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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, 2, 5: “information acquisition portion”;
Claim 5: “a second information acquisition portion”;
Claim 5: “a third information acquisition portion”;
Claim 5: “a fourth information acquisition portion”;
Claim 6: “a first information input portion”;
Claim 6, 7: “a first maximum allowable torque determination portion”;
Claim 10: “a safe mode entry determination portion”;
Claim 10: “a second information input portion”;
Claim 10, 11: “a second maximum allowable torque determination portion”;
Claim 12: “a deceleration condition determination portion”;
Claim 14, 15: “a low-friction condition determination portion”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
“information acquisition portion” in specification [0064-0065].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 5-29 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 claims 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15, claim limitations: “a second information acquisition portion”, “a third information acquisition portion”, “a fourth information acquisition portion”, “a first information input portion”, “a first maximum allowable torque determination portion”, “a safe mode entry determination portion”, “a second information input portion”, “a second maximum allowable torque determination portion”, “a deceleration condition determination portion”, and “a low-friction condition determination portion” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of any description of structure of what these portions are physically made of. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 5, this claim recites “a speed and a weight of a vehicle”. It is unclear if “a speed and a weight of a vehicle” in claim 5 refers to “a speed and a weight of a vehicle” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a speed and a weight of a vehicle”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a speed and a weight of a vehicle” in claim 5 to mean a speed and a weight of any vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, this claim recites “a front vehicle”. It is unclear if “a front vehicle” in claim 5 refers to “a front vehicle” in claim 2 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a front vehicle”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a front vehicle” in claim 5 to mean any front vehicle.
Regarding claims 6-15, these claims depend from claim 5 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 5 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 5 noted above.
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites “a vehicle speed and a vehicle weight obtained by the information acquisition portion”. It is unclear if “a vehicle speed and a vehicle weight obtained by the information acquisition portion” in claim 6 refers to “a speed and weight of a vehicle” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a vehicle speed and a vehicle weight obtained by the information acquisition portion”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a vehicle speed and a vehicle weight obtained by the information acquisition portion” in claim 6 to mean “the vehicle speed and the vehicle weight obtained by the information acquisition portion”.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, these claim recite “a variable maximum torque map”. It is unclear if “a variable maximum torque map” in claims 6 and 20 refers to “a variable maximum torque map” in claim 1 and 16, or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a variable maximum torque map”, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a variable maximum torque map” in claims 6 and 20 to mean any variable maximum torque map.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, these claims recite “rain fall/no fall” and “snow fall/no fall”. It is unclear what is meant by “rain fall” and “snow fall” as the specification does not define how rain and snow are sensed other than saying a “second sensor portion 42”, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted recitations of “rain fall/no fall” and “snow fall/no fall” to mean general weather conditions including rain or snow on the road.
Regarding claims 7-9, 12, and 14, these claims depend from claim 6 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 6 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 6 noted above.
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites “a speed and a weight of the vehicle”. It is unclear if “a speed and a weight of the vehicle” in claim 7 refers to “a speed and a weight of a vehicle” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a speed and a weight of the vehicle”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a speed and a weight of the vehicle” in claim 7 to mean “the speed and the weight of the vehicle”.
Regarding claims 8-9, these claims depend from claim 7 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 7 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 7 noted above.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites “a vehicle weight” and “a vehicle speed”. It is unclear if these limitations in claim 8 refers to “a speed and a weight of a vehicle” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a vehicle weight” and “a vehicle speed”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a vehicle weight” and “a vehicle speed” in claim 8 to mean “the vehicle weight” and “the vehicle speed”.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, these claims recite “safe mode entry condition”. It is unclear if “safe mode entry condition” in claims 10 and 21 refer to “safe mode entry condition” in claims 1 and 16 or are new separate unclaimed recitations of “safe mode entry condition”, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “safe mode entry condition” in claims 10 and 21 to mean any safe mode entry condition.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, these claims recite “a safe mode”. It is unclear if “a safe mode” in claims 10 and 21 refers to “a safe mode” in claim 1 and 16 or are new separate unclaimed recitations of “a safe mode”, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a safe mode” in claims 10 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites “a maximum allowable torque value”. It is unclear if “a maximum allowable torque value” in claim 12 refers to “a maximum allowable torque value” in claim 3 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a maximum allowable torque value”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a maximum allowable torque value” in claim 12 to mean “any maximum allowable torque value”.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites “a deceleration control logic”. It is unclear if “a deceleration control logic” in claim 12 refers to “a deceleration control logic” in claim 6 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a deceleration control logic”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a deceleration control logic” in claim 12 to mean any deceleration control logic.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites “a deceleration condition”. It is unclear if “a deceleration condition” in claim 13 refers to “a deceleration condition” in claim 10 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a deceleration condition”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a deceleration condition” in claim 13 to mean any deceleration condition.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites “a deceleration control logic”. It is unclear if “a deceleration control logic” in claim 13 refers to “a deceleration control logic” in claim 10 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a deceleration control logic”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a deceleration control logic” in claim 13 to mean any deceleration control logic.
Regarding claims 13-14, these claim recites “determine whether a on which the vehicle travels”. It is unclear what the vehicle travels on as this limitation is missing a word. Therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the vehicle to travel on a road.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites “a low-friction control logic”. It is unclear if “a low-friction control logic” in claim 14 refers to “a low-friction control logic” in claim 6 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a low-friction control logic”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a low-friction control logic” in claim 14 to mean any low-friction control logic.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites “a vehicle” twice. It is unclear if the second recitation refers back to the first recitation, or the second recitation is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a vehicle”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second recitation of “a vehicle” to mean any vehicle.
Regarding claims 17-29, these claims depend from claim 16 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 16 noted above.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites “a safe mode entry condition” and “a safe mode”. It is unclear if these limitations in claim 19 refer to “a safe mode entry condition” and “a safe mode” in claim 16, or are new separate unclaimed recitations, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a safe mode entry condition” and “a safe mode” in claim 19 to mean any safe mode entry condition and any safe mode.
Regarding claims 20-29, these claims depend from claim 19 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 19 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 19 noted above.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites “a basic mode”. It is unclear if “a basic mode” in claim 20 refers to “a basic mode” in claim 16 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a basic mode”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a basic mode” in claim 20 to mean any basic mode.
Regarding claims 21-29, these claims depend from claim 20 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 20 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 20 noted above.
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites “a regenerative braking automatic mode”. It is unclear if “a regenerative braking automatic mode” in claim 21 refers to “a regenerative braking automatic mode” in claim 20 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a regenerative braking automatic mode”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a regenerative braking automatic mode” in claim 21 to mean any regenerative braking automatic mode.
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites “a deceleration control logic” and “a deceleration condition”. It is unclear if “a deceleration control logic” and “a deceleration condition” in claim 21 refers to “a deceleration control logic’ and “a deceleration condition” in claim 20 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a deceleration control logic” and “a deceleration condition” in claim 21 to mean any deceleration control logic and any deceleration condition.
Regarding claims 25, 27, and 29, these claims depend from claim 21 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 21 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 21 noted above.
Regarding claim 22, this claim recites “a speed and a weight of the vehicle”. It is unclear if “a speed and a weight of the vehicle” in claim 22 refers to “a speed and a weight of a vehicle” in claim 16 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a speed and a weight of the vehicle”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a speed and a weight of the vehicle” in claim 22 to mean “the speed and the weight of the vehicle”.
Regarding claims 23-24, these claims depend from claim 22 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 22 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 22 noted above.
Regarding claim 23, this claim recites “a vehicle weight” and “a vehicle speed”. It is unclear if these limitations in claim 23 refers to “a speed and a weight of a vehicle” in claim 16 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a vehicle weight” and “a vehicle speed”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a vehicle weight” and “a vehicle speed” in claim 23 to mean “the vehicle weight” and “the vehicle speed”.
Regarding claim 26, this claim recites “a deceleration condition” three times. It is unclear if the second and third recitations refers back to the first recitation, or the second and third recitations are new separate unclaimed recitations of “a deceleration condition”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second and third recitation of “a deceleration condition” to mean any deceleration conditions.
Regarding claim 26, this claim recites “a range of a maximum allowable torque value”. It is unclear if “a range of a maximum allowable torque value” in claim 26 refers to “a range of a maximum allowable torque value” in claim 20 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a range of a maximum allowable torque value”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a range of a maximum allowable torque value” in claim 26 to mean “any range of any maximum allowable torque value”
Regarding the claims, these claims are replete with 112(b) antecedent basis issues, therefore these claims are indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the errors to refer back to anything or new separate unclaimed recitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “An apparatus for controlling vehicle regenerative torque, the apparatus comprising:
an information acquisition portion configured to obtain vehicle state information including a speed and a weight of a vehicle and navigation information including weather condition information;
a basic mode controller configured to enter a basic mode while the vehicle travels to receive a variable maximum torque map determined based on information obtained by the information acquisition portion and to perform a basic mode control logic; and
a safe mode controller configured to enter a safe mode when safe mode entry conditions are satisfied and to receive a limited maximum allowable torque value determined based on information obtained by the information acquisition portion”.
The limitations of obtaining vehicle state information and navigation information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by an apparatus, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the apparatus obtaining vehicle state information and navigation information in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of looking out of his car and determining the speed and weight of his car, and the weather outside, in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of determining a variable maximum torque map, performing a basic mode control logic, and determining a limited maximum allowable torque value as drafted, are also processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by controllers, nothing in the claim precludes the determining a variable maximum torque map, performing basic mode control logic, and determining a limited maximum allowable torque value from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a controller language, the claim encompasses the user thinking through steps logically and determining a maximum allowable torque in his mind. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using an apparatus to perform obtaining information, determining maximum torques, and performing control logic. The apparatus in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of obtaining, determining, and performing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of an apparatus, a vehicle, a basic mode controller, and a safe mode controller to perform controlling, obtaining, determining, and performing, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 17-27 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a front vehicle, a first torque controller, a second torque controller, and a deceleration torque controller, which amount to generic computer components. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of the vehicle based on the determined maximum torque. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Also, please note claims 14-15 and 28-29 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims recite a practical application of controlling a low-friction torque such that a current wheel slippage value becomes a wheel slippage target value or lower.
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) in view of Lee (US 20210394727 A1) and Crombez (US 6687593 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins discloses an apparatus for controlling vehicle regenerative torque, the apparatus comprising (Abstract, Paragraphs 0019-0022);
an information acquisition portion configured to obtain vehicle state information including a speed and a weight of a vehicle (Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022);
and navigation information including weather condition information (Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022);
while the vehicle travels to receive a variable maximum torque map determined based on information obtained by the information acquisition portion (Paragraphs 0019-0021; Variable maximum torque map is mapped to the determined optimal regenerative brake torque and regenerative brake torques at the front and rear wheels).
Perkins does not specifically state a basic mode controller configured to enter a basic mode; and to perform a basic mode control logic; and a safe mode controller configured to enter a safe mode when safe mode entry conditions are satisfied.
However, Lee teaches a basic mode controller configured to enter a basic mode (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033, 0042-0043; Basic mode is mapped to distribution of regenerative braking torque to front and rear wheels based on a map);
and to perform a basic mode control logic (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033, 0042-0043);
and a safe mode controller configured to enter a safe mode when safe mode entry conditions are satisfied (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 basic mode controller and a safe mode controller 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 specifically state to receive a limited maximum allowable torque value determined based on information obtained by the information acquisition portion.
However, Crombez teaches to receive a limited maximum allowable torque value determined based on information obtained by the information acquisition portion (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 determining a maximum allowable torque value in safe mode of Crombez with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is advantageous to regenerate braking energy while preventing locking of vehicle wheels. 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).
Regarding claim 16, Perkins discloses a method of controlling vehicle regenerative torque, the method comprising (Abstract, Paragraphs 0019-0022).
all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 2-3 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, Lee, and Crombez, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Vijaya (US 20230347752 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Perkins discloses vehicle input information (Paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0020, 0022);
and wheel slippage information (Paragraphs 0015, 0017).
Perkins does not specifically state the information acquisition portion is configured to obtain surrounding object sensing information including speed information of a front vehicle.
However, Vijaya teaches the information acquisition portion is configured to 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).
Regarding claim 3, Perkins discloses perform unit 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 specifically state the basic mode controller is configured to.
However, Lee teaches the basic mode controller is configured to (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033, 0042-0043).
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 basic mode controller 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 to prevent wheel slip. 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 specifically state to perform low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs.
However, Crombez teaches to perform low-friction control when wheel slippage occurs (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).
Regarding claims 17-18, all the limitations have been examined with respect to the claims 2-3. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, Lee, Crombez, and Vijaya, as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Books (US 20200207329 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Perkins discloses a vehicle with regenerative brakes.
Perkins does not specifically state the safe mode controller is configured to.
However, Lee teaches the safe mode controller is configured to (Abstract, Paragraphs 0054-0061).
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 safe mode controller of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that 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 specifically state determine safe mode entry conditions based on a number of times low-friction control is performed.
However, Books teaches determine safe mode entry conditions based on a number of times low-friction control is performed (Abstract, Paragraphs 0006, 0015-0017).
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 safe mode entry conditions 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 specifically state to 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 to 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).
Regarding claim 19, all the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 4. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, Lee, Crombez, Vijaya, and Books, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Okuda (US 20210291868 A1) and Toyoda (US 20230286390 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Perkins discloses the information acquisition portion includes:
a first information acquisition portion configured to obtain a speed and a weight of a 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 (Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022);
and weather condition information included in the navigation information (Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022).
Perkins does not specifically state a second information acquisition portion configured to obtain speed camera position information; a third information acquisition portion configured to obtain the surrounding object sensing information including speed and relative distance information of a front vehicle included in the surrounding object sensing information, and relative speed information; and
a fourth information acquisition portion configured to obtain vehicle input information including a regenerative braking automatic mode operation signal.
However, Okuda teaches a second information acquisition portion configured to obtain speed camera position information (Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0067);
a third information acquisition portion configured to obtain the surrounding object sensing information including speed and relative distance information of a front vehicle included in the surrounding object sensing information, and relative speed information (Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0067);
and a fourth information acquisition portion configured to obtain vehicle input information including a regenerative braking automatic mode operation signal (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 specifically state a paddle shift operation signal.
However, Toyoda teaches and 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, Crombez, Vijaya, Books, Okuda, and Toyoda, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ortmann (US 20220212542 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins discloses a first information input portion configured to receive vehicle state information including a vehicle speed and a vehicle weight obtained by the information acquisition portion (Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022);
and weather condition information including rain information or snow information (Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022);
to determine a second variable maximum torque map when rain falls, and to determine a third variable maximum torque map when rain falls based on the vehicle state information and weather condition information (Paragraphs 0019-0023);
to receive a variable maximum torque map determined based on current weather conditions (Paragraphs 0019-0021);
to operate a deceleration control logic portion within a maximum allowable torque value range of the received variable maximum torque map (Paragraph 0015, 0021).
Perkins does not specifically state the basic mode controller includes.
However, Lee teaches the basic mode controller includes (Abstract, Paragraphs 0033, 0042-0043).
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 basic mode controller 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 to prevent wheel slip. 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 specifically state a first maximum allowable torque determination portion configured to determine a first variable maximum torque map when no snow and rain falls.
However, Ortmann teaches a first maximum allowable torque determination portion configured to determine a first variable maximum torque map when no snow and rain falls (Paragraph 0005, 0024-0026, 0042).
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 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 specifically state a first torque controller configured to enter a basic mode when regenerative braking automatic mode is selected.
However, Okuda teaches a first torque controller configured to enter a basic mode when regenerative braking automatic mode is selected (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 specifically state 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).
Regarding claim 7, Perkins discloses according to a speed and a weight of the vehicle based on the vehicle state information (Paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0022).
Perkins does not specifically state the first maximum allowable torque determination portion is configured to 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; wherein the first maximum allowable torque determination portion is configured to determine a 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; and wherein the first maximum allowable torque determination portion is configured to determine a 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.
However, Ortmann teaches the first maximum allowable torque determination portion is configured to 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 (Paragraph 0005, 0024-0026, 0042).
wherein the first maximum allowable torque determination portion is configured to determine a 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 (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 wherein the first maximum allowable torque determination portion is configured to determine a 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 (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).
Regarding claim 8, Perkins discloses the first variable maximum torque map includes a maximum allowable torque value increasing as a 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 a 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).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins discloses a vehicle with a variable regenerative braking torque.
Perkins does not specifically state 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 a 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 a 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).
Regarding claim 12, Perkins discloses the deceleration control logic portion includes: a deceleration condition determination portion configured to determine whether a road on which the vehicle travels satisfies a deceleration condition based on information obtained by the information acquisition portion (Paragraph 0015, 0019-0021);
and a deceleration torque controller configured to control deceleration torque corresponding to the deceleration condition within a range of a maximum allowable torque value during the deceleration condition by performing a deceleration control logic when one of deceleration conditions is satisfied in the deceleration condition determination portion (Paragraph 0015, 0021).
Perkins does not specifically state 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).
Regarding claim 14, Perkins discloses a vehicle with regenerative brakes.
Perkins does not specifically state the low-friction control logic portion includes:
a low-friction condition determination portion configured to determine whether a on which the vehicle travels satisfies a low-friction condition based on the wheel slippage information; and
a low-friction torque controller configured to, when the low-friction condition is satisfied, feedback-control 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 a low-friction control logic.
However, Crombez teaches the low-friction control logic portion includes: a low-friction condition determination portion configured to determine whether a on which the vehicle travels satisfies a low-friction condition based on the wheel slippage information (Col. 4 Line 23 – Col. 4 Line 61, Fig. 2);
and a low-friction torque controller configured to, when the low-friction condition is satisfied, feedback-control 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 a 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 specifically state 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, Crombez, Vijaya, and Books, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ortmann (US 20220212542 A1) and Okuda (US 20210291868 A1).
Regarding claim 20, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 6. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claims 22-24, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 7-9. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claims 26 and 28, all the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 12 and 14. Please see the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 13, 21, 25, and 27 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, as well as 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15 and 29 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.
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 safe mode controller includes:
a safe mode entry determination portion configured to determine whether a safe mode entry condition is satisfied based on the number of times low-friction control is performed;
a second information input portion configured to enter a safe mode when the safe mode entry condition is satisfied by the safe mode entry determination portion, and to receive weather condition information including rain information or snow information obtained by the information acquisition portion;
a second maximum allowable torque determination portion configured to determine a first limited maximum allowable torque value when snow and rain do not fall, to determine a second limited maximum allowable torque value when rain falls, and to determine a third limited maximum allowable torque value when rain falls based on the weather condition information; and
a second torque controller configured to enter a safe mode when a regenerative braking automatic mode is selected, to receive a limited maximum allowable torque value determined under current weather condition, to operate a deceleration control logic portion under a deceleration condition, and to perform a low-friction control logic portion 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
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