DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 received on 11/01/2024 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-5 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/01/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: after no target slip control is executed should read when target slip control is not executed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: friction braking devices corresponding to the front wheel and the rear wheel should read friction braking device[[s]] corresponding to the front wheel and the rear wheel. Appropriate correction is required.
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) are:
Claim 1: an acquisition unit (generic placeholder) acquires (function)
Claim 1: a derivation unit (generic placeholder) derives (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding an acquisition unit and a derivation unit, they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of circuitry and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0010] and [0016] of the specification reproduced below:
[0016] The braking control device 10 includes an acquisition unit 24, a derivation unit 26, a brake processor 28, and a controller 30.
[0010] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a functional configuration of a braking system 1. In terms of hardware, each function of the braking system 1 can be configured with a circuit block, a memory, and other LSIs, and in terms of software, it is implemented by system software and application programs loaded into the memory. Therefore, it is understood by those skilled in the art that each function of the braking system 1 can be implemented in various forms by only hardware, only software, or a combination of both the hardware and the software, and it is not limited to any one of them. The braking system 1 is provided in a vehicle, and the vehicle may perform autonomous driving
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayar (US20140277983A1, in view of SAKI (JP2014073709A).
SAKI is cited in the IDS received on 11/01/2024.
The Espacenet English translation of description of SAKI referenced by the Examiner is attached.
Regarding claim 1, Bayar teaches a braking control device that controls a regenerative braking device provided for a regenerative braking wheel of any one of a front wheel and a rear wheel (FIG. 1; para. [0011]-[0012]: “The vehicle 10 includes a friction braking system 12, controlled by a brake controller 14. The vehicle 10 also includes a regenerative braking system 16, which is part of the vehicle powertrain. In particular, the regenerative braking system 16 includes one or more electric machines, such as electric motors, which are operable to provide regenerative braking for the vehicle 10. The regenerative braking system 16 is controlled by a vehicle system controller (VSC) 18. The VSC 18 may include other controllers, such as a powertrain control module (PCM). In fact, the brake controller 14, shown in FIG. 1 as a separate controller, may be integrated into the VSC 18. […] The friction braking system 12 operates to slow the speed of vehicle wheels 28”; para. [0026]: “the front and rear axles”), and a friction braking device that is enabled to individually control friction braking force to be applied to each of the front wheel and the rear wheel (para. [0011]: “The vehicle 10 also includes a regenerative braking system 16, which is part of the vehicle powertrain. In particular, the regenerative braking system 16 includes one or more electric machines, such as electric motors, which are operable to provide regenerative braking for the vehicle 10”; para. [0026]: “More particularly, it can be based on a vehicle parameter such as the braking force distribution between the front and rear axles,”, wherein distribution between the front and rear axles indicate front wheel and the rear wheel), the braking control device comprising:
an acquisition unit (para. [0011]: “the brake controller 14, shown in FIG. 1 as a separate controller, may be integrated into the VSC 18. Thus, the various systems within the vehicle 10 can be controlled by a single controller, separate software controllers within a single hardware device, or a combination of separate software and hardware controllers”) that acquires a detection result obtained by detecting an accelerator operation amount of an accelerator pedal (para. [0012]: “The brake controller 14 receives […] the VSC 18 receives operator inputs from an accelerator pedal 22. […] an accelerator pedal sensor 26 (which can also be more than one sensor), is configured to detect the position of the accelerator pedal 22”), a detection result obtained by detecting a braking operation amount of a brake pedal (para. [0012]: “The brake controller 14 receives vehicle operator inputs from a brake pedal 20, […] brake pedal angle sensor 24 (which can be more than one sensor or type of sensor), is configured to detect the position of the brake pedal 20), a detection result obtained by detecting wheel speeds of the front wheel and the rear wheel (para. [0014]: “The sensor 36 may detect such conditions as the deflection of, or the load on, various elements of the body/chassis system 34. Similarly, a sensor 38, which represents one or more sensors, is configured to detect conditions of the vehicle wheels 28, including the wheel speed.”), and a detection result obtained by detecting a vehicle speed (para. [0017]: “Wheel slip may be calculated in any number of ways […] Vehicle Speed=the speed of the vehicle across the wheel plane”, thus indicating detecting vehicle speed);
a derivation unit (para. [0011]: “the brake controller 14, [ …] VSC 18 […] single controller) that derives a slip ratio of a wheel based on detected wheel speed and vehicle speed (para. [0017]: “Slip= Rolling Radius x Wheel Speed – Vehicle Speed)/Vehicle Speed”);
a brake processor (para. [0011]: “the brake controller 14, [ …] VSC 18 […] single controller) that determines braking amounts to be applied to the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device based on the accelerator operation amount and the braking operation amount (para. [0012]: “a brake pedal angle sensor 24 […] accelerator pedal sensor 26 […] The VSC 18 and the brake controller 14 use various inputs, including the inputs from the sensors 24, 26, to decide how to control the friction braking system 12 and the regenerative braking system 16”); and
a controller (para. [0011]: “the brake controller 14, [ …] VSC 18 […] single controller) that controls the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device based on the determined braking amounts (para. [0012]: “a brake pedal angle sensor 24 […] accelerator pedal sensor 26 […] The VSC 18 and the brake controller 14 use various inputs, including the inputs from the sensors 24, 26, to decide how to control the friction braking system 12 and the regenerative braking system 16”),
wherein when the slip ratio increases to be equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value (FIG. 2; para. [0017]: “The threshold value of wheel slip (slow) is a calibratable value that may be chosen, for example, to be a minimum amount of wheel slip necessary for the regenerative braking control strategy to be implemented”) while the accelerator operation amount is decreasing (FIG. 3A, wherein the speed decreasing and negative acceleration indicates that the vehicle is decelerating), the controller controls torque of a motor of the regenerative braking device based on a predetermined target slip ratio to execute target slip control of adjusting the slip ratio (FIG. 2; FIG. 3A; para. [0027]: “As described above, the regenerative braking torque limit, shown in FIG. 2 as line 42, is a linear function defined by the points (P1) and (P2);”; para. [0016]: “a first point (P1) based on the initial torque value (Ti) and a threshold value of wheel slip (slow), and a second point (P2) based on a maximum wheel slip value (shigh).”; para. [0034]: “As a result of implementing the regenerative braking control strategy, the wheel slip is limited so that the ABS flag is never activated—see graph 48.”), but fails to specifically teach when the target slip control is executed and a braking operation is executed, the controller causes the friction braking device to generate a braking amount corresponding to a braking operation amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, SAKI teaches controls the regenerative braking device and the friction braking device based on the determined braking amounts (FIG. 3; para. [0044]: “motor controller 103 outputs a control signal for driving the traveling electric motor 5 to obtain the calculated regenerative coordinated braking torque. It is output. Similarly, a control signal for driving the VDC brake hydraulic pressure unit 2 to obtain the hydraulic pressure braking torque obtained in step S104 is output from an output control unit (not shown) in the brake controller 101”, wherein the regenerative brake and/or friction/hydraulic brake are output),
wherein when the slip ratio increases to be equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value (FIG.6 S304; para. [0038]: “In step S305, it is determined whether the slip ratio exceeds a threshold value α as a preset setting value. If the threshold value α is exceeded, the process proceeds to step S306”) while the accelerator operation amount is decreasing (FIG. 6; para. [0036]: “In step S301, it is determined whether or not the coasting state is established. If the coasting state is established”, wherein coasting indicates accelerator operation amount is decreasing), the controller controls torque of a motor of the regenerative braking device based on a predetermined target slip ratio to execute target slip control of adjusting the slip ratio (para. [0039]: “In step S306, which is advanced when the slip ratio exceeds the threshold value α, the coast regenerative braking torque is decreased, and the process proceeds to step S307. When the coasting regenerative braking torque is to be decreased, it may be decreased by a fixed value or a fixed ratio, and the amount of decrease may be decreased as the slip ratio is larger or as the change rate of the slip ratio is larger”; para. [0059]: “When the slip ratio exceeds the threshold value α at time t2, the brake controller 101 limits the coast regenerative braking torque (step S107), and the slip ratio of the drive wheels (left and right front wheels FLW and FRW) is highly responsive. descend. Further, according to the decrease of the coast regenerative braking torque, the hydraulic braking torque calculated in step S104 is thereafter increased, and the slip ratio converges to the target value”), and
when the target slip control is executed and a braking operation is executed (FIG. 4; para. [0041]: “Next, the flowchart of FIG. 4 is about regenerative cooperative braking control including frictional braking torque compensating control to be executed by the brake controller 101 during execution of the above-described coast regenerative braking control”; para. [0041]: “In step S101, it is determined based on the output of the brake switch 93 whether or not the driver is operating the brake”), the controller causes the friction braking device to generate a braking amount corresponding to a braking operation amount (FIG. 4; FIG. 5; para. [0057]: “Then, the brake controller 101 compensates for the decrease in the coasting regenerative braking torque by adding it to the hydraulic braking torque as shown in the hatched area on the lower side of the two-dot chain line in FIG. 5 (step S109). Therefore, the total braking torque can be kept substantially constant before and after time t2”; para. [0060]: “Therefore, when coast regenerative braking is performed, if a slip exceeding the set value (threshold value α) occurs in the drive wheels (left and right front wheels FLW and FRW), integrated controller 100 executes coast regenerative braking torque reduction control. To reduce the coasting regenerative braking torque. Thereby, the slip of the drive wheels (left and right front wheels FLW, FRW) can be suppressed. Furthermore, when a slip exceeding the set value (threshold value α) occurs in the drive wheels (left and right front wheels FLW and FRW), the brake controller 101 performs friction braking torque compensation control to increase the friction braking torque by the hydraulic brake device”, wherein the friction braking torque would be increased to match the total braking torque, thus indicating causes the friction braking device to generate a braking amount corresponding to a braking operation amount).
Bayar and SAKI are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of regenerative braking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bayar to incorporate the teachings of SAKI and incorporate the coast regenerative braking torque reduction control when the slip ratio exceeds a threshold. Doing so would optimize regeneration and stability by suppressing further wheel slip.
Regarding claim 2, Bayar in view of SAKI teaches the braking control device according to claim 1. SAKI further teaches wherein when a braking operation is executed after no target slip control is executed while the accelerator operation amount is decreasing (FIG. 4 t1[Wingdings font/0xE0]t2, wherein the target slip control is executed after t2), the brake processor causes the regenerative braking device to be executed according to the braking amount corresponding to the braking operation amount in preference to the friction braking device (FIG. 4 t1[Wingdings font/0xE0]t2; para. [0044]: “In step S103, a regenerative coordinated braking torque is calculated, and the process proceeds to the next step S104. That is, as shown in FIG. 5, of the driver request total braking torque, an amount capable of regenerative braking is calculated as a regenerative coordinated braking torque. In the following step S104, the hydraulic braking torque is calculated, and the process proceeds to the next step S105. That is, of the regenerative coordinated braking torque calculated in step S103, an amount that can actually be regenerated by the traveling electric motor 5 is calculated or an actual regenerative braking torque is detected, and the value is calculated from the driver request total braking torque. The reduced value is taken as the hydraulic braking torque.”, wherein hydraulic braking torque being the “remainder” indicates regenerative braking device to be executed according to the braking amount corresponding to the braking operation amount in preference to the friction braking device), and
when the braking operation is executed after no target slip control is executed while the accelerator operation amount is decreasing (FIG. 4 t1[Wingdings font/0xE0]t2), the brake processor causes control, of limiting the braking amount to be generated by the regenerative braking device, to be executed when the slip ratio satisfies a predetermined condition (FIG. 4 t2; para. [0053]: “Then, at time t2, the slip amount of the drive wheels FLW and FRW exceeds the threshold value α”; para. [0059]: “When the slip ratio exceeds the threshold value α at time t2, the brake controller 101 limits the coast regenerative braking torque (step S107)”).
Regarding claim 3, Bayar in view of SAKI teaches the braking control device according to claim 1. SAKI further teaches wherein when the target slip control is executed and the braking operation is executed, the controller causes the friction braking device that does not correspond to the regenerative braking wheel among the friction braking devices corresponding to the front wheel and the rear wheel to generate a braking amount in preference to the friction braking device corresponding to the regenerative braking wheel (para. [0060]: “Therefore, when coast regenerative braking is performed, if a slip exceeding the set value (threshold value α) occurs in the drive wheels (left and right front wheels FLW and FRW), integrated controller 100 executes coast regenerative braking torque reduction control. To reduce the coasting regenerative braking torque. Thereby, the slip of the drive wheels (left and right front wheels FLW, FRW) can be suppressed. Furthermore, when a slip exceeding the set value (threshold value α) occurs in the drive wheels (left and right front wheels FLW and FRW), the brake controller 101 performs friction braking torque compensation control to increase the friction braking torque by the hydraulic brake device”, wherein the friction braking torque would be increased to match the total braking torque, thus indicating generate a braking amount in preference to the friction braking device corresponding to the regenerative braking wheel).
Regarding claim 4, Bayar in view of SAKI teaches the braking control device according to claim 2. Bayar and SAKI further teaches wherein the brake processor sets a value for limiting the braking amount based on a slip ratio of the regenerative braking wheel in control of limiting the braking amount to be generated by the regenerative braking device (Bayar FIG. 2; SAKI para. [0047]: “In step S107, which is performed when the slip ratio is larger than the threshold value α, the regenerative coordinated braking torque is limited according to the slip ratio, and then the process proceeds to step S108”; para. [0059]: “When the slip ratio exceeds the threshold value α at time t2, the brake controller 101 limits the coast regenerative braking torque (step S107)”, wherein the regenerative torque decreases depends on slip ratio, which is affected by the regenerative torque thus indicating regenerative braking wheel in control of limiting the braking amount to be generated by the regenerative braking device).
Regarding claim 5, it recites a braking control method claim reciting claim limitations similar to those performed by the braking device of claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KIKAWA (US 20150217741 A1) teaches reducing regenerative torque based on the slip amount.
CHO (US20190193568A1) teaches correcting a magnitude of slip (or a slip ratio) which is considered when a coast regeneration torque is to be variably controlled while the vehicle is coasting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668