DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 remain pending.
Previous Action Withdrawn
The previous Non-Final Office Action, mailed on 10/05/2026 is withdrawn. The following Final Office Action is submitted on its behalf. The time for reply by Applicant is based on the mailing date of this Final Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 07/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 5-7, 9-10, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0126845 (hereinafter, Hsu), in view of Howell et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2006/0017317 (hereinafter, Howell), in further view of Gordon et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0237032 (hereinafter, Gordon).
Regarding Claim 1, Hsu describes a method comprising:
-determining, by a computing system, that a fault has occurred at a first braking system or a second braking system of a primary braking system of an autonomous vehicle operating in an autonomous mode (an in-vehicle control computer controls an autonomous vehicle having a redundant braking architecture including primary and secondary brake controllers, wherein failures of the brake controllers and communication paths are detected and an alternative braking-control path is selected upon failure, Hsu, Paragraphs 0023, 0026-0028, 0037-0040, 0050, and 0055-0056 and Figures 1-3) ...
-the computing system communicating with the first braking system using a first communication protocol and with the second braking system using a second communication protocol that is different from the first communication protocol (redundant braking-control components communicate using CAN communications or protocols that may be different between different sets of components, including a VCU internal CAN and a J1939 CAN, and the integrity of the different communication protocols is monitored, Hsu, Paragraphs 0035 and 0058-0060 and Figure 2);
-the primary braking system being controlled by the computing system, and the autonomous vehicle using the first braking system (the in-vehicle control computer controls operation of the redundant braking system, and during normal operation the commands generated using the primary VCU and primary brake controller are selected to operate the braking system, Hsu, Paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0026-0028 and Figures 1-2); and
-switching, by the computing system, from using the first braking system in the autonomous mode if the fault has occurred at the first braking system, wherein the switching comprises switching from the first communication protocol to the second communication protocol (upon failure of the primary brake controller, another braking-control path using the secondary brake controller is selected, and the braking architecture transitions from the faulty controller / communication path to the other functioning controller / communication path, Hsu, Paragraphs 0026, 0037-0040, and 0055-0056 and Figures 2-3) ...
Hsu does not specifically disclose the method to include the first braking system comprising a first braking piston and the second braking system comprising a second braking piston that is different from the first braking piston, wherein the switching comprises switching from the first communication protocol to the second communication protocol to control the second braking piston of the second braking system.
Howell discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Howell describes a primary braking system and a separate secondary braking system controlled through respective primary and secondary brake circuits. The primary circuit includes a first or primary piston and the secondary circuit includes a separate second or secondary piston. Howell further describes an ECU-controlled actuator that independently moves the second piston to actuate the secondary braking system (Howell, Paragraphs 0004, 0024-0027, and 0037-0040 and Figures 2-3 and 6-8).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include first and second braking systems having respective different braking pistons and to control the second braking piston through the selected redundant braking-control path, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Howell.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use Howell's separate piston-operated braking systems with Hsu's redundant braking-control paths because doing so allows an independently operable braking path to provide braking when another braking path fails (Howell, Paragraphs 0024-0027 and 0037-0040).
Hsu, additionally, does not specifically disclose the method to include transmitting, by the computing system and to an alert system of the autonomous vehicle, a request to generate an alert for switching to a manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on determining that the fault has occurred; and deactivating, by the computing system, the autonomous mode of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the autonomous vehicle is in the manual control mode.
Gordon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gordon describes detecting an operational anomaly of a self-driving vehicle, including a faulty braking system, determining that control should be transferred from autonomous control to a human driver, and issuing an alert advising the driver to disengage autonomous mode and take over manual control. Gordon further describes the alert preceding an automatic transition from autonomous mode to manual mode (Gordon, Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0070-0071).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include transmitting a request to generate an alert for switching to a manual control mode based on determining that the fault has occurred and deactivating the autonomous mode upon determining that the vehicle is in the manual control mode, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gordon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use a fault-triggered takeover alert and manual-mode transition because doing so allows a driver to assume control following a braking-system fault (Gordon, Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0070-0071).
