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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the brake controller is to execute instructions to: compare a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration; engage the first brake for a third duration; disengage the first brake after the third duration; and engage the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends” in claim 3, “the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to: compare a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration; engage the first brake for a third duration; disengage the first brake after the third duration; and engage the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends” in claim 11, and “the method further includes: comparing a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration; engaging the first brake for a third duration; disengaging the first brake after the third duration; and engaging the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends” in claim 18 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. Specifically, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s drawings show the aforementioned claim elements. For example, Fig. 6 shows that in response to determining the temperature (first temperature) satisfies the temperature threshold (at 606): the first brake is engaged for the first duration (at 608), the second brake is engaged for the second duration which begins before the first duration ends (at 610 & 614), and the first brake is disengaged after the first duration (at 612), and Fig. 6 shows repeating the determination of whether the first temperature satisfies the temperature threshold (again at 606) subsequent to the engaging of the second brake for the second duration and prior to repeating engaging the first brake for the first duration and the second brake for the second duration; however, Fig. 6 does not show: comparing a second temperature of the first brake and/or the second brake to the temperature threshold, engaging the first brake for a third duration or disengaging the first brake after the third duration, and engaging the second brake for a fourth duration which begins before the first duration ends.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the instructions to, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold engage the first brake and the second brake” in lines 1-3, which appears to be a misstating of --[[the]] instructions to, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold, engage the first brake and the second brake--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 11, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “the brake controller is to execute instructions to: compare a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration; engage the first brake for a third duration; disengage the first brake after the third duration; and engage the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends” in lines 1-9, claim 11 recites “the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to: compare a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration; engage the first brake for a third duration; disengage the first brake after the third duration; and engage the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends” in lines 2-9, and claim 18 recites “the method further includes: comparing a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration; engaging the first brake for a third duration; disengaging the first brake after the third duration; and engaging the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends” in lines 1-9. The instant application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/492,145; however, Applicant’s specification only discloses that in response to determining the temperature (first temperature) satisfies the temperature threshold (at 606): the first brake is engaged for the first duration (at 608), the second brake is engaged for the second duration which begins before the first duration ends (at 610 & 614), and the first brake is disengaged after the first duration (at 612), and Fig. 6 shows repeating the determination of whether the first temperature satisfies the temperature threshold (again at 606) subsequent to the engaging of the second brake for the second duration and prior to repeating engaging the first brake for the first duration and the second brake for the second duration, and it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s specification provides sufficient written description support for comparing a second temperature of the first brake and/or the second brake to the temperature threshold, engaging the first brake for a third duration or disengaging the first brake after the third duration, and engaging the second brake for a fourth duration which begins before the first duration ends. Thus, claims 3, 11, and 18 improperly introduces “new matter,” such that the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 14 recites “wherein at least one of the first brake or the second brake is an electric parking brake” in lines 1-2, which is understood to include a scope of either both the first brake and the second brake being electric parking brakes OR only one of the first brake and the second brake being an electric parking brake. The instant application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/492,145; however, Applicant’s specification only discloses both the first brake and the second brake being electric parking brakes, and it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s specification provides sufficient written description support for only one of the first brake and the second brake being an electric parking brake while the other of the first brake and the second brake is a type of brake other than an electric parking brake. Thus, claim 14 improperly introduces “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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 5 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 5 refers to “the instructions to, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold engage the first brake and the second brake” in lines 1-3; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1, and neither claim previously introduces “instructions to, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold engage the first brake and the second brake,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the instructions to, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold engage the first brake and the second brake” in lines 1-3 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend lines 1-3 of claim 5 to instead recite --[[the]] instructions to, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold, engage the first brake and the second brake--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed to a method. Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15. Therefore, claims 15-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 15 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 15 recites:
A method comprising:
detecting a parking event of a vehicle;
comparing a temperature of at least one of a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle or a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle to a temperature threshold;
in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold:
engaging the first brake for a first duration;
disengaging the first brake after the first duration; and
engaging the second brake for a second duration.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detecting…,” “comparing…,” and “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments. Accordingly, claim 15 recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are the underlined portions provided above while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea.”
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II).
In claim 15, none of “engaging the first brake for a first duration,” “disengaging the first brake after the first duration,” and “engaging the second brake for a second duration” would necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold: engaging the first brake for a first duration; disengaging the first brake after the first duration; and engaging the second brake for a second duration” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Also, note that no comparison result of “comparing a temperature of at least one of a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle or a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle to a temperature threshold” necessarily includes, or results in, performing a further unrecited step of “determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As discussed in detail above, the additional elements of claim 15 set forth by “in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold: engaging the first brake for a first duration; disengaging the first brake after the first duration; and engaging the second brake for a second duration” do not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16 and 20 merely further define aspects of the abstract ideas of claim 15. Dependent claim 17 merely further defines aspects of the contingent limitations of claim 15. Dependent claim 18 further defines an aspect of the abstract ideas of claim 15 via “wherein the temperature is a first temperature,” further recites an additional abstract idea (e.g., mental process) via “comparing a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration,” and sets forth additional elements of “engaging the first brake for a third duration; disengaging the first brake after the third duration; and engaging the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends” which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and are not more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field in view of at least the background disclosure of the specification of the instant application, which admits that engaging and disengaging brakes of wheels of a vehicle was conventionally known at the time the invention was made. Dependent claim 19 only further sets forth an additional contingent limitation. Thus, claims 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Thus, claims 16-20 are also ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim 18 recites additional elements of “engaging the first brake for a third duration; disengaging the first brake after the third duration; and engaging the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends” which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/125652 A1 to Oh (hereinafter: “Oh”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0054758 to Bae et al. (hereinafter: “Bae”). [also, note that the patent family of Oh includes U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0049583 (hereinafter: “U.S. ‘583”), and U.S. ‘583 (which is also prior art) has been relied upon as a translation of Oh for the instant Office Action, such that all citations to Oh throughout the prior art rejections below correspond to U.S. ‘583].
With respect to claim 1, Oh teaches a vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-8) comprising: a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle [as depicted by at least Figs. 2, 3 & 6-8, a first one of a first electric parking brake (EPB) 110 (EPB 1) and a second EPB 120 (EPB 2) is associated with a respective first one of a left rear (RL) wheel and a right rear (RR) wheel of the vehicle]; a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle [as depicted by at least Figs. 2, 3 & 6-8, a second one of the first EPB 110 (EPB 1) and the second EPB 120 (EPB 2) is associated with a respective second one of the RL wheel and the RR wheel of the vehicle]; memory (e.g., 220); and a brake controller [e.g., 200 (or 210)] to execute instructions to: detect a parking event [as depicted by at least Fig. 9 in view of at least ¶ 0112-0115, the controller 200 is structured to perform functions to detect shifting of a gear to a P-stage (e.g., “parking event”) (e.g., “YES” at 502 of a first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9)]; determining whether electric parking brake (EPB) stand-alone operation conditions are satisfied [as depicted by at least Fig. 9 in view of at least ¶ 0115-0120, the controller 200 is structured to perform functions to determine whether a gradient of the vehicle is an appropriate gradient (e.g., via 506 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9) and whether a driver’s continuous driving intention exists (e.g., via 510 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9)]; in response to determining whether the EPB stand-alone operation conditions are satisfied: engage the first brake for a first duration; disengage the first brake after the first duration; and engage the second brake for a second duration [for example, in a first interpretation: as depicted by at least Figs. 3-10 in view of at least ¶ 0117-0128, the controller 200 is structured to perform functions to temporarily operate the first one of the first EPB 110 (EPB 1) and the second EPB 120 (EPB 2) to secure a calculated required clamping force for parking for a definable “first duration” (e.g., via 512-518 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9) in response to determining that the gradient of the vehicle is the appropriate gradient and the driver’s continuous driving intention exists (e.g., “YES” at each of 506 & 510 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9), and then temporarily operate the second one of the first EPB 110 (EPB 1) and the second EPB 120 (EPB 2) for a definable “second duration” (e.g., via 608 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9) in response to subsequently determining that a slip of vehicle occurs, an ignition switch is off, or an EPB switch is on (e.g., “YES” at any of 602, 604, or 606 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9); alternatively, for example, in a second interpretation: as depicted by at least Figs. 3-10 in view of at least ¶ 0117-0128, the controller 200 is structured to perform functions to temporarily operate the second one of the first EPB 110 (EPB 1) and the second EPB 120 (EPB 2) to secure a calculated required clamping force for parking for a definable “second duration” (e.g., via 512-518 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9) in response to determining that the gradient of the vehicle is the appropriate gradient and the driver’s continuous driving intention exists (e.g., “YES” at each of 506 & 510 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9), and then temporarily operate the first one of the first EPB 110 (EPB 1) and the second EPB 120 (EPB 2) for a definable “first duration” (e.g., via 608 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9) in response to subsequently determining that a slip of vehicle occurs, an ignition switch is off, or an EPB switch is on (e.g., “YES” at any of 602, 604, or 606 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9); alternatively, for example, in a third interpretation: as depicted by at least Figs. 3-10 in view of at least ¶ 0117-0128, the controller 200 is structured to perform functions to temporarily operate the first one of the first EPB 110 (EPB 1) and the second EPB 120 (EPB 2) for a definable “first duration” and temporarily operate the second one of the first EPB 110 (EPB 1) and the second EPB 120 (EPB 2) for a definable “second duration” (e.g., via 508 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9) in response to determining that the gradient of the vehicle is not the appropriate gradient or the driver’s continuous driving intention does not exists (e.g., “NO” at either of 506 or 510 of the first execution of the flow chart of Fig. 9)].
Oh appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the brake controller executes instruction(s) to compare a temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to a temperature threshold (note: because compare a temperature of a the first brake to a temperature threshold and compare a temperature of the second brake to a temperature threshold are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives). Therefore, Oh also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the brake controller executes the instructions to engage the first brake for the first duration, disengage the first brake after the first duration, and engage the second brake for the second duration, in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold (note: no comparison result of “comparing a temperature of at least one of a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle or a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle to a temperature threshold” necessarily includes, or results in, executing a further instruction, or function of the “brake controller,” of “determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold”).
Bae teaches a vehicle (20) comprising: a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle; a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0012-0014, rear wheels 22 (e.g., “first wheel,” “second wheel”) of the vehicle 20 each include a respective disc braking system 24 (e.g., “first brake,” “second brake”)]; memory (e.g., 38); and a brake controller (e.g., 34) to execute instructions (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 3 in view of at least ¶ 0005, 0015 & 0017-0028) to: compare a temperature of at least the first brake to a temperature threshold [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0006 & 0016-0029, the computer 34 is structured to perform functions to compare an actual temperature of a brake rotor 26 (e.g., “temperature”) of a first one of the two rear disc braking systems 24 to a defined critical temperature of the brake rotor 26 (e.g., “temperature threshold”), such as in a first instance of executing the flowchart of Fig. 6]; in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold: engage the first brake for a first duration; disengage the first brake after the first duration; and engage the second brake for the second duration [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0006 & 0016-0029 (especially ¶ 0020-0021), the computer 34 is structured to perform functions including any of: (a) temporarily operate each of the two rear disc braking systems 24 for respective definable first and second durations to apply a corrected braking torque to the rear wheels 22 of the vehicle 20 (e.g., “engage the first brake for a first duration; disengage the first brake after the first duration; and engage the second brake for the second duration”), including to apply a relatively reduced braking torque via the first one of the two rear disc braking systems 24, in response to determining that the actual temperature of the brake rotor 26 of the first one of the two rear disc braking systems 24 exceeds the defined critical temperature of the brake rotor 26 (e.g., “in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold”); (b) temporarily operate each of the two rear disc braking systems 24 for respective definable first and second durations to apply a non-corrected braking torque to the rear wheels 22 of the vehicle 20 (e.g., “engage the first brake for a first duration; disengage the first brake after the first duration; and engage the second brake for the second duration”) in response to determining that the actual temperature of the brake rotor 26 of the first one of the two rear disc braking systems 24 does not exceed the defined critical temperature of the brake rotor 26 (e.g., “in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold”); and (c) temporarily operate the second one of the two rear disc braking systems 24 for a respective definable second duration to apply a corrected braking torque to the respective one of the rear wheels 22 of the vehicle 20 without operating the first one of the rear disc braking systems 24 (e.g., “engage the second brake for the second duration”) in response to determining that the actual temperature of the brake rotor 26 of the first one of the two rear disc braking systems 24 exceeds the defined critical temperature of the brake rotor 26 (e.g., “in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold”), and temporarily operate the first one of the two rear disc braking systems 24 for a respective definable first duration to apply a non-corrected braking torque to the respective other one of the rear wheels 22 of the vehicle 20 subsequent to the actual temperature of the brake rotor 26 of the first one of the two rear disc braking systems 24 no longer exceeding the defined critical temperature of the brake rotor 26 (e.g., “engage the first brake for a first duration; disengage the first brake after the first duration”)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle of Oh with the teachings of Bae such that the brake controller, at least at times, executes instruction(s) to compare a temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to a temperature threshold and to further executes the instructions to engage the first brake for the first duration, disengage the first brake after the first duration, and engage the second brake for the second duration, in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold, because Bae further teaches that such operations beneficially provide determination as to whether an actual temperature of a brake rotor of the at least one of the first brake or the second brake exceeds a critical temperature of the brake rotor, such as a warping temperature of the brake rotor, thereby enabling further corrective brake control operations (e.g., “engage the first brake for the first duration, disengage the first brake after the first duration, and engage the second brake for the second duration”) responsive to exceeding of the critical temperature of the brake rotor [e.g., “in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold” (emphasis added)] to directly lead to decreasing of the actual temperature of the brake rotor of the at least one of the first brake or the second brake to beneficially prevent damage to the brake rotor of the at least one of the first brake or the second brake, and/or also preventing implementation of the corrective brake control operations (e.g., “engage the first brake for the first duration, disengage the first brake after the first duration, and engage the second brake for the second duration”) in situations where the critical temperature of the brake rotor is not exceeded [e.g., “in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold” (emphasis added)] to beneficially avoid unnecessary corrective brake control operations when it is unnecessary to prevent damage to the brake rotor of the at least one of the first brake or the second brake.
With respect to claim 2, Oh modified supra teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the second duration begins before the first duration ends (for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to the second interpretation).
With respect to claim 3, Oh modified supra teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the temperature is a first temperature (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), the brake controller is to execute instructions to: engage the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3-10 in view of at least ¶ 0117-0128 of Oh, the controller 200 is structured to perform functions to temporarily operate the second EPB 120 (EPB 2) for a definable “fourth duration,” such as during a definable second execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh which occurs prior to the first execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh]; compare a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0006 & 0016-0029 of Bae, the computer 34 is structured to perform functions to compare a second actual temperature of a brake rotor 26 (e.g., “second temperature”) of the first one of the two rear disc braking systems 24 to the defined critical temperature of the brake rotor 26 in a second instance of executing the flowchart of Fig. 6 performed subsequent to the first instance of executing the flowchart of Fig. 6 as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, such as during a third execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh which occurs subsequent to the first execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh, when Oh is modified by Bae as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1; because compare a second temperature of the first brake to the temperature threshold, the first brake having the second temperature after the second duration and compare a second temperature of the second brake to the temperature threshold, the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives]; engage the first brake for a third duration; and disengage the first brake after the third duration [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3-10 in view of at least ¶ 0117-0128 of Oh, the controller 200 is structured to perform functions to temporarily operate the first EPB 120 (EPB 1) for a definable “third duration,” such as during either of the definable second execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh or the definable third execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh, or during a definable fourth execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh which one of: (a) occurs prior to the second execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh, (b) occurs between the second execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh and the first execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh, (c) occurs between the first execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh and the third execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh, or (d) occurs after the third execution of the flowchart of Fig. 9 of Oh].
With respect to claim 4, Oh modified supra teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first wheel is a driver-side wheel and the second wheel is a passenger-side wheel (apparent from at least Figs. 6-8 of Oh).
With respect to claim 5, Oh modified supra teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the brake controller executes the instructions to, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold engage the first brake and the second brake (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, Oh modified supra teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the temperature threshold corresponds to a warping temperature of a rotor of the first brake (as discussed by at least ¶ 0003-0006, 0014, 0018, 0020-0022 & 0027-0028 of Bae).
With respect to claim 7, Oh modified supra teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further including an electric parking brake system (40), the electric parking brake system including the first brake and the second brake (apparent from at least Figs. 1-8 in view of at least ¶ 0041-0044, 0049, 0056-0057, 0074 & 0093-0102).
With respect to claim 8, Oh modified supra teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium [220 (or 200) of Oh] comprising instructions, which, when executed cause a processor to: detect a parking event of a vehicle; compare a temperature of at least one of a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle or a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle to a temperature threshold; in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold: engage the first brake for a first duration; disengage the first brake after the first duration; and engage the second brake for a second duration (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1, in view of at least ¶ 0070-0074 & 0129-0130 of Oh).
With respect to claim 9, Oh modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to detect the parking event by detecting a user input, the user input including at least one of (1) activating a parking brake of the vehicle or (2) shifting a transmission of the vehicle into park (as discussed by at least ¶ 0047, 0081-0083 & 0113-0115; because the user input including activating a parking brake of the vehicle and the user input including shifting a transmission of the vehicle into park are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 10, Oh modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the second duration begins before the first duration ends (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 2).
With respect to claim 11, Oh modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the temperature is a first temperature and the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to: compare a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration; engage the first brake for a third duration; disengage the first brake after the third duration; and engage the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 3).
With respect to claim 12, Oh modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold, engage the first brake and the second brake (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 5).
With respect to claim 13, Oh modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the temperature threshold corresponds to a warping temperature of a rotor of the first brake (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 6).
With respect to claim 14, Oh modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein at least one of the first brake or the second brake is an electric parking brake (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 7; because the first brake is an electric parking brake and the second brake is an electric parking brake are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 15, Oh modified supra teaches a method comprising: detecting a parking event of a vehicle; comparing a temperature of at least one of a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle or a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle to a temperature threshold (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 8); in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold: engaging the first brake for a first duration; disengaging the first brake after the first duration; and engaging the second brake for a second duration [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and none of “engaging the first brake for a first duration,” “disengaging the first brake after the first duration,” and “engaging the second brake for a second duration” would necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “in response to determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold: engaging the first brake for a first duration; disengaging the first brake after the first duration; and engaging the second brake for a second duration” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (note that no comparison result of “comparing a temperature of at least one of a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle or a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle to a temperature threshold” necessarily includes, or results in, performing a further unrecited step of “determining the temperature satisfies the temperature threshold”); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 8].
With respect to claim 16, Oh modified supra teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the detecting the parking event includes detecting a user input, the user input including at least one of (1) activating a parking brake of the vehicle or (2) shifting a transmission of the vehicle into park (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 9).
With respect to claim 17, Oh modified supra teaches method of claim 15, wherein the second duration begins before the first duration ends (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2 and 10).
With respect to claim 18, Oh modified supra teaches method of claim 15, wherein the temperature is a first temperature and the method further includes: comparing a second temperature of at least one of the first brake or the second brake to the temperature threshold, the at least one of the first brake or the second brake having the second temperature after the second duration; engaging the first brake for a third duration; disengaging the first brake after the third duration; and engaging the second brake for a fourth duration, the fourth duration beginning before the first duration ends (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 3 and 11).
With respect to claim 19, Oh modified supra teaches method of claim 15, further including, in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold, engage the first brake and the second brake [“engage the first brake and the second brake” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “in response to determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold, engage the first brake and the second brake” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 15) (note that no comparison result of “comparing a temperature of at least one of a first brake associated with a first wheel of the vehicle or a second brake associated with a second wheel of the vehicle to a temperature threshold” in claim 15 necessarily includes, or results in, performing a further unrecited step of “determining the temperature does not satisfy the temperature threshold”); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 5 and 12].
With respect to claim 20, Oh modified supra teaches method of claim 15, wherein the temperature threshold corresponds to a warping temperature of a rotor of the first brake (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 6 and 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached on 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747