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 .
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a deceleration request device configured to provide a deceleration request to decelerate the vehicle” in claim 24.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the above limitation described in the specification: (see at least Applicant Specification, para. [0021]: An exemplary deceleration request device 72 includes a brake pedal and brake pedal position sensor that receives an input from the brake pedal when actuated by the operator.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, & 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0245785A1 (“Suzuki”).
As per claim 1 Suzuki discloses
A method for braking a vehicle that includes a plurality of braking systems (see at least Suzuki, para. [0059]: Brake systems 511 , 512 are configured to control a plurality of braking devices (not shown) provided for respective wheels of vehicle 1. These braking devices may include a disc brake system that operates using hydraulic pressure regulated by an actuator .), the method comprising:
receiving a deceleration request for decelerating the vehicle (see at least Suzuki, para. [0074]: Position calculator 511A receives , from the brake position sensor ( not shown ) , a signal indicating an amount of depression of brake pedal 50 by a driver , and outputs , to target deceleration calculator 511B , a deceleration request in accordance with the amount of depression of brake pedal 50.);
determining a braking capability for each of the plurality of braking systems upon receiving the deceleration request (see at least Suzuki, Table 9: “Estimated Max_Decel_Capability” & para. [0307-0308]: Estimated maximum deceleration, values);
allocating the deceleration request among one or more of the plurality of braking systems based on the braking capability of each of the plurality of braking systems (see at least Suzuki, para. [0060]: In accordance with a predetermined control command transmitted from ADK 3 through vehicle control interface 4, each of brake systems 511, 512 generates a braking command for the braking device. Moreover, brake systems 511, 512 control the braking device, using the braking command generated by one of brake systems 511, 512, for example. Further, when a failure occurs to one of brake systems 511, 512, the braking command generated by the other is used to control the braking device. & para. [0078]: Controller 511C controls each of the systems (brake systems 511, 512 and propulsion system 56, for example) included in VP 5, in accordance with the target deceleration from target deceleration calculator 511B. Thus, braking control of vehicle 1 is conducted so as to make the deceleration of vehicle 1 closer to the target deceleration. & para. [0307-0308]: Estimated maximum deceleration, values); and
decelerating the vehicle with one or more of the plurality of braking systems in response to the allocation of the deceleration request among the plurality of braking systems (see at least Suzuki, para. [0074-0078]: Controller 511C controls each of the systems (brake systems 511, 512 and propulsion system 56, for example) included in VP 5, in accordance with the target deceleration from target deceleration calculator 511B. Thus, braking control of vehicle 1 is conducted so as to make the deceleration of vehicle 1 closer to the target deceleration. & para. [0307-0308]: Estimated maximum deceleration, values).
As per claim 4 Suzuki discloses
wherein: the deceleration request is allocated among at least two of the plurality of braking systems and each of the at least two braking systems are applied concurrently to simultaneously satisfy the deceleration request to at least two of the plurality of braking systems simultaneously decelerate the vehicle in response to the allocation of the deceleration request among the plurality of braking systems (see at least Suzuki, para. [0060]: In accordance with a predetermined control command transmitted from ADK 3 through vehicle control interface 4, each of brake systems 511, 512 generates a braking command for the braking device. Moreover, brake systems 511, 512 control the braking device, using the braking command generated by one of brake systems 511, 512, for example. Further, when a failure occurs to one of brake systems 511, 512, the braking command generated by the other is used to control the braking device. & para. [0075-0076]: ADK 3 outputs a deceleration request to brake system 511 through VCIB 41. This deceleration request is hereinafter referred to as "system deceleration request." The system deceleration request corresponds to "second deceleration request" of the present disclosure….The source of the system deceleration request is not limited to ADK 3, but may be PCS system 57, for example. Moreover, ADK 3 and/or PCS system 57 may output the system deceleration request to brake system 511 through the other VCIB 42 provided for redundancy.).
As per claim 8 Suzuki discloses
further comprising evaluating one or more operating parameters associated with the vehicle in order to determining the braking capability for each of the plurality of braking systems upon receiving the deceleration request, wherein the one or more operating parameters are provided by at least one of: an adaptive cruise control system, an advanced driver assistance system, an automated driving system, a dynamic powertrain control system, an anti-lock brake system, a vehicle electronic stability control system, a road condition sensor, a road grade sensor, weather data, a look ahead route data system, a LiDAR detection system, a radar detection system, a tire sensor, a vehicle-to-vehicle communication system, a platoon communication system, a traffic control system, and a transportation infrastructure communication system (see at least Suzuki, para. [0047-0050]: Sensors for perception 32 perceive the environment around the vehicle. Specifically, sensors for perception 32 include at least one of a LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), a millimeter-wave radar, and a camera, for example…Sensors for pose 33 detect the pose, the behavior, and the position of vehicle 1. Specifically, sensors for pose 33 include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a GPS (Global Positioning System), for example….The MU detects, for example, the deceleration of vehicle 1 in the longitudinal direction, the transverse direction, and the vertical direction, as well as the angular velocity of vehicle 1 in the roll direction, the pitch direction, and the yaw direction. The GPS uses information received from a plurality of GPS satellites orbiting around the earth to detect the position of vehicle 1. The information acquired by sensors for pose 33 is also output to compute assembly 31… para. [0060]: In accordance with a predetermined control command transmitted from ADK 3 through vehicle control interface 4, each of brake systems 511, 512 generates a braking command for the braking device. Moreover, brake systems 511, 512 control the braking device, using the braking command generated by one of brake systems 511, 512, for example. Further, when a failure occurs to one of brake systems 511, 512, the braking command generated by the other is used to control the braking device. & para. [0078]: Controller 511C controls each of the systems (brake systems 511, 512 and propulsion system 56, for example) included in VP 5, in accordance with the target deceleration from target deceleration calculator 511B. Thus, braking control of vehicle 1 is conducted so as to make the deceleration of vehicle 1 closer to the target deceleration. & para. [0307-0308]: Estimated maximum deceleration, values).
As per claim 11 Suzuki discloses
further comprising: detecting a fault associated with one of the plurality of braking systems; and re-allocating the deceleration request among the other of the plurality of braking systems in response to the fault and at least partially disabling the braking system for which the fault was detected (see at least Suzuki, para. [0055]: Therefore, even when some fault occurs to a part of the systems, the control system can be switched or the control system to which the fault has occurred can be interrupted, for example, to maintain the functions (such as steering and braking) of VP 5. & para. [0060]: In accordance with a predetermined control command transmitted from ADK 3 through vehicle control interface 4, each of brake systems 511, 512 generates a braking command for the braking device. Moreover, brake systems 511, 512 control the braking device, using the braking command generated by one of brake systems 511, 512, for example. Further, when a failure occurs to one of brake systems 511, 512, the braking command generated by the other is used to control the braking device.).
As per claim 24 Suzuki discloses
A vehicle, comprising: a powertrain coupled to a drive shaft (see at least Suzuki, para. [0064-0066]: P lock system 552 is configured to control a Plock device (not shown) provided for the transmission of vehicle 1. More specifically, a gear (lock gear) is provided to be coupled to a rotational element in the transmission. Further, a parking lock pole capable of adjusting the position by an actuator is also provided for a teeth portion of the lock gear. The P lock device fits a protrusion located on the head of the parking lock pole to thereby fix rotation of the output shaft of the transmission.);
one or more grounding engaging wheels that are driven by the drive shaft (see at least Suzuki, para. [0064-0066]: EPB system 551 is configured to control an EPB provided in a wheel of vehicle 1. The EPB is provided separately from the braking device of brake systems 511, 512, and fixes the wheel by an operation of an actuator. This actuator may be capable of regulating the hydraulic pressure to be applied to the braking device, separately from brake systems 511, 512. The EPB fixes a wheel by actuating, with the actuator, a drum brake for a parking brake, for example.);
a deceleration request device configured to provide a deceleration request to decelerate the vehicle (see at least Suzuki, para. [0074]: Position calculator 511A receives , from the brake position sensor ( not shown ) , a signal indicating an amount of depression of brake pedal 50 by a driver , and outputs , to target deceleration calculator 511B , a deceleration request in accordance with the amount of depression of brake pedal 50.);
a plurality of braking systems each configured to decelerate the vehicle (see at least Suzuki, para. [0059]: Brake systems 511 , 512 are configured to control a plurality of braking devices (not shown) provided for respective wheels of vehicle 1. These braking devices may include a disc brake system that operates using hydraulic pressure regulated by an actuator .);
at least one controller configured to receive the deceleration request and output one or more braking commands to the plurality of braking systems (see at least Suzuki, Table 9: “Estimated Max_Decel_Capability” & para. [0060]: In accordance with a predetermined control command transmitted from ADK 3 through vehicle control interface 4, each of brake systems 511, 512 generates a braking command for the braking device. Moreover, brake systems 511, 512 control the braking device, using the braking command generated by one of brake systems 511, 512, for example. Further, when a failure occurs to one of brake systems 511, 512, the braking command generated by the other is used to control the braking device. & para. [0078]: Controller 511C controls each of the systems (brake systems 511, 512 and propulsion system 56, for example) included in VP 5, in accordance with the target deceleration from target deceleration calculator 511B. Thus, braking control of vehicle 1 is conducted so as to make the deceleration of vehicle 1 closer to the target deceleration. & para. [0307-0308]: Estimated maximum deceleration, values), wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a braking capability for each of the plurality of braking systems associated with the deceleration request (see at least Suzuki, Table 9: “Estimated Max_Decel_Capability” & para. [0307-0308]: Estimated maximum deceleration, values);
allocate the deceleration request among one or more of the plurality of braking systems based on the braking capability of each of the plurality of braking systems (see at least Suzuki, para. [0060]: In accordance with a predetermined control command transmitted from ADK 3 through vehicle control interface 4, each of brake systems 511, 512 generates a braking command for the braking device. Moreover, brake systems 511, 512 control the braking device, using the braking command generated by one of brake systems 511, 512, for example. Further, when a failure occurs to one of brake systems 511, 512, the braking command generated by the other is used to control the braking device. & para. [0078]: Controller 511C controls each of the systems (brake systems 511, 512 and propulsion system 56, for example) included in VP 5, in accordance with the target deceleration from target deceleration calculator 511B. Thus, braking control of vehicle 1 is conducted so as to make the deceleration of vehicle 1 closer to the target deceleration. & para. [0307-0308]: Estimated maximum deceleration, values); and
decelerate the vehicle with the one or more of the plurality of braking systems in response to the allocation of the deceleration request among the plurality of braking systems (see at least Suzuki, para. [0074-0078]: Controller 511C controls each of the systems (brake systems 511, 512 and propulsion system 56, for example) included in VP 5, in accordance with the target deceleration from target deceleration calculator 511B. Thus, braking control of vehicle 1 is conducted so as to make the deceleration of vehicle 1 closer to the target deceleration. & para. [0307-0308]: Estimated maximum deceleration, values.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 & 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2013/0244829A1 (“Nefcy”).
As per claim 2 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising:
determining a braking capability of a transmission of the vehicle;
allocating at least part of the deceleration request to the transmission based on the braking capability of the transmission; and
altering a state of the transmission in response to the allocated part of the deceleration request, wherein altering the state of the transmission includes modifying a current gear of the transmission and/or modifying a shift schedule of the transmission.
Nefcy teaches
further comprising:
determining a braking capability of a transmission of the vehicle (see at least Nefcy, para. [0082-0083]: The controller applies regenerative powertrain braking torque in .tau..sub.in units, as represented by block 234. The controller applies regenerative powertrain braking as long as the limits of the regenerative powertrain braking system, including the M/G and battery, are within a threshold capacity. The threshold capacity of the regenerative powertrain braking system may be based on the state of charge of the battery, the torque capacity of the M/G, the quantity of the braking request or any other parameters known to those skilled in the art and suggested by this disclosure. );
allocating at least part of the deceleration request to the transmission based on the braking capability of the transmission (see at least Nefcy, para. [0083]: Once the capacity of the regenerative powertrain braking system is exceeded, the controller may apply to the friction braking system to fulfill the braking request, as represented by block 240.); and
altering a state of the transmission in response to the allocated part of the deceleration request, wherein altering the state of the transmission includes modifying a current gear of the transmission and/or modifying a shift schedule of the transmission (see at least Nefcy, para. [0075-0077]: The controller determines the torque proportional loss, as represented by block 218 of FIG. 3. The proportional loss values may also be stored in a lookup table with a separate set of values for each of the available gears or torque ratios, as well as negative torque values or positive torque values….Block 220 represents determination of a proportional loss coefficient based on the currently selected gear. This factor may be used to fine-tune or calibrate the engine torque determination for any additional losses which may not be included in the torque loss terms described above.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising: determining a braking capability of a transmission of the vehicle; allocating at least part of the deceleration request to the transmission based on the braking capability of the transmission; and altering a state of the transmission in response to the allocated part of the deceleration request, wherein altering the state of the transmission includes modifying a current gear of the transmission and/or modifying a shift schedule of the transmission of Nefcy, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions (see at least Nefcy, para. [0011]).
As per claim 23 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: determining a braking capability of a regeneration braking system of the vehicle, wherein the braking capability of the regeneration braking system is based on one or more of torque limits for a motor/generator of the vehicle, a battery state of charge, a battery state of health, and a battery state of power; and
allocating at least part of the deceleration request to the regeneration braking transmission based on the braking capability of the regeneration braking system.
Nefcy teaches
further comprising: determining a braking capability of a regeneration braking system of the vehicle, wherein the braking capability of the regeneration braking system is based on one or more of torque limits for a motor/generator of the vehicle, a battery state of charge, a battery state of health, and a battery state of power (see at least Nefcy, para. [0082-0083]: The controller applies regenerative powertrain braking torque in .tau..sub.in units, as represented by block 234. The controller applies regenerative powertrain braking as long as the limits of the regenerative powertrain braking system, including the M/G and battery, are within a threshold capacity. The threshold capacity of the regenerative powertrain braking system may be based on the state of charge of the battery, the torque capacity of the M/G, the quantity of the braking request or any other parameters known to those skilled in the art and suggested by this disclosure. ); and
allocating at least part of the deceleration request to the regeneration braking transmission based on the braking capability of the regeneration braking system (see at least Nefcy, para. [0083]: Once the capacity of the regenerative powertrain braking system is exceeded, the controller may apply to the friction braking system to fulfill the braking request, as represented by block 240.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising: determining a braking capability of a regeneration braking system of the vehicle, wherein the braking capability of the regeneration braking system is based on one or more of torque limits for a motor/generator of the vehicle, a battery state of charge, a battery state of health, and a battery state of power; and allocating at least part of the deceleration request to the regeneration braking transmission based on the braking capability of the regeneration braking system of Nefcy, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve fuel economy and reduce emissions (see at least Nefcy, para. [0011]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2020/0369162A1 (“Yard”).
As per claim 6 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising communicating the braking capabilities of each of the plurality of braking systems to one or more of an adaptive cruise control system, a predictive cruise control system, a dynamic powertrain controller, and an advanced driver assistance system.
Yard teaches
further comprising communicating the braking capabilities of each of the plurality of braking systems to one or more of an adaptive cruise control system, a predictive cruise control system, a dynamic powertrain controller, and an advanced driver assistance system (see at least Yard, para. [0026]: To enable transient vehicle operation through intelligent powertrain control, the motor vehicle 10 of FIG. 1 is adapted to dynamically allocate fast torque actuator production between the E-machine 14 and internal combustion engine 12. As described above, powertrain torque output requests may be resolved into two general categories: base "slow" requests and rapid "fast" requests, depending upon the respective response times of the torque-generating devices satisfying these requests. Disclosed techniques opportunely charge/discharge the traction motor 14 during rapid-response torque decrease/increase requests. These fast torque requests are met by dynamically changing the combination and contribution of E-machine generated torque and modulated-spark-timing generated torque each controller execution loop ( e.g., about every 10-15 ms).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising communicating the braking capabilities of each of the plurality of braking systems to one or more of an adaptive cruise control system, a predictive cruise control system, a dynamic powertrain controller, and an advanced driver assistance system of Yard, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the functioning of the vehicle by controlling real-time torque output of the engine with minimal vehicle-to-vehicle calibration (see at least Yard, para. [0008]).
Claim(s) 7, 15, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2023/0347855A1 (“Plow”).
As per claim 7 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising prioritizing usage of one or more of the plurality of braking systems over one or more other of the plurality of braking systems.
Plow teaches
further comprising prioritizing usage of one or more of the plurality of braking systems over one or more other of the plurality of braking systems (see at least Plow, para. [0030] & para. [0032]: As shown by this example, regenerative braking is used first, and the other braking circuits can be isolated and added without impact to the drive axle's regenerative braking system. Generally, these additional braking systems will be utilized in the order shown in FIG. 5, but a different order can be used. For example, a towing vehicle without a trailer may use the steer axle friction brakes to complete the driver's request.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising prioritizing usage of one or more of the plurality of braking systems over one or more other of the plurality of braking systems of Plow, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide safe, stable stopping forces from all axles and wheel ends on both the tractor and the trailer (see at least Plow, para. [0001]).
As per claim 15 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising re-prioritizing a usage priority among the plurality of braking systems in response to detecting the fault.
Plow teaches
further comprising re-prioritizing a usage priority among the plurality of braking systems in response to detecting the fault (see at least Plow, para. [0029-0030]: More specifically, the braking controller 20 can communicate with the electric motor(s) of the drivetrain to cause regenerative braking to be applied in an amount that does not exceed the driveline capability of the tractor. The braking controller 20 can also cause the valve 34 to allow at least some of the pneumatic signal to be sent to a braking system of a trailer to make up for any deceleration deficit. (In some embodiments, the valve 34 is either on or off, allowing 100% or 0% signal to flow. In other embodiments, the valve 34 is adjustable between 0 and 100% (e.g., to allow 10% signal to flow).) The result is a “brake blending” situation, in which part of the requested deceleration is provided by regenerative braking, and another part of the requested deceleration is provided by the braking system of the trailer…As mentioned above, it is possible that the combined deceleration provided by regenerative braking and the braking system of the trailer will be insufficient to achieve the requested deceleration. In this situation, the braking controller 20 can use one or more different braking mechanisms in the tractor to provide the missing deceleration.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising re-prioritizing a usage priority among the plurality of braking systems in response to detecting the fault of Plow, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide safe, stable stopping forces from all axles and wheel ends on both the tractor and the trailer (see at least Plow, para. [0001]).
As per claim 18 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: determining a usage priority among the plurality of braking systems in response to the deceleration request and one or more operating parameters associated with the vehicle; and
allocating the deceleration request among one or more of the plurality of braking systems based on the usage priority and braking capability of each of the plurality of braking systems.
Plow teaches
further comprising: determining a usage priority among the plurality of braking systems in response to the deceleration request and one or more operating parameters associated with the vehicle (see at least Plow, para. [0029-0030]: More specifically, the braking controller 20 can communicate with the electric motor(s) of the drivetrain to cause regenerative braking to be applied in an amount that does not exceed the driveline capability of the tractor. The braking controller 20 can also cause the valve 34 to allow at least some of the pneumatic signal to be sent to a braking system of a trailer to make up for any deceleration deficit. (In some embodiments, the valve 34 is either on or off, allowing 100% or 0% signal to flow. In other embodiments, the valve 34 is adjustable between 0 and 100% (e.g., to allow 10% signal to flow).)...); and
allocating the deceleration request among one or more of the plurality of braking systems based on the usage priority and braking capability of each of the plurality of braking systems (see at least Plow, para. [0031]: As shown in FIG. 5, regenerative braking is applied via communications with the drivetrain 100, and after deceleration with regenerative torque is applied (act 510), the braking controller 20 determines if the driver's deceleration demand has been met (act 520). If the driver's deceleration demand has not been met, the braking controller 20 applies deceleration with the trailer's braking system (here, with friction brakes via a pneumatic or electronic signal to the trailer brake circuit) (act 530). The braking controller 20 then determines if the driver's deceleration demand has been met (act 540). If the driver's deceleration demand has not been met, the braking controller 20 applies deceleration with the steer axle friction brakes (here, via a pneumatic or electronic signal to the steer axle brake circuit) (act 550)….).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising: determining a usage priority among the plurality of braking systems in response to the deceleration request and one or more operating parameters associated with the vehicle; and allocating the deceleration request among one or more of the plurality of braking systems based on the usage priority and braking capability of each of the plurality of braking systems of Plow, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide safe, stable stopping forces from all axles and wheel ends on both the tractor and the trailer (see at least Plow, para. [0001]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2015/0149058A1 (“Kim”).
As per claim 10 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose/
further comprising: determining a deceleration capability associated with coasting the vehicle; and
prioritizing coasting the vehicle to meet the deceleration request before decelerating the vehicle with the one or more braking systems.
Kim teaches
further comprising: determining a deceleration capability associated with coasting the vehicle (see at least Kim, para. [0058]: According to the first example shown in FIG. 2, an execution of the coasting control is determined upon satisfaction of all of the above-mentioned execution conditions. Specifically, the coasting control is allowed to be carried out under the condition that the vehicle Ve is propelled by a drive force of the engine 1, that the vehicle Ve is running on the road where the gradient thereof falls within the predetermined range at the speed higher than the reference speed C, and that the operating amount of the accelerator is reduced to be smaller than the reference value A.); and
prioritizing coasting the vehicle to meet the deceleration request before decelerating the vehicle with the one or more braking systems (see at least Kim, para. [0060]: By contrast, if all of the above-mentioned execution conditions to carry out the neutral coasting control are satisfied so that the answer of step S2 is YES, the routine advances to step S4 to determine whether or not the brake is ON, that is, whether or not the brake device is operated by the driver. If the brake device is not operated so that the answer of step S4 is NO, the routine advances to step S5 to carry out the coasting control. That is, if the coasting control has not yet been commenced, the coasting control is commenced. By contrast, if the coasting control has already been commenced, the coasting control is continued.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising: determining a deceleration capability associated with coasting the vehicle; and prioritizing coasting the vehicle to meet the deceleration request before decelerating the vehicle with the one or more braking systems of Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for drivability of the vehicle can be improved (see at least Kim, para. [0031]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2022/0348227A1 (“Foster”).
As per claim 13 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising altering a state of the transmission in response to detecting the fault
Foster teaches
further comprising altering a state of the transmission in response to detecting the fault (see at least Foster, para. [1196]: If an autonomous vehicle is unable to come to a stop due to brake fade or failure, the autonomous vehicle may engage maximum engine braking using the lowest possible drive gear, turn the hazard lights on and use the horn to warn other road users. The autonomous vehicle may lane change to the lane that is adjacent to the next runaway ramp at the first opportunity possible to enable the usage of a runaway ramp when available.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising altering a state of the transmission in response to detecting the fault of Foster, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the safety for the autonomous vehicle (see at least Foster, para. [0069]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2004/0078133A1 (“Miller”).
As per claim 14 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising increasing a following distance from a vehicle-in-front of the vehicle in response to detecting the fault.
Miller teaches
further comprising increasing a following distance from a vehicle-in-front of the vehicle in response to detecting the fault (see at least Miller, para. [0053]: The reference headway distance is then modified, in accordance with the present invention, as follows. If the braking capability of the reference vehicle is less than optimum, the reference headway distance is increased. Any number of factors, some of which are mentioned above as sensor data points, can compromise braking capability including, but not limited to: slippery road conditions, low tire pressure, excessive tire temperature, worn brakes, increased vehicle speed, or increased vehicle loading (weight). ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising increasing a following distance from a vehicle-in-front of the vehicle in response to detecting the fault of Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize the desired headway distance (see at least Miller, para. [0010]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2021/0402973A1 (“Bill”).
As per claim 16 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the fault is a thermal event associated with a service braking system
Bill teaches
wherein the fault is a thermal event associated with a service braking system (see at least Bill, para. [0054]: Catalytic oxidation may be relevant in areas where the air has relatively high salinity. Catalytic oxidation may also be relevant at airports that use runway deicers comprising alkali salts. Thermal oxidation of the brake discs 202 may occur if the brake discs 202 reach high temperatures. During use, the brake 200, specifically the brake discs 202, may reach high temperatures. This is because when the brake 200 is applied to reduce the speed of the aircraft 100, some of the kinetic energy of the aircraft 100 is absorbed into the brake assembly 200 as heat causing its temperature to rise. para. [0064]: For example, the oxidation threshold may be between 4% and 6.5%, for instance 5.7%, of the original mass of the brake 200 lost due to oxidation. In the example where the oxidation threshold is 5.7%, the oxidation criterion may be satisfied if the thermal oxidation state reaches (i.e. is equal to or above) 5.7% of the original mass of the brake 200 lost. In such examples, the brake 200 may be disabled if it is oxidised beyond a certain level. The oxidation threshold may be set at a level at which service or replacement of the whole or part of the brake 200 is deemed necessary for safe functioning.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein the fault is a thermal event associated with a service braking system of Bill, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for reducing the amount of thermal oxidation of the brake during use (see at least Bill, para. [0049]).
As per claim 17 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
further comprising deactivating an impacted service brake of the service braking system in response to the thermal event.
Bill teaches
further comprising deactivating an impacted service brake of the service braking system in response to the thermal event (see at least Bill, para. [0054]: Thermal oxidation of the brake discs 202 may occur if the brake discs 202 reach high temperatures. During use, the brake 200, specifically the brake discs 202, may reach high temperatures. This is because when the brake 200 is applied to reduce the speed of the aircraft 100, some of the kinetic energy of the aircraft 100 is absorbed into the brake assembly 200 as heat causing its temperature to rise. & para. [0058]: The second controller 304 may be configured to control the brake 200 to be disabled if it receives the first indication. For example, if the brake 200 is disabled, the second controller 304 may assign a "disabled" status to it. That the brake 200 is disabled means that when the braking system 214 receives a braking request, the braking system 214 does not cause the brake 200 to be applied. The required braking may instead be provided by other brakes associated with the other wheels of the landing gear 102.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of further comprising deactivating an impacted service brake of the service braking system in response to the thermal event of Bill, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for reducing the amount of thermal oxidation of the brake during use (see at least Bill, para. [0049]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2013/0204502A1 (“Biller”).
As per claim 19 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
wherein allocating the deceleration request among one or more of the plurality of braking systems includes assigning a pro rata share of the deceleration request to each of the plurality of braking systems
Biller teaches
wherein allocating the deceleration request among one or more of the plurality of braking systems includes assigning a pro rata share of the deceleration request to each of the plurality of braking systems (see at least Biller, para. [0036]: In FIG. 2, a typical characteristic curve of a generator is shown as an unbroken line 21, wherein an essentially constant generator power of 50 kW is assumed. A vehicle with such an electric machine could be driven solely by said machine; if an internal combustion engine is also present, the term fully hybrid vehicle is referred to here. Below a limiting speed of approximately 15 km/h, the deceleration of the generator decreases strongly, for which reason in this speed range only the friction brakes are actuated. Above the limiting speed, the generator can at maximum apply a deceleration of b_genmax=p/mv…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein allocating the deceleration request among one or more of the plurality of braking systems includes assigning a pro rata share of the deceleration request to each of the plurality of braking systems of Biller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the efficiency level of the recuperation when using conventional friction brakes (see at least Bill, para. [0049]).
Claim(s) 20 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of US 2026/0132754A1 (“Mathew”).
As per claim 20 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the plurality of braking systems includes a service braking system and at least one of a regeneration braking system and an engine braking system.
Mathew teaches
wherein the plurality of braking systems includes a service braking system and at least one of a regeneration braking system and an engine braking system (see at least Mathew, para. [0056]: In an embodiment, the vehicle includes a service braking system and at least one of an exhaust braking system and an engine braking system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein the plurality of braking systems includes a service braking system and at least one of a regeneration braking system and an engine braking system of Mathew, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve safety during vehicle operation (see at least Mathew, para. [0002]).
As per claim 22 Suzuki discloses
wherein the plurality of braking systems further includes a mechanical braking system, the mechanical braking system including one or more mechanical braking devices selected from: an exhaust throttle, an exhaust brake, a turbocharger, and a hydraulic retarder (see at least Suzuki, para. [0059]: Brake systems 511, 512 are configured to control a plurality of braking devices (not shown) provided for respective wheels of vehicle 1. These braking devices may include a disc brake system that operates using hydraulic pressure regulated by an actuator. Brake system 511 and brake system 512 may be configured to have equivalent functions.).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, in view of Mathew, in view of US 2023/0166601A1 (“Schneider”).
As per claim 21 Suzuki does not explicitly disclose
wherein the plurality of braking systems further includes at least one of a resistive braking system and an aerodynamic braking system.
Schneider teaches
wherein the plurality of braking systems further includes at least one of a resistive braking system and an aerodynamic braking system (see at least Schneider, para. [0047]: As another example, feedback from the resistive brake system 108 can indicate a current amount of energy being consumed by the resistive grid, and/or a currently available capacity for additional energy that could be consumed by the resistive grid. Such feedback can indicate how much energy could be provided to, and be consumed by, the resistive brake system 108 during a braking operation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki to incorporate the teaching of wherein the plurality of braking systems further includes at least one of a resistive braking system and an aerodynamic braking system of Schneider, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for brake power associated with braking operations can be more efficiently stored and/or used (see at least Schneider, para. [0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