Regarding Claim 5, Hsu, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the fault is determined to have occurred at the second braking system, and wherein the method further comprises determining not to switch from using the first braking system based at least in part on determining that the fault has occurred at the second braking system (upon detecting failure of the secondary brake controller, the vehicle logic selects a command set using the functioning primary brake controller rather than switching to the failed secondary brake controller, Hsu, Paragraphs 0047 and 0055-0056 and Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Hsu, as modified, describes the method of claim 1.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the method to include transmitting a takeover request to indicate the manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle.
Gordon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gordon describes issuing an alert advising the driver to disengage autonomous mode and take over manual control of the vehicle (Gordon, Paragraphs 0070-0071).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include transmitting a takeover request to indicate the manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gordon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to transmit a takeover request following a vehicle fault because doing so informs the driver that manual control should be assumed (Gordon, Paragraphs 0070-0071).
Regarding Claim 7, Hsu, as modified, describes the method of claim 1.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the method to include wherein the first braking system is activated via a first actuator, and wherein the second braking system is activated via a second actuator that is different from the first actuator.
Howell discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Howell describes a primary braking system actuated through a primary circuit of a dual brake valve or brake valve actuator and a separate secondary braking system that can be independently activated by a separate ECU-controlled actuator acting on the secondary piston (Howell, Paragraphs 0004, 0024-0027, and 0037-0040 and Figures 2-3 and 6-8).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include the first braking system being activated via a first actuator and the second braking system being activated via a different second actuator, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Howell.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to independently actuate the first and second braking systems because doing so allows one braking system to remain operable when the other braking path is unavailable (Howell, Paragraphs 0024-0027 and 0037-0040).
Regarding Claim 9, Hsu, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a control instruction to a steering system of the autonomous vehicle to perform a minimal risk maneuver for the autonomous vehicle (the in-vehicle control computer contains instructions to transmit data to and control vehicle subsystems including the steering system, and following detection of a problem the vehicle can perform a mitigation strategy including pulling safely to the side of the road, pulling to a safe off-road area, or performing a safe in-lane stop, Hsu, Paragraphs 0020, 0023-0024, and 0041).
Regarding Claim 10, Hsu describes a computing system comprising:
-one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (the in-vehicle control computer includes at least one processor executing instructions stored in non-transitory computer-readable memory to control the autonomous vehicle and perform operations of the redundant braking system, Hsu, Paragraphs 0023-0024 and Figure 1);
-determine that a fault has occurred at a first braking system or a second braking system of a primary braking system of an autonomous vehicle operating in an autonomous mode (the Level 4 autonomous vehicle includes a redundant braking architecture having primary and secondary brake controllers, wherein failures of the brake controllers and communication paths are detected and alternative braking-control paths are selected upon failure, Hsu, Paragraphs 0026-0028, 0037-0040, 0050, and 0055-0056 and Figures 2-3) ...
-communicate with the first braking system using a first communication protocol and with the second braking system using a second communication protocol that is different from the first communication protocol (redundant braking-control components communicate using communication protocols that may be different between different sets of components, including a VCU internal CAN and J1939 CAN, and the processor monitors integrity of the different communication protocols, Hsu, Paragraphs 0035 and 0058-0060 and Figure 2);
-the primary braking system being controlled by the computing system, and the autonomous vehicle using the first braking system (during normal operation the commands generated by the primary VCU and primary brake controller are selected to operate the braking system, Hsu, Paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0026-0028); and
-switch from using the first braking system in the autonomous mode if the fault has occurred at the first braking system, wherein the switching comprises switching from the first communication protocol to the second communication protocol (upon failure of the primary brake controller, a braking-control path using the secondary brake controller is selected, and the architecture transitions from a faulty controller or broken communication path to an alternative correctly functioning controller or communication path, Hsu, Paragraphs 0026, 0037-0040, and 0055-0056) ...
