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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the correction value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US# 2017/0001610).
Singh discloses all the limitations of the instant claim including; a method for controlling an actuator for operating an electromechanical motor vehicle brake comprising: providing a target value to be achieved for a clamping force of the actuator as a target clamping force (100 or FORCE ERROR); calculating a target value for an actuator speed 106 as a target actuator speed based on the target clamping force [0021]; calculating a torque 128 ([0016] motor current is directly proportional to torque) based on the target actuator speed [0024]; calculating required braking power of the actuator based on the torque and the target actuator speed (Figure 3;[0022]; the velocity demanded at a particular force measures represents a required braking power) checking 108a whether the braking power exceeds a specified limit value W1/W2 for a maximum power of the actuator; reducing the target actuator speed to a modified target actuator speed 120 if the specified limit value is exceeded; and operating the actuator at the target actuator speed or the modified target actuator speed to achieve the target clamping force.
Regarding claim 2, the providing the target clamping force (100 or FORCE ERROR) is performed by a vehicle controller 26, by an on-board computer 26[0002][0020] or another vehicle computer 26[0020].
Regarding claim 3, further comprising detecting a currently applied clamping force 50 of the actuator as the actual clamping force.
Regarding claim 4, the actual clamping force 50 is additionally taken into account for calculating the torque. [0025] “The positive and negative current limit calculation is based on the measured braking force.”
Regarding claim 5, a maximum power of the actuator, which does not exceed the limit value (for instance, W2*F1), is achieved at the modified target actuator speed W2.
Regarding claim 12, detecting the actual clamping force is performed by one of a force sensor 44 and a model stored in a memory.
Regarding claim 13, a force controller unit 26 is provided for carrying out the control method.
Regarding claim 14, Singh discloses a force controller unit 26 for use with a control device for a motor vehicle brake designed for carrying out the following steps: providing a target value to be achieved for a clamping force of the actuator as a target clamping force (100 or FORCE ERROR); calculating a target value for an actuator speed 106 as a target actuator speed based on the target clamping force [0021]; calculating a torque 128 ([0016] motor current is directly proportional to torque) based on the target actuator speed [0024]; calculating required braking power of the actuator based on the torque and the target actuator speed (Figure 3;[0022]; the velocity demanded at a particular force measures represents a required braking power) checking 108a whether the braking power exceeds a specified limit value W1/W2 for a maximum power of the actuator; reducing the target actuator speed to a modified target actuator speed 120 if the specified limit value is exceeded; and operating the actuator at the target actuator speed or the modified target actuator speed to achieve the target clamping force.
Regarding claim 15, Singh discloses a motor vehicle (aircraft having an electromechanical brake actuator is operative to apply a braking force to brake a wheel of a vehicle [0014]) comprising an electromechanical motor vehicle brake [0014] having a force controller unit 26 designed for carrying out the following steps: providing a target value to be achieved for a clamping force of the actuator as a target clamping force (100 or FORCE ERROR); calculating a target value for an actuator speed 106 as a target actuator speed based on the target clamping force [0021]; calculating a torque 128 ([0016] motor current is directly proportional to torque) based on the target actuator speed [0024]; calculating required braking power of the actuator based on the torque and the target actuator speed (Figure 3;[0022]; the velocity demanded at a particular force measures represents a required braking power) checking 108a whether the braking power exceeds a specified limit value W1/W2 for a maximum power of the actuator; reducing the target actuator speed to a modified target actuator speed 120 if the specified limit value is exceeded; and operating the actuator at the target actuator speed or the modified target actuator speed to achieve the target clamping force.
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.
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US# 2017/0001610) in view of Forghani et al (US# 2022/0212642).
Singh discloses all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the modified target actuator speed being once again limited to a modified corrected target actuator by a correction factor and the actuator is operated at the corrected target actuator speed. Forghani et al disclose a similar brake system and further teach additional correction factors such as brake temperature [0048]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use additional correction factors, such as taught by Forghani et al, in the actuator speed control of Singh to compensate for other factors such as temperature which may affect power, thereby improving performance of the system.
Regarding claim 7, Forghani et al teach other factors in a stored matrix [0005][0048].
Regarding claim 8, Singh further lack the disclosure that at least one of the modifying and the correcting the target actuator speed can be overridden or suspended when one of a superordinate vehicle controller, an on-board computer, and another vehicle computer specifies this. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the controller of Singh to override the correction in cases where maximum power is required for safety, thereby insuring appropriate operation in emergency situations.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US# 2017/0001610) in view of Stiller (US# 2004/0216020).
Singh discloses all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the selecting of the correction value for determining the corrected target actuator speed using a decision matrix stored in a memory. Stiller disclose a vehicle control method and further teach the use of a decision matrix for determination of vehicle conditions [0022][0048]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a decision matrix such as taught by Stiller, in the method of Singh, as an obvious alternative processing method which yields the predictable results of substantially the same performance.
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US# 2017/0001610) in view of Baumgaertner et al (US# 2017/0174194).
Singh discloses all the limitations of the instant claims with exception to the modifying the target actuator speed and the correcting the target actuator speed being performed precisely once when a target value for the target clamping force is received (claim 10) or cyclically performed until the target clamping force is achieved (claim 11). Baumgaertner et al discloses a brake method and further teaches performing a method step precisely once or cyclically until the step is achieved [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the modification in Singh once or cyclically, as taught by Baumgaertner et al, as obvious processing variants which achieve the same correction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571 272-7124. 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights