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 .
Claims 1 – 15 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lubbers (US 8,152,245).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lubbers teaches a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to handle brake strategies for a braking arrangement of a vehicle travelling on a road, the braking arrangement being configured with a first brake strategy out of a set of brake strategies, wherein each brake strategy out of the set of brake strategies at least defines a brake force distribution to use when braking the vehicle using the respective strategy (Fig 3 shows phases 1 to 3 which represents the brake strategies, as well as Fig 4 via 76, 81, 82, 83), the processing circuitry being configured to: obtain one or more brake strategy parameters (via 72 and sensors 42, 45), the one or more brake strategy parameters being indicative of a status of the braking arrangement and/or one or more environmental parameters of the road, obtain vehicle motion information (via sensors 30, 32, 34, 36) indicative of a motion of the vehicle, based on the vehicle motion information and the one or more brake strategy parameters, select a second brake strategy out of the set of brake strategies for the braking arrangement to use, and trigger the braking arrangement of the vehicle to transition from the first brake strategy to the second brake strategy (via 80 and 77 in Fig 4, see also Fig 2 via 101for the selection of the brake strategies, and Figs 3 and 4 shows the differences in brake strategies and when it’s needed; also note Col 8 line 56 to Col 10 line 29 describe the three braking strategies and when it’s selected ).
Regarding Claim 2:
Lubbers teaches he processing circuitry is further configured to: based on the vehicle motion information and the one or more brake strategy parameters, determine a transition configuration indicative of a when and/or how to transition from using the first brake strategy to using the second brake strategy, and trigger the transition from using the first brake strategy to using the second brake strategy based on the transition configuration (Figs 2 – 6).
Regarding Claim 3:
Lubbers teaches the transition configuration comprises a fade factor indicative of how a brake distribution of the first brake strategy is to, during a transitioning time period, adapt into a brake distribution of the second brake strategy (Fig 2 – 4).
Regarding Claim 4:
Lubbers teaches the processing circuitry is configured to determine the transition configuration by being configured to select the fade factor out of a set of fade factors (Fig 3 – 4).
Regarding Claim 5:
Lubbers teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to trigger the braking arrangement of the vehicle to transition from using the first brake strategy to using the second brake strategy by triggering a plurality of changes in the brake distribution of the braking arrangement over a second time period (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 6:
Lubbers teaches the brake force distribution defines a brake force to be actuated by any one or more out of: one or more regenerative brakes of the braking arrangement, one or more service brakes of the braking arrangement, and one or more auxiliary brakes of the braking arrangement (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Lubbers teaches the set of brake strategies comprises strategies associated with different respective brake effects when used to brake the vehicle and optionally, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain an indication of a brake effect to be prioritized when braking the vehicle, and select the second brake strategy based on the indicated brake effect (Col 8 line 56 to Col 10 line 29).
Regarding Claim 8:
Lubbers teaches the brake effects comprise any one of the following: to even out brake wear of the brakes of the braking arrangement, to even out tire wear of the vehicle, to increase stability of the vehicle, to reduce a stop time of the vehicle, to increase traction to a surface travelled by the vehicle, to increase energy harvesting of regenerative brakes in the braking arrangement, and to increase usages of auxiliary brakes for braking the vehicle (Col 2 lines 29 – 68).
Regarding Claim 9:
Lubbers teaches status of the braking arrangement is indicative of whether the vehicle has activated a stability function, such as an Anti-lock Braking System, ABS, or an Electronic Stability Control, ESC, function of the braking arrangement, and/or wherein the one or more environmental parameters of the road comprises any one or more out of: sensor data and/or measurements of the road in a driving direction of the vehicle, one or more environmental factors of the road, an indication of one or more traffic events in a driving direction of the vehicle, and a friction coefficient of the road in the driving direction of the vehicle (Col 2 lines 29 – 68).
Regarding Claim 10:
Lubbers teaches the processing circuitry is configured to select the second brake strategy in response to detecting a triggering event (via 72 and 80), which triggering event indicates a change in the one or more brake strategy parameters.
Regarding Claim 11:
Lubbers teaches A vehicle comprising a braking arrangement and comprising the computer system of claim 1 (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 12:
See rejection of Claim 1above.
Regarding Claim 13:
See rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 14:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15:
See rejection of claim 1 above.
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 LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747