DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (US Pat No 10,377,241).
In regard to claim 1, Inoue discloses a vehicle driving control apparatus (see the Title: “Speed Control Device Of Electromotive Vehicle”), comprising:
at least a brake including a first brake (hydraulic brake, 500, Fig 1) and a second brake (speed reducer 510);
(Also see claim 5: “controlling at least one of mechanical braking, due to a hydraulic brake, and the regenerative braking, due to the electric motor, based on a result of the determining, wherein both the regenerative braking and the mechanical braking are applied so that the mechanical braking compensates for a deficit of the regenerative braking”.)
at least a sensor (speed sensor 340, Fig 1);
a memory configured to store at least one instruction (see claim 5: “when executing the instructions stored in the memory”); and
a processor operatively connected to the memory, the at least a brake and the at least a sensor (see claim 5: “a processor that, when executing the instructions stored in the memory, performs operations including: detecting a traveling speed of the electromotive vehicle from a speed sensor”),
wherein the at least one instruction executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
identify, by use of the at least a sensor (speed sensor 340), braking information including at least one of host vehicle driving speed, whether to use the first brake, or braking pressure by the second brake, or any combination thereof in response that a braking trigger signal for a host vehicle is identified (see claim 5: “calculating a speed difference between the traveling speed detected from the speed sensor and the instructed speed; determining whether only a braking force of regenerative braking, due to the electric motor, is sufficient to make the speed difference zero; and controlling at least one of mechanical braking, due to a hydraulic brake, and the regenerative braking, due to the electric motor, based on a result of the determining, wherein both the regenerative braking and the mechanical braking are applied so that the mechanical braking compensates for a deficit of the regenerative braking, when the braking force of the regenerative braking is not sufficient to make the speed difference zero”); and
perform, by selectively using the first brake and the second brake, braking control for the host vehicle based on the braking information (see claim 5: “controlling at least one of mechanical braking, due to a hydraulic brake, and the regenerative braking, due to the electric motor, based on a result of the determining”).
In regard to claim 2, Inoue discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the processor, further causes the processor to:
in response that the host vehicle driving speed exceeds a first driving speed (see step S702 in Fig 7, also see Col 9, lines 25-28: “As the second condition, condition determination unit 201 determines whether traveling speed ω.sub.r is higher than instructed speed ω.sub.r*, namely (ω.sub.r*−ω.sub.r)<0 is satisfied or not.”) and the required acceleration exceeds a first acceleration (see step S702 and Col 9, line 20: “Δω.sub.r*<0 indicates an instruction to decelerate”):
perform, by use of the first brake, the braking control (see step S703 and Col 9, lines 34-40: “Step S703: Condition determination unit 201 determines that mechanical braking needs to be applied because only the regenerative brake due to electric motor 330 provides an insufficient braking force. Condition determination unit 201 controls brake control unit 400 to compensate a deficit of a braking force due to the regenerative brake with mechanical braking.”).
In regard to claim 3, Inoue discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the processor, further causes the processor to:
perform, by further using the second brake, the braking control in response to identifying that the host vehicle driving speed is smaller than or equal to the first driving speed (see step S704 in Fig 7 and Col 9, lines 42-47: “Step S704: Condition determination unit 201 determines that mechanical braking does not need to be applied because the regenerative brake due to electric motor 330 provides a sufficient braking force, and controls brake control unit 400 not to perform brake operation. In this case, determination unit 200 zeros instructed brake pressure P.sub.b* to be input to brake control unit 400.”), OR an (following the logic through the flow chart of Fig 7, as broadly claimed, considered to be “performing the braking control” with both brakes present).
In regard to claim 11, Inoue discloses a vehicle control method (see Claim 9), comprising:
identifying, by use of at least a sensor (speed sensor 340, Fig 1), braking information including at least one of host vehicle driving speed, (hydraulic brake, 500, Fig 1), or braking pressure by a second brake (speed reducer 510), or any combination thereof
(See claim 9: “detecting a traveling speed of the electromotive vehicle from a speed sensor… controlling at least one of mechanical braking, due to a hydraulic brake, and the regenerative braking, due to the electric motor, based on a result of the determining, wherein both the regenerative braking and the mechanical braking are applied so that the mechanical braking compensates for a deficit of the regenerative braking”),
by a processor (comprising, at least, controller 100, Fig 1) in response that a braking trigger signal for a host vehicle is identified (see claim 9; also see the flow chart of Fig 7); and
performing, by selectively using the first brake and the second brake, braking control for the host vehicle based on the braking information by the processor (see the flow chart of Fig 7 and claim 9: “controlling at least one of mechanical braking, due to a hydraulic brake, and the regenerative braking, due to the electric motor, based on a result of the determining”).
In regard to claim 12, Inoue discloses the method of claim 11, further including:
in response that the host vehicle driving speed exceeds a first driving speed (see step S702 in Fig 7, also see Col 9, lines 25-28: “As the second condition, condition determination unit 201 determines whether traveling speed ω.sub.r is higher than instructed speed ω.sub.r*, namely (ω.sub.r*−ω.sub.r)<0 is satisfied or not.”) and the required acceleration exceeds a first acceleration (see step S702 and Col 9, line 20: “Δω.sub.r*<0 indicates an instruction to decelerate”):
performing, by use of the first brake, the braking control by the processor (see step S703 and Col 9, lines 34-40: “Step S703: Condition determination unit 201 determines that mechanical braking needs to be applied because only the regenerative brake due to electric motor 330 provides an insufficient braking force. Condition determination unit 201 controls brake control unit 400 to compensate a deficit of a braking force due to the regenerative brake with mechanical braking.”).
In regard to claim 13, Inoue discloses the method of claim 12, further including:
performing, by further using the second brake, the braking control by the processor in response to identifying that the host vehicle driving speed is smaller than or equal to the first driving speed (see step S704 in Fig 7 and Col 9, lines 42-47: “Step S704: Condition determination unit 201 determines that mechanical braking does not need to be applied because the regenerative brake due to electric motor 330 provides a sufficient braking force, and controls brake control unit 400 not to perform brake operation. In this case, determination unit 200 zeros instructed brake pressure P.sub.b* to be input to brake control unit 400.”), OR (following the logic through the flow chart of Fig 7, as broadly claimed, considered to be “performing the braking control” with both brakes present).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747