DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-20 as originally amended and filed on 05/23/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is November 30, 2022 (20221130).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/083391, filed on November 28, 2023, published on June 6, 2024, under publication number WO 2024/115501, which claims priority benefits from French Patent Application No. 2212590, filed on November 30, 2022 (20221130).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 05/23/2025 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim was preliminarily amended to recite “and including and at least two service brakes“. For examination purposes the claim limitation has been considered to recite “and including at least two service brakes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “increase the braking force same exerts on the wheel to a predetermined value “. For examination purposes the claim limitation has been considered to recite “increase the braking force the control unit exerts on the wheel to a predetermined value”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9428159 to Heise; Andreas et al. (Heise is cited in the IDS) in view of US 20240400013 A1 to MAZZONI; Matteo et al. (Mazzoni).
Regarding claim 1 Heise teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
563
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
585
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a braking system including a parking braking device for a motor vehicle including at least a first electrically actuated parking brake intended to be positioned at a first wheel (in Figures 1-3, items 7 and 9 and 3A, col. 5, line 20- Col. 8, line 6),
a second electrically actuated parking brake intended to be positioned at a second wheel (in Figs. 1 and 3 items 3B),
a control unit configured to generate an order to the first and second parking brakes to apply a given parking brake force (in Figs 1 and 3 item 6),
and devices for determining a state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes (items 7, 8, 3a, 7’, 8’ and 3b),
the control unit being further configured, during a malfunction of the first parking brake, to generate the order to the second parking brake to apply at least said given parking braking force to ensure the immobilization of the motor vehicle (see claim 7 and 10).
While it appears that Heise teaches the invention as claimed and explained above, if Applicant is of the opinion that Heise does not expressly disclose the control unit being further configured, during a malfunction of the first parking brake, to generate the order to the second parking brake to apply at least said given parking braking force to ensure the immobilization of the motor vehicle then resort may be had to the teachings of Mazzoni, see for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image3.png
582
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts the control unit being further configured, during a malfunction of the first parking brake, to generate the order to the second parking brake to apply at least said given parking braking force to ensure the immobilization of the motor vehicle (as explained in for example paras:
“[0057] Based on the control of the actuators ACT1, ACT2, ACT3, ACT4 achieved through the second brake control unit BCU2 and the third brake control unit BCU3, in case of malfunction of one of the control units, the system 100 of the invention still ensures balanced braking on both wheels of the front axle A1 of the vehicle 1.
10. A method for controlling a braking system of a vehicle for distributing braking forces on at least one piston of a caliper of a disc brake of the vehicle, said method being performed by a control system of a braking system for distributing braking forces, the method comprising the steps of: receiving, by the control system, a request for applying a braking force following a braking action applied to a pedal/button of the braking system; applying to said at least one piston said requested braking force; detecting, by the control system, a current characteristic frequency information of the braking system by at least one sensor operatively associated with the system, said characteristic frequency being representative of current noises and/or vibrations associated with the braking system; comparing, by the control system, said current characteristic frequency information detected with a reference characteristic frequency representative of a critical operating condition of the braking system; if said detected current characteristic frequency information of the braking system is equal to the reference characteristic frequency, the method further comprises the step of: applying to the at least one piston of a caliper of a disc brake of the vehicle an additional braking force generated by superimposing a force signal having a time-variable amplitude on said requested braking force.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of distributing braking forces disclosed in Mazzoni with the method taught in Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “eliminated noise and vibrations” as taught by Mazzoni Para(s):
“[0009] It is an object of the present invention to devise and make available a method for controlling the distribution of braking forces in a braking system of a vehicle which comprises at least one disc brake associated with a vehicle wheel to either reduce or eliminate noise and/or vibrations generated in the system.”.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured, during the malfunction of the first parking brake, to generate an additional order to the second parking brake to apply an additional parking brake force in addition to the given parking brake force (see the teachings of Mazzoni, the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (UC) is configured, during the malfunction of the first parking brake, during an electric power supply phase of the second brake to extend the electric power supply of the second parking brake to apply an additional parking brake force on top of the given parking brake force (see the teachings of Mazzoni, the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 1 wherein the control unit is configured, during the malfunction of the first parking brake, after the end of an electrical power supply phase of the second brake, to supply power to the second parking brake an additional parking braking force in addition to the given parking braking force (see the teachings of Mazzoni, the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 1 wherein the devices for determining the state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes include a sensor for measuring a power supply current of an electric motor
or a sensor for detecting the position of a movable element connected to a motor reduction gear of each of the first and second electric parking brakes (see Heise para:
“(18) A parking brake constructed according to the invention achieves single fault tolerance along the operating path between the control element 5, such as e.g. a parking brake sensor or switch, the controller 6 and the actuator 3a, 3b. The electromechanical parking brake actuators 3a, 3b can act upon a special friction brake such as e.g. a dual servo drum brake, which is additionally associated with a disk brake of the corresponding wheel used for the service brake, or via a suitable clamping element integrated in the brake caliper e.g. upon the brake disks of the service brake (an integrated parking brake is also referred to).”).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation a braking system including a parking braking
device for a motor vehicle including at least
a first electrically actuated parking brake intended to be positioned at a first wheel,
a second electrically actuated parking brake intended to be positioned at a second wheel
a control unit configured to generate an order to the first and second parking brakes to apply a given parking brake force,
and devices for determining a state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes,
the control unit being further configured, during a malfunction of the first parking brake, to generate the order to the second parking brake to apply at least said given parking braking force to ensure the immobilization of the motor vehicle,
and including and at least two service brakes,
the first and second parking brakes being integrated into the service brakes (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation A method for operating a parking braking system including at least a first electrically actuated parking brake intended to be positioned at a first wheel,
a second electrically actuated parking brake intended to be positioned at a second wheel
and a control unit connected to the parking brakes and to devices for determining a state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes, said including the steps of:
a) generation by the control unit of an order to each of the parking brakes to apply a braking force apt to ensure the immobilization of the vehicle,
b) detection of the malfunction of the first parking brake,
c) generation, by the control unit, of an additional order to the second parking brake to apply the parking braking force (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the operating method according to claim 7, wherein during step c) the second parking brake is controlled to increase the braking force same exerts on the wheel to a predetermined value (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Mazzoni teaches the distribution of additional braking force).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured, during the malfunction of the first parking brake, after the end of an electrical power supply phase of the second brake, to supply power to the second parking brake to apply an additional parking braking force in addition to the given parking braking force (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Mazzoni teaches the distribution of additional braking force).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured, during the malfunction of the first parking brake, after the end of an electrical power supply phase of the second brake, to supply power to the second parking brake to apply an additional parking braking force in addition to the given parking braking force (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Mazzoni teaches the distribution of additional braking force).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured, during the malfunction of the first parking brake, after the end of an electrical power supply phase of the second brake, to supply power to the second parking brake to apply an additional parking braking force in addition to the given parking braking force (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that Mazzoni teaches the distribution of additional braking force).
Claims 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9428159 to Heise; Andreas et al. (Heise is cited in the IDS) in view of US 20240400013 A1 to MAZZONI; Matteo et al. (Mazzoni) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20070029876 A1 to Makishima; Takaharu et al. (Makishima).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Heise does not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Makishima teaches the limitation the operating method, including a step of determining an immobilization value by the control unit on the basis of information on a parking state of the motor vehicle (in for example para:
“[0120] As explained above, the following effects can be attained according to the third embodiment of the present invention. [0121] (1) Since the braking force of the parking brake 10 is preset at a larger value by performing the additional pulling thereof in the case where the electric parking brake is being operated and that the ignition switch is cut off, the braking force can be sufficiently secured even in the decrement of the friction coefficient due to cooling of the brake drum and the brake shoe while parking. And further, the creep movement of the vehicle caused by the road inclination while parking also can be prevented by the braking force preset at the larger value. And furthermore, since the braking force is preset at the larger value in advance while parking, the creep movement of the vehicle can be prevented even when the AT creep force becomes large through the idle up operation performed at the time of the engine restarting.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the larger parking brake value disclosed in Makishima with the brake system taught in the combination of Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have held the vehicle on a hill/incline where a POSITA understands more force is required to negate forces of gravity as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the operating method according to claim 9 wherein the determination step comprises taking into account a braking force applied by the first parking brake in the state of malfunction (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 9 above incorporated herein by reference).
Claims 11 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9428159 to Heise; Andreas et al. (Heise is cited in the 05/23/2025 IDS) in view of US 20240400013 A1 to MAZZONI; Matteo et al. (Mazzoni) as applied to the claims above in view of CN 114248741 to Great Wall (cited in the 05/23/2025 IDS)
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the operating method according to claim 8, including generation, by the control unit, of a message to a driver informing him/her of the malfunction of the first parking brake (see the teachings of Great Wall:
“the vehicle control unit sends parking fault prompting information and a current gear display instruction to a display device of the vehicle, wherein the parking fault prompting information is used for prompting a user that the vehicle is in a current parking failure, and the current gear display instruction is used for displaying that the current gear of the vehicle is an N gear under the condition that the vehicle is in the parking failure by the display device until the current gear is a P gear after the vehicle is in the parking failure.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the messaging disclosed in Great Wall with the system taught in the combination of Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have avoided “damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault” as taught by Great Wall:
“According to the technical scheme, whether the vehicle is parked successfully or not can be accurately and quickly determined through the position information of the rotating mechanism of the parking motor. The rotation angle of the rotating mechanism can be acquired by using a plurality of mutually independent position sensors, and the parking result is judged by the rotation angle acquired by the position sensors respectively, so that the judged parking result is more accurate and reliable, and the harm caused by false alarm fault due to only one position sensor is avoided. Moreover, a plurality of independent position sensors can be used for realizing the ASIL B (automatic Safety integrity Level B) grade, so that the Safety of the vehicle can be improved to a certain extent, and the damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault is avoided.”.
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 2, wherein the devices for determining the state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes include a sensor for measuring a power supply current of an electric motor
or a sensor for detecting the position of a movable element connected to a motor reduction gear of each of the first and second electric parking brakes (see the teachings of Great Wall:
“For example, taking the example of providing two independent position sensors, the rotation angles of the rotating mechanism respectively acquired by the two position sensors are denoted as C1、C2These two angles of rotation are then compared with a preset angle threshold, which may be preset, for example 90 °. If two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2All greater than or equal to 90 deg., a successful parking of the vehicle may be indicated. On the contrary, if two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2Less than 90 deg. or less than 90 deg. in total, a parking failure of the vehicle may be indicated.
It should be noted that, the above description is given by taking two position sensors as an example, but the embodiment of the present disclosure is not limited, the number of the position sensors is not specifically limited by the present disclosure, and the value of the preset angle threshold is also not specifically limited.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the messaging disclosed in Great Wall with the system taught in the combination of Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have avoided “damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault” as taught by Great Wall:
“According to the technical scheme, whether the vehicle is parked successfully or not can be accurately and quickly determined through the position information of the rotating mechanism of the parking motor. The rotation angle of the rotating mechanism can be acquired by using a plurality of mutually independent position sensors, and the parking result is judged by the rotation angle acquired by the position sensors respectively, so that the judged parking result is more accurate and reliable, and the harm caused by false alarm fault due to only one position sensor is avoided. Moreover, a plurality of independent position sensors can be used for realizing the ASIL B (automatic Safety integrity Level B) grade, so that the Safety of the vehicle can be improved to a certain extent, and the damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault is avoided.”.
Regarding claim 16 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 3, wherein the devices for determining the state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes include a sensor for measuring a power supply current of an electric motor
or a sensor for detecting the position of a movable element connected to a motor reduction gear of each of the first and second electric parking brakes (see the teachings of Great Wall:
“For example, taking the example of providing two independent position sensors, the rotation angles of the rotating mechanism respectively acquired by the two position sensors are denoted as C1、C2These two angles of rotation are then compared with a preset angle threshold, which may be preset, for example 90 °. If two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2All greater than or equal to 90 deg., a successful parking of the vehicle may be indicated. On the contrary, if two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2Less than 90 deg. or less than 90 deg. in total, a parking failure of the vehicle may be indicated.
It should be noted that, the above description is given by taking two position sensors as an example, but the embodiment of the present disclosure is not limited, the number of the position sensors is not specifically limited by the present disclosure, and the value of the preset angle threshold is also not specifically limited.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the messaging disclosed in Great Wall with the system taught in the combination of Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have avoided “damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault” as taught by Great Wall:
“According to the technical scheme, whether the vehicle is parked successfully or not can be accurately and quickly determined through the position information of the rotating mechanism of the parking motor. The rotation angle of the rotating mechanism can be acquired by using a plurality of mutually independent position sensors, and the parking result is judged by the rotation angle acquired by the position sensors respectively, so that the judged parking result is more accurate and reliable, and the harm caused by false alarm fault due to only one position sensor is avoided. Moreover, a plurality of independent position sensors can be used for realizing the ASIL B (automatic Safety integrity Level B) grade, so that the Safety of the vehicle can be improved to a certain extent, and the damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault is avoided.”.
Regarding claim 17 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 4, wherein the devices for determining the state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes include a sensor for measuring a power supply current of an electric motor
or a sensor for detecting the position of a movable element connected to a motor reduction gear of each of the first and second electric parking brakes (see the teachings of Great Wall:
“For example, taking the example of providing two independent position sensors, the rotation angles of the rotating mechanism respectively acquired by the two position sensors are denoted as C1、C2These two angles of rotation are then compared with a preset angle threshold, which may be preset, for example 90 °. If two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2All greater than or equal to 90 deg., a successful parking of the vehicle may be indicated. On the contrary, if two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2Less than 90 deg. or less than 90 deg. in total, a parking failure of the vehicle may be indicated.
It should be noted that, the above description is given by taking two position sensors as an example, but the embodiment of the present disclosure is not limited, the number of the position sensors is not specifically limited by the present disclosure, and the value of the preset angle threshold is also not specifically limited.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the messaging disclosed in Great Wall with the system taught in the combination of Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have avoided “damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault” as taught by Great Wall:
“According to the technical scheme, whether the vehicle is parked successfully or not can be accurately and quickly determined through the position information of the rotating mechanism of the parking motor. The rotation angle of the rotating mechanism can be acquired by using a plurality of mutually independent position sensors, and the parking result is judged by the rotation angle acquired by the position sensors respectively, so that the judged parking result is more accurate and reliable, and the harm caused by false alarm fault due to only one position sensor is avoided. Moreover, a plurality of independent position sensors can be used for realizing the ASIL B (automatic Safety integrity Level B) grade, so that the Safety of the vehicle can be improved to a certain extent, and the damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault is avoided.”.
Regarding claim 18 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 5, wherein the devices for determining the state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes include a sensor for measuring a power supply current of an electric motor
or a sensor for detecting the position of a movable element connected to a motor reduction gear of each of the first and second electric parking brakes (see the teachings of Great Wall:
“For example, taking the example of providing two independent position sensors, the rotation angles of the rotating mechanism respectively acquired by the two position sensors are denoted as C1、C2These two angles of rotation are then compared with a preset angle threshold, which may be preset, for example 90 °. If two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2All greater than or equal to 90 deg., a successful parking of the vehicle may be indicated. On the contrary, if two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2Less than 90 deg. or less than 90 deg. in total, a parking failure of the vehicle may be indicated.
It should be noted that, the above description is given by taking two position sensors as an example, but the embodiment of the present disclosure is not limited, the number of the position sensors is not specifically limited by the present disclosure, and the value of the preset angle threshold is also not specifically limited.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the messaging disclosed in Great Wall with the system taught in the combination of Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have avoided “damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault” as taught by Great Wall:
“According to the technical scheme, whether the vehicle is parked successfully or not can be accurately and quickly determined through the position information of the rotating mechanism of the parking motor. The rotation angle of the rotating mechanism can be acquired by using a plurality of mutually independent position sensors, and the parking result is judged by the rotation angle acquired by the position sensors respectively, so that the judged parking result is more accurate and reliable, and the harm caused by false alarm fault due to only one position sensor is avoided. Moreover, a plurality of independent position sensors can be used for realizing the ASIL B (automatic Safety integrity Level B) grade, so that the Safety of the vehicle can be improved to a certain extent, and the damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault is avoided.”.
Regarding claim 19 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 6, wherein the devices for determining the state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes include a sensor for measuring a power supply current of an electric motor
or a sensor for detecting the position of a movable element connected to a motor reduction gear of each of the first and second electric parking brakes (see the teachings of Great Wall:
“For example, taking the example of providing two independent position sensors, the rotation angles of the rotating mechanism respectively acquired by the two position sensors are denoted as C1、C2These two angles of rotation are then compared with a preset angle threshold, which may be preset, for example 90 °. If two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2All greater than or equal to 90 deg., a successful parking of the vehicle may be indicated. On the contrary, if two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2Less than 90 deg. or less than 90 deg. in total, a parking failure of the vehicle may be indicated.
It should be noted that, the above description is given by taking two position sensors as an example, but the embodiment of the present disclosure is not limited, the number of the position sensors is not specifically limited by the present disclosure, and the value of the preset angle threshold is also not specifically limited.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the messaging disclosed in Great Wall with the system taught in the combination of Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have avoided “damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault” as taught by Great Wall:
“According to the technical scheme, whether the vehicle is parked successfully or not can be accurately and quickly determined through the position information of the rotating mechanism of the parking motor. The rotation angle of the rotating mechanism can be acquired by using a plurality of mutually independent position sensors, and the parking result is judged by the rotation angle acquired by the position sensors respectively, so that the judged parking result is more accurate and reliable, and the harm caused by false alarm fault due to only one position sensor is avoided. Moreover, a plurality of independent position sensors can be used for realizing the ASIL B (automatic Safety integrity Level B) grade, so that the Safety of the vehicle can be improved to a certain extent, and the damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault is avoided.”.
Regarding claim 20 and the limitation the parking braking system according to claim 7, wherein the devices for determining the state of operation of each of the first and second electric parking brakes include a sensor for measuring a power supply current of an electric motor
or a sensor for detecting the position of a movable element connected to a motor reduction gear of each of the first and second electric parking brakes (see the teachings of Great Wall:
“For example, taking the example of providing two independent position sensors, the rotation angles of the rotating mechanism respectively acquired by the two position sensors are denoted as C1、C2These two angles of rotation are then compared with a preset angle threshold, which may be preset, for example 90 °. If two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2All greater than or equal to 90 deg., a successful parking of the vehicle may be indicated. On the contrary, if two rotation angles C are obtained1、C2Less than 90 deg. or less than 90 deg. in total, a parking failure of the vehicle may be indicated.
It should be noted that, the above description is given by taking two position sensors as an example, but the embodiment of the present disclosure is not limited, the number of the position sensors is not specifically limited by the present disclosure, and the value of the preset angle threshold is also not specifically limited.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the messaging disclosed in Great Wall with the system taught in the combination of Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have avoided “damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault” as taught by Great Wall:
“According to the technical scheme, whether the vehicle is parked successfully or not can be accurately and quickly determined through the position information of the rotating mechanism of the parking motor. The rotation angle of the rotating mechanism can be acquired by using a plurality of mutually independent position sensors, and the parking result is judged by the rotation angle acquired by the position sensors respectively, so that the judged parking result is more accurate and reliable, and the harm caused by false alarm fault due to only one position sensor is avoided. Moreover, a plurality of independent position sensors can be used for realizing the ASIL B (automatic Safety integrity Level B) grade, so that the Safety of the vehicle can be improved to a certain extent, and the damage caused by parking failure and false alarm fault is avoided.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of emergency braking methods systems at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20220194343 A1 to FARRES; Lionel et al. teaches, inter alia a VEHICLE BRAKING SYSTEM WITH COMPOUND MANAGEMENT FUNCTION in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“pressure (PBR) acting against a main spring (92), and a second chamber (Ch2) to receive a service brake pressure (SB) for applying a service brake force, the method comprising a circumstantial selection of one control law among a set of control laws comprising two or more compound control laws:—where the first compound control law (CL1), known as anti-compound mode, is such the service brake pressure (SB) is electronically controlled such that the resulting total braking force (F) does not exceed a first upper limit (UL1) corresponding to the force of the main spring (92) when the parking brake pressure (PBR) is substantially null, —where the second compound control law (CL2), known as controlled-compound mode, is such that the service brake pressure (SB) is electronically controlled such that the resulting total braking force (F) does not exceed a second upper limit (UL2) higher than the first upper limit.”.
US 20210370899 A1 to HWANG; Woo Hyun teaches, inter alia an ELECTROHYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEM in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“according to at least one embodiment, the present disclosure provides an electrohydraulic brake system including main brake assemblies, electronic parking brakes (EPBs), a main control unit, and a redundancy control unit (RCU). The main brake assemblies generate a braking force in one or more front wheels and one or more rear wheels of a vehicle. The electronic parking brakes (EPBs) generate a braking force to one of the front wheels and rear wheels. The main control unit is configured to control the operation of the main brake assembly. The redundancy control unit (RCU) is configured to control the operation of the electronic parking brake. Here, the redundancy control unit performs, upon determining that a malfunction occurs in a braking function of the main control unit, a slip control on the vehicle by using the electronic parking brake based on signals from one or more wheel speed sensors.”.
US 20240239320 A1 to Chelaidite; Galus teaches, inter alia an ELECTRONIC PARKING BRAKE in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A parking brake for a wheel rotor having a brake pad associated therewith includes a housing defining first and second passages. First and second pistons are provided in the respective first and second passages. Spindles are threadably connected with each piston. An electromagnetic locking mechanism provided between the spindles having a first magnetic polarity for placing the locking mechanism in a first condition allowing relative rotation between the spindles and the pistons such that the pistons are axially movable within the passages and into engagement with the brake pad in response to hydraulic pressure applied to the pistons. The electromagnetic locking mechanism has a second magnetic polarity for placing the locking mechanism in a second condition preventing relative rotation between the spindles and the pistons such that the pistons remain engaged with the brake pad when hydraulic fluid pressure is removed from the pistons.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST) or via email at DanielL.GreeneJr@USPTO.GOV under the guidance of MPEP Section 502.03 Communications via Internet Electronic Mail (email) [R-07.2022]. The written authorization may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms and submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. The Examiner’s Fax number is 571-273-6876.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260725
Prosecution Insights