DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 February 2025 and 15 October 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Information input unit” in claim 1 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“First energy determination unit” in claim 1 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“Second energy determination unit” in claim 1 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“Speed limit determination unit” in claim 2 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“Expected charging energy determination unit” in claim 2 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“Battery output calculation unit” in claims 3 and 6 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“Expected charging energy calculation unit” in claims 3 and 7 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“Downhill determination unit” in claim 4 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“State of charge conversion unit” in claim 4 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“Chargeable energy calculation unit” in claims 4-5 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: hardware element(s) or software element(s) or a combination thereof in at least one integrated circuit (IC) embedded in the vehicle braking control apparatus (Para. 74).
“Energy comparison unit” in claim 8 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: vehicle control unit (Para. 103).
“Braking mode determination unit” in claim 8 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: vehicle control unit (Para. 103).
“Braking control unit” in claim 8 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: vehicle control unit (Para. 103).
“Unchargeable energy calculation unit” in claim 9 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: vehicle control unit (Para. 108).
“Blending ratio determination unit” in claim 9 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: vehicle control unit (Para. 108).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11-12, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US Publication 2019/0143958 A1) in view of Koichi et al. (Foreign Reference JP2001054202A).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches an apparatus for controlling vehicle braking using blending of regenerative braking and auxiliary braking, the apparatus comprising: an information input unit configured to receive vehicle travel information (Jang: Para. 39; navigation device may provide information regarding a gradient of a road, a length of the road, and a traffic vehicle speed); a first energy determination unit configured to determine, based on the vehicle travel information, expected charging energy on a travel road (Jang: Para. 23; estimates a first amount of charge regeneration obtainable from regeneration braking at the first segment); a second energy determination unit configured to determine, based on the vehicle travel information, chargeable energy available by regenerative braking, when a current travel road is a downhill road (Jang: Para. 23; vehicle identifies a first segment of downhill road; controller computes/estimates a first amount of charge regeneration obtainable from regeneration braking at the first segment); and a vehicle control unit configured to control vehicle braking by comparing the expected charging energy with the chargeable energy (Jang: Para. 12; control the MHSG to generate auxiliary torque corresponding to the regenerative braking amount at the downhill section).
Jang doesn’t explicitly teach determining a blending mode of blending an amount of operation of regenerative braking and an amount of operation of auxiliary braking as a braking mode according to a result of comparison.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a blending mode of blending an amount of operation of regenerative braking and an amount of operation of auxiliary braking as a braking mode according to a result of comparison (Koichi: Para. 7; the required braking force exceeds the regenerative braking force, the motor generates the regenerative braking force, and the engine also generates the braking force that exceeds the regenerative braking force).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first energy determination unit includes: a speed limit determination unit configured to determine, based on the vehicle travel information including at least one of vehicle state information or navigation information, whether there is forward congestion or a vehicle speed limit (Jang: Para. 39; navigation device may provide information regarding a gradient of a road, a length of the road, and a traffic vehicle speed); and an expected charging energy determination unit configured to determine the expected charging energy using a battery output obtained based on an actual travelling speed or an expected travelling speed, depending on whether there is the forward congestion or the vehicle speed limit (Jang: Para. 13; regenerative braking amount may be calculated based on a gradient of the downhill section, a length of the downhill section, and a traffic vehicle speed of the downhill section).
Regarding claim 4, Jang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second energy determination unit includes: a downhill determination unit configured to determine a current travel road as a downhill road when a value of the expected charging energy is less than or equal to zero; a state of charge (SOC) conversion unit configured to convert the expected charging energy into an SOC(%) when the current travel road is the downhill road (Jang: Para. 24; estimating the first amount of charge regeneration, while driving an uphill road before the first segment of downhill road, using current SOCs of the batteries); and a chargeable energy calculation unit configured to obtain the chargeable energy using a maximum SOC(%) and a current SOC(%) of a battery of a vehicle (Jang: Para. 24; controller determines whether the first battery and the second battery, alone or in combination, have enough capacity (at a starting point of the first segment) to store the first amount of charge regeneration).
Regarding claim 8, Jang doesn’t explicitly teach an energy comparison unit configured to compare the expected charging energy and the chargeable energy; a braking mode determination unit configured to determine the braking mode as a regenerative braking priority mode when a value of the expected charging energy is less than or equal to a value of the chargeable energy, and to determine the braking mode as the blending mode when the value of the expected charging energy is greater than the value of the chargeable energy, as a result of comparison performed by the energy comparison unit; and a braking control unit configured to control vehicle braking on the current travel road according to the determined braking mode.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an energy comparison unit configured to compare the expected charging energy and the chargeable energy (Koichi: Para. 7; when the required braking force is generated by the motor and the required braking force exceeds the regenerative braking force); a braking mode determination unit configured to determine the braking mode as a regenerative braking priority mode when a value of the expected charging energy is less than or equal to a value of the chargeable energy (Koichi: Para. 5; determining the amount of energy to be recovered on the descending road so that the accumulated amount of the energy accumulating means becomes maximum at the end of the descending road, and the amount of recovered energy determined by the recovered energy determining means; control means for controlling the braking force of the motor on the downhill road), and to determine the braking mode as the blending mode when the value of the expected charging energy is greater than the value of the chargeable energy, as a result of comparison performed by the energy comparison unit (Koichi: Para. 25; regenerative braking force is averaged over the entire range of the downhill road); and a braking control unit configured to control vehicle braking on the current travel road according to the determined braking mode (Koichi: Para. 7; when the required braking force is generated by the motor and the required braking force exceeds the regenerative braking force, the motor generates the regenerative braking force, and the engine also generates the braking force that exceeds the regenerative braking force).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Jang doesn’t explicitly teach an unchargeable energy calculation unit configured to obtain unchargeable energy by subtracting the chargeable energy from the expected charging energy; and a blending ratio determination unit configured to determine a ratio of the chargeable energy to the unchargeable energy as a blending ratio in the blending mode for blending regenerative braking and auxiliary braking.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an unchargeable energy calculation unit configured to obtain unchargeable energy by subtracting the chargeable energy from the expected charging energy (Koichi: Para. 25; regenerative braking force is averaged over the entire range of the downhill road); and a blending ratio determination unit configured to determine a ratio of the chargeable energy to the unchargeable energy as a blending ratio in the blending mode for blending regenerative braking and auxiliary braking (Koichi: Para. 7; when the required braking force is generated by the motor and the required braking force exceeds the regenerative braking force, the motor generates the regenerative braking force, and the engine also generates the braking force that exceeds the regenerative braking force).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Jang teaches a method for controlling vehicle braking using blending of regenerative braking and auxiliary braking, the method comprising: an information reception step of receiving vehicle travel information (Jang: Para. 39; navigation device may provide information regarding a gradient of a road, a length of the road, and a traffic vehicle speed); a first energy determination step of determining, based on the vehicle travel information, expected charging energy on a travel road (Jang: Para. 23; estimates a first amount of charge regeneration obtainable from regeneration braking at the first segment); a second energy determination step of determining, based on the vehicle travel information, chargeable energy available by regenerative braking, when a current travel road is a downhill road (Jang: Para. 23; vehicle identifies a first segment of downhill road; controller computes/estimates a first amount of charge regeneration obtainable from regeneration braking at the first segment); and a vehicle braking control step of controlling vehicle braking by comparing the expected charging energy with the chargeable energy (Jang: Para. 12; control the MHSG to generate auxiliary torque corresponding to the regenerative braking amount at the downhill section).
Jang doesn’t explicitly teach determining a blending mode of blending an amount of operation of regenerative braking and an amount of operation of auxiliary braking as a braking mode according to a result of comparison.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a blending mode of blending an amount of operation of regenerative braking and an amount of operation of auxiliary braking as a braking mode according to a result of comparison (Koichi: Para. 7; the required braking force exceeds the regenerative braking force, the motor generates the regenerative braking force, and the engine also generates the braking force that exceeds the regenerative braking force).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Jang teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first energy determination step includes: a speed limit determination step of determining, based on the vehicle travel information including at least one of vehicle state information or navigation information, whether there is forward congestion or a vehicle speed limit (Jang: Para. 39; navigation device may provide information regarding a gradient of a road, a length of the road, and a traffic vehicle speed); and an expected charging energy determination step of determining the expected charging energy using a battery output obtained based on an actual travelling speed or an expected travelling speed, depending on whether there is the forward congestion or the vehicle speed limit (Jang: Para. 13; regenerative braking amount may be calculated based on a gradient of the downhill section, a length of the downhill section, and a traffic vehicle speed of the downhill section).
Regarding claim 14, Jang teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the second energy determination step includes: a downhill determination step of determining the current travel road as the downhill road when a value of the expected charging energy is less than or equal to zero (Jang: Para. 24; estimating the first amount of charge regeneration, while driving an uphill road before the first segment of downhill road, using current SOCs of the batteries); and a chargeable energy calculation step of calculating the chargeable energy using a maximum SOC(%) and a current SOC(%) of a battery of a vehicle (Jang: Para. 24; controller determines whether the first battery and the second battery, alone or in combination, have enough capacity (at a starting point of the first segment) to store the first amount of charge regeneration).
Regarding claim 18, Jang doesn’t explicitly teach an energy comparison step of comparing the expected charging energy and the chargeable energy; a braking mode determination step of determining the braking mode as a regenerative braking priority mode when a value of the expected charging energy is less than or equal to a value of the chargeable energy, and to determine the braking mode as the blending mode when the value of the expected charging energy is greater than the value of the chargeable energy, as a result of comparison performed by the energy comparison step; and a braking control step of controlling vehicle braking on the current travel road according to the determined braking mode.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an energy comparison step of comparing the expected charging energy and the chargeable energy (Koichi: Para. 7; when the required braking force is generated by the motor and the required braking force exceeds the regenerative braking force); a braking mode determination step of determining the braking mode as a regenerative braking priority mode when a value of the expected charging energy is less than or equal to a value of the chargeable energy (Koichi: Para. 5; determining the amount of energy to be recovered on the descending road so that the accumulated amount of the energy accumulating means becomes maximum at the end of the descending road, and the amount of recovered energy determined by the recovered energy determining means; control means for controlling the braking force of the motor on the downhill road), and to determine the braking mode as the blending mode when the value of the expected charging energy is greater than the value of the chargeable energy, as a result of comparison performed by the energy comparison step (Koichi: Para. 25; regenerative braking force is averaged over the entire range of the downhill road); and a braking control step of controlling vehicle braking on the current travel road according to the determined braking mode (Koichi: Para. 7; when the required braking force is generated by the motor and the required braking force exceeds the regenerative braking force, the motor generates the regenerative braking force, and the engine also generates the braking force that exceeds the regenerative braking force).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Jang doesn’t explicitly teach an unchargeable energy calculation step of obtaining unchargeable energy by subtracting the chargeable energy from the expected charging energy; and a blending ratio determination step of determining a ratio of the chargeable energy to the unchargeable energy as a blending ratio in the blending mode for blending regenerative braking and auxiliary braking.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an unchargeable energy calculation step of obtaining unchargeable energy by subtracting the chargeable energy from the expected charging energy (Koichi: Para. 25; regenerative braking force is averaged over the entire range of the downhill road); and a blending ratio determination step of determining a ratio of the chargeable energy to the unchargeable energy as a blending ratio in the blending mode for blending regenerative braking and auxiliary braking (Koichi: Para. 7; when the required braking force is generated by the motor and the required braking force exceeds the regenerative braking force, the motor generates the regenerative braking force, and the engine also generates the braking force that exceeds the regenerative braking force).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Claims 3, 5-7, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US Publication 2019/0143958 A1) in view of Koichi et al. (Foreign Reference JP2001054202A) and in further view of Li (US Publication 2024/0025266 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Jang and Koichi don’t explicitly teach a battery output calculation unit configured to obtain, based on the vehicle travel information, motor output using an actual travelling speed or an expected travelling speed and traction force on a slope of the current travel road, and to obtain a battery output using motor output, auxiliary machinery output, and battery efficiency; and an expected charging energy calculation unit configured to obtain the expected charging energy using the battery output and travel time.
However Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery output calculation unit configured to obtain, based on the vehicle travel information, motor output using an actual travelling speed or an expected travelling speed and traction force on a slope of the current travel road (Li: Para. 24-25; total brake energy E.sub.total_brake that is required for travelling from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill is less than the gross energy due to energy loss from drag forces; total braking over the hill and the available regenerative braking energy), and to obtain a battery output using motor output, auxiliary machinery output, and battery efficiency (Li: Para. 25; E.sub.mech_brake = E.sub.total brake−E.sub.charging/η); and an expected charging energy calculation unit configured to obtain the expected charging energy using the battery output and travel time (Li: Para. 25; E.sub.charging = E.sub.full(1−SOC) = ∫P.sub.regen.sup.max(v)dt).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) and the battery efficiency calculations (Li: Para. 24-25) with a reasonable expectation of success because splitting the downhill brake workload between regenerative and mechanical braking keeps the engine cooler and prevents brake failure during mountain driving (Li: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Jang and Koichi don’t explicitly teach wherein the chargeable energy calculation unit is configured to calculate the chargeable energy by subtracting the current SOC(%) from the maximum SOC(%) expressed by E2 = SOCmax(%) - SOCcur(%), wherein SOCmax is a maximum SOC(%) and SOCcur is a current SOC(%).
However Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the chargeable energy calculation unit is configured to calculate the chargeable energy by subtracting the current SOC(%) from the maximum SOC(%) expressed by E2 = SOCmax(%) - SOCcur(%), wherein SOCmax is a maximum SOC(%) and SOCcur is a current SOC(%) (Li: Para. 25; E.sub.charging=E.sub.full(1−SOC)=∫P.sub.regen.sup.max(v)dt).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) and the battery efficiency calculations (Li: Para. 24-25) with a reasonable expectation of success because splitting the downhill brake workload between regenerative and mechanical braking keeps the engine cooler and prevents brake failure during mountain driving (Li: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Jang doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the battery output calculation unit is 2 configured to calculate the battery output using traction force, motor output, and the battery efficiency, using the expressions of Ft ( Fdrag + Froll + Fgrade ); Mout = Ft * (V1 or V2)(m/s); and Bout = (Mont + Aout) * BE, wherein Ft is traction force, Fdrag is air drag force, Froll is rolling resistance force, and Fgrade is gradability force received by a vehicle travelling on a road having an inclination angle 6, Mout is motor output, V is a travelling speed, VI is an actual travelling speed and V2 is an expected travelling speed, Bout is a battery output, Aout is auxiliary machinery output, and BE is battery efficiency.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the battery output calculation unit is 2 configured to calculate the battery output using traction force, motor output, and the battery efficiency, using the expressions of Ft ( Fdrag + Froll + Fgrade ); Mout = Ft * (V1 or V2)(m/s); and Bout = (Mont + Aout) * BE, wherein Ft is traction force, Fdrag is air drag force, Froll is rolling resistance force, and Fgrade is gradability force received by a vehicle travelling on a road having an inclination angle 6, Mout is motor output, V is a travelling speed, VI is an actual travelling speed and V2 is an expected travelling speed, Bout is a battery output, Aout is auxiliary machinery output, and BE is battery efficiency.
Koichi sums a rolling resistance force, an air resistance force and a force based on the grade of the slope (Koichi: Para. 21). This reaches the claimed traction force which is greater than or equal to the drag force, roll force, and grade force. Koichi teaches a regenerable work rate on a downhill road. The work rate is sum of the forces multiplied by the current detected speed, teaching the claimed motor output (Koichi: Para. 21). The work needed to keep the vehicle moving would be the summed force multiplied by the time that force is needed (Koichi: Para 21-23). There is more electricity needed than just movement because a vehicle has other subsystems, such as lights and AC, that use a set amount of battery power per time. The battery needs would be the hill movement work plus the subsystems work, and because batteries are not perfect the efficiency of the battery needs to be multiplied in. Koichi teaches a state of charge during normal use which is the basic subsystem and the work needed to move the vehicle uphill. The regenerative braking power possible would be the max value of the battery where the basic subsystem work and uphill work taken out. The system multiplies that by a rated capacity of the main battery that would account for the efficiency (Koichi: Para. 21-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Jang doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the expected charging energy calculation unit is configured to calculate, based on the battery output and travel time, the expected charging energy is expressed by: El = Bout * Td(m/s), wherein Td= Ld/V(V1 or V2), wherein El is expected charging energy, Bout is a battery output, Td is a travel distance, Ld is a downhill distance, V is a travelling speed, V I is an actual travelling speed and V2 is an expected travelling speed.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the expected charging energy calculation unit is configured to calculate, based on the battery output and travel time, the expected charging energy is expressed by: El = Bout * Td(m/s), wherein Td= Ld/V(V1 or V2), wherein El is expected charging energy, Bout is a battery output, Td is a travel distance, Ld is a downhill distance, V is a travelling speed, V I is an actual travelling speed and V2 is an expected travelling speed.
Koichi teaches the distance to the end of the downhill segment divided by the current velocity is the travel time it takes for the vehicle to get down the hill (Koichi: Para. 24). Koichi calculated the current rechargeable work amount for the main battery as the battery amount needed to move the vehicle uphill and the battery amount for normal use. The system takes the time for getting downhill multiplied by the expected battery usage going uphill to estimate the regenerative braking force possible on a downhill movement (Koichi: Para. 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Jang and Koichi don’t explicitly teach a battery output calculation step of obtaining, based on the vehicle travel information, motor output using an actual travelling speed or an expected travelling speed and traction force on a slope of the current travel road, and obtaining a battery output using motor output, auxiliary machinery output, and battery efficiency; and an expected charging energy calculation step of obtaining the expected charging energy using the battery output and travel time.
However Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery output calculation step of obtaining, based on the vehicle travel information, motor output using an actual travelling speed or an expected travelling speed and traction force on a slope of the current travel road (Li: Para. 24-25; total brake energy E.sub.total_brake that is required for travelling from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill is less than the gross energy due to energy loss from drag forces; total braking over the hill and the available regenerative braking energy), and obtaining a battery output using motor output, auxiliary machinery output, and battery efficiency (Li: Para. 25; E.sub.mech_brake =E.sub.total brake−E.sub.charging/η); and an expected charging energy calculation step of obtaining the expected charging energy using the battery output and travel time (Li: Para. 25; E.sub.charging = E.sub.full(1−SOC) = ∫P.sub.regen.sup.max(v)dt).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) and the battery efficiency calculations (Li: Para. 24-25) with a reasonable expectation of success because splitting the downhill brake workload between regenerative and mechanical braking keeps the engine cooler and prevents brake failure during mountain driving (Li: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Jang and Koichi don’t explicitly teach wherein the chargeable energy calculation step includes calculating the chargeable energy by subtracting the current SOC(%) from the maximum SOC(%) using the expression of E2 = SOCmax(%) - SOCcur(%), wherein SOCmax is a maximum SOC(%) and SOCcur is a current SOC(%).
However Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the chargeable energy calculation step includes calculating the chargeable energy by subtracting the current SOC(%) from the maximum SOC(%) using the expression of E2 = SOCmax(%) - SOCcur(%), wherein SOCmax is a maximum SOC(%) and SOCcur is a current SOC(%) (Li: Para. 25; E.sub.charging=E.sub.full(1−SOC)=∫P.sub.regen.sup.max(v)dt).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) and the battery efficiency calculations (Li: Para. 24-25) with a reasonable expectation of success because splitting the downhill brake workload between regenerative and mechanical braking keeps the engine cooler and prevents brake failure during mountain driving (Li: Para. 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Jang doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the battery output calculation step includes calculating the battery output using traction force, motor output, and the battery efficiency, using the expressions of: Ft > Fdrag + Froll + Fgrade; Mout = Ft * (V1 or V2)(m/s); and Bout = (Mout+ Aout) * BE, wherein Ft is traction force, Fdrag is air drag force, Froll is rolling resistance force, and Fgrade is gradability force received by a vehicle travelling on a road having an inclination angle theta, Mout is motor output, V is a travelling speed, Vi is an actual travelling speed and V2 is an expected travelling speed, Bout is a battery output, Aout is auxiliary theta machinery output, and BE is battery efficiency.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the battery output calculation step includes calculating the battery output using traction force, motor output, and the battery efficiency, using the expressions of: Ft > Fdrag + Froll + Fgrade; Mout = Ft * (V1 or V2)(m/s); and Bout = (Mout+ Aout) * BE, wherein Ft is traction force, Fdrag is air drag force, Froll is rolling resistance force, and Fgrade is gradability force received by a vehicle travelling on a road having an inclination angle theta, Mout is motor output, V is a travelling speed, Vi is an actual travelling speed and V2 is an expected travelling speed, Bout is a battery output, Aout is auxiliary theta machinery output, and BE is battery efficiency.
Koichi sums a rolling resistance force, an air resistance force and a force based on the grade of the slope (Koichi: Para. 21). This reaches the claimed traction force which is greater than or equal to the drag force, roll force, and grade force. Koichi teaches a regenerable work rate on a downhill road. The work rate is sum of the forces multiplied by the current detected speed, teaching the claimed motor output (Koichi: Para. 21). The work needed to keep the vehicle moving would be the summed force multiplied by the time that force is needed (Koichi: Para 21-23). There is more electricity needed than just movement because a vehicle has other subsystems, such as lights and AC, that use a set amount of battery power per time. The battery needs would be the hill movement work plus the subsystems work, and because batteries are not perfect the efficiency of the battery needs to be multiplied in. Koichi teaches a state of charge during normal use which is the basic subsystem and the work needed to move the vehicle uphill. The regenerative braking power possible would be the max value of the battery where the basic subsystem work and uphill work taken out. The system multiplies that by a rated capacity of the main battery that would account for the efficiency (Koichi: Para. 21-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Regarding claim 17, Jang doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the expected charging energy calculation step includes calculating, based on the battery output and travel time, the expected charging energy expressed by El = Bout * Td(m/s), wherein Td = Ld/V(V l or V2), and wherein E1 is expected charging energy, Bout is a battery output, Td is a travel distance, Ld is a downhill distance, V is a travelling speed, V1 is an actual travelling speed, and V2 is an expected travelling speed.
However Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the expected charging energy calculation step includes calculating, based on the battery output and travel time, the expected charging energy expressed by El = Bout * Td(m/s), wherein Td = Ld/V(V l or V2), and wherein E1 is expected charging energy, Bout is a battery output, Td is a travel distance, Ld is a downhill distance, V is a travelling speed, V1 is an actual travelling speed, and V2 is an expected travelling speed.
Koichi teaches the distance to the end of the downhill segment divided by the current velocity is the travel time it takes for the vehicle to get down the hill (Koichi: Para. 24). Koichi calculated the current rechargeable work amount for the main battery as the battery amount needed to move the vehicle uphill and the battery amount for normal use. The system takes the time for getting downhill multiplied by the expected battery usage going uphill to estimate the regenerative braking force possible on a downhill movement (Koichi: Para. 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) with a reasonable expectation of success because when the regenerative braking storable energy is larger than the downhill charging potential, averaging the regenerative braking force for the length of the downhill and supplementing with frictional braking prevents a sudden drop off of brake force once the battery is fully charged (Koichi: Para. 7).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US Publication 2019/0143958 A1) in view of Koichi et al. (Foreign Reference JP2001054202A) and in further view of Husberg et al. (US Publication 2024/0198808 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Jang and Koichi don’t explicitly teach wherein the vehicle control unit is configured to control an operation of a cooling system for cooling an auxiliary braking device operating while braking is performed in the blending mode.
However Husberg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the vehicle control unit is configured to control an operation of a cooling system for cooling an auxiliary braking device operating while braking is performed in the blending mode (Husberg: Para. 26; determine the change of the coolant temperature during auxiliary braking, and may therefore, based on such determination, select a suitable brake power distribution; separate cooling systems for auxiliary brake components).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) and the cooling for mechanical brakes (Husberg: Para. 26) with a reasonable expectation of success because having information about the heat capacity of the coolant allows the processor to determine how much auxiliary braking power may be applied in order to maintain the coolant temperature at or below threshold (Husberg: Para. 29).
Regarding claim 20, Jang and Koichi don’t explicitly teach wherein the vehicle braking control step includes controlling an operation of a cooling system for cooling an auxiliary braking device operating while braking is performed in the blending mode.
However Husberg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the vehicle braking control step includes controlling an operation of a cooling system for cooling an auxiliary braking device operating while braking is performed in the blending mode (Husberg: Para. 26; determine the change of the coolant temperature during auxiliary braking, and may therefore, based on such determination, select a suitable brake power distribution; separate cooling systems for auxiliary brake components).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the downhill regenerative braking calculations (Jang: Para. 23) with the use of regenerative and friction downhill braking (Koichi: Para. 7) and the cooling for mechanical brakes (Husberg: Para. 26) with a reasonable expectation of success because having information about the heat capacity of the coolant allows the processor to determine how much auxiliary braking power may be applied in order to maintain the coolant temperature at or below threshold (Husberg: Para. 29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights