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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The drawings were objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the drawings accordingly; therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
The specification was objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the specification accordingly; therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 were objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 5-8, 13-15, and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-13 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-8, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yanagita does not teach generating a deceleration plan, since “A correction unit seems to correct the deceleration (reactive) versus generating a plan (proactive)”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “generating a deceleration plan, in response to detecting the stop line” shows that this step is performed reactively since it is performed when the stop line is detected. The limitation as a whole and the term “deceleration plan” are also recited broadly and do not indicate or suggest that the step of generating a deceleration plan is performed proactively. Furthermore, [0115] of Yanagita, as cited in the rejection below, recites identifying “stop lines in the direction of travel”, where the distance to the stop line is determined as the target stopping distance. [0083] & [0119-0120] of Yanagita, as cited in the rejection below, recites deriving a deceleration correction amount (i.e., deceleration plan) if the predicted stopping distance is longer than the target stopping distance and decelerating the vehicle according to the deceleration correction amount. Since the deceleration correction amount is calculated based on a distance to where the vehicle needs to stop (i.e., the stop line), this shows that deriving the deceleration correction amount occurs in response to detecting the stop line. Therefore, Examiner maintains the interpretation of Yanagita, but due to the amended limitation “coast torque adjustments”, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yanagita and Lee.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita of CN 111731290 A, published 10/02/2020, hereinafter “Yanagita”, in view of Lee of US 20250171025 A1, filed 07/13/2024, hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Yanagita teaches:
A method implemented by an electric vehicle (EV) using one-pedal driving, comprising: (See at least [0039]: “Vehicle 1 is, for example, an electric vehicle that uses an electric motor as its driving source…” & [0044]: “…vehicle 1 has a single-pedal function that enables acceleration and deceleration via a single pedal (universal pedal 16).”)
detecting a stop line ahead of the EV using map data or sensor inputs; (See at least [0115]: “…the vehicle external environment recognition device 12 identifies the traffic lights and stop lines in the direction of travel. When the traffic light is red or yellow, the target stop distance derivation unit 44 determines the stop line in front of the traffic light as the target stop position. Then, the target stopping distance derivation unit 44 derives the distance to the determined target stopping position (stop line) as the target stopping distance.”)
generating a deceleration plan for the EV, in response to detecting the stop line, wherein the deceleration plan is based on at least a distance to the stop line and a current speed of the EV, and (See at least [0119-0120]: “On the other hand, when the predicted stopping distance is longer than the target stopping distance ("Yes" in S240), the deceleration correction unit 46 derives the correction amount (S260). Specifically, firstly, the deceleration correction unit 46 derives the stopping distance difference based on the predicted stopping distance and the target stopping distance. When the stop line is determined as the target stopping position, the deceleration correction unit 46 refers to the first correction amount diagram and derives the correction amount based on the difference between the current speed and the stopping distance…”. See also [0058] regarding correcting the deceleration if the vehicle is predicted to cross a stop line.)
wherein the deceleration plan ends at the stop line; (See at least [0064]: “…As a result, in vehicle 1, as shown in Figure 3(d), the actual stopping position of the vehicle coincides with the target stopping position, which allows the vehicle to stop appropriately at the target stopping position.”)
detecting a full release of an accelerator pedal by a driver; and (See at least [0046]: “When the universal pedal 16 is not stepped on…” & [0106]: “…The control unit 22 acquires the pedal depth of the universal pedal 16 from the pedal depth sensor during a specified control cycle…”)
adjusting, using regenerative brakingdeceleration of the EV based on the deceleration plan. (See at least [0050-0052]: “…in the deceleration zone, regenerative braking is performed to allow the electric motor to function as a generator and regenerate power from the battery…The braking mechanism 20 here includes a regenerative brake” & [0122]: “…the deceleration correction unit 46 adds the correction amount derived in step S260 to the pedal deceleration derived in step S210. Afterwards, the deceleration correction unit 46 activates the braking mechanism 20 with the corrected deceleration derived in step S270 (S280), thus ending the series of processes shown in FIG9” & [0083]: “The deceleration correction unit 46 corrects the deceleration of the vehicle based on the predicted stopping distance and the target stopping distance. Specifically, when the predicted stopping distance is longer than the target stopping distance, the deceleration correction unit 46 increases the deceleration of the vehicle compared to the deceleration (pedal deceleration) derived by the deceleration derivation unit 40. Furthermore, the deceleration correction unit 46 causes the braking mechanism 20 to operate with the corrected deceleration (corrected deceleration).”)
Yanagita does not explicitly teach:
…and coast torque adjustments…
Lee teaches:
…and coast torque adjustments… (See at least [0112]: “As another example, when a traffic signal of a traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 and a stop marking (or stop line) of a road are detected in front of the vehicle 1, the processor 141 may control the driving device 10 to increase the amount of coasting torque for regenerative braking of the vehicle 1. The traffic signal of a traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 may be, for example, but not limited to, a red light or a stop signal light (e.g. a flashing red light). When the traffic signal of the traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 and the stop marking of the road are detected in front of the vehicle 1 and the vehicle 1 is predicted to go past the stop marking, the processor 141 may control the driving device 10 to increase the amount of coasting torque for regenerative braking of the vehicle 1.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita’s method with Lee’s technique of adjusting coasting torque when a stop marking is detected in front of a vehicle. Doing so would be obvious so “the vehicle 1 can be more quickly braked or decelerated, and the fuel efficiency or electric efficiency of the vehicle 1 can be improved” (See [0167] of Lee).
Regarding claim 9, Yanagita teaches:
An electric vehicle (EV), comprising: a processor, configured to: (See at least [0039]: “Vehicle 1 is, for example, an electric vehicle that uses an electric motor as its driving source…” & [0053]: “The control unit 22 is composed of semiconductor integrated circuits including a central processing unit (CPU)…The control unit 22 controls various parts of the vehicle 1…”)
detect a stop line ahead of the EV using map data or sensor inputs; (See at least [0115]: “…the vehicle external environment recognition device 12 identifies the traffic lights and stop lines in the direction of travel. When the traffic light is red or yellow, the target stop distance derivation unit 44 determines the stop line in front of the traffic light as the target stop position. Then, the target stopping distance derivation unit 44 derives the distance to the determined target stopping position (stop line) as the target stopping distance.”)
generate a deceleration plan for the EV, in response to the stop line being detected, wherein the deceleration plan is based on at least a distance to the stop line and a current speed of the EV, and (See at least [0119-0120]: “On the other hand, when the predicted stopping distance is longer than the target stopping distance ("Yes" in S240), the deceleration correction unit 46 derives the correction amount (S260). Specifically, firstly, the deceleration correction unit 46 derives the stopping distance difference based on the predicted stopping distance and the target stopping distance. When the stop line is determined as the target stopping position, the deceleration correction unit 46 refers to the first correction amount diagram and derives the correction amount based on the difference between the current speed and the stopping distance…”. See also [0058] regarding correcting the deceleration if the vehicle is predicted to cross a stop line.)
wherein the deceleration plan ends at the stop line; (See at least Figs. 3-4 & [0064]: “…As a result, in vehicle 1, as shown in Figure 3(d), the actual stopping position of the vehicle coincides with the target stopping position, which allows the vehicle to stop appropriately at the target stopping position.”)
detect a full release of an accelerator pedal by a driver; and (See at least [0046]: “When the universal pedal 16 is not stepped on…” & [0106]: “…The control unit 22 acquires the pedal depth of the universal pedal 16 from the pedal depth sensor during a specified control cycle…”)
adjust, using regenerative braking (See at least [0050-0052]: “…in the deceleration zone, regenerative braking is performed to allow the electric motor to function as a generator and regenerate power from the battery…The braking mechanism 20 here includes a regenerative brake” & [0122]: “…the deceleration correction unit 46 adds the correction amount derived in step S260 to the pedal deceleration derived in step S210. Afterwards, the deceleration correction unit 46 activates the braking mechanism 20 with the corrected deceleration derived in step S270 (S280), thus ending the series of processes shown in FIG9” & [0083]: “The deceleration correction unit 46 corrects the deceleration of the vehicle based on the predicted stopping distance and the target stopping distance. Specifically, when the predicted stopping distance is longer than the target stopping distance, the deceleration correction unit 46 increases the deceleration of the vehicle compared to the deceleration (pedal deceleration) derived by the deceleration derivation unit 40. Furthermore, the deceleration correction unit 46 causes the braking mechanism 20 to operate with the corrected deceleration (corrected deceleration).”)
Yanagita does not explicitly teach:
…and coast torque adjustments…
Lee teaches:
…and coast torque adjustments… (See at least [0112]: “As another example, when a traffic signal of a traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 and a stop marking (or stop line) of a road are detected in front of the vehicle 1, the processor 141 may control the driving device 10 to increase the amount of coasting torque for regenerative braking of the vehicle 1. The traffic signal of a traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 may be, for example, but not limited to, a red light or a stop signal light (e.g. a flashing red light). When the traffic signal of the traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 and the stop marking of the road are detected in front of the vehicle 1 and the vehicle 1 is predicted to go past the stop marking, the processor 141 may control the driving device 10 to increase the amount of coasting torque for regenerative braking of the vehicle 1.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita’s method with Lee’s technique of adjusting coasting torque when a stop marking is detected in front of a vehicle. Doing so would be obvious so “the vehicle 1 can be more quickly braked or decelerated, and the fuel efficiency or electric efficiency of the vehicle 1 can be improved” (See [0167] of Lee).
Regarding claim 16, Yanagita teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause a processor to perform operations with respect to an electric vehicle (EV) using one-pedal driving, the operations comprising: (See at least [0039]: “Vehicle 1 is, for example, an electric vehicle that uses an electric motor as its driving source…” & [0044]: “…vehicle 1 has a single-pedal function that enables acceleration and deceleration via a single pedal (universal pedal 16).”)
detecting a stop line ahead of the EV using map data or sensor inputs; (See at least [0115]: “…the vehicle external environment recognition device 12 identifies the traffic lights and stop lines in the direction of travel. When the traffic light is red or yellow, the target stop distance derivation unit 44 determines the stop line in front of the traffic light as the target stop position. Then, the target stopping distance derivation unit 44 derives the distance to the determined target stopping position (stop line) as the target stopping distance.”)
generating a deceleration plan for the EV, in response to detecting the stop line, wherein the deceleration plan is based on at least a distance to the stop line and a current speed of the EV, and (See at least [0120]: “When the stop line is determined as the target stopping position, the deceleration correction unit 46 refers to the first correction amount diagram and derives the correction amount based on the difference between the current speed and the stopping distance…”. See also [0058] regarding correcting the deceleration if the vehicle is predicted to cross a stop line.)
wherein the deceleration plan ends at the stop line; (See at least [0064]: “…As a result, in vehicle 1, as shown in Figure 3(d), the actual stopping position of the vehicle coincides with the target stopping position, which allows the vehicle to stop appropriately at the target stopping position.”)
detecting a full release of an accelerator pedal by a driver; and (See at least [0046]: “When the universal pedal 16 is not stepped on…” & [0106]: “…The control unit 22 acquires the pedal depth of the universal pedal 16 from the pedal depth sensor during a specified control cycle…”)
adjusting, using regenerative braking (See at least [0050]: “…in the deceleration zone, regenerative braking is performed to allow the electric motor to function as a generator and regenerate power from the battery…” & [0122]: “…the deceleration correction unit 46 adds the correction amount derived in step S260 to the pedal deceleration derived in step S210. Afterwards, the deceleration correction unit 46 activates the braking mechanism 20 with the corrected deceleration derived in step S270 (S280), thus ending the series of processes shown in FIG9.”)
Yanagita does not explicitly teach:
…and coast torque adjustments…
Lee teaches:
…and coast torque adjustments… (See at least [0112]: “As another example, when a traffic signal of a traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 and a stop marking (or stop line) of a road are detected in front of the vehicle 1, the processor 141 may control the driving device 10 to increase the amount of coasting torque for regenerative braking of the vehicle 1. The traffic signal of a traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 may be, for example, but not limited to, a red light or a stop signal light (e.g. a flashing red light). When the traffic signal of the traffic light requiring stopping of the vehicle 1 and the stop marking of the road are detected in front of the vehicle 1 and the vehicle 1 is predicted to go past the stop marking, the processor 141 may control the driving device 10 to increase the amount of coasting torque for regenerative braking of the vehicle 1.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita’s method with Lee’s technique of adjusting coasting torque when a stop marking is detected in front of a vehicle. Doing so would be obvious so “the vehicle 1 can be more quickly braked or decelerated, and the fuel efficiency or electric efficiency of the vehicle 1 can be improved” (See [0167] of Lee).
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita in view of Lee and further in view of Takeda of US 20190061763 A1, filed 09/12/2017, hereinafter “Takeda”.
Regarding claim 2, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: outputting, at a predefined distance from the stop line, an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV,
wherein the predefined distance is calculated based on the current speed of the EV and capability of the generative braking.
Takeda teaches:
further comprising: outputting, at a predefined distance from the stop line, an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV, (See at least [0030]: “…a second warning that urges the operator to operate the cooperative brake pedal 114 is notified using visual information…” & [0047]: ” If TTC is equal to or smaller than the second collision avoidance limit value t.sub.2 (S105/No), it is determined that there is a risk of collision if the cooperative braking is not actuated. Therefore, a signal which is for causing the second alarm 117 to output a warning is generated and outputted, whereby triggering of a warning is performed (S107).”)
wherein the predefined distance is calculated based on the current speed of the EV and capability of the generative braking. (See at least [0042]: “…By checking the travel speed V.sub.1 against regenerative braking performance data f1 stored in the braking performance data storage section 304, the warning determination section 303 extracts a first braking distance X.sub.1 which is a braking distance when the regenerative brake device 3f1 is actuated while traveling at the travel speed V.sub.1. Based on the following formula (2), the warning determination section 303 then adds a margin m.sub.1 to a value, which has been obtained by dividing the first braking distance X.sub.1 by the regenerative brake device 3f1 with the travel speed V.sub.1 of the dump truck 100, to determine a first collision avoidance limit value t.sub.1 as a collision avoidance limit value upon actuation of the regenerative brake device 3f1”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Takeda’s technique of outputting an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV at a predefined distance from a stop line, which is calculated based on a current speed of the EV and capability of the regenerative braking. Doing so would be obvious so that “a collision has been avoided” (See [0049] of Takeda).
Regarding claim 10, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to: output, at a predefined distance from the stop line, an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV,
wherein the predefined distance is calculated based on the current speed of the EV and capability of the regenerative braking.
Takeda teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: output, at a predefined distance from the stop line, an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV, (See at least [0030]: “…a second warning that urges the operator to operate the cooperative brake pedal 114 is notified using visual information…” & [0047]: ” If TTC is equal to or smaller than the second collision avoidance limit value t.sub.2 (S105/No), it is determined that there is a risk of collision if the cooperative braking is not actuated. Therefore, a signal which is for causing the second alarm 117 to output a warning is generated and outputted, whereby triggering of a warning is performed (S107).”)
wherein the predefined distance is calculated based on the current speed of the EV and capability of the regenerative braking. (See at least [0042]: “…By checking the travel speed V.sub.1 against regenerative braking performance data f1 stored in the braking performance data storage section 304, the warning determination section 303 extracts a first braking distance X.sub.1 which is a braking distance when the regenerative brake device 3f1 is actuated while traveling at the travel speed V.sub.1. Based on the following formula (2), the warning determination section 303 then adds a margin m.sub.1 to a value, which has been obtained by dividing the first braking distance X.sub.1 by the regenerative brake device 3f1 with the travel speed V.sub.1 of the dump truck 100, to determine a first collision avoidance limit value t.sub.1 as a collision avoidance limit value upon actuation of the regenerative brake device 3f1”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Takeda’s technique of outputting an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV at a predefined distance from a stop line, which is calculated based on a speed of the EV and regenerative braking capability. Doing so would be obvious so that “a collision has been avoided” (See [0049] of Takeda).
Regarding claim 17, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach: the operations further comprise: outputting, at a predefined distance from the stop line, an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV,
wherein the predefined distance is calculated based on a speed of the EV and regenerative braking capability.
Takeda teaches:
the operations further comprise: outputting, at a predefined distance from the stop line, an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV, (See at least [0030]: “…a second warning that urges the operator to operate the cooperative brake pedal 114 is notified using visual information…” & [0047]: ” If TTC is equal to or smaller than the second collision avoidance limit value t.sub.2 (S105/No), it is determined that there is a risk of collision if the cooperative braking is not actuated. Therefore, a signal which is for causing the second alarm 117 to output a warning is generated and outputted, whereby triggering of a warning is performed (S107).”)
wherein the predefined distance is calculated based on the current speed of the EV and capability of the regenerative braking. (See at least [0042]: “…By checking the travel speed V.sub.1 against regenerative braking performance data f1 stored in the braking performance data storage section 304, the warning determination section 303 extracts a first braking distance X.sub.1 which is a braking distance when the regenerative brake device 3f1 is actuated while traveling at the travel speed V.sub.1. Based on the following formula (2), the warning determination section 303 then adds a margin m.sub.1 to a value, which has been obtained by dividing the first braking distance X.sub.1 by the regenerative brake device 3f1 with the travel speed V.sub.1 of the dump truck 100, to determine a first collision avoidance limit value t.sub.1 as a collision avoidance limit value upon actuation of the regenerative brake device 3f1”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Takeda’s technique of outputting an instruction directing the driver to apply a brake pedal of the EV at a predefined distance from a stop line, which is calculated based on a speed of the EV and regenerative braking capability. Doing so would be obvious so that “a collision has been avoided” (See [0049] of Takeda).
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita in view of Lee and further in view of Ohta of US 20180319397 A1, filed 11/09/2015, hereinafter “Ohta”.
Regarding claim 3, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: detecting a driver override input during the acceleration or deceleration, the driver override input comprising either pressing a brake pedal of the EV or pressing the accelerator pedal; and
in response to detecting the driver override input, discontinuing the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action.
Ohta teaches:
further comprising: detecting a driver override input during the acceleration or deceleration, the driver override input comprising either pressing a brake pedal of the EV or pressing the accelerator pedal; and (See at least [0266]: “…the driver override indicates a state where the driver of the vehicle C has the control right of the driving force or the braking force of the vehicle C. In other words, the driver override indicates a state where, for example, the driving force (driving force depending on operation amount of accelerator pedal AP) intended by the driver of the vehicle C is larger than the driving force selected by the ITS output setting unit 26.”)
in response to detecting the driver override input, discontinuing the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action. (See at least [0267-0268]: “…when the driver override is established, the control of the braking/driving force by the ITS control unit 2 is stopped. The determination as to whether or not the driver override is established is made by comparing the parameter subjected to the filter process by the ITS output setting unit 26 and the parameter included in the corrected driving force signal”. See also [0392-0400] regarding outputting a corrected driving signal, which includes the driver request driving force, when the driver override is established.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Ohta’s technique of discontinuing the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action when an override input is detected. Doing so would be obvious to “suppress[es] the variation in the vehicle speed not intended by the driver” (See [0478] of Ohta).
Regarding claim 11, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to: detect a driver override input during the acceleration or the deceleration, the driver override input comprising either pressing a brake pedal of the EV or pressing the accelerator pedal; and
in response to detecting the driver override input, discontinue the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action.
Ohta teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: detect a driver override input during the acceleration or the deceleration, the driver override input comprising either pressing a brake pedal of the EV or pressing the accelerator pedal; and (See at least [0266]: “…the driver override indicates a state where the driver of the vehicle C has the control right of the driving force or the braking force of the vehicle C. In other words, the driver override indicates a state where, for example, the driving force (driving force depending on operation amount of accelerator pedal AP) intended by the driver of the vehicle C is larger than the driving force selected by the ITS output setting unit 26.”)
in response to detecting the driver override input, discontinue the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action. (See at least [0267-0268]: “…when the driver override is established, the control of the braking/driving force by the ITS control unit 2 is stopped. The determination as to whether or not the driver override is established is made by comparing the parameter subjected to the filter process by the ITS output setting unit 26 and the parameter included in the corrected driving force signal”. See also [0392-0400] regarding outputting a corrected driving signal, which includes the driver request driving force, when the driver override is established.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita’s method with Ohta’s technique of discontinuing the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action when an override input is detected. Doing so would be obvious to “suppress[es] the variation in the vehicle speed not intended by the driver” (See [0478] of Ohta).
Regarding claim 18, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the operations further comprise: detecting a driver override input during the acceleration or deceleration, the driver override input comprising either pressing a brake pedal of the EV or pressing the accelerator pedal; and
in response to detecting the driver override input, discontinuing the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action.
Ohta teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: detecting a driver override input during the acceleration or the deceleration, the driver override input comprising either pressing a brake pedal of the EV or pressing the accelerator pedal; and (See at least [0266]: “…the driver override indicates a state where the driver of the vehicle C has the control right of the driving force or the braking force of the vehicle C. In other words, the driver override indicates a state where, for example, the driving force (driving force depending on operation amount of accelerator pedal AP) intended by the driver of the vehicle C is larger than the driving force selected by the ITS output setting unit 26.”)
in response to detecting the driver override input, discontinuing the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action. (See at least [0267-0268]: “…when the driver override is established, the control of the braking/driving force by the ITS control unit 2 is stopped. The determination as to whether or not the driver override is established is made by comparing the parameter subjected to the filter process by the ITS output setting unit 26 and the parameter included in the corrected driving force signal”. See also [0392-0400] regarding outputting a corrected driving signal, which includes the driver request driving force, when the driver override is established.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Ohta’s technique of discontinuing the deceleration plan and applying a corresponding action when an override input is detected. Doing so would be obvious to “suppress[es] the variation in the vehicle speed not intended by the driver” (See [0478] of Ohta).
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita in view of Lee and further in view of Konishi of US 20190202297 A1, filed 12/19/2018, hereinafter “Konishi”.
Regarding claim 4, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Yanagita additionally teaches:
wherein the deceleration plan comprises a lookup table (LUT) that, (See at least [0173]: During vehicle production, information on the accelerator pedal opening and a table showing the relationship between the vehicle's current speed and the target acceleration can be obtained through testing. Based on the accelerator pedal opening and the vehicle's current speed, the target acceleration used for braking the vehicle can be determined by looking up the table.”)
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
…given a current distance to the stop line…
Konishi teaches:
…given a current distance to the stop line… (See at least [0061]: “…a table for associating the stop distance with the information about the traveling speed and the deceleration torque is saved in the memory C2, and the control unit (26 and 29) can acquire the stop distance based on the traveling speed at the time of traveling with reference to the table in the memory C2.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Konishi’s technique of including a reference table associating stop distance with travel speed and deceleration torque. Doing so would be obvious so the vehicle can “stop at the stop position” (See [0061] of Konishi).
Regarding claim 12, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Yanagita additionally teaches:
wherein the deceleration plan comprises a lookup table (LUT) that, (See at least [0173]: During vehicle production, information on the accelerator pedal opening and a table showing the relationship between the vehicle's current speed and the target acceleration can be obtained through testing. Based on the accelerator pedal opening and the vehicle's current speed, the target acceleration used for braking the vehicle can be determined by looking up the table.”)
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
…given a current distance to the stop line…
Konishi teaches:
…given a current distance to the stop line… (See at least [0061]: “…a table for associating the stop distance with the information about the traveling speed and the deceleration torque is saved in the memory C2, and the control unit (26 and 29) can acquire the stop distance based on the traveling speed at the time of traveling with reference to the table in the memory C2.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Konishi’s technique of including a reference table associating stop distance with travel speed and deceleration torque. Doing so would be obvious so the vehicle can “stop at the stop position” (See [0061] of Konishi).
Regarding claim 19, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Yanagita additionally teaches:
wherein the deceleration plan comprises a lookup table (LUT) that, (See at least [0173]: During vehicle production, information on the accelerator pedal opening and a table showing the relationship between the vehicle's current speed and the target acceleration can be obtained through testing. Based on the accelerator pedal opening and the vehicle's current speed, the target acceleration used for braking the vehicle can be determined by looking up the table.”)
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
…given a current distance to the stop line…
Konishi teaches:
…given a current distance to the stop line… (See at least [0061]: “…a table for associating the stop distance with the information about the traveling speed and the deceleration torque is saved in the memory C2, and the control unit (26 and 29) can acquire the stop distance based on the traveling speed at the time of traveling with reference to the table in the memory C2.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Konishi’s technique of including a reference table associating stop distance with travel speed and deceleration torque. Doing so would be obvious so the vehicle can “stop at the stop position” (See [0061] of Konishi).
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita in view of Lee and further in view of Leesung of KR 20190051135 A, filed 11/06/2017, hereinafter “Leesung”.
Regarding claim 5, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Yanagita additionally teaches:
wherein generating the deceleration plan comprises: generating a speed plan for the electric vehicle, the speed plan comprising a distance from a current location of the electric vehicle to the stop line along a path of the electric vehicle; (See at least [0058]: “…if vehicle 1 anticipates that it will cross the stop line or that the inter-vehicle distance to the preceding vehicle will shorten due to the time delay of the deceleration operation of the universal pedal 16, it increases the deceleration of its vehicle” & [0085]: “…when there is no specific object in the direction of travel of the vehicle (when it stops at the stop line), the deceleration correction unit 46 derives the correction amount using a first correction amount diagram that is associated with the vehicle's speed, stopping distance difference, and correction amount”. See also [0062] & [0065], which recite that the stopping distance difference is the difference between the predicted stopping distance and the target stopping distance, where the predicted stopping distance is the distance between the vehicle’s current position and the predicted stopping position.)
generating a discrete-time deceleration plan from the speed plan by segmenting the speed plan into time intervals, each time interval having a time step, and for certain ones of the time intervals, determining an acceleration value or a deceleration value to be used by the electric vehicle to enable the electric vehicle to approach the stop line; and (See at least [0086-0088]: “…The values in Figure 5 represent an example of the absolute value (km/h) of the deceleration correction…In the first correction graph, the greater the vehicle's speed and the greater the stopping distance difference, the larger the correction amount will be set. In addition, in the first correction graph, the smaller the vehicle's speed and the smaller the stopping distance difference, the smaller the correction amount will be set. The deceleration correction unit 46 adds the correction amount derived from the first correction amount diagram to the pedal deceleration to derive the corrected deceleration…”)
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
generating a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to the acceleration value or the deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals.
Leesung teaches:
generating a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to the acceleration value or the deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals. (See at least Fig. 9, [0177]: “The regenerative braking control device (164) obtains a deceleration time based on a relative speed, a distance from another vehicle in front, and acceleration/deceleration values, and obtains a regenerative braking amount corresponding to the obtained deceleration time and acceleration/deceleration values based on a lookup table stored in a storage unit” & [0222-0223]: “As illustrated in FIG. 9, the lookup table has multiple deceleration times and regenerative braking amounts matched to multiple deceleration values. This lookup table may be information obtained and stored in advance during the experiment.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Leesung’s technique of generating a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to an acceleration or deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals. Doing so would be obvious for “improving reliability” (See [0034] of Leesung).
Regarding claim 13, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Yanagita additionally teaches:
wherein to generate the deceleration plan comprises to: generate a speed plan for the electric vehicle, the speed plan comprising a distance from a current location of the electric vehicle to the stop line along a path of the electric vehicle; (See at least [0058]: “…if vehicle 1 anticipates that it will cross the stop line or that the inter-vehicle distance to the preceding vehicle will shorten due to the time delay of the deceleration operation of the universal pedal 16, it increases the deceleration of its vehicle” & [0085]: “…when there is no specific object in the direction of travel of the vehicle (when it stops at the stop line), the deceleration correction unit 46 derives the correction amount using a first correction amount diagram that is associated with the vehicle's speed, stopping distance difference, and correction amount”. See also [0062] & [0065], which recite that the stopping distance difference is the difference between the predicted stopping distance and the target stopping distance, where the predicted stopping distance is the distance between the vehicle’s current position and the predicted stopping position.)
generate a discrete-time deceleration plan from the speed plan by segmenting the speed plan into time intervals, each time interval having a time step, and for certain ones of the time intervals, determining an acceleration value or a deceleration value to be used by the electric vehicle to enable the electric vehicle to approach the stop line; and (See at least [0086-0088]: “…The values in Figure 5 represent an example of the absolute value (km/h) of the deceleration correction…In the first correction graph, the greater the vehicle's speed and the greater the stopping distance difference, the larger the correction amount will be set. In addition, in the first correction graph, the smaller the vehicle's speed and the smaller the stopping distance difference, the smaller the correction amount will be set. The deceleration correction unit 46 adds the correction amount derived from the first correction amount diagram to the pedal deceleration to derive the corrected deceleration…”)
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
generate a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to the acceleration value or the deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals.
Leesung teaches:
generate a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to an acceleration or deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals. (See at least Fig. 9, [0177]: “The regenerative braking control device (164) obtains a deceleration time based on a relative speed, a distance from another vehicle in front, and acceleration/deceleration values, and obtains a regenerative braking amount corresponding to the obtained deceleration time and acceleration/deceleration values based on a lookup table stored in a storage unit” & [0222-0223]: “As illustrated in FIG. 9, the lookup table has multiple deceleration times and regenerative braking amounts matched to multiple deceleration values. This lookup table may be information obtained and stored in advance during the experiment.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Leesung’s technique of generating a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to an acceleration or deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals. Doing so would be obvious for “improving reliability” (See [0034] of Leesung).
Regarding claim 20, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Yanagita additionally teaches:
wherein generating the deceleration plan comprises: generating a speed plan for the electric vehicle, the speed plan comprising a distance from a current location of the electric vehicle to the stop line along a path of the electric vehicle; (See at least [0058]: “…if vehicle 1 anticipates that it will cross the stop line or that the inter-vehicle distance to the preceding vehicle will shorten due to the time delay of the deceleration operation of the universal pedal 16, it increases the deceleration of its vehicle” & [0085]: “…when there is no specific object in the direction of travel of the vehicle (when it stops at the stop line), the deceleration correction unit 46 derives the correction amount using a first correction amount diagram that is associated with the vehicle's speed, stopping distance difference, and correction amount”. See also [0062] & [0065], which recite that the stopping distance difference is the difference between the predicted stopping distance and the target stopping distance, where the predicted stopping distance is the distance between the vehicle’s current position and the predicted stopping position.)
generating a discrete-time deceleration plan from the speed plan by segmenting the speed plan into time intervals, each time interval having a time step, and for certain ones of the time intervals, determining an acceleration value or a deceleration value to be used by the electric vehicle to enable the electric vehicle to approach the stop line; and (See at least [0086-0088]: “…The values in Figure 5 represent an example of the absolute value (km/h) of the deceleration correction…In the first correction graph, the greater the vehicle's speed and the greater the stopping distance difference, the larger the correction amount will be set. In addition, in the first correction graph, the smaller the vehicle's speed and the smaller the stopping distance difference, the smaller the correction amount will be set. The deceleration correction unit 46 adds the correction amount derived from the first correction amount diagram to the pedal deceleration to derive the corrected deceleration…”)
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
generating a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to the acceleration value or the deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals.
Leesung teaches:
generating a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to an acceleration or deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals. (See at least Fig. 9, [0177]: “The regenerative braking control device (164) obtains a deceleration time based on a relative speed, a distance from another vehicle in front, and acceleration/deceleration values, and obtains a regenerative braking amount corresponding to the obtained deceleration time and acceleration/deceleration values based on a lookup table stored in a storage unit” & [0222-0223]: “As illustrated in FIG. 9, the lookup table has multiple deceleration times and regenerative braking amounts matched to multiple deceleration values. This lookup table may be information obtained and stored in advance during the experiment.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Leesung’s technique of generating a lookup table that maps a distance along the path to an acceleration or deceleration value for the certain ones of the time intervals. Doing so would be obvious for “improving reliability” (See [0034] of Leesung).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita in view of Lee and further in view of Petridis of US 20240270251 A1, filed 02/09/2023, hereinafter “Petridis”.
Regarding claim 6, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Lee in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: soliciting feedback from the driver regarding a performance of a regenerative braking system;
adjusting braking parameters based on received feedback from the driver, including modifying a braking sensitivity or a level of regenerative braking applied; and
storing driver preferences for future use in similar driving conditions.
Petridis teaches:
further comprising: soliciting feedback from the driver regarding a performance of a regenerative braking system; (See at least [0069]: “Personalized settings: By allowing the driver to personalize their own regenerative braking settings, the EV's control system can make more accurate adjustments to the regenerative braking profile. This can be done by using the driver's feedback, such as the driver's preferred level of deceleration, and adjusting the regenerative braking profile accordingly”)
adjusting braking parameters based on received feedback from the driver, including modifying a braking sensitivity or a level of regenerative braking applied; and (See at least [0032]: “…some systems can be configured to allow the driver to adjust the sensitivity of the accelerator pedal, which can affect how much pedal lift is required to activate regenerative braking. In those cases, the driver can adjust the settings to their preference, allowing them to activate regenerative braking with a minimal pedal lift…”. See also [0069].)
storing driver preferences for future use in similar driving conditions. (See at least [0052]: “Any one of the above, or a combination thereof, ways in which the regenerative braking profile of an HEV/EV can be adapted based on different use case scenarios can be fed into the vehicle's control system to recognize and adapt to the driver's pedal usage patterns over time and adjust the regenerative braking profile accordingly, for example by increasing the regenerative braking zone 312 if the driver frequently uses the brake pedal, or increasing the size of the coasting zone 316.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Petridis’s technique of soliciting feedback from the driver, adjusting braking parameters based on the feedback, and storing driver preferences for future use in similar driving conditions. Doing so would be obvious since “learning driver behaviour can enable a greater granularity of adjustment, allowing for a greater increase in efficiency of the overall system” (See [0032] of Petridis).
Regarding claim 14, Yanagita and Lee in combination teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Yanagita does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to: solicit feedback from the driver regarding a performance of a regenerative braking system;
adjust braking parameters based on received feedback from the driver, including modifying a braking sensitivity or a level of regenerative braking applied; and
storing driver preferences for future use in similar driving conditions.
Petridis teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: solicit feedback from the driver regarding a performance of a regenerative braking system; (See at least [0069]: “Personalized settings: By allowing the driver to personalize their own regenerative braking settings, the EV's control system can make more accurate adjustments to the regenerative braking profile. This can be done by using the driver's feedback, such as the driver's preferred level of deceleration, and adjusting the regenerative braking profile accordingly”)
adjust braking parameters based on received feedback from the driver, including modifying a braking sensitivity or a level of regenerative braking applied; and (See at least [0032]: “…some systems can be configured to allow the driver to adjust the sensitivity of the accelerator pedal, which can affect how much pedal lift is required to activate regenerative braking. In those cases, the driver can adjust the settings to their preference, allowing them to activate regenerative braking with a minimal pedal lift…”. See also [0069].)
storing driver preferences for future use in similar driving conditions. (See at least [0052]: “Any one of the above, or a combination thereof, ways in which the regenerative braking profile of an HEV/EV can be adapted based on different use case scenarios can be fed into the vehicle's control system to recognize and adapt to the driver's pedal usage patterns over time and adjust the regenerative braking profile accordingly, for example by increasing the regenerative braking zone 312 if the driver frequently uses the brake pedal, or increasing the size of the coasting zone 316.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita and Lee’s method with Petridis’s technique of soliciting feedback from the driver, adjusting braking parameters based on the feedback, and storing driver preferences for future use in similar driving conditions. Doing so would be obvious since “learning driver behaviour can enable a greater granularity of adjustment, allowing for a greater increase in efficiency of the overall system” (See [0032] of Petridis).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita in view of Lee and Petridis and further in view of Tu of CN 120003281 A, filed 11/16/2023, hereinafter “Tu”.
Regarding claim 7, Yanagita, Lee, and Petridis in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Petridis in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the feedback is solicited using a voice-based HMI system.
However, Petridis teaches allowing drivers to personalize their regenerative braking settings, where the adjustments to their regenerative braking profile are “done by using the driver’s feedback” (See at least [0069] of Petridis). Petridis additionally teaches a user interface (See at least [0093] of Petridis), and Tu teaches a terminal that displays a single-pedal mode interface when it receives voice input from a user (See at least [0133] of Tu). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it an obvious design choice to perform the teachings of Petridis using any type of HMI system, including the voice-based HMI system taught by Tu, with the benefit of “improving the riding experience” (See [0218] of Tu).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita, Lee, and Petridis’s method with Tu’s technique voice-based HMI system. Doing so would be an obvious to “improv[e] the riding experience” (See [0218] of Tu).
Regarding claim 15, Yanagita, Lee, and Petridis in combination teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Yanagita and Petridis in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the feedback is solicited using a voice-based HMI system.
However, Petridis teaches allowing drivers to personalize their regenerative braking settings, where the adjustments to their regenerative braking profile are “done by using the driver’s feedback” (See at least [0069] of Petridis). Petridis additionally teaches a user interface (See at least [0093] of Petridis), and Tu teaches a terminal that displays a single-pedal mode interface when it receives voice input from a user (See at least [0133] of Tu). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it an obvious design choice to perform the teachings of Petridis using any type of HMI system, including the voice-based HMI system taught by Tu, with the benefit of “improving the riding experience” (See [0218] of Tu).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita, Lee, and Petridis’s method with Tu’s technique voice-based HMI system. Doing so would be an obvious to “improv[e] the riding experience” (See [0218] of Tu).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagita in view of Lee and Petridis and further in view of Rajaie of US 20210237581 A1, filed 02/03/2020, hereinafter “Rajaie”.
Regarding claim 8, Yanagita, Lee, and Petridis in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Yanagita, Lee, and Petridis in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the feedback is solicited using a graphical interface on a display within the EV.
Rajaie teaches:
wherein the feedback is solicited using a graphical interface on a display within the EV. (See at least [0109-0110]: “…User interface 840 may be similar, if not identical, to display device 372 described in conjunction with FIG. 3A and/or input device(s) 712 described in conjunction with FIG. 7…User interface 840 may then be configured to present the user with various adjustment options offering the user opportunities to input subsequent selections to refine the adjustment options, input new preferences to generate new adjustment options or act on one of the current adjustment options presented…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Yanagita, Lee, and Petridis’s method with Rajaie’s technique of soliciting feedback using a graphical interface on a display within the EV. Doing so would be obvious to “accept[s] user input from a user” (See [0109] of Rajaie).
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 NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights