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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/07/2025. Claims 1 – 10, & 20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1 - 10, & 20 in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species I and Species II are not truly distinct and don’t provide a serious search burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because both species are distinct. Species I relates to a change amount of an energy regeneration braking torque that is based on a sum between the amount of energy regeneration braking torque and a change amount of the friction braking torque. Species I also focus more on thresholds and ratios that are dependent on this change amount. Thus, Species I focuses more on determining levels and amounts of different types of braking and using those sums and differences to determine an amount of energy regeneration braking torque required. Species II relates to emergency braking which is a different and more drastic type of braking compared to Species I where the primary focus is more on a change amount of an energy regeneration braking torque and a friction braking torque of a wheel. Species II relates to primarily adjusting an emergency brake through various methods and techniques. Therefore, causing Species I and Species II to be distinct and offering more of a search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025, 02/14/2025, & 01/05/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art on record, taken alone or in combination, teach the specific limitation “if in response to a road adhesion coefficient is greater than or equal to a threshold coefficient,…” as stated in claim 4.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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)(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 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”).
9. Regarding claims 1 & 20, Lee discloses a braking method, comprises:
- ([0021] Fig. 1) Lee teaches “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a configuration including an apparatus 100 for controlling braking of vehicle according to an exemplary embodiment”.
obtaining a braking-required torque of a wheel of a vehicle; and
[0030] Lee teaches “…the vehicle controller 150 may obtain a total required torque in response to the detected braking request,…”
determining a change amount of an energy regeneration braking torque and a change amount of a friction braking torque of the wheel based on a change amount of the braking-required torque of the wheel, wherein the change amount of the braking-required torque is a sum of the change amount of the energy regeneration braking torque and the change amount of the friction braking torque; and
[0030] – [0031], [0048] Lee teaches “…where the total required torque may be a sum of the regenerative braking torque by the motor and friction braking torque by the brake”. In order an amount of both a regenerative braking torque and a friction braking torque to equal the sum required for the total required torque, a change amount for the regenerative braking torque and the friction braking torque would have to be determined initially in order to appropriately apply the right amount of braking.
cooperatively controlling a friction braking and an energy regeneration braking based on the change amount of the energy regeneration braking torque and the change amount of the friction braking torque of the wheel.
[0053], [0072] Lee teaches controlling regenerative braking torque and friction braking torque cooperatively by decreasing friction braking torque and increasing the regenerative braking torque while driving in track mode.
10. Regarding specifically claim 20, Lee discloses a braking apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
- Lee teaches incorporating both a plurality of microprocessors into the motor controller (120) [0027] and a memory (405) [0076].
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of JP4453534B2 (hereinafter, “Suito”), and further in view of US20210086623A1 (hereinafter, “Yao”).
13. Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics regarding the determinations related to the regeneration braking torque and friction braking torque.
Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose a change rate of the braking-required torque is greater than or equal to a threshold change rate or a first preset ratio.
However, Suito teaches determining the change amount of the energy regeneration braking torque and the change amount of the friction braking torque of the wheel comprises: in response to a change rate of the braking-required torque the change amount of the energy regeneration braking torque and the change amount of the friction braking torque…
([0021] Fig. 7) Suito teaches “In step 140, it is determined whether or not the temporal change rate dDp / dT of the brake pedal depression amount Dp is between a certain negative predetermined value −δ2 and a certain positive predetermined value δ3. This is detected when the brake pedal depression amount Dp starts to decrease rapidly or starts to increase rapidly, and then the control is shifted to step 30. If the answer is yes, control proceeds to step 160”.
[0026] When the brake pedal depression amount Dp is decreased rapidly or increase rapidly, fig. 7 displays these modes in relation to a change amount to an energy regeneration braking torque and a friction braking torque, “The braking period is considered to exhibit a mode as shown in FIG. 7 according to the amount of depression of the brake pedal and the vehicle speed”.
However, Yao teaches …based on a first preset ratio between the change amount of the energy regeneration braking torque and the change amount of the friction braking torque.
([0118] – [0119] Fig. 10) Yao teaches that the regenerative braking weighting coefficient (αr) defines the amount of braking torque supplied by the regenerative braking loop while the friction braking weighting coefficient is determined as αb = 1 – αr. Yao further teaches that αr may equal 1 when the electric machine is capable of supplying the required braking torque and that the objective is to generate the maximum possible regenerative braking torque.
For example: αb = 1 – αr
αb = 1 – 0.55 (regen) = αb = 0.45 (friction braking)
Accordingly, when αr (regenerative braking torque) is equal or a similar percentage to friction braking, the predetermined weighting coefficients define a proportional relationship in which an equal amount of the braking torque is supplied by both the regenerative braking and friction braking. Accordingly, the weighting coefficients establish a predetermined proportional relationship corresponding to the claimed first preset ratio. Due to the weighing coefficients establishing predetermined proportional contributions of regenerative braking torque and friction braking torque to satisfy the braking demand, and because the weighting coefficients are complementary (claim 7 of this reference: “…sum of the regenerative braking weighting coefficient and the friction braking weighting coefficient is one”), the weighting coefficients collectively define a 1st preset ratio between the regenerative braking torque and the friction braking torque.
Lee, Suito, and Yao are analogous art because Lee teaches determining a change amount of regenerative braking torque and frictional braking while Suito teaches a temporal change rate of a braking pedal while Yao teaches changing the regenerative braking torque and a friction braking torque when a slip threshold is met and also determines a regenerative braking weighting coefficient and a friction braking weighting coefficient which are based on each other to create predefined ratios of regenerative braking and friction braking being applied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Suito and Yao, to modify the teachings of Lee to include the teachings of Suito and Yao to incorporate a temporal change rate of a brake pedal that changes the amount of regenerative braking torque and friction braking torque and to have predefined ratios of regenerative braking torque and friction braking for faster application of braking when a certain amount of braking is being applied by the driver to create a smoother driving experience.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210086623A1 (hereinafter, “Yao”), and further in view of US20230311883A1 (hereinafter “Yamada”).
15. Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the determining the change amount of the energy regeneration braking torque and the change amount of the friction braking torque of the wheel comprises:
- [0030] – [0031], [0048] Lee teaches a change amount for the regenerative braking torque and the friction braking torque as explained above in the rejection of claim 1.
Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose a vehicle speed is greater than or equal to a threshold vehicle speed, a wheel speed is greater than or equal to a threshold wheel speed, and a second preset ratio.
However, Yamada teaches in response to a vehicle speed is greater than or equal to a threshold vehicle speed and a wheel speed is greater than or equal to a threshold wheel speed, determining the change amount of the energy regeneration braking torque and the change amount of the friction braking torque…
[0102] Yamada teaches “…a vehicle speed, a wheel speed, a steering angle, and/or a yaw rate with a threshold” which incorporates both measuring a vehicle speed and a wheel speed to a threshold. When the coefficient is NO, aka the coefficient is higher than the threshold, proceed to step 22.
However, Yao teaches …based on a second preset ratio between the change amount of the energy regeneration braking torque and the change amount of the friction braking torque, wherein the second preset ratio is greater than a first preset ratio.
([0118] – [0119] Fig. 15) Examiner’s note: A first preset ratio establishes that a regenerative braking torque and a friction braking torque are similar amounts/percentages being used in that ratio. A second preset ratio will be interpreted to mean that amongst the ratio of energy regeneration braking torque and friction braking torque, more of a percentage of energy regeneration braking torque is used in comparison to the friction braking torque. Yao teaches that the regenerative braking weighting coefficient (αr) defines the amount of braking torque supplied by the regenerative braking loop while the friction braking weighting coefficient is determined as αb = 1 – αr. Yao further teaches that αr may equal 1 when the electric machine is capable of supplying the required braking torque and that the objective is to generate the maximum possible regenerative braking torque.
For example: αb = 1 – αr
αb = 1 – 0.70 (regen) = αb = 0.30 (friction braking)
Accordingly, when αr (regenerative braking torque) is a higher number, the predetermined weighting coefficients define a proportional relationship in which a greater percentage of the braking torque is supplied by regenerative braking than by friction braking. Accordingly, the weighting coefficients establish a predetermined proportional relationship corresponding to the claimed second preset ratio.
Lee, Yamada, and Yao are analogous art because Lee teaches determining a change amount of regenerative braking torque and frictional braking while Yamada compares a wheel speed and a vehicle speed to a threshold and performing a next step based on the threshold measurement while Yao teaches a ratio of having more regenerative braking compared to friction braking. A person of ordinary skill would have had the motivation to combine Lee, Yamada, and Yao to implement Yamada’s threshold measurement logic into the braking system of Lee in order to more accurately determine a vehicle speed and the vehicle’s wheel speed and to also implement Yao into Lee in order to have ratios predefined for quicker and more appropriate braking combinations to reduce braking jerk motions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yamada and Yao, to modify the teachings of Lee to include the teachings of Yamada and Yao to enhance vehicle stability overall and improved anti-lock braking system (ABS) performance.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210221343A1 (hereinafter, “Zhao”), and further in view of US20140277983A1 (hereinafter, “Bayar”).
17. Regarding claim 5, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose obtaining the braking-required torque from an anti-lock system (ABS) and making the energy regeneration braking torque of the wheel less than an upper limit value of the energy regeneration braking torque.
However, Zhao teaches obtaining the braking-required torque of the wheel comprises obtaining the braking-required torque from an anti-lock system (ABS), the method further comprising:
([0042] Fig. 2) Zhao teaches that during an anti-locking braking event, the controller generates a signal indicative of a total torque demand based on the difference between a desired wheel slip ratio.
[0042] – [0043] Zhao further teaches that this total torque demand is apportioned into a regenerative braking torque demand and a friction braking torque demand using regenerative and friction braking weighting coefficients. Thus, the braking-required torque is generated by the ABS control logic in response to wheel-slip conditions and is subsequently used to determine the respective regenerative and friction braking torque demands, corresponding to obtaining the braking-required torque from the anti-lock braking system.
However, Bayar teaches before the ABS is started, making the energy regeneration braking torque of the wheel less than an upper limit value of the energy regeneration braking torque [0005] – [0006], [00021].
[0005] – [0006] Bayar teaches “…controlling regenerative braking torque to be no greater than a regenerative braking torque limit…”.
[0021] Bayar also teaches the disclosed control strategy is proactive and is not responding to an ABS event, such that regenerative braking torque is limited before ABS activation rather than after ABS has begun. The regenerative braking torque is therefore maintained below a predetermined regenerative braking torque limit, which functions as an upper limit value for the regenerative braking torque.
Zhao and Bayar are analogous art to Lee because Zhao teaches during an anti-locking braking event, a signal indicative of a total torque demand, this total torque demand containing a regenerative braking torque demand and a friction braking torque demand information while Bayar teaches limiting the regenerative braking torque to a predetermined limit before the ABS is activated. It would’ve been obvious to a POSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the regenerative braking torque and friction brake torque system of Lee with Zhao’s anti-locking braking event and Bayar’s limiting threshold of the regenerative braking torque in order to reduce regenerative braking before ABS activation to improve the controller’s ability to respond to impending wheel slip/ABS while maintaining the desired total braking torque.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bayar, to modify the teachings of Lee to include the teachings of Bayar to provide smoother brake blending and also improve vehicle stability.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210221343A1 (hereinafter, “Zhao”), and further in view of US20140277983A1 (hereinafter, “Bayar”), and further in view of US20140183933A1 (hereinafter, “Kuhlman”), and further in view of US20180154777A1 (hereinafter, “Hall”).
19. Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses …wherein a sum of the energy regeneration braking torque and the friction braking torque is the braking-required torque.
- [0030] – [0031], [0048] Lee teaches “…where the total required torque may be a sum of the regenerative braking torque by the motor and friction braking torque by the brake”. In order an amount of both a regenerative braking torque and a friction braking torque to equal the sum required for the total required torque, a change amount for the regenerative braking torque and the friction braking torque would have to be determined initially in order to appropriately apply the right amount of braking.
Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose the making the energy regeneration braking torque of the wheel less than the upper limit of the energy regeneration braking torque, an emergency braking of a vehicle, increasing the friction braking torque of the wheel when the energy regeneration braking torque of the wheel reaches the upper limit value, a decrease in a growth rate, and decreasing the energy regeneration braking torque from the upper limit value and continuing to increase the friction braking torque.
However, Bayar teaches the making the energy regeneration braking torque of the wheel less than the upper limit value of the energy regeneration braking torque comprises:
[0005] – [0006] Bayar teaches “…controlling regenerative braking torque to be no greater than a regenerative braking torque limit…”.
[0021] Bayar also teaches the disclosed control strategy is proactive and is not responding to an ABS event, such that regenerative braking torque is limited before ABS activation rather than after ABS has begun. The regenerative braking torque is therefore maintained below a predetermined regenerative braking torque limit, which functions as an upper limit value for the regenerative braking torque.
However, Kuhlman teaches in response to an emergency braking of a vehicle,
increasing the friction braking torque of the wheel when the energy regeneration braking torque of the wheel reaches the upper limit value; and
in response to a decrease in a growth rate of the braking-required torque of the wheel
(0016) Kuhlman teaches that the vehicle’s braking system is used for deceleration when it comes to emergency braking or collision avoidance, “…decelerate the vehicle in response to driver request or a driver intervention system, such as adaptive cruise control or autonomous emergency braking for collision avoidance”.
([0019] Fig. 3) Kuhlman teaches “…the total required brake torque exceeds that which can be met by regenerative braking torque”. This continues until the maximum regenerative braking capability is reached. The maximum regenerative braking capability being the upper limit value, “…regenerative braking begins at time t.sub.1 and increases along with the total required brake torque until the maximum regenerative braking capability is reached at time t.sub.2”. Once this maximum regenerative braking capability is reached, the friction braking is then activated and increased at t2 of fig. 3, “At this time, friction braking is initialized to meet the latter part of the increase in total required brake torque until stabilization at time t.sub.3”.
Kuhlman teaches a coast torque which is shown in fig. 3 to have a total required brake torque decrease at t4.
However, Hall teaches decreasing the energy regeneration braking torque from the upper limit value and continuing to increase the friction braking torque,…
[0017] Hall teaches reducing (decreasing) the regenerative braking torque “…the regenerative braking torque may be reduced or eliminated” and then ramps up (increases) the friction braking torque, “…as the friction braking torque ramps up…”.
Lee, Bayar, Kuhlman, and Hall are analogous art because Lee teaches determining a change amount of regenerative braking torque and frictional braking while Bayar teaches maintaining the regenerative braking torque below a predetermined regenerative braking torque limit while Kuhlman teaches a total required brake torque in which the regenerative braking torque will reach. Once this is reached, friction braking torque will then be activated and increase until the coast torque occurs while Hall teaches reducing regenerative braking torque and then ramping up friction braking torque. It would’ve been obvious to a POSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the regenerative braking torque and friction brake torque system of Lee with Bayar’s limiting threshold of the regenerative braking torque and Kuhlman’s maximum regenerative braking torque and friction braking activation with Hall’s regenerative braking torque reduction and friction braking increase to reduce jerking motions during an emergency braking situation and maintain a braking movement that is smooth for increased comfort.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bayar, Kuhlman, and Hall to modify the teachings of Lee to include the teachings of Bayar, Kuhlman, and Hall to further maintain brake feel and reduce jerking motion.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20210221343A1 (hereinafter, “Zhao”), and further in view of US20140277983A1 (hereinafter, “Bayar”), and further in view of US9660558B2 (hereinafter, “Kim”).
21. Regarding claim 7, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose the upper limit value is determined based on a current maximum charging power of a vehicle battery and a current maximum regeneration torque of a motor.
However, Kim in the same field of endeavor, teaches the upper limit value is determined based on a current maximum charging power of a vehicle battery [Col. 5 Lines 20 – 37], [Col. 6 Lines 13 – 29] and a current maximum regeneration torque of a motor [Col. 2 Lines 39 – 48], [Col. 6 Lines 49 – 53].
Kim teaches that the available torque considering the battery system is calculated based on the battery’s charging possible power, including charging limit power, battery temperature, state of charge (SoC), and associated charging efficiency [Col. 5 Lines 20 – 37], [Col. 6 Lines 13 – 29], while the available torque considering the motor system is determined according to the motor’s available regenerative torque capability [Col. 6 Lines 13 – 29], [Col. 6 Lines 49 – 53]. The controller then determines the regenerative braking capacity based on the minimum of the battery system available torque and the motor system available torque [Col. 2 Lines 39 – 48].
Accordingly, the determined regenerative braking capacity represents an upper limit value of the regenerative braking torque that is based on both the current maximum charging capability of the vehicle battery and the current maximum regenerative torque capability of the motor.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lee with the teachings of Kim, to further maximize regenerative energy recovery without exceeding system limits and protect the motor.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20150032353A1 (hereinafter, “Ajiro”).
23. Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
…decreasing the friction braking torque.
[0031], [0033], [0053], [0072] Lee teaches decreasing friction braking torque.
Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to that the vehicle exits an emergency braking state,…
However, Ajiro teaches in response to that the vehicle exits an emergency braking state,…
([0087] - [0089] Fig. 3B) Ajiro teaches a rapid variation in the brake pedal reaction force during braking. Fig. 3B shows between t2 & t3 the rapid variation in the brake pedal reaction force. This rapid step on the brake pedal constitutes as an emergency braking state due to the rapid force being used on the brake pedal for causing the vehicle to come to an abrupt stop or quickly slow down. Once this rapid variation in the brake pedal reaction forces ends, the vehicle will have to exit of this rapid variation in the brake pedal reaction force state. Therefore, Ajiro teaches a vehicle exiting out of an emergency state.
Lee and Ajiro are analogous art because Lee teaches decreasing friction braking torque while Ajiro teaches a rapid variation in the brake pedal reaction force that the vehicle has to come out of. It would’ve been obvious to a POSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the regenerative braking torque and friction brake torque system of Lee with Ajiro’s detection system of when a brake pedal is rapidly pressed and when the brake pedal is being released to further reduce any sudden movements as the system smoothly transitions from an emergency braking mode to ordinary braking.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ajiro, to modify the teachings of Lee to include the teachings of Ajiro to improve and have a further smoother brake release and reduce abrupt changes in vehicle deceleration.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20150032353A1 (hereinafter, “Ajiro”), and further in view of US20210086623A1 (hereinafter, “Yao”).
25. Regarding claim 9, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose after the friction braking torque is decreased to zero, controlling the energy regeneration braking torque to control braking or coasting of the vehicle.
However, Yao in the same field of endeavor, teaches after the friction braking torque is decreased to zero, controlling the energy regeneration braking torque to control braking or coasting of the vehicle.
([0053] Fig. 4) Yao teaches “Case 2: Only modulating regenerative braking torque (friction brake torque will be adjusted to zero during the ABS event)”. Figure 4 clearly shows case 2 having friction brake torque decreased to zero while having the regeneration brake torque stay active to control braking.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Lee with the teachings of Yao, to further maintain a smooth transition to coasting by continuing to use the regenerative braking after the friction braking has dropped to zero.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230150372A1 (hereinafter, “Lee”), and further in view of US20150032353A1 (hereinafter, “Ajiro”), and further in view of US20080243323A1 (hereinafter, “Karnjate”), and further in view of US5719769A (hereinafter, “Brugger”).
27. Regarding claim 10, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose a decrement of a travel of a brake pedal within a preset time, the travel of the brake pedal is less than a preset travel, and an indication of ending of autonomous emergency braking.
However, Karnjate teaches in response to that a decrement of a travel of a brake pedal…
([0024], [0026] Fig. 3) Karnjate teaches a release of a brake pedal (27).
([0031] – [0032] Fig. 2) Karnjate teaches determining if the braking is in an emergency or panic condition. Once this emergency or panic condition has been entered, the system enters an emergency or panic braking algorithm and can determine which such a condition has ceased (exited).
However, Brugger teaches …within a preset time is greater than a preset value,…
([Col. 3 Lines 56 – 64] Fig. 2) Brugger teaches comparing the rate of brake pedal application to a predetermined threshold to identify rapid brake actuation. Brugger nevertheless teaches determining the rate of change of brake pedal travel over time using brake pedal position information [Col. 2 Lines 54 – 67] – [Col. 3 Lines 1 – 13]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the same brake pedal position sensor and rate of change calculation are equally applicable to movement of the brake pedal in the opposite direction, brake pedal release, because the measured quantity is the change in pedal travel over time regardless of movement direction. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious design choice to compare the rate of brake pedal release against a predetermined threshold to detect a rapid brake release event.
Karnjate and Brugger are analogous art to Lee because Karnjate teaches a release of a brake pedal and teaches determining when a braking condition is in a emergency or panic condition and can also determine when the braking condition has exited out of this emergency or panic condition while Brugger teaches determining the actuating speed of the brake pedal as to whether it exceeds a predetermined threshold as the brake pedal gets pressed and released. Thus, it would’ve been obvious to a POSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the regenerative braking torque and friction brake torque system of Lee with Karnjate’s detection of a releasing of a brake pedal and Brugger’s brake pedal rate of change detection to further identify when the vehicle is no longer in a emergency state so that braking could continue in a normal state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Karnjate and Brugger, to modify the teachings of Lee to include the teachings of Karnjate and Brugger further provide smoother transitions between emergency braking control and normal brake blending.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. 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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights