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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 12/13/2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“a regenerative braking stop logic unit” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “forcibly stopping regenerative braking of a vehicle in response that a battery charge state of the vehicle reaches a battery upper limit charge state during the regenerative braking” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a target braking force calculation unit” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “initiating an operation according to the trigger signal, obtaining a converted braking force value based on a regenerative braking force value obtained from a total braking force value of the vehicle before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking, and determining target physical braking force using the converted braking force value” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a regenerative braking force calculation unit” in claim 2. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “obtaining the regenerative braking force value from the total braking force value of the vehicle before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking, based on a regenerative braking type before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking, to reflect the regenerative braking force value in the target physical braking force” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a regenerative braking type recognition unit” in claim 3. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “recognizing which mode the regenerative braking type is, from among a regenerative braking single mode in which the vehicle is only in a regenerative braking state, a first common mode in which the regenerative braking and physical braking are used together, and a second common mode with cruise braking” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a regenerative braking force acquisition unit” in claim 4. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “obtaining the regenerative braking force value before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking based on preset regenerative braking amount distribution ratio information in response that the regenerative braking type is one of the first common mode and the second common mode” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a first correction value calculation unit” in claim 6. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “determining a braking force correction value based on an attitude, a weight and deceleration of the vehicle, for reflection in the target physical braking force” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a target physical braking force calculation unit” in claim 7. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “obtaining the converted braking force value using the regenerative braking force and the braking force correction value and determining the target physical braking force based on the converted braking force value” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a second correction value calculation unit” in claim 8. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “obtaining an auxiliary braking force value based on the total braking force value of the vehicle before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking to reflect the auxiliary braking force value in the target physical braking force, in response that auxiliary braking is used before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a pedal logic unit” in claim 9. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked to the functional limitation “setting a driver pedal value to a zero value to prevent physical acceleration due to the driver pedal value in response that the driver pedal value before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking exceeds the zero value” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
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. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 1-4)
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 2-4)
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 2-4, Fig. 2)
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 2-4, Figs. 2-3)
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 2-4, Figs. 2-3)
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 2-4, Fig. 6)
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 2-4, Fig. 6)
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 2-4, Fig. 6)
hardware or software element or a combination thereof in at least one IC embedded in the battery management device (0057 lines 2-4, Fig. 6)
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 2-10 and 12-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the target physical braking force” in claims 2, 5-8, and 10. For examination purposes the limitation “target physical braking force” in claim 1 line 11 has been considered as --a target physical braking force--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the regenerative braking force” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the regenerative braking force value--.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the target physical braking force” in claims 12-14 and 17-19. For examination purposes the limitation “target physical braking force” in claim 11 lines 11-12 has been considered as --a target physical braking force--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the regenerative braking force” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the regenerative braking force value--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the second common mode” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “a second mode” in claim 15 lines 5-6 has been considered as --a second common mode--.
Claims 3-10 and 13-20 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 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 1-10 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the additional limitation of the regenerative braking stop logic unit in claim 1 integrates the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claims 11-20 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2B for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as those provided for claims 1-20.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM US (US 2012/0056470) in view of KIM KR (KR 20200045267).
Regarding claim 1, KIM US discloses an apparatus for controlling vehicle braking, the apparatus comprising:
a regenerative braking stop logic unit forcibly stopping regenerative braking of a vehicle (i.a. S15, Fig. 5, 0056 lines 11-13) in response to a battery condition during the regenerative braking (i.a. claim 10 lines 2-4);
a trigger signal generator generating a trigger signal in response that the vehicle is driving (driving implied/inherent if braking regeneration is producing torque) while the regenerative braking is forcibly stopped by the regenerative braking stop logic unit (implied/inherent, i.a. yes at S15, 0056 lines 11-13); and
a target braking force calculation unit initiating an operation according to the trigger signal (implied/inherent, i.a. S16, Fig. 5), obtaining a converted braking force value (i.e., the amount of compensation required, implied i.a. 0053 lines 5-6, claim 7 lines 8-10; n.b. the claim does NOT require the obtaining step to be performed following the initiating step in time) based on a regenerative braking force value obtained from a total braking force value of the vehicle (0051 lines 1-7, Fig. 2) before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking (implied, c.f. to Figs. 1 and 4), and determining a target physical braking force using the converted braking force value (implied, i.a. 0061 lines 3-5, Figs. 1 and 4).
KIM US discloses the battery condition during the regenerative braking is the battery temperature reaches a predetermined reference temperature rather than the battery charge state of the vehicle reaches a battery upper limit charge state as claimed.
KIM KR teaches a regenerative braking stop logic unit forcibly stopping regenerative braking of a vehicle in response that a battery charge state of the vehicle reaches a battery upper limit charge state during the regenerative braking (pg. 1 lines 41-44) because when the main battery is fully charged, the regenerative braking should be terminated and the braking should switch to the friction brake mode (pg. 1 lines 43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the battery condition taught by KIM KR for that of KIM US because when the main battery is fully charged, the regenerative braking should be terminated and the braking should switch to the friction brake mode to preserve braking function of the vehicle without overcharging the battery.
Regarding claim 11, KIM US discloses a method for controlling vehicle braking, the method including:
a regenerative braking stop operation of forcibly stopping, by a processor (implied, 0048 lines 1-end), regenerative braking of a vehicle (i.a. S15, Fig. 5, 0056 lines 11-13) in response to a battery condition during regenerative braking of the vehicle (i.a. claim 10 lines 2-4);
a trigger signal generation operation of generating, by the processor, a trigger signal in response that the vehicle is driving (driving implied/inherent if braking regeneration is producing torque) while the regenerative braking is forcibly stopped (implied/inherent, i.a. yes at S15, 0056 lines 11-13); and
a target braking force determination operation of initiating, by the processor, operation according to the trigger signal (implied/inherent, i.a. S16, Fig. 5), obtaining a converted braking force value (i.e., the amount of compensation required, implied i.a. 0053 lines 5-6, claim 7 lines 8-10; n.b. the claim does NOT require the obtaining step to be performed following the initiating step in time) based on a regenerative braking force value obtained from a total braking force value of the vehicle (0051 lines 1-7, Fig. 2) before the forced stopping of the regenerative braking (implied, c.f. to Figs. 1 and 4), and determining target physical braking force using the converted braking force value (implied, i.a. 0061 lines 3-5, Figs. 1 and 4).
KIM US discloses the battery condition during the regenerative braking is the battery temperature reaches a predetermined reference temperature rather than the battery charge state of the vehicle reaches a battery upper limit charge state as claimed.
KIM KR teaches a regenerative braking stop logic unit forcibly stopping regenerative braking of a vehicle in response that a battery charge state of the vehicle reaches a battery upper limit charge state during the regenerative braking (pg. 1 lines 41-44) because when the main battery is fully charged, the regenerative braking should be terminated and the braking should switch to the friction brake mode (pg. 1 lines 43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the battery condition taught by KIM KR for that of KIM US because when the main battery is fully charged, the regenerative braking should be terminated and the braking should switch to the friction brake mode to preserve braking function of the vehicle without overcharging the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747