kinetic energy = Function(expected braking duration)
Thus when claims respective teachings are combined they simplify to the two statements
(339B2 Claims 1 + 2 + 8) : Using 1st or carbon brake = Function( Function(expected braking duration)) which simplifies to Using 1st or carbon brake = Function (expected braking duration)
(339 B2 Claims 2+ 4 + 8): if braking duration >= threshold duration use carbon brake if not use the 1st (metallic) brake.
Which combined renders obvious a vehicle/braking control system in which when the expected duration of a upcoming braking event exceeds a threshold the vehicle should brake using the carbon brake and if the duration is below the threshold use the metallic brake.
Regarding Application claim 1; 339B2 claims “A vehicle auxiliary braking system, comprising a carbon brake arrangement, the carbon brake arrangement comprising a rotatable carbon brake disc operably connectable to at least one wheel of a vehicle, and brake pads operable to engage with the rotatable carbon brake disc”(339B2 Claim 2: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the metallic brakes are steel brakes, wherein the non-metallic brakes are carbon brakes.”);” the vehicle auxiliary braking system further comprising a control unit comprising processing circuitry configured to: determine a time period for an upcoming vehicle braking operation to be initiated at a brake start position at future point in time”( 339B2 Claim 8: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor device is configured to determine said expected value of kinetic energy based on one or more of the following parameters: an expected time duration of the upcoming brake event, an expected distance that will be travelled by the vehicle during the upcoming brake event, a grade of the road segment at which the upcoming brake event is expected to occur, the current vehicle speed.”);” control the brake pads to engage with the rotatable carbon brake disc at the brake start position in response to the time period exceeding a predetermined threshold time period and control another braking system of the vehicle during the vehicle braking operation in response to the time period being below the predetermined threshold time period.”( 339B2 Claim 1: “a processor device which is configured to: acquire prediction data indicative of an upcoming brake event that is expected to occur along a road on which the vehicle is travelling, determine, based on the prediction data, an expected value of kinetic energy that will be absorbed during said upcoming brake event, select, based on said determined expected value of kinetic energy, which one of the first and second sets of brakes that is to be activated to absorb kinetic energy during said upcoming brake event, and control the selected set of brakes to be activated during said brake event, wherein the other set of brakes remains inactivated during said brake event.” + 339B2 Claim 4: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor device is configured to compare said determined expected value of kinetic energy with a predetermined energy threshold value, wherein upon determination by the processor device that said determined expected value is higher than the predetermined energy threshold value, then the processor device selects the second set of brakes, and upon determination by the processor device that said determined expected value is lower than the predetermined energy threshold value then the processor device selects the first set of brakes.” Which in light of claims 2 and 8 teaches that the second set is carbon brakes and that the energy is a function of duration thus implicitly for a given energy threshold there is a corresponding duration threshold);”
Regarding Application Claim 2: “The vehicle auxiliary braking system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a brake end position at which the upcoming vehicle braking operation will end; and control the brake pads to engage with the rotatable carbon brake disc for the entire duration of the vehicle braking operation from the brake start position to the brake end position.” (339B2 : “, based on said determined expected value of kinetic energy, which one of the first and second sets of brakes that is to be activated to absorb kinetic energy during said upcoming brake event, and control the selected set of brakes to be activated during said brake event, wherein the other set of brakes remains inactivated during said brake event.” Here teaches that one of the brakes (first or second) are activated during the event; thus as only one brake is activated during the braking event naturally the brake is engaged during the whole event as otherwise the “Braking event’ would not be a “braking event” if there is no braking occurring, and logically to end a braking event there is no more braking, thus the brakes are disengaged at the end of the event/position)
Application Claim 3, 339B2 claims “The vehicle auxiliary braking system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:control the brake pads to release from the rotatable brake disc at the brake end position.”(339B2 claim 1: “, based on said determined expected value of kinetic energy, which one of the first and second sets of brakes that is to be activated to absorb kinetic energy during said upcoming brake event, and control the selected set of brakes to be activated during said brake event, wherein the other set of brakes remains inactivated during said brake event.” Naturally at the end of a braking event the brakes are disengaged + from 339B2 claim 8 it is known that the total braking distance (i.e. start and end points) is known in advanced)
Application Claim 4, 339B2 claims “The vehicle auxiliary braking system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a vehicle weight, wherein the predetermined threshold time period is adjusted in response to the vehicle weight.( 339B2 claim 8: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor device is configured to determine said expected value of kinetic energy based on one or more of the following parameters: an expected time duration of the upcoming brake event, an expected distance that will be travelled by the vehicle during the upcoming brake event, a grade of the road segment at which the upcoming brake event is expected to occur, the current vehicle speed.” + 339B2 claim 4 which teaches the thresholding based on kinetic energy; thus as for a given amount of kinetic energy as the weight of the corresponding vehicle is increased the how quickly (time threshold) needed to reach that kinetic energy is reduced per unit of speed dissipated; thus a corresponding time threshold is decreased as vehicle weight increases and increased as weight decreases for a set amount of kinetic energy )
Application Claim 5, 339B2 claims “The vehicle auxiliary braking system of claim 4, wherein the predetermined threshold time period is reduced in response to an increased vehicle weight compared to a nominal vehicle weight, and increased in response to a lower vehicle weight compared to the nominal vehicle weight.”( 339B2 claim 8: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor device is configured to determine said expected value of kinetic energy based on one or more of the following parameters: an expected time duration of the upcoming brake event, an expected distance that will be travelled by the vehicle during the upcoming brake event, a grade of the road segment at which the upcoming brake event is expected to occur, the current vehicle speed.” + 339B2 claim 4 which teaches the thresholding based on kinetic energy; thus as the expended kinetic energy is based on speed and duration and a given vehicle speed rises the corresponding needed duration to reach a given kinetic threshold would lower and vice versa;
From “kinetic energy” one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is dependent on the weight of the vehicle (i.e. e.kinetic = ½ m * v.squared = ½ w/g * v.squared) thus as for a given kinetic energy threshold as the weight of the vehicle increases the amount of energy required for braking increases thus by natural extension the time one would expect the time to reach the energy threshold (energy threshold based on expected time duration is known from 339 claim 8) would decrease as weight increases and increase as weight decreases )
Application Claim 6, 339B2 claims “The vehicle auxiliary braking system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a vehicle speed at the brake start position, wherein the predetermined threshold time period is adjusted in response to the vehicle speed at the brake start position.”(339B2 claim 8: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor device is configured to determine said expected value of kinetic energy based on one or more of the following parameters: an expected time duration of the upcoming brake event, an expected distance that will be travelled by the vehicle during the upcoming brake event, a grade of the road segment at which the upcoming brake event is expected to occur, the current vehicle speed.” + 339B2 claim 4 which teaches the thresholding based on kinetic energy; thus as the expended kinetic energy is based on speed and duration and a given vehicle speed rises the corresponding needed duration to reach a given kinetic threshold would lower and vice versa;)
Application Claim 7, 339B2 claims “The vehicle auxiliary braking system of claim 6, wherein the predetermined threshold time period is increased for an increased vehicle speed compared to a nominal vehicle speed, and reduced for a reduced vehicle speed compared to the nominal vehicle speed.”( (339B2 claim 8: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor device is configured to determine said expected value of kinetic energy based on one or more of the following parameters: an expected time duration of the upcoming brake event, an expected distance that will be travelled by the vehicle during the upcoming brake event, a grade of the road segment at which the upcoming brake event is expected to occur, the current vehicle speed.” + 339B2 claim 4 which teaches the thresholding based on kinetic energy; thus as the expended kinetic energy is based on speed squared and duration and a given vehicle speed rises the corresponding needed duration to reach a given kinetic threshold would lower and vice versa;)
Regarding Application claims 7-10, 339B2 claim 1 recites: “a processor device which is configured to: acquire prediction data indicative of an upcoming brake event that is expected to occur along a road on which the vehicle is travelling” which “prediction data” when read in light of 339B2’s specification is/includes Column 9, lines 16-35, “The processor device 20 is configured to acquire prediction data indicative of an upcoming brake event that is expected to occur along a road on which the vehicle is travelling. FIG. 2 illustrates two different examples of how the processor device 20 may acquire said prediction data. In one example, the prediction data may be received wirelessly from a remote server 22, e.g. via telematics communication 24 between the vehicle and the remote server 22. The vehicle may share its geographic position (e.g. using a local GIS module 26 on the vehicle) to the remote server 22, which in turn may respond with topographic data including upcoming variations in altitude, grades, etc. of the upcoming road segment. Said prediction data may also include historical numbers, such as actual brake power/energy applied by the vehicle during previous brake events on the same road. Another example, is that the local GIS module 26 of the vehicle itself may have such prediction data (e.g. including topographic and/or historical data) available and may provide it to the processor device 20” thus the obtaining of prediction data is known to include/be based on sensor data in particular GPS (column 9, lines 43-45 teaches that “GIS” is/can be GPS); it should be noted that while the specification is used in this double patenting rejection; it is only relied on to provide a definition/meaning to “prediction data”, the claim 1 itself render obvious the corresponding sensors; as in order to “obtain” data by a processor it must be first sensed/determined in some fashion; read in light of the applicant’s specification this data is known to be/include GPS location data.
Application claim 13, 339 B2 recites “A vehicle comprising the vehicle auxiliary braking system of claim 1.”(339B2 claim 1: “A heavy-duty vehicle, comprising: a first set of brakes, a second set of brakes, wherein the brakes of the first set are metallic brakes, w…”)
Application Claims 17 and 19, 339B2 recites “A computer implemented method of controlling a vehicle auxiliary braking system, the computer implemented method comprising: receiving, by a processing circuitry of a computer system, data indicative of a time period for an upcoming vehicle braking operation to be initiated at a brake start position at future point in time; “(339B2 claim 1: “A heavy-duty vehicle, comprising: a first set of brakes, a second set of brakes, wherein the brakes of the first set are metallic brakes, wherein the brakes of the second set are non-metallic brakes, wherein each non-metallic brake of the second set has a lower weight than each metallic brake of the first set, a processor device which is configured to: acquire prediction data indicative of an upcoming brake event that is expected to occur along a road on which the vehicle is travelling, determine, based on the prediction data,..”)”and “controlling, by the processing circuitry, brake pads of a carbon brake arrangement to engage with the rotatable carbon brake disc of the carbon brake arrangement”(339B2 claim 2: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the metallic brakes are steel brakes, wherein the non-metallic brakes are carbon brakes.”);” at the brake start position in response to the time period exceeding a predetermined threshold time period.”(339 B2 claims 4 “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor device is configured to compare said determined expected value of kinetic energy with a predetermined energy threshold value, wherein upon determination by the processor device that said determined expected value is higher than the predetermined energy threshold value, then the processor device selects the second set of brakes, and upon determination by the processor device that said determined expected value is lower than the predetermined energy threshold value then the processor device selects the first set of brakes.” + claim 8: “The heavy-duty vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor device is configured to determine said expected value of kinetic energy based on one or more of the following parameters: an expected time duration of the upcoming brake event, an expected distance that will be travelled by the vehicle during
the upcoming brake event, a grade of the road segment at which the upcoming brake event is expected to occur, the current vehicle speed.”)
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12384339 (US 12384339 B2) in view of “Electromechanical Brake Realizing Emergency Braking Function Using Pneumatic Pressure”, Cheol et al, KR 102082378 B1.
Regarding Claim 12, 339B2 does not claim“The vehicle auxiliary braking system of claim 1, wherein the rotatable carbon brake disc is connectable to a propeller shaft of the vehicle.”
Cheol et al teaches a vehicle brake which comprising a rotatable braking disc which is conntected to the propellor shaft of the vehicle ([0014] “The brake disc 11 can be connected to the drive shaft 12 of the vehicle. A pair of brake pads 13 may be installed on the calipers 14 so as to face both sides of the brake disc 11. The brake pad 13 is installed to be able to move linearly to be in close contact with the brake disc 11, and when the brake pad 13 is in close contact with the brake disc 11, braking is made and spaced apart from the brake disc 11 In this case, normal driving of the vehicle becomes possible.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify 339B2 to implement the rotating disc brake by coupling it to brake the propellor shaft (drive shaft) as taught by Cheol. One would be motivated to implemented the drive shaft coupled friction brake in order to reduce the amount of components (e.g. brake calipers and pads) needed to brake the vehicle compared to separate braking disc systems for each axle and/or wheel of the vehicle. Cheol teaches the benefit in ([0003] …The first method has the disadvantage of diluting the advantages of the break-by-wire technology due to the increase in weight and volume, installation problems, etc. by the addition of the existing hydraulic braking system. In the second method, since two braking devices must be provided, two calipers are required, and braking is impossible when the vehicle is powered off.” – [0005] “The problem to be solved by the present invention is to solve the above problems and to provide an electromechanical brake capable of ensuring emergency braking using pneumatic pressure when a failure of the electromechanical brake occurs.”)
Claim 14-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12384339 (US 12384339 B2) in view of . US 20180334038 A1, Zhao et al.
Regarding Application Claim 14, 339B2 while containing claims which render obvious claim 13 as noted above, it does not claim “further comprising an electric traction motor, the electric traction motor being configured to apply a traction force to at least one wheel of the vehicle during propulsion and to generate electric power during braking.”
Zhao et al teaches a braking control system for electric vehicle which includes “an electric traction motor, the electric traction motor being configured to apply a traction force to at least one wheel of the vehicle during propulsion and to generate electric power during braking.”( ([0041] FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate an algorithm 200 for constructing a vehicle torque profile to be used during an autonomous braking event. The steps of the algorithm will be explained in conjunction with the plots of FIG. 5 and the motor efficiency map of FIG. 6. The algorithm 200 is initiated in response to an autonomous braking event of the vehicle being requested. At operation 202, the controller determines a desired deceleration 250 of the vehicle during the braking event, which in the illustrated embodiment is an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle automatically braking for a stop sign. Of course, other types of braking events are contemplated. At operation 204, the controller determines a desired braking torque profile at the wheels for the desired deceleration 250, and the controller calculates the average of the brake torque profile (brake torque.sub.des.sub._.sub.avg) shown as trace 252. As used herein, braking torque refers to torque at the wheels, i.e., in the wheel domain, whereas regenerative torque refers to torque at the M/G, i.e., the motor domain.
[0042] At operation 206, the controller estimates the PT limit 254, which is at the wheels. As explained above, the PT limit may be based on the state of charge of the battery 20, the regenerative torque limits of the M/G 18, the brake stability limit, and the transmission capacity.) and controls both the friction and regenerative braking during this event to maximize both the regenerative energy that is obtained and ensure safety. Which includes controlling both the regenerative and friction braking ([0032] Along with regenerative braking capabilities, the vehicle 10 is also provided with conventional friction brakes 53 at the wheels which, like the regenerative braking, can be activated autonomously or by depression of a brake pedal. These can be controlled by, for example, a hydraulic brake system. The friction brakes can selectively provide the braking force for the vehicle, depending on the availability of the regenerative braking system. The amount of friction braking can vary. For example, if the state of charge of the battery 20 is relatively high (e.g., above a high threshold), then regenerative braking may be disabled for at least a portion of the braking event in order to prevent overcharging of the battery. Instead, the friction brakes 53 can be activated to slow the vehicle. In certain braking situations, the friction braking can be used to supplement the regenerative braking, or vice versa, to provide an overall brake force necessary to brake the vehicle while also maximizing the amount of regenerative braking.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify 339B2 to include utilizing regenerative braking and the optimized regenerative braking control schema as taught by Zhao for controlling the ACC and braking subsystem. One would be motivated to implement Zhao’s brake control schema to optimize the amount of energy which can be obtained while ensuring satisfactory/safe braking of the vehicle overall. ([[0032]… In certain braking situations, the friction braking can be used to supplement the regenerative braking, or vice versa, to provide an overall brake force necessary to brake the vehicle while also maximizing the amount of regenerative braking.” Here teaches that the system optimizes energy capture while ensuring safety by supplementing (adding friction brake force to reach overall needed/target brake force) the regenerative braking from)
Regarding Claim 15, 339B2 in view of Zhao teaches “The vehicle of claim 14, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:determine a level of electric energy recoverable by the electric traction motor at the upcoming vehicle braking operation; andcontrol the brake pads to engage with the rotatable carbon brake disc at the brake start position in conjunction with braking using the electric traction motor in response to the time period exceeding the predetermined threshold time period.”( [0041] FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate an algorithm 200 for constructing a vehicle torque profile to be used during an autonomous braking event. The steps of the algorithm will be explained in conjunction with the plots of FIG. 5 and the motor efficiency map of FIG. 6. The algorithm 200 is initiated in response to an autonomous braking event of the vehicle being requested. At operation 202, the controller determines a desired deceleration 250 of the vehicle during the braking event, which in the illustrated embodiment is an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle automatically braking for a stop sign. Of course, other types of braking events are contemplated. At operation 204, the controller determines a desired braking torque profile at the wheels for the desired deceleration 250, and the controller calculates the average of the brake torque profile (brake torque.sub.des.sub._.sub.avg) shown as trace 252. As used herein, braking torque refers to torque at the wheels, i.e., in the wheel domain, whereas regenerative torque refers to torque at the M/G, i.e., the motor domain.
[0042] At operation 206, the controller estimates the PT limit 254, which is at the wheels. As explained above, the PT limit may be based on the state of charge of the battery 20, the regenerative torque limits of the M/G 18, the brake stability limit, and the transmission capacity.) and controls both the friction and regenerative braking during this event to maximize both the regenerative energy that is obtained and ensure safety. Which includes controlling both the regenerative and friction braking ([0032] Along with regenerative braking capabilities, the vehicle 10 is also provided with conventional friction brakes 53 at the wheels which, like the regenerative braking, can be activated autonomously or by depression of a brake pedal. These can be controlled by, for example, a hydraulic brake system. The friction brakes can selectively provide the braking force for the vehicle, depending on the availability of the regenerative braking system. The amount of friction braking can vary. For example, if the state of charge of the battery 20 is relatively high (e.g., above a high threshold), then regenerative braking may be disabled for at least a portion of the braking event in order to prevent overcharging of the battery. Instead, the friction brakes 53 can be activated to slow the vehicle. In certain braking situations, the friction braking can be used to supplement the regenerative braking, or vice versa, to provide an overall brake force necessary to brake the vehicle while also maximizing the amount of regenerative braking.))
Regarding Claim 16, 339B2 in view of Zhao teaches “”The vehicle of claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a total brake power level required to maintain a desired vehicle speed during the upcoming vehicle braking operation;”(Zhao [0041] FIGS. 4A and 4B illustrate an algorithm 200 for constructing a vehicle torque profile to be used during an autonomous braking event. The steps of the algorithm will be explained in conjunction with the plots of FIG. 5 and the motor efficiency map of FIG. 6. The algorithm 200 is initiated in response to an autonomous braking event of the vehicle being requested. At operation 202, the controller determines a desired deceleration 250 of the vehicle during the braking event, which in the illustrated embodiment is an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle automatically braking for a stop sign.” In Zhao the vehicle calculates the profile needed for an upcoming deceleration (profile being speed overtime/position) to safely break for a given scenario from Zhao [0039] );” and determine a motor brake power level obtainable by the electric traction motor during the upcoming vehicle braking operation, ”( [0042] At operation 206, the controller estimates the PT limit 254, which is at the wheels. As explained above, the PT limit may be based on the state of charge of the battery 20, the regenerative torque limits of the M/G 18, the brake stability limit, and the transmission capacity.
[0043] At operation 208, the controller determines if the brake torque.sub.des.sub._.sub.avg 252 is greater than the PT limit 254. If yes, this control strategy is exited and another control strategy is used. If no, control passes to operation 210, and the controller converts the brake torque.sub.des.sub._.sub.avg 252 into a motor torque (motor torque.sub.des.sub._.sub.avg) 256. This may be done for each gear ratio of the transmission, or only for gear ratios expected to be used during the braking event. The controller may use equation 1 to convert brake torque to motor torque and vice versa. Said another way, equation 1 converts torque between the motor domain and the wheel domain” Here teaches calculating the PT (power train) limit (regenerative motor breaking force limit) PT as defined in [0036]);” and during the upcoming vehicle braking operation: control the electric traction motor to apply the motor brake power level; and control the brake pads to apply a force on the rotatable carbon brake disc to obtain a brake power of the carbon brake arrangement corresponding to a difference between the total brake power level and the motor brake power level.”( Zhao [0032] Along with regenerative braking capabilities, the vehicle 10 is also provided with conventional friction brakes 53 at the wheels which, like the regenerative braking, can be activated autonomously or by depression of a brake pedal. These can be controlled by, for example, a hydraulic brake system. The friction brakes can selectively provide the braking force for the vehicle, depending on the availability of the regenerative braking system. The amount of friction braking can vary. For example, if the state of charge of the battery 20 is relatively high (e.g., above a high threshold), then regenerative braking may be disabled for at least a portion of the braking event in order to prevent overcharging of the battery. Instead, the friction brakes 53 can be activated to slow the vehicle. In certain braking situations, the friction braking can be used to supplement the regenerative braking, or vice versa, to provide an overall brake force necessary to brake the vehicle while also maximizing the amount of regenerative braking.” Here teaches that the friction brake provides the force necessary to supplement the regenerative braking force to reach an overall braking force. ))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights