DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022131330.1, filed on 11/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This office action is issued in response to application filed 05/28/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 are rejected. This action is non-final. A three-month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because:
The cross-hatching in the middle of Fig. 5 is problematic in that it appears to the examiner as indicating that the total braking torque (obtained by combining the values of each different type of cross-hatching or shading) will be greater than the vehicle braking torque 12, which is consistently shown in Figs. 3-6 to be a constant value.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specifications includes both line numbering and paragraph numbering. Remove the line numbering.
In ¶1, the word Application is abbreviated “Appln.”. Eliminate the abbreviation, which is non-standard.
In ¶9, the abbreviations ABS and ESP are first presented. It is preferable that both the words and abbreviations be introduced together.
In ¶32, the phrase “only using them” should be stated as “ only uses them”.
¶77, 80 & 82 each identify a “speed interval” without any distinction from each other. Since earlier in the specifications, numbering 11, 14 and 16 were, respectively, defined as first, second and third “speed intervals”, the words first, second and third need to be added to the respective paragraphs.
¶78 is the only place in the specifications in which the number 12 for the vehicle braking torque appears. Despite the role the vehicle braking torque plays in the figures.
¶67-96 should be revised to be a single paragraph, starting with the heading “Reference Numerals”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-8, 10 and 13-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: The limitation “machine in generator mode” should be stated as “machine in a generator mode”.
Claims 4 and 5: Each claim includes the phrase “in generator mode”, which should be stated as “in the generator mode”.
Claim 6: An antecedent basis is not established for the limitation of “a second speed interval”.
Claim 7: An antecedent basis is not established for the limitation of “a third speed interval”.
Claims 8, 10 and 19: Each claim includes the phrase “the group consisting of”, which should include a colon at the end.
Claims 13-18: Each claim includes the phrase “wherein a one of the stored operating modes”, which should be stated as “wherein one of the stored operating modes”.
Claim 16: An antecedent basis is not established for the limitation of “a second speed interval”.
Claim 17: An antecedent basis is not established for the limitation of “a third speed interval”.
Claim 19: Includes the phrase “the system controller selects a one of the stored operating modes”, which should be stated as “the system controller selects one of the stored operating modes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "operating within a second speed interval" in line-five. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, since a “first speed interval” is not introduced either earlier in Claim 5 or in Claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "operating within a third speed interval" in line-five. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, since first and second “speed intervals are not introduced in a sequential manor within the limitations of Claim 1 or the limitations of Claim 5, preceding line-five, or in a combination of Claims 1 and Claim 5 (preceding line-five).
Claim 16 recites the limitation "operating within a second speed interval" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, since a “first speed interval” is not introduced either earlier in Claim 16 or in Claim 12.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "operating within a third speed interval" in line-five. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, since first and second “speed intervals are not introduced in a sequential manor within the limitations of Claim 12 or the limitations of Claim 17 preceding the last line, or in a combination of Claims 12 and Claim 17 (before the last line).
For the purposes of examination, the examiner treated Claims 5-6 and 16-17 each involving more than one time-interval.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hillbring et al. (US 2024/0262211 A1, henceforth Hillbring) and Barna (US 2020/0324635 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hillbring disclose the limitations: braking system {friction brakes 22, brake control unit 32, electric drive 52 and retarders 72, Fig. 1 and ¶55} for a motor vehicle {vehicle/trailer combination 10, Fig. 1, ¶46} which can be driven by an electric machine {electric motor 58, Fig. 1 and ¶55}, wherein the electric machine has a rotor {electric drive 52, Fig. 1, ¶55, wherein a rotor and stator are inherent components of an electric motor/machine used to provide the motive force for an electric vehicle}, which can be torque-transmittingly coupled to at least one vehicle wheel {electric drive 52 relative to adjacent wheels 20, Fig. 1; Examiner Note: the limitation “torque-transmittingly coupled to a brake device and to at least one vehicle wheel” addressed separately}; a brake device {retarders 72, Fig. 1, ¶55}; wherein the braking system also has a service brake system {friction brakes 22, Fig. 1} for wheel-selective braking torque application to at least the vehicle wheels on a first vehicle axle {each wheel has a friction brake 22, ¶46}, wherein: the braking system comprises a system controller {brake control unit 32, Fig. 1, and ¶55; brake control unit 32 determines the state of the vehicle, ¶19} in which a plurality of operating modes of the braking system {operation of braking system involves consideration of multiple operating modes, ¶22 & ¶26, ¶63; operating modes 161&163, Fig. 4} are stored {brake control unit 32 includes processor 73, which indicates a computerized controller that inherently requires memory to permanently store computer coding and, minimally, temporary data concerning vehicle operation , ¶55}, which carry out a different distribution of braking torques between the brake device, the electric machine in generator mode and the service brake system according to a current driving operating state {brake control unit determines vehicle state, ¶19} of the motor vehicle {¶52-53 teaches that torque changes depend on the current operating state of the electric drive, and the current operating state determines the setpoint torque value 33, which then determine the torque request signal 62 to the electric drive 52 (all numbering found in Fig. 1) and the brake control unit 32 (¶52), leading to variable control of (or torques distribution) of the regeneration mode and retarders (¶22-26), with the actual distribution of braking forces between the three source of braking determined by brake control unit 32, per ¶55}.
