DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 08/31/2026.
Claims 1-20 received on 08/31/2026 are considered in this Office Action.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The title was previously objected due to not being descriptive. In response to the amendment to the title, the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 were previously objected to because of the informalities. In response to the amendments of claims 3-4 and 13-14, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1, 11 and 20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues that WU and Velazquez fails to disclose the following additional new limitations:
the yaw velocity indicates rotation of the vehicle around a vertical axis, and
a magnitude of the rotation indicates a stability degree of the vehicle
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (a) and (b), the basis of the argument comes from the Applicant’s allegation that descriptions regarding the first traveling parameter may include the yaw velocity as it is directly or indirectly reflects yaw stability state of the vehicle is completely absent (Remarks, pg 10-11) from Wu. However, claim 1 as amended requires calculating a first energy recovery torque based on yaw velocity. The newly added claim limitations (a) and (b) are simply descriptive phrases of properties of yaw velocity, and do not change how a yaw velocity or a first energy recovery torque is obtained/calculated in claim 1.
Regarding (a), Wu teaches the yaw velocity indicates rotation of the vehicle around a vertical axis (para. [0021]: “ψ=yaw input from the yaw rate sensor 190 in radians per second (rad/s)”, wherein yaw rate sensor, by its definition, measures the angular velocity of a vehicle or object around its vertical axis thus indicating rotation of the vehicle around a vertical axis).
Regarding (b), Wu teaches a magnitude of the rotation indicates a stability degree of the vehicle (FIG. 4; para. [0043]: “X5 is determined using input |ψ| and parameters C1=0.4 rad/s and C2=0.7 rad/s.”; para. [0055]: “vehicle yaw rate is small (ψ<0.4 rad/s), and vehicle lateral acceleration is small (Ay<3.0 m/s2). In addition, X1 through X5 are all 1.0 (very stable)”; para. [0056]: “vehicle yaw rate is relatively large (Φ˜5.4 rad/s), and vehicle lateral acceleration is large (Ay˜7.7 m/s2), using the fuzzy operations, X1=0.3, X2=0.5, X3=0.6, X4=0.1, X5=0.2, and solving the equations above, yields Y1=0.35, Y2=0.4125, Y3=0.1781, and RB=0.1836. Therefore, FB=0.8164. Because the sensed parameters indicate that the vehicle 100 and the wheel are relatively unstable,”, wherein “|ψ|” corresponds to magnitude of the rotation and indicates a stability degree of the vehicle as shown in FIG. 5).
Furthermore, NAPA (NPL- What does a Yaw Rate Sensor do for your vehicle?), a prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, indicates that (a) the yaw velocity indicates rotation of the vehicle around a vertical axis (A yaw rate sensor (or rotational speed sensor) measures a vehicle’s angular velocity about its vertical axis in degrees or radians per second in order to determine the orientation of the vehicle as it hard-corners or threatens to roll-over), and a magnitude of the rotation indicates a stability degree of the vehicle (yaw rate sensor is a key component in a vehicle’s stability control or electronic stability control system.) are descriptive phrases of properties of yaw velocity or yaw rate.
Regarding claim 1, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches calculating a first energy recovery torque based on yaw velocity (WU para. [0001]: “determine the amount of regenerative and friction braking to use based on a variety of sensed parameters”; WU para. [0016]: “The braking signal 280 is fed to a fuzzy logic controller 285. The fuzzy logic controller 285 also receives a plurality of signals 290 from the ESC module 255. The plurality of signals 290 include data on the wheel speed, wheel acceleration/deceleration, wheel jerk, wheel slip, vehicle lateral acceleration, and vehicle yaw rate. Using the plurality of signals 290, the fuzzy logic controller 285 allocates braking force between regenerative and friction braking.”; Velazquez col 6 lines 58-67: “The regenerative braking request and the modifiers 52-68 are fed into box 50 which outputs a torque command for the secondary axle 24 (braking torque secondary axle). The controller 40 may then calculate the torque command for the primary axle 22 (braking torque primary axle) using equation 1. The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes based on operating conditions”, wherein braking torque is proportional to braking force by the effective radius).
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
Additional claim limitation of “controlling, based on the first energy recovery torque, the vehicle to perform energy recovery” applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application as it achieves the goal to keep the vehicle stable while still recovering as much energy as possible, as supported by para. [0009] of the specification reproduced below:
[0009] According to the method, the vehicle control apparatus may calculate an energy recovery torque in real time based on a traveling parameter, for example, the yaw velocity, to dynamically limit capability recovery intensity of the vehicle, to reduce or even avoid a tendency toward instability (for example, a sideslip or drift) when the vehicle performs energy recovery in some special scenarios (for example, a cornering scenario). This ensures traveling safety of the vehicle. In addition, based on the method, correction, performed by an ESC, triggered due to instability of the vehicle can be further reduced, to prevent the vehicle from "jerking forward", to ensure driving experience.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (US20120280562A1), in view of Velazquez (US10518775B1).
Velazquez is cited in the IDS received on 11/20/2025.
Regarding claim 1, WU teaches a vehicle control method (para. [0001]: “controlling the ratio of regenerative braking to friction braking in hybrid vehicles”), comprising:
calculating a first energy recovery force based on a first traveling parameter of a vehicle (para. [0001]: “determine the amount of regenerative and friction braking to use based on a variety of sensed parameters”),
wherein the first traveling parameter comprises a yaw velocity (FIG. 2; para. [0016]: “The braking signal 280 is fed to a fuzzy logic controller 285. The fuzzy logic controller 285 also receives a plurality of signals 290 from the ESC module 255. The plurality of signals 290 include data on the wheel speed, wheel acceleration/deceleration, wheel jerk, wheel slip, vehicle lateral acceleration, and vehicle yaw rate. Using the plurality of signals 290, the fuzzy logic controller 285 allocates braking force between regenerative and friction braking.”; para. [0021]: “ψ=yaw input from the yaw rate sensor 190 in radians per second (rad/s).”), the yaw velocity indicates rotation of the vehicle around a vertical axis (para. [0021]: “ψ=yaw input from the yaw rate sensor 190 in radians per second (rad/s)”, wherein yaw rate sensor, by its definition, measures the angular velocity of a vehicle or object around its vertical axis thus indicating rotation of the vehicle around a vertical axis), and a magnitude of the rotation indicates a stability degree of the vehicle (FIG. 4; para. [0043]: “X5 is determined using input |ψ| and parameters C1=0.4 rad/s and C2=0.7 rad/s.”; para. [0055]: “vehicle yaw rate is small (ψ<0.4 rad/s), and vehicle lateral acceleration is small (Ay<3.0 m/s2). In addition, X1 through X5 are all 1.0 (very stable)”; para. [0056]: “vehicle yaw rate is relatively large (Φ˜5.4 rad/s), and vehicle lateral acceleration is large (Ay˜7.7 m/s2), using the fuzzy operations, X1=0.3, X2=0.5, X3=0.6, X4=0.1, X5=0.2, and solving the equations above, yields Y1=0.35, Y2=0.4125, Y3=0.1781, and RB=0.1836. Therefore, FB=0.8164. Because the sensed parameters indicate that the vehicle 100 and the wheel are relatively unstable,”, wherein “|ψ|” corresponds to magnitude of the rotation and indicates a stability degree of the vehicle as shown in FIG. 5); and
controlling, based on the first energy recovery force, the vehicle to perform energy recovery (para. [0052]: “Finally, the actual regenerative braking force BR is determined by multiplying the portion by the output of the PID controller 285: B_R =P_R *PIDOUT”; para. [0055]: “vehicle yaw rate is small (ψ<0.4 rad/s), and vehicle lateral acceleration is small (Ay<3.0 m/s2). In addition, X1 through X5 are all 1.0 (very stable). Solving the equations above results in RB being one. This means that all braking force (up to saturation) is applied via regenerative braking”), but fails to specifically teach first energy recovery torque.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Velazquez teaches a first energy recovery torque (col 3 lines 58-67: “The vehicle 20 is configured to decelerate using regenerative braking, friction braking, or a combination thereof. The controller 40 includes programming for aggregating a demanded braking torque between regenerative braking, i.e., the electric machines, and the friction brakes 42. The demanded braking torque may be based on driver input, e.g., a position of the brake pedal 44, or by the controller 40. The aggregator of the controller 40 may be programmed to decelerate the vehicle using regenerative braking whenever possible and apply the friction brakes 42 only when needed”) and controlling, based on the first energy recovery torque, the vehicle to perform energy recovery (col 6 lines 58-67: “The regenerative braking request and the modifiers 52-68 are fed into box 50 which outputs a torque command for the secondary axle 24 (braking torque secondary axle). The controller 40 may then calculate the torque command for the primary axle 22 (braking torque primary axle) using equation 1. The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes based on operating conditions”).
Wu and Velazquez are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of regenerative braking based on vehicle parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute braking force Wu with the braking torque Velazquez, as they are related (Braking torque = Braking force x Effective radius), and perform braking of vehicle. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu and incorporate the teachings of Velazquez and divide the regenerative braking torque between the primary axle and the secondary axle. Doing so would allow the vehicle to capture more energy during regenerative braking and increase vehicle stability as compared to other electric powertrains of conventional electric vehicles that only include a single powertrain (Velazquez, col 4 lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches the method according to claim 1. The combination of Wu in view of Velazquez further teaches further comprising:
determining that the vehicle meets at least one of:
the yaw velocity of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a first value (Velazquez col 6 lines 28-37: “The yaw-rate error is calculated by subtracting a measured yaw rate from the target yaw rate. The controller 40 may include a lookup table 66 that coordinates yaw-rate error to yaw-rate modifier values. For example, if the yaw-rate error is positive”);
a speed of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a second value (Wu FIG. 3, wherein speed should be above 0 for the braking to occur); or
a value of braking force request information of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a third value (Velazquez col 3 lines 58-67: “The vehicle 20 is configured to decelerate using regenerative braking, friction braking, or a combination thereof. The controller 40 includes programming for aggregating a demanded braking torque between regenerative braking, i.e., the electric machines, and the friction brakes 42. The demanded braking torque may be based on driver input, e.g., a position of the brake pedal 44, or by the controller 40. The aggregator of the controller 40 may be programmed to decelerate the vehicle using regenerative braking whenever possible and apply the friction brakes 42 only when needed”; Wu para. [0016]: “a brake pedal sensor configured to sense a position of a brake pedal of the vehicle”, wherein a brake pedal must be above 0 to determine proportion between regenerative braking and friction braking).
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches the method according to claim 1. Wu further teaches, wherein the first traveling parameter further
comprises a speed (para. [0019]-[0022]: “The fuzzy logic controller 285 uses a plurality of process variables and sensed parameters. The list below shows the variables and parameters used by the fuzzy logic controller […] V=vehicle speed (m/s) […] γ=fuzzy based weighting factor based on vehicle speed.”), and calculating the first energy recovery torque based on the first traveling parameter of the vehicle comprises:
calculating a first intervention value based on the yaw velocity and the speed (FIG. 3-5; para. [0051]: “Then the portion of braking force to be applied to regenerative braking PR is determined by P R=γ*MIN(Y 3 ,X 5)+(1−γ)*(Y 3 +X 5)/2”; para. [0043]: “X5 is determined using input |ψ| and parameters C1=0.4 rad/s and C2=0.7 rad/s”; para. [0037]: “is determined based on the speed of the vehicle”); and
calculating the first energy recovery torque based on the first intervention value (para. [0051]: “Then the portion of braking force to be applied to regenerative braking PR is determined by P R=γ*MIN(Y 3 ,X 5)+(1−γ)*(Y 3 +X 5)/2”).
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches the method according to claim 1. Velazquez further teaches further comprising:
obtaining a first allocation proportion of an energy recovery torque (FIG. 2; FIG. 3; col 5 lines 2-5: “The controller 40 is configured to determine a proportion of the brake torque to the primary drive axle 22 and the secondary drive axle 24.”; col 5 lines 14-30: “The commanded braking torque secondary axle may be calculated using equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM. Each of the modifiers can have a value between zero and one”),
wherein controlling the vehicle to perform energy recovery comprises:
calculating a second energy recovery torque based on the first energy recovery torque and the first allocation proportion (col 5 lines 6-7: “equation 1: braking torque primary axle=braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle”); and
controlling, based on the second energy recovery torque, a first motor of the vehicle to perform energy recovery (col 6 lines 58-67: “The regenerative braking request and the modifiers 52-68 are fed into box 50 which outputs a torque command for the secondary axle 24 (braking torque secondary axle). The controller 40 may then calculate the torque command for the primary axle 22 (braking torque primary axle) using equation 1. The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes based on operating conditions”).
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches the method according to claim 6. Velazquez further teaches further comprising:
calculating a third energy recovery torque based on the first energy recovery torque and a second allocation proportion, wherein the second allocation proportion is a difference between 1 and the first allocation proportion (col 5 lines 6-7: “equation 1: braking torque primary axle=braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle”, wherein braking torque request−braking torque secondary axle indicates difference between 1 and the first allocation proportion when divided by braking torque request); and
controlling, based on the third energy recovery torque, a second motor of the vehicle to perform energy recovery (col 6 lines 58-67: “The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes based on operating conditions. The aggregator then outputs regenerative braking commands for the primary and secondary axles to another control module, e.g., powertrain control module, that determines and commands the appropriate regenerative torques to the electric machines to regeneratively brake the vehicle 20”).
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches the method according to claim 6. Velazquez further teaches further comprising:
calculating a friction braking force based on the first energy recovery torque and a third allocation proportion, wherein the third allocation proportion is a difference between 1 and the first allocation proportion (col 3 lines 58-67: “The vehicle 20 is configured to decelerate using regenerative braking, friction braking, or a combination thereof. […]; col 6 lines 58-67: “The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes”, wherein the braking torque – regenerative braking torque = friction braking torque); and
controlling pressure of a master cylinder or pressure of a wheel cylinder of the vehicle based on the friction braking force (col 6 lines 58-67: “The torque commands for the primary and secondary axles 22, 24 are then fed to the braking aggregator module which determines the braking duties between the regenerative braking system and the friction brakes based on operating conditions. The aggregator then outputs regenerative braking commands for the primary and secondary axles to another control module, e.g., powertrain control module, that determines and commands the appropriate regenerative torques to the electric machines to regeneratively brake the vehicle 20”; col 3 lines 43-56: “The ABS 38, while illustrated as a hydraulic system, may be electronic or a combination of electronic and a hydraulic. The ABS 38 may include a brake module and a plurality of friction brakes 42 located at each of the wheels. Modern vehicles typically have disc brakes; however, other types of friction brakes are available such as drum brakes. Each of the brakes 42 are in fluid communication with the brake module via a brake line configured to deliver fluid pressure from the module to a caliper of the brakes 42”, wherein friction braking comprises of hydraulic system thus indicating pressure of a master cylinder or pressure of a wheel cylinder of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches the method according to claim 6. Velazquez further teaches wherein obtaining the first allocation proportion of the energy recovery torque comprises: querying the first allocation proportion from preset allocation proportion information based on a second traveling parameter of the vehicle, wherein the second traveling parameter comprises the yaw velocity and/or a longitudinal acceleration (FIG. 2; FIG. 3; col 5 lines 14-30: “The module 50 may calculate a commanded secondary axle brake torque by modifying the received brake torque request by a base-split modifier (BSM) 52, a lateral acceleration modifier (LAM) 54, efficiency modifier (EM) 56, a yaw modifier (YM) 58, and/or the slip modifier (SM) 60. The commanded braking torque secondary axle may be calculated using equation 2: braking torque secondary axle=braking torque request×BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM. […] The controller 40 may be programmed to determine the base-split modifier 52 based on vehicle speed and longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle 20.”; col 6 lines -28-30: “determine the yaw-rate modifier 58 based on a yaw-rate error”, wherein “BSM×LAM×EM×YM×SM” corresponds to preset allocation proportion information).
Regarding claim 10, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches the method according to claim 9. Velazquez further teaches further comprising: determining that the vehicle meets at least one of the yaw velocity of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a fourth value; or the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a fifth value (col 6 lines 28-45: “The controller 40 may further be programmed to determine the yaw-rate modifier 58 based on a yaw-rate error. The controller 40 may be programmed to determine a target yaw rate based on operating conditions of the vehicle, for example, as sensed by the at least one sensor 48. The yaw-rate error is calculated by subtracting a measured yaw rate from the target yaw rate. The controller 40 may include a lookup table 66 that coordinates yaw-rate error to yaw-rate modifier values. For example, if the yaw-rate error is positive the vehicle 20 is in an understeer condition and the modifier 58 is 1 as an understeer condition is stable. Conversely, if the yaw-rate error is negative, the vehicle is in an oversteer condition, which if severe, can cause instability of the vehicle. Thus, the lookup table 66 may include modifier values less than 1 for negative error rates to reduce braking torque to the secondary axle 24. The values of the modifier 58 may decrease responsive to increasing yaw-rate errors in the negative direction”, wherein “the target yaw rate” corresponds to a fourth value).
Regarding claim 11, Wu further teaches a vehicle control apparatus, comprising: a processor, and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising (para. [0015]: “FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a model 250 […] The model 250 can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software. In addition, modules described below can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software, and can be integrated or distributed”; para. [0018]: “the ECU 205 and/or other modules include a processor (e.g., a microprocessor, microcontroller, ASIC, DSP, etc.) and memory (e.g., flash, ROM, RAM, EEPROM, etc.; i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium), which can be internal to the processor, external to the processor,”) claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 12, it recites a vehicle control apparatus performing claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 2, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 13, it recites a vehicle control apparatus performing claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 3, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 16, it recites a vehicle control apparatus performing claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 6, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, it recites a vehicle control apparatus performing claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 7, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18, it recites a vehicle control apparatus performing claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 8, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, it recites a vehicle control apparatus performing claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 9, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, Wu further teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising (para. [0015]: “FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a model 250 […] The model 250 can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software. In addition, modules described below can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software, and can be integrated or distributed”; para. [0018]: “the ECU 205 and/or other modules include a processor (e.g., a microprocessor, microcontroller, ASIC, DSP, etc.) and memory (e.g., flash, ROM, RAM, EEPROM, etc.; i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium), which can be internal to the processor, external to the processor,”) claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU, in view of Velazquez, and further in view of Joyce (US 20030184154 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Velazquez teaches the method according to claim 3. Wu further teaches, wherein the first traveling parameter further comprises braking force request information (Claim 19: “a brake pedal sensor configured to sense a position of a brake pedal of the vehicle;”), and
calculating the first energy recovery torque based on the first traveling parameter of a vehicle (FIG. 2; Claim 19: “allocate braking force between the friction brake and the motor/generator operating in the regenerative braking mode based on the stability of the vehicle”) comprises:
calculating a (Claim 19: “a controller coupled to the wheel speed sensor, the friction brake, the motor/generator, the throttle sensor, the brake pedal sensor, and the plurality of sensors, the controller including a fuzzy logic module configured to determine a stability of the vehicle based on data from the plurality of sensors and”); and
calculating the first energy recovery torque (Claim 19: “to allocate braking force between the friction brake and the motor/generator operating in the regenerative braking mode based on the stability of the vehicle”), but fails to specifically teach calculating a second intervention value based on the braking force request information and the speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Joyce teaches calculating a second intervention value based on the braking force request information and the speed and calculating the first energy recovery torque based on the second intervention value (para. [0014]: “The brake controller 12 controls the proportional amounts of regenerative braking and friction braking. Generally, the proportion amount of regenerative braking depends on the amount of braking force commanded, the vehicle speed, battery charge, and other factors. In considering these factors, the brake controller 12 will determine the proportion of friction braking and regenerative braking to be applied during a given braking situation. The determined sum total of friction braking and regenerative braking should equal the total braking demanded by the vehicle operator.”, wherein determining proportion of regenerative braking indicates calculating a second intervention value based on the braking force request information and the speed).
Joyce is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of regenerative braking based on vehicle parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu in view of Velazquez and incorporate the teachings of Joyce and determine a regenerative torque based on speed and braking force amount. Doing so will provide different regenerative braking values based on a number of factors including vehicle speed, battery charge, and the amount of braking force commanded, thus enhancing stability while maximizing regeneration (Joyce, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Velazquez and further in view of Joyce teaches the method according to claim 4. Wu further teaches wherein calculating the first energy recovery torque based on the first traveling parameter of the vehicle (FIG. 2) comprises: calculating the first energy recovery torque based on a larger value between the first intervention value and the second intervention value (para. [0016]: “The greater the stability, the more of the braking force that is allocated to regenerative braking.”; para. [0054]: “Again, any BR that exceeds a predetermined saturation threshold is added to BF. The process is performed for each of the four wheels.”; para. [0017]: “limit to the amount of braking force regenerative braking can provide. This is referred to as the regenerative braking saturation point”; Velazquez col 6 lines 19-20: “For example, a stability event will take precedence over the efficiency modifier”, wherein modifiers based on various parameters corresponds to first intervention value and the second intervention value, and selection of a regeneration torque with higher stability is indicated by stability event will take precedence over the efficiency modifier, and thus a regeneration torque is selected based on a larger value between the first intervention value and the second intervention value).
Regarding claim 14, it recites a vehicle control apparatus performing claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 4, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a vehicle control apparatus performing claim limitations similar to those of the method according to claim 5, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NAPA (NPL- What does a Yaw Rate Sensor do for your vehicle?) teaches information relevant to yaw rate sensors.
KUANG (US 20170259670 A1) teaches vehicle stability torque limit may refer to a maximum regenerative braking torque that can be applied on the wheels without causing a vehicle yaw instability event.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights