DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-19 are pending 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 .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Oldridge (US20160318501) in view of over Choi et al. (US2022/0114889) and herein after will be referred as Choi and Oldridge respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Oldridge teaches a method for controlling regenerative braking of a vehicle (Fig.3), the method comprising:
determining, by a controller, a first regenerative braking torque based on recognition of a downhill road (Fig.3 and Para [0056]: “Referring again to FIG. 3 regenerative braking can slow the vehicle and recharge the batteries at a consistent rate. During regenerative braking the system controller 12 increases or decreases regenerative braking torque linearly in response to a measured vehicle mass, a downhill road grade measured by the inclinometer 38 and any increase in acceleration due to gravity, toward maintaining a target constant deceleration rate and downhill speed seamlessly with interaction required from the driver other than his brake pedal or throttle pedal actions in response to the road situation for the vehicle.”);
Oldridge doesn’t expressly teaches determining a second regenerative braking torque based on recognition of a deceleration driving zone ahead; determining a larger of the first regenerative braking torque and the second regenerative braking torque as a final regenerative braking torque; and performing regenerative braking based on the final regenerative braking torque.
Choi teaches determining a second regenerative braking torque based on recognition of a deceleration driving zone ahead (Fig.5 #S12 and Para [0045, 0070-0075; “The acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle may be calculated based on torque of a driving device (driving torque and regenerative torque) or the like, in which case the torque may be a torque command (an engine torque command, a motor driving torque command, or a motor regenerative torque command) for the driving device. This may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and it is well known that the driving torque command, the regenerative torque command, and the like may be determined based on the vehicle driving information by the controller 20, and thus a detailed description thereof will be omitted in the specification. [0070] First, while the vehicle travels, the controller 20 may acquire vehicle speed and vehicle acceleration and deceleration information in real time through the driving information detector 11 (S11). [0071] Then, when detecting a deceleration event ahead of the vehicle on a travel path from the deceleration event information provided by the navigation device 18 (S12), the controller 20 may determine whether the current NSCC function is being operated (S13). [0072] Here, when determining that the NSCC function is capable of being operated, the controller 20 may transfer an NSCC control speed and deceleration event (speed limit camera) information to the display unit 30 and may display the NSCC control speed and the position of the deceleration event (S14).[0073] In contrast, when determining that the NSCC function is not being operated, the controller 20 may determine the expected speed of the vehicle at the deceleration event based on the vehicle speed, acceleration and deceleration, and the remaining distance information to the deceleration event, received from the navigation device 18 (S15).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oldridge to incorporate the teachings of Choi to include determining a second regenerative braking torque based on recognition of a deceleration driving zone ahead. Doing so would perform optimized regenerative braking and improving the energy recovery process.
Oldridge and Choi does not expressly teaches determining a larger of the first regenerative braking torque and the second regenerative braking torque as a final regenerative braking torque; and performing regenerative braking based on the final regenerative braking torque.
However, a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine teaching of the first regenerative braking torque based on downhill road recognition with teaching of the second regenerative braking torque based on recognition of deceleration driving zone to determine larger of the two torques as the final regenerative braking torque as claimed to maximize energy recovery and ensure optimal braking performance in varying road conditions, thereby improving vehicle efficiency and battery longevity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oldridge and Choi to incorporate the teachings of predictable variation to include determining a larger of the first regenerative braking torque and the second regenerative braking torque as a final regenerative braking torque; and performing regenerative braking based on the final regenerative braking torque. Doing so would allow most effective regeneration level without underutilizing available opportunities to avoid energy waste or insufficient braking.
Similarly Claim 10 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 2, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
Oldridge teaches wherein determining the first regenerative braking torque comprises: determining first regenerative braking entry conditions; and determining the first regenerative braking torque based on the first regenerative braking entry conditions being satisfied (Fig.3 and Para [0056]: “Referring again to FIG. 3 regenerative braking can slow the vehicle and recharge the batteries at a consistent rate. During regenerative braking the system controller 12 increases or decreases regenerative braking torque linearly in response to a measured vehicle mass, a downhill road grade measured by the inclinometer 38 and any increase in acceleration due to gravity, toward maintaining a target constant deceleration rate and downhill speed seamlessly with interaction required from the driver other than his brake pedal or throttle pedal actions in response to the road situation for the vehicle.”).
Similarly Claim 11 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 3, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 2.
Oldridge teaches wherein determining the first regenerative braking entry conditions includes: determining whether the first regenerative braking entry conditions are satisfied based on at least one of whether a smart regenerative brake function is activated, whether the vehicle is coasting on a downhill road, whether a stop or acceleration signal is received, and whether the vehicle speed exceeds a predetermined target speed; wherein the target speed is determined based on the vehicle speed at a time when brake pedal operation ceases (Fig.3 and Para [0056]).
Similarly Claim 12 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 4, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 2.
Oldridge teaches wherein determining the first regenerative braking torque includes: determining the first regenerative braking torque based on at least one of vehicle speed, vehicle wheel radius, vehicle weight, and slope of the downhill road (Para [0056]: “Referring again to FIG. 3 regenerative braking can slow the vehicle and recharge the batteries at a consistent rate. During regenerative braking the system controller 12 increases or decreases regenerative braking torque linearly in response to a measured vehicle mass, a downhill road grade measured by the inclinometer 38 and any increase in acceleration due to gravity, toward maintaining a target constant deceleration rate and downhill speed seamlessly with interaction required from the driver other than his brake pedal or throttle pedal actions in response to the road situation for the vehicle.)”.
Similarly Claim 13 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 5, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
Choi teaches wherein determining the second regenerative braking torque includes: determining second regenerative braking entry conditions are satisfied; and determining the second regenerative braking torque based on the second regenerative braking entry conditions being satisfied (Para 0051and 0045]).
Similarly Claim 14 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 6, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 5.
Choi teaches wherein determining whether the second regenerative braking entry conditions are satisfied includes: determining whether the second regenerative braking entry conditions are satisfied based on whether a sign is recognized (Para [0050] and [0058]).
Similarly Claim 15 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 7, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
Choi teaches wherein determining the second regenerative braking torque includes: determining, based on a sign indicative of the deceleration driving zone ahead being recognized, the second regenerative braking torque until the vehicle reaches a location corresponding to the sign (Para [0050] and [0058]).
Similarly Claim 16 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 8, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 7.
Choi teaches wherein determining the second regenerative braking torque until the vehicle reaches the location corresponding to the sign includes: determining the second regenerative braking torque until the vehicle reaches the corresponding location, even after the sign is no longer recognized after being initially detected (Para [0050]).
Similarly Claim 17 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 9, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
Choi teaches further comprising outputting information on the final regenerative braking torque through an output unit (Para [0056]).
Regarding Claim 18, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
Oldridge teaches further comprising: an information collection device configured to collect information necessary for determining the first regenerative braking torque (Para [0056])
Choi teaches the second regenerative braking torque (Para [0045]);
Choi teaches wherein the information collection device comprises at least one of a camera (Para [0057])
Oldridge teaches an incline sensor, a brake pedal, a vehicle speed sensor, and a navigation system (Fig.3 and Para [0056]).
Regarding Claim 19, Oldridge in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
Choi teaches further comprising an output device configured to output information on the final regenerative braking torque, wherein the output device comprises at least one of a cluster, head-up display (HUD), a display device, and a speaker (Para [0056]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US10166968B2) discloses a method for controlling a coasting drive of an environmentally friendly vehicle includes: calculating a coasting velocity of the environmentally friendly vehicle at a deceleration event point based on a target coasting distance up to the deceleration event point and a gradient at the deceleration event point; calculating a control target velocity of the environmentally friendly vehicle based on a target velocity of the environmentally friendly vehicle at the deceleration event point and the calculated coasting velocity; and determining control torque to adjust a velocity of the environmentally friendly vehicle to the target velocity to be output to a powertrain of the environmentally friendly vehicle based on the calculated control target velocity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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 at 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 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668