Hillbring does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the electric machine has a rotor, which can be torque-transmittingly coupled to a brake device and to at least one vehicle wheel.
However, Barna explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the electric machine has a rotor {traction motor 13 of drive unit 10, Figs. 1-2}, which can be torque-transmittingly coupled to a brake device {central brake 14, Figs. 1-2 and ¶47} and to at least one vehicle wheel {central brake 14 produces torque delivered wheel axel 12, Figs. 1-2 and ¶47}.
Hillbring and Barna are analogous art because they both deal with blended brake systems involving friction braking, regenerative braking and a third, or auxiliary, source of braking torque.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hillbring and Barna before them, to modify the teachings of Hillbring to include the teachings of Barna to provide redundant means of braking {¶63}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: at least one operating mode, into which the braking system can be set, can be selected by {selection of one or more operating modes, ¶63} a user of the braking system {retarders can be turned on-and-off by a lever, ¶28}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: at least one operating mode, into which the braking system can be set, can be selected by the system controller {automatic activation of regeneration mode, ¶24, and the brake control unit operates automatically on the basis of the current vehicle operating conditions, ¶55, corresponding the adaptability of the control unit to vary torque when operating in the “automatic mode” or “automatic driving”, ¶23}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: in a first operating mode of the braking system, the distribution of the braking torques {¶52-53 teaches that torque changes depend on the current operating state of the electric drive, and the current operating state determines the setpoint torque value 33, which then determine the torque request signal 62 to the electric drive 52 (all numbering found in Fig. 1) and the brake control unit 32 (¶52), leading to variable control of (or torques distribution) of the regeneration mode and retarders (¶22-26), with the actual distribution of braking forces between the three source of braking determined by brake control unit 32, per ¶55} is configured such that, in a first speed interval of the motor vehicle {a vehicle undergoing negative acceleration, ¶46, or slowing of the vehicle, ¶55, inherently involves a time period that can be divided into multiple intervals}, a vehicle braking torque is provided exclusively by the brake device and/or the electric machine in generator mode {setting a ratio of braking torque distribution provided by the retarders (72, Fig. 1) and the electric drive (i.e., regeneration mode 178, Fig. 4), ¶25, with zero regeneration associated with deactivating the automatic regeneration mode (176, Fig. 4, ¶25), described in ¶22 as “the regeneration mode can also be completely switched off”}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: a second operating mode of the braking system {first operating mode is the switched off regeneration in ¶22, a second operating mode is a non-zero braking torque distribution between retarders (72, Fig. 1) and the electric drive (i.e., regeneration mode 178, Fig. 4), ¶25}, the distribution of the braking torques is configured such that, in a second speed interval of the motor vehicle {a vehicle undergoing negative acceleration, ¶46, or slowing of the vehicle, ¶55, inherently involves a time period that can be divided into multiple intervals}, the vehicle braking torque is provided by the brake device, the service brake system and the electric machine in generator mode {a braking request 29, Fig. 1 and ¶47, corresponding to pressing brake pedal 26, Fig. 1, establishes a setpoint torque (33, ¶47) that brake control unit 32 splits between the friction brakes 22, the retarders 72 and the electric drive 52 (Fig. 1), ¶55, which one skilled in the art will appreciate that the nature of the splitting between the three negative torque sources (see ¶55 for explicit meaning of the brake control unit providing such splitting) will change in time owing to the changes in the “operating state of the electric drive”, ¶52}.
Claim 6, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: a third operating mode of the braking system {a vehicle undergoing negative acceleration, ¶46, or slowing of the vehicle, ¶55, inherently involves a time period that can be divided into multiple intervals}, the distribution of the braking torques {¶52-53 teaches that torque changes depend on the current operating state of the electric drive, and the current operating state determines the setpoint torque value 33, which then determine the torque request signal 62 to the electric drive 52 (all numbering found in Fig. 1) and the brake control unit 32 (¶52), leading to variable control of (or torques distribution) of the regeneration mode and retarders (¶22-26), with the actual distribution of braking forces between the three source of braking determined by brake control unit 32, per ¶55} is configured such that, in a third speed interval of the motor vehicle {a vehicle undergoing negative acceleration, ¶46, or slowing of the vehicle, ¶55, inherently involves a time period that can be divided into multiple intervals}, a vehicle braking torque always comprises a braking torque generated by the brake device {deactivating the automatic regeneration mode, ¶22, and switching on the trailer functions, ¶34, (and hence retarders 72), with the operator not pressing the brake pedal, such as pumping the brake pedal on-and-off, as is known in the art of braking}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: a fourth operating mode of the braking system {a vehicle undergoing negative acceleration, ¶46, or slowing of the vehicle, ¶55, inherently involves a time period that can be divided into multiple intervals}, the distribution of the braