DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/8/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The claim interpretations are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that applying a calculated torque value to the vehicle’s motor hardware is an improvement in vehicle control and stability. Examiner agrees that this additional element of outputting commands to the motor of a vehicle provides an improvement in the vehicle stability and control by performing wheel slip control.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot. Applicant has not provided further arguments.
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 10-11, 13, and 15 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 10, this claim recites “a safe mode”. It is unclear if “a safe mode” in claim 10 refers to “a safe mode” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitations of “a safe mode”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a safe mode” in claim 10 to mean any safe mode.
Regarding claims 11, 13, and 15, these claims depend from claim 10 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 10 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10 noted above.
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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US 20100312447 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Lee (US 20210394727 A1, cited in a previous office action), Books (US 20200207329 A1, cited in a previous office action) and Yao (US 10723229 B1).
Claim 1
Perkins teaches:
An apparatus for controlling vehicle regenerative torque, the apparatus comprising (Perkins - Abstract, Paragraphs 0019-0022)
obtain vehicle state information including a speed and a weight of a vehicle (Perkins - Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022)
and navigation information including weather condition information (Perkins - Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022)
receive a variable maximum torque map determined based on the vehicle state information and the weather condition information (Perkins - Paragraphs 0020-0022) “The traction condition inputs 204 may include… precipitation detected by rain sensors, barometric pressure, ambient air temperature, road temperature and reflectivity, ambient humidity, visibility and/or broadcasted road and weather data”
and output a torque command to a motor of the vehicle within a range of a maximum allowable torque value of the variable maximum torque map (Perkins - Paragraphs 0015, 0019-0021) “the vehicle controller 202 determines the optimal regenerative brake torque… The vehicle controller 202 then variably engages the driveline longitudinal torque distribution device 210”
Perkins does not teach:
A processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium. Entering a basic mode and a safe mode.
However, Lee teaches:
a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Lee - Paragraphs 0071-0073 “The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method”)
enter a basic mode while the vehicle travels (Lee - Abstract, Paragraphs 0033, 0042-0043) Basic mode is mapped to distribution of regenerative braking torque to front and rear wheels based on a map
perform a basic mode control logic (Lee - Abstract, Paragraphs 0033, 0042-0043)
And based on the safe mode entry condition being satisfied, enter a safe mode (Lee - Abstract, Paragraphs 0054-0061) Safe mode is mapped to further reduction of the rear-wheel regenerative braking torque due to wheel slip
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a processor and memory, and entering a basic mode and a safe mode of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a basic mode controller can be used for typical regenerative braking situations, while a safe mode controller can be used to further reduce regenerative braking torque when the wheel slips. This provides enhanced traction and reduces uncomfortable brake feelings. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Lee as this improves safety and comfortability. As stated in Lee, “a regenerative brake map may be updated in consideration of an intervention to control a reduction in rear-wheel regenerative braking torque or an intervention frequency by monitoring whether a rear wheel slips or not in real time, thus further minimizing different braking feelings according to a braking situation” (Paragraph 0017).
Perkins does not teach:
determine whether a safe mode entry conditions is satisfied based on a number of times low-friction control is performed.
However, Books teaches:
determine whether a safe mode entry conditions is satisfied based on a number of times low-friction control is performed (Books - Abstract, Paragraph 0006, 0015-0017) “incrementally derating a torque applied by a drivetrain in response a number of traction control events detected by a traction control system over a predetermined time period”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with determining whether safe mode entry conditions is satisfied based on a number of times low-friction control is performed of Books with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that on slippery road, a vehicle is like to experience multiple traction control events over a short period of time. To avoid these events, the braking torque can be reduced. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Books as this improves vehicle traction. As stated in Books, “Since the amount of negative torque that is applied is predetermined and typically based on dry road conditions and other factors, poor traction road conditions are likely to produce multiple traction control events because the same amount of negative torque is re-applied to the powertrain each time the braking event occurs, regardless of any history of traction loss. Therefore, further technological developments are desirable in this area” (Paragraph 0005).
Perkins does not teach:
A limited maximum allowable torque based on the weather condition, and outputting the limited maximum allowable torque to a motor.
However, Yao teaches:
receive a limited maximum allowable torque value determined based on the weather condition information (Yao - Col. 7 Line 16 – Col. 7 Line 24, Col. 11 Line 30 – Col. 12 Line 33) “the coefficient of friction between the vehicle wheels and the road surface, μ, and the slip ratio of the vehicle, λ, under various road surfaces/conditions (e.g., dry concrete, wet asphalt, compacted snow, and freezing/icy roads)”
and output a torque command to the motor within a range of the limited maximum allowable torque value (Yao - Col. 7 Line 16 – Col. 7 Line 24, Col. 11 Line 30 – Col. 12 Line 33) “the anti-locking regenerative braking controller 402 will limit regenerative braking of the electric machine to the torque limits and the ABS slip control loop”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with determining a limited maximum allowable regenerative torque and outputting it to a motor of Yao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Perkins and Yao both describe controlling the torque for regenerative brakes. One would have been motivated to combine as this increases stability of the vehicle and reduces braking distance, while still providing regenerative braking (Yao – Col. 11 Line 64 – Col. 12 Line 18).
Claim 16
Perkins teaches:
A method of controlling vehicle regenerative torque, the method comprising (Perkins - Abstract, Paragraphs 0019-0022)
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, Lee, Books, and Yao, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Vijaya (US 20230347752 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 2
Perkins teaches:
vehicle input information (Paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0020, 0022);
and wheel slippage information (Paragraphs 0015, 0017).
Perkins does not teach:
obtain surrounding object sensing information including speed information of a front vehicle.
However, Vijaya teaches:
obtain surrounding object sensing information including speed information of a front vehicle (Paragraphs 0043-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with obtaining a speed of a front vehicle of Vijaya with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an electric vehicle can apply regenerative braking based on the speed of the front vehicle. When the front vehicle is slowing down, the electric vehicle can apply more regenerative braking to follow the front vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Vijaya as this improves regenerative braking efficiency and user experience. As stated in Vijaya, “the disclosed one pedal driving system enhances regenerative braking efficiency by intelligently applying regenerative braking in response to receiving an active zone notification and determining that a driver has removed his or her foot from an accelerator pedal. Improving regenerative braking efficiency may enhance a user's overall driving experience and improve overall customer satisfaction” (Paragraph 0053).
Claim 17
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 2. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 3-4 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, Lee, Books, Yao, and Vijaya, as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Crombez (US 6687593 B1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 3
Perkins teaches:
perform deceleration control when a deceleration condition is satisfied (Paragraph 0015, 0019-0021; Deceleration condition is mapped to driver inputs such as braking);
based on a maximum allowable torque value of the received variable maximum torque map (Paragraphs 0019-0021).
Perkins does not teach:
A processor
However, Lee teaches:
the instructions further cause the processor to (Lee - Paragraphs 0071-0073) “The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a processor of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a controller can be used for typical regenerative braking situations to prevent wheel slip. One would have been motivated to combine as this provides the circuitry necessary to control regenerative braking torque (Lee – Paragraphs 0071-0072).
Perkins does not teach:
to perform low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs.
However, Crombez teaches:
to perform low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs (Crombez - Col. 3 Line 53 – Col. 4 Line 61, Fig. 21; Wheel slippage is mapped to ABS event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with performing low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs of Crombez with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that during an antilock braking event, the maximum allowable regenerative braking torque value needs to decrease so the wheels do not lock. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Crombez as this improves energy regeneration while providing greater vehicle traction during deceleration. As stated in Crombez, “This is normally a greatly reduced brake torque which is intended to allow controller 200 full authority to quickly modulate braking torque on the individual wheels prevent the road wheels which are subject to regenerative braking from locking up so as to thereby trigger an unwanted ABS event as a result of the regenerative braking” (Col. 4 Line 23 – Col 4 Line 61).
Claim 4
Perkins does not teach:
A processor
However, Lee teaches:
the instructions further cause the processor to (Lee - Paragraphs 0071-0073) “The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a processor of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a controller can be used for typical regenerative braking situations to prevent wheel slip. One would have been motivated to combine as this provides the circuitry necessary to control regenerative braking torque (Lee – Paragraphs 0071-0072).
Perkins does not teach:
perform deceleration control when the deceleration condition is satisfied based on the received limited maximum allowable torque value after entering the safe mode; and to perform low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs.