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computing system to include the first braking system comprising a first braking piston and the second braking system comprising a second braking piston that is different from the first braking piston, wherein the switching comprises switching from the first communication protocol to the second communication protocol to control the second braking piston of the second braking system.
Howell discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Howell describes separate primary and secondary braking systems having respective primary and secondary brake circuits and respective different first and second pistons. Howell further describes independently controlling movement of the second piston using an ECU-controlled actuator to activate the secondary braking system (Howell, Paragraphs 0004, 0024-0027, and 0037-0040 and Figures 2-3 and 6-8).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include first and second braking systems having respective different braking pistons and to control the second braking piston through the selected redundant braking-control path, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Howell.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use Howell's separate piston-operated braking systems with Hsu's redundant braking-control paths because doing so allows an independently operable braking path to provide braking following failure of another braking path (Howell, Paragraphs 0024-0027 and 0037-0040).
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computing system to include transmit, to an alert system of the autonomous vehicle, a request to generate an alert for switching to a manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on determining that the fault has occurred; and deactivate the autonomous mode of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the autonomous vehicle is in the manual control mode.
Gordon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Gordon describes detecting a vehicle operational anomaly, including a faulty braking system, issuing an alert advising the driver to disengage autonomous mode and take over manual control, and transitioning the vehicle from autonomous operation to manual operation (Gordon, Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0070-0071).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include transmitting a request to generate an alert for switching to a manual control mode based on determining that the fault has occurred and deactivating the autonomous mode upon determining that the vehicle is in the manual control mode, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gordon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use a fault-triggered takeover alert and manual-mode transition because doing so allows a driver to assume control following a braking-system fault (Gordon, Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0070-0071).
Regarding Claim 14, Hsu, as modified, describes the computing system of claim 10, wherein the fault is determined to occur at the second braking system, and wherein executing the computer-executable instructions further causes the one or more processors to determine not to switch from using the first braking system (upon detecting failure of the secondary brake controller, the arbitration logic selects a command set using the functioning primary brake controller, Hsu, Paragraphs 0047 and 0055-0056 and Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Hsu, as modified, describes the computing system of claim 10.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computing system to include transmit a takeover request to indicate the manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle.
Gordon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation by issuing an alert advising the driver to disengage autonomous mode and take over manual control (Gordon, Paragraphs 0070-0071).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include transmitting a takeover request to indicate the manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gordon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to transmit a takeover request following a vehicle fault because doing so informs the driver that manual control should be assumed (Gordon, Paragraphs 0070-0071).
Regarding Claim 16, Hsu, as modified, describes the computing system of claim 10.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computing system to include wherein the first braking system is activated via a first actuator, and the second braking system is activated via a second actuator that is different from the first actuator.
Howell discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Howell describes a primary braking system actuated through the primary circuit of a dual brake valve or brake valve actuator and a separate secondary braking system independently activated using a separate ECU-controlled actuator acting on the secondary piston (Howell, Paragraphs 0004, 0024-0027, and 0037-0040 and Figures 2-3 and 6-8).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include the first braking system being activated via a first actuator and the second braking system being activated via a different second actuator, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Howell.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to independently actuate the first and second braking systems because doing so allows one braking system to remain operable when another braking path is unavailable (Howell, Paragraphs 0024-0027 and 0037-0040).
Regarding Claim 18, Hsu describes one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of an autonomous vehicle computing system to perform operations (the in-vehicle control computer includes a processor executing instructions stored in non-transitory computer-readable memory, including instructions for controlling the redundant braking system, Hsu, Paragraphs 0023-0024) comprising:
-determine that a fault has occurred at a first braking system or a second braking system of a primary braking system of an autonomous vehicle operating in an autonomous mode (the Level 4 autonomous vehicle includes a redundant braking architecture having primary and secondary brake controllers, wherein failures of brake controllers and communication paths are detected and an alternative braking-control path is selected upon failure, Hsu, Paragraphs 0026-0028, 0037-0040, 0050, and 0055-0056 and Figures 2-3) ...
-communicate with the first braking system using a first communication protocol and with the second braking system using a second communication protocol that is different from the first communication protocol (redundant braking-control components communicate using protocols that may be different between different sets of components, including a VCU internal CAN and J1939 CAN, and the system monitors integrity of the different communication protocols, Hsu, Paragraphs 0035 and 0058-0060 and Figure 2);
-the primary braking system being controlled by the autonomous vehicle computing system, and the autonomous vehicle using the first braking system (the in-vehicle control computer controls the redundant braking system and normally selects commands generated by the primary VCU and primary brake controller, Hsu, Paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0026-0028); and
-switch from using the first braking system in the autonomous mode if the fault has occurred at the first braking system, wherein the switching comprises switching from the first communication protocol to the second communication protocol (upon failure of the primary brake controller, a braking-control path using the secondary brake controller is selected, and the braking architecture transitions from a faulty controller or broken communication path to an alternative correctly functioning option, Hsu, Paragraphs 0026, 0037-0040, and 0055-0056) ...
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computer-readable media to include the first braking system comprising a first braking piston and the second braking system comprising a second braking piston that is different from the first braking piston, wherein the switching comprises switching from the first communication protocol to the second communication protocol to control the second braking piston of the second braking system.
Howell discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation by describing separate primary and secondary braking systems having respective different primary and secondary pistons and independent ECU control of the secondary piston to actuate the secondary braking system (Howell, Paragraphs 0004, 0024-0027, and 0037-0040 and Figures 2-3 and 6-8).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include first and second braking systems having respective different braking pistons and to control the second braking piston through the selected redundant braking-control path, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Howell.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use Howell's separate piston-operated braking systems with Hsu's redundant braking-control paths because doing so allows an independently operable braking path to provide braking following failure of another braking path (Howell, Paragraphs 0024-0027 and 0037-0040).
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computer-readable media to include transmit, to an alert system of the autonomous vehicle, a request to generate an alert for switching to a manual control mode of the autonomous vehicle based at least in part on determining that the fault has occurred; and deactivate the autonomous mode of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the autonomous vehicle is in the manual control mode.
Gordon discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation by detecting vehicle operational anomalies, including a faulty braking system, issuing an alert advising the driver to take over manual control, and transitioning the vehicle from autonomous mode to manual mode (Gordon, Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0070-0071).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include transmitting a request to generate an alert for switching to manual control and deactivating autonomous mode upon determining that the vehicle is in manual control mode, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Gordon.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use a fault-triggered takeover alert and manual-mode transition because doing so allows a driver to assume control following a braking-system fault (Gordon, Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0070-0071).
Regarding Claim 20, Hsu, as modified, describes the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein the fault is determined to have occurred at the second braking system, and wherein executing the computer-executable instructions further causes the one or more processors to determine not to switch from using the first braking system based at least in part on determining that the fault has occurred at the second braking system (upon detecting failure of the secondary brake controller, the arbitration logic selects a command set using the functioning primary brake controller, Hsu, Paragraphs 0047 and 0055-0056 and Figure 3).
Claims 4, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0126845 (hereinafter, Hsu), in view of Howell et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2006/0017317 (hereinafter, Howell), in further view of Gordon et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0237032 (hereinafter, Gordon), in further view of Kumavat et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0192139 (hereinafter, Kumavat).
Regarding Claim 4, Hsu, as modified, describes the method of claim 1.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the method to include wherein the fault is a first fault at the first braking system; determining that a second fault has occurred at the second braking system; and switching to using an endurance braking system from using the first braking system based at least in part on determining that the first fault and the second fault have occurred.
Kumavat discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Kumavat describes a braking subsystem having redundant braking actuators that detect and respond to failures, wherein multiple-point failures cause transition to alternative braking and engine braking can be used as redundant braking in the event of failure (Kumavat, Paragraph 0051).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include determining that faults have occurred in both redundant braking systems and switching to an endurance braking system based on the faults, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kumavat.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use endurance braking following failure of both redundant braking systems because doing so provides an additional source of vehicle deceleration when the redundant braking systems are unavailable (Kumavat, Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 13, Hsu, as modified, describes the computing system of claim 10.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computing system to include determine that a second fault has occurred at the second braking system; and switch to using an endurance braking system from using the first braking system based at least in part on determining that the first fault and the second fault have occurred.
Kumavat discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Kumavat describes redundant braking actuators configured to detect and respond to failures, transition to alternative braking in the event of multiple-point failures, and use engine braking as redundant braking in the event of failure (Kumavat, Paragraph 0051).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include determining that faults have occurred in both redundant braking systems and switching to an endurance braking system based on the faults, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kumavat.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use endurance braking following failure of both redundant braking systems because doing so provides an additional source of vehicle deceleration when the redundant braking systems are unavailable (Kumavat, Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 19, Hsu, as modified, describes the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computer-readable media to include determine that a second fault has occurred at the second braking system; and switch to using an endurance braking system from using the first braking system based at least in part on determining that the first fault and the second fault have occurred.
Kumavat discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Kumavat describes redundant braking actuators configured to detect and respond to failures, transition to alternative braking in the event of multiple-point failures, and use engine braking as redundant braking in the event of failure (Kumavat, Paragraph 0051).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include determining that faults have occurred in both redundant braking systems and switching to an endurance braking system based on the faults, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kumavat.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use endurance braking following failure of both redundant braking systems because doing so provides an additional source of vehicle deceleration when the redundant braking systems are unavailable (Kumavat, Paragraph 0051).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0126845 (hereinafter, Hsu), in view of Howell et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2006/0017317 (hereinafter, Howell), in further view of Gordon et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0237032 (hereinafter, Gordon), in further view of Lee et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0354677 (hereinafter, Lee).
Regarding Claim 8, Hsu, as modified, describes the method of claim 7.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the method to include wherein the primary braking system is a dual-actuator enabled system configured to be activated via the first actuator or a third actuator, the first actuator and the third actuator being different from the second actuator.
Lee discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Lee describes an autonomous vehicle brake booster having a first motor and a second motor coupled to a common power cylinder, wherein either motor may operate as the main actuator while the other operates as a redundancy actuator. The motors are independently powered and, upon failure of one motor, the other motor remains operable to provide braking (Lee, Paragraphs 0027-0031 and 0034-0037 and Figures 1-2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include the primary braking system being a dual-actuator enabled system operable by the first actuator or a third actuator, while retaining a different second actuator for the second braking system, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Lee.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the first braking system with a redundant actuator because doing so allows the first braking system to remain operable if one of its actuators fails (Lee, Paragraphs 0027-0031 and 0034-0037).
Regarding Claim 17, Hsu, as modified, describes the computing system of claim 16.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computing system to include wherein the primary braking system is a dual-actuator enabled system configured to be activated via the first actuator or a third actuator, the first actuator and the third actuator being different from the second actuator.
Lee discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Lee describes an autonomous vehicle braking system having first and second motors coupled to a common power cylinder, wherein either motor may serve as the main actuator and the other as a redundancy actuator, and the functioning motor remains operable when the other motor fails (Lee, Paragraphs 0027-0031 and 0034-0037 and Figures 1-2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include the primary braking system being a dual-actuator enabled system operable by the first actuator or a third actuator, while retaining a different second actuator for the second braking system, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Lee.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the first braking system with a redundant actuator because doing so allows the first braking system to remain operable if one of its actuators fails (Lee, Paragraphs 0027-0031 and 0034-0037).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0126845 (hereinafter, Hsu), in view of Howell et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2006/0017317 (hereinafter, Howell), in further view of Gordon et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0237032 (hereinafter, Gordon), in further view of Ullrich et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0169222 (hereinafter, Ullrich).
Regarding Claim 21, Hsu, as modified, describes the method of claim 1.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the method to include wherein the fault is determined based on first sensor data corresponding to the first braking system and second sensor data corresponding to the second braking system.
Ullrich discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Ullrich describes a redundant braking architecture having a first sensor arrangement connected to a primary braking system and a second sensor arrangement connected to a secondary braking system, wherein data from the respective sensor arrangements is exchanged and evaluated by the braking systems for validity and plausibility and to determine whether the braking systems are functioning as intended (Ullrich, Paragraphs 0013, 0019, 0036-0037, and 0062-0064 and Figures 1 and 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include determining the fault based on first sensor data corresponding to the first braking system and second sensor data corresponding to the second braking system, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ullrich.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use sensor data corresponding to each redundant braking system to determine a fault because doing so allows the system to identify whether the redundant braking systems are functioning as intended (Ullrich, Paragraphs 0013, 0019, 0036-0037, and 0062-0064).
Regarding Claim 22, Hsu, as modified, describes the method of claim 1.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the method to include wherein the fault is determined based on first sensor data received from the first braking system and second sensor data received from the second braking system, the first sensor data being different from the second sensor data.
Ullrich discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Ullrich describes a first sensor arrangement connected to the primary braking system and a second sensor arrangement connected to the secondary braking system, with data from the respective sensor arrangements exchanged between the braking systems. Ullrich further describes the first and second sensor arrangements deriving information from different physical measurement parameters, including a piston-rod travel measurement and a pedal-angle measurement (Ullrich, Paragraphs 0032, 0036, and 0062-0064 and Figure 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include determining the fault based on different first and second sensor data received from the respective first and second braking systems, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ullrich.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use different sensor data from the respective redundant braking systems because doing so provides independent information for detecting and verifying a braking-system fault (Ullrich, Paragraphs 0032, 0036, and 0062-0064).
Regarding Claim 23, Hsu, as modified, describes the computing system of claim 10.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computing system to include wherein the fault is determined based on first sensor data corresponding to the first braking system and second sensor data corresponding to the second braking system.
Ullrich discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Ullrich describes a first sensor arrangement connected to a primary braking system and a second sensor arrangement connected to a secondary braking system, wherein information from both sensor arrangements is available to the braking-system control units and evaluated for validity, plausibility, and proper braking-system operation (Ullrich, Paragraphs 0013, 0019, 0036-0037, and 0062-0064 and Figures 1 and 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include determining the fault based on first sensor data corresponding to the first braking system and second sensor data corresponding to the second braking system, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ullrich.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use sensor data corresponding to each redundant braking system to determine a fault because doing so allows the computing system to identify whether the redundant braking systems are functioning as intended (Ullrich, Paragraphs 0013, 0019, 0036-0037, and 0062-0064).
Regarding Claim 24, Hsu, as modified, describes the computing system of claim 10.
Hsu does not specifically disclose the computing system to include wherein the fault is determined based on first sensor data received from the first braking system and second sensor data received from the second braking system, the first sensor data being different from the second sensor data.
Ullrich discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Ullrich describes a first sensor arrangement connected to the primary braking system and a second sensor arrangement connected to the secondary braking system, with data from the respective sensor arrangements exchanged between the braking systems. Ullrich further describes the first and second sensor arrangements deriving information from different physical measurement parameters, including a piston-rod travel measurement and a pedal-angle measurement (Ullrich, Paragraphs 0032, 0036, and 0062-0064 and Figure 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to include determining the fault based on different first and second sensor data received from the respective first and second braking systems, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ullrich.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use different sensor data from the respective redundant braking systems because doing so provides independent information for detecting and verifying a braking-system fault (Ullrich, Paragraphs 0032, 0036, and 0062-0064).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