However, Crombez teaches:
perform deceleration control when the deceleration condition is satisfied based on the received limited maximum allowable torque value after entering the safe mode (Col. 3 Line 53 – Col. 4 Line 61, Fig. 2);
and to perform low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs (Col. 3 Line 53 – Col. 4 Line 61, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with performing deceleration control based on the maximum allowable torque value after entering the safe mode, and performing low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs of Crombez with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that wheel slippage reduces braking force. During an antilock braking event, the maximum allowable regenerative braking torque value needs to decrease so the wheels do not lock. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Crombez as this improves energy regeneration while providing greater vehicle traction during deceleration. As stated in Crombez, “This is normally a greatly reduced brake torque which is intended to allow controller 200 full authority to quickly modulate braking torque on the individual wheels prevent the road wheels which are subject to regenerative braking from locking up so as to thereby trigger an unwanted ABS event as a result of the regenerative braking” (Col. 4 Line 23 – Col 4 Line 61).
Claims 18-19
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 3-4. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, Lee, Crombez, Books, Yao, Vijaya, and Crombez, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Okuda (US 20210291868 A1, cited in a previous office action) and Toyoda (US 20230286390 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 5
Perkins teaches:
obtain the speed and the weight of the vehicle corresponding to vehicle state information using at least one of acceleration information, yaw information, accelerator position information, motor torque information, vehicle speed information, wheel speed information, and wheel slippage information (Perkins - Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022)
and weather condition information included in the navigation information (Perkins - Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022)
Perkins does not teach:
A processor
However, Lee teaches:
the instructions further cause the processor to (Lee - Paragraphs 0071-0073) “The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a processor of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a controller can be used for typical regenerative braking situations to prevent wheel slip. One would have been motivated to combine as this provides the circuitry necessary to control regenerative braking torque (Lee – Paragraphs 0071-0072).
Perkins does not teach:
Obtaining a speed camera position, relative speed and relative distance to the front vehicle, and a regenerative braking automatic mode input.
However, Okuda teaches:
obtain speed camera position information (Okuda - Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0067)
obtain the surrounding object sensing information including speed and relative distance information of the front vehicle included in the surrounding object sensing information, and relative speed information (Okuda - Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0067)
and obtain vehicle input information including a regenerative braking automatic mode operation signal (Okuda - Paragraphs 0044-0046, 0052-0053) Automatic mode is mapped to automatically maintaining vehicle speed
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with information acquisition portions including a speed camera, obtaining speed and relative distance to a front vehicle, and input information of a regenerative braking automatic mode operation signal of Okuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a camera can be used to capture speed and distance information from a preceding vehicle. Autonomous driving based on the speed and distance from the preceding vehicle can be performed to improve safety. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Okuda as this achieves improved vehicle safety. As stated in Okuda, “the target speed may be automatically set to safely cause the own vehicle to travel against obstacles (for example, a preceding vehicle or a stop line) in front of the vehicle obtained via the outside world recognition unit 120. Specifically, when the obstacle is a preceding vehicle, the inter-vehicle distance capable of avoiding a collision with the preceding vehicle” (Paragraph 0045).
Perkins does not teach:
a paddle shift operation signal.
However, Toyoda teaches:
a paddle shift operation signal (Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a paddle shift operation signal of Toyoda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that paddle switches enable a driver to increase or decrease the regenerative braking torque. This allows the driver to customize the driving experience to his preference. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Toyoda as this achieves improved driving experience. As stated in Toyoda, “the regenerative braking force increases or decreases in accordance with the shift position set by the shift lever 110 or the paddle switch 120, and in the second regenerative control mode, the vehicle gradually decelerates by the regenerative braking force until the vehicle stops. Accordingly, deceleration according to a driver's preference is enabled” (Paragraph 0067).
Claims 6-9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, Lee, Books, Yao, Vijaya, Crombez, Okuda, and Toyoda, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ortmann (US 20220212542 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 6
Perkins teaches:
receive vehicle state information including the vehicle speed and the vehicle weight obtained by the information acquisition portion (Perkins - Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022)
and weather condition information including rain information or snow information (Perkins - Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022)
to determine a second variable maximum torque map when rain falls (Perkins - Paragraphs 0019-0023)
to receive the variable maximum torque map determined based on current weather conditions (Perkins - Paragraphs 0019-0021)
to operate a deceleration control logic within a maximum allowable torque value range of the received variable maximum torque map (Perkins - Paragraph 0015, 0021)
Perkins does not teach:
A processor
However, Lee teaches:
the instructions further cause the processor to (Lee - Paragraphs 0071-0073) “The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a processor of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a controller can be used for typical regenerative braking situations to prevent wheel slip. One would have been motivated to combine as this provides the circuitry necessary to control regenerative braking torque (Lee – Paragraphs 0071-0072).
Perkins does not teach:
Determining a first variable maximum torque map when no snow and no rain falls; determining a third variable maximum torque map when snow falls.
However, Ortmann teaches:
determine a first variable maximum torque map when neither snow nor rain falls (Ortmann - Paragraph 0005, 0024-0026, 0042)
and to determine a third variable maximum torque map when snow falls based on the vehicle state information and weather condition information (Ortmann - Paragraph 0005, 0024-0026, 0040-0042) “if a low coefficient of friction of the road surface is detected, (e.g., from snow or ice), reducing regenerative braking”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with determining a first variable maximum braking torque when no rain and no snow falls, and determining a third variable maximum torque map when snow falls of Ortmann with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that weather conditions include rain, snow, no rain, or no snow. When there is snow and/or rain, the coefficient of friction of the road decreases compared to dry road. It is necessary to calculate the maximum allowable braking torque so the wheels do not slip. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Ortmann as this achieves a more controllable and stable vehicle. As stated in Ortmann, “if a low coefficient of friction of the road surface is detected, (e.g., from snow or ice), reducing regenerative braking may provide a more controllable and stable vehicle” (Paragraph 0042).
Perkins does not teach:
enter a basic mode when a regenerative braking automatic mode is selected.
However, Okuda teaches:
enter a basic mode when a regenerative braking automatic mode is selected (Okuda - Paragraphs 0044-0046, 0052-0053)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with entering a basic mode when a regenerative braking automatic mode is selected of Okuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that autonomous driving based on the speed and distance from the preceding vehicle can be performed to improve safety. The speed and distance of the ego vehicle is maintained by controlling the regenerative braking torque amounts. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Okuda as this achieves improved vehicle safety. As stated in Okuda, “the target speed may be automatically set to safely cause the own vehicle to travel against obstacles (for example, a preceding vehicle or a stop line) in front of the vehicle obtained via the outside world recognition unit 120. Specifically, when the obstacle is a preceding vehicle, the inter-vehicle distance capable of avoiding a collision with the preceding vehicle” (Paragraph 0045).
Perkins does not teach:
to operate a low-friction control logic portion when wheel slippage occurs.
However, Crombez teaches:
to operate a low-friction control logic portion when wheel slippage occurs (Col. 3 Line 53 – Col. 4 Line 61, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with performing low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs of Crombez with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that during an antilock braking event, the maximum allowable regenerative braking torque value needs to decrease so the wheels do not lock. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Crombez as this improves energy regeneration while providing greater vehicle traction during deceleration. As stated in Crombez, “This is normally a greatly reduced brake torque which is intended to allow controller 200 full authority to quickly modulate braking torque on the individual wheels prevent the road wheels which are subject to regenerative braking from locking up so as to thereby trigger an unwanted ABS event as a result of the regenerative braking” (Col. 4 Line 23 – Col 4 Line 61).
Claim 7
Perkins teaches:
according to the speed and the weight of the vehicle based on the vehicle state information (Perkins - Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022)
Perkins does not teach:
A processor
However, Lee teaches:
the instructions further cause the processor to (Lee - Paragraphs 0071-0073) “The memory stores algorithm steps, and the processor executes the algorithm steps to perform one or more processes of a method”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a processor of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a controller can be used for typical regenerative braking situations to prevent wheel slip. One would have been motivated to combine as this provides the circuitry necessary to control regenerative braking torque (Lee – Paragraphs 0071-0072).
Perkins does not teach:
determine the first variable maximum torque map when no rain or no snow falls; determine the second variable maximum torque map lower than the first variable maximum torque map, when rain falls; determine the third variable maximum torque map lower than the second variable maximum torque map, when snow falls.
However, Ortmann teaches:
determine the first variable maximum torque map using a reference maximum allowable torque value having an increased maximum allowable torque value based on weather condition information when no rain or snow falls (Ortmann - Paragraph 0005, 0024-0026, 0042)
determine the second variable maximum torque map having a maximum allowable torque value lower than the first variable maximum torque map based on the vehicle state information and weather condition information when rain falls (Ortmann - Paragraph 0005, 0024-0026, 0042) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when rain falls, the road surface coefficient friction decreases, resulting in a lower maximum allowable torque value
and determine the third variable maximum torque map having a maximum allowable torque value lower than the second variable maximum torque map based on the vehicle state information and weather condition information during snowfall (Ortmann - Paragraph 0042) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the road surface friction coefficient is less during snow than during rain, resulting in a lower maximum allowable torque value
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with determining a variable maximum braking torque when no rain or snow falls, when rain falls, and when snow falls, of Ortmann with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that weather conditions include rain, snow, no rain, or no snow. When there is snow and/or rain, the coefficient of friction of the road decreases compared to dry road. It is necessary to calculate the maximum allowable braking torque so the wheels do not slip. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Ortmann as this achieves a more controllable and stable vehicle. As stated in Ortmann, “if a low coefficient of friction of the road surface is detected, (e.g., from snow or ice), reducing regenerative braking may provide a more controllable and stable vehicle” (Paragraph 0042).
Claim 8
Perkins teaches:
the first variable maximum torque map includes a maximum allowable torque value increasing as the vehicle weight included in the vehicle state information increases using the reference maximum allowable torque value (Paragraphs 0029-0030, Fig. 6; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that as vehicle weight on a wheel is increased, the traction increases, resulting in a higher maximum allowable torque value);
and includes a maximum allowable torque value increasing as the vehicle speed included in the vehicle state information decreases (Paragraphs 0020-0022; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that as the rotational speed of the wheels decreases, the traction increases, therefore the maximum allowable torque value increases).
Claim 9
Perkins does not teach:
the second variable maximum torque map includes a maximum allowable torque value obtained by reducing a maximum allowable torque value of the first variable maximum torque map by a first ratio based on the weather condition information when rain falls; and wherein the third variable maximum torque map includes a maximum allowable torque value obtained by reducing the maximum allowable torque value of the first variable maximum torque map by a second ratio during snowfall, and the second ratio is smaller than the first ratio.
However, Ortmann teaches the second variable maximum torque map includes a maximum allowable torque value obtained by reducing a maximum allowable torque value of the first variable maximum torque map by a first ratio based on the weather condition information when rain falls (Paragraph 0005, 0024-0026, 0042);
and wherein the third variable maximum torque map includes a maximum allowable torque value obtained by reducing the maximum allowable torque value of the first variable maximum torque map by a second ratio during snowfall, and the second ratio is smaller than the first ratio (Paragraph 0005, 0024-0026, 0042; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the road surface friction coefficient is less during snow than during rain, resulting in a lower maximum allowable torque value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with determining a variable maximum braking torque when rain falls, and when snow falls, of Ortmann with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that weather conditions include rain, snow, no rain, or no snow. When there is snow and/or rain, the coefficient of friction of the road decreases compared to dry road. It is necessary to calculate the maximum allowable braking torque so the wheels do not slip. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Ortmann as this achieves a more controllable and stable vehicle. As stated in Ortmann, “if a low coefficient of friction of the road surface is detected, (e.g., from snow or ice), reducing regenerative braking may provide a more controllable and stable vehicle” (Paragraph 0042).
Claim 12
Perkins teaches:
the deceleration control logic includes: determining whether a road on which the vehicle travels satisfies the deceleration condition based on information obtained by the information acquisition portion (Perkins - Paragraph 0015, 0019-0021)
and controlling deceleration torque corresponding to the deceleration condition within a range of the maximum allowable torque value during the deceleration condition by performing the deceleration control logic when one of the deceleration conditions is satisfied in the deceleration condition determination portion (Perkins - Paragraph 0015, 0021)
Perkins does not teach:
in the regenerative braking automatic mode.
However, Okuda teaches:
in the regenerative braking automatic mode (Paragraphs 0044-0046, 0052-0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a regenerative braking automatic mode is selected of Okuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that autonomous driving based on the speed and distance from the preceding vehicle can be performed to improve safety. The speed and distance of the ego vehicle is maintained by controlling the regenerative braking torque amounts. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Okuda as this achieves improved vehicle safety. As stated in Okuda, “the target speed may be automatically set to safely cause the own vehicle to travel against obstacles (for example, a preceding vehicle or a stop line) in front of the vehicle obtained via the outside world recognition unit 120. Specifically, when the obstacle is a preceding vehicle, the inter-vehicle distance capable of avoiding a collision with the preceding vehicle” (Paragraph 0045).
Claim 14
Perkins does not teach:
Determining a low-friction condition based on wheel slippage information; feedback controlling, when the low-friction condition is satisfied, a low-friction torque of the wheels.
However, Crombez teaches:
the low-friction control logic includes: determining whether a road on which the vehicle travels satisfies a low-friction condition based on the wheel slippage information (Crombez - Col. 1 Line 47 – Col. 1 Line 63, Col. 4 Line 23 – Col. 4 Line 61, Fig. 2);
and feedback-controlling, when the low-friction condition is satisfied, a low-friction torque such that a current wheel slippage value becomes a wheel slippage target value or lower during the corresponding low-friction condition by performing the low-friction control logic (Col. 3 Line 53 – Col. 4 Line 61, Fig. 2; Low-friction torque controller is mapped to controller 200; Wheel slippage target value is mapped to wheel lock during ABS event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a low-friction condition determination and controlling a low-friction torque such that the wheel slippage is a target value or lower of Crombez with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that wheel slippage reduces braking force. During an antilock braking event, the maximum allowable regenerative braking torque value needs to decrease so the wheels do not lock. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Crombez as this improves energy regeneration while providing greater vehicle traction during deceleration. As stated in Crombez, “This is normally a greatly reduced brake torque which is intended to allow controller 200 full authority to quickly modulate braking torque on the individual wheels prevent the road wheels which are subject to regenerative braking from locking up so as to thereby trigger an unwanted ABS event as a result of the regenerative braking” (Col. 4 Line 23 – Col 4 Line 61).
Perkins does not teach:
in the regenerative braking automatic mode.
However, Okuda teaches:
in the regenerative braking automatic mode (Paragraphs 0044-0046, 0052-0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Perkins with a regenerative braking automatic mode is selected of Okuda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that autonomous driving based on the speed and distance from the preceding vehicle can be performed to improve safety. The speed and distance of the ego vehicle is maintained by controlling the regenerative braking torque amounts. One would have been motivated to combine Perkins with Okuda as this achieves improved vehicle safety. As stated in Okuda, “the target speed may be automatically set to safely cause the own vehicle to travel against obstacles (for example, a preceding vehicle or a stop line) in front of the vehicle obtained via the outside world recognition unit 120. Specifically, when the obstacle is a preceding vehicle, the inter-vehicle distance capable of avoiding a collision with the preceding vehicle” (Paragraph 0045).
Claims 20, 22-24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, Lee, Books, Yao, Vijaya, and Crombez, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Ortmann (US 20220212542 A1, cited in a previous office action) and Okuda (US 20210291868 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 20
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 6. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 22-24
all of the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 7-9. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 26 and 28
all of the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 12 and 14. Please see the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21, 25, 27, and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 recites (emphasis added):
“The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions cause the processor to: enter the safe mode when the safe mode entry condition is satisfied, and receive weather condition information including rain information or snow information determine a first limited maximum allowable torque value when neither snow nor rain falls, determine a second limited maximum allowable torque value when rain falls, and determine a third limited maximum allowable torque value when snow falls based on the weather condition information; and enter a safe mode when a regenerative braking automatic mode is selected, receive a limited maximum allowable torque value determined under current weather condition, operate the deceleration control logic under the deceleration condition, and perform a low-friction control logic when wheel slippage occurs within a range of the received limited maximum allowable torque value”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Perkins (US 20100312447 A1) discloses determining a maximum allowable torque value when rain falls (Paragraphs 0019-0023).
Perkins, however, does not specifically state the maximum allowable torque value is based on the safe mode.
Kim (KR 20220042544 A) teaches setting the regenerative braking to a minimum or medium amount based on outside conditions including rainfall (Page 7 Paragraph 2).
Kim, however, does not specifically state a maximum regenerative torque during an ABS event (safe mode).
These differences between the subject matter of claim 10 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 10 recites allowable subject matter.
Claim 21 recites allowable subject matter because this claim recites similar allowable subject found in claim 10.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 25, 27, and 29 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from one of claims 10 and 21.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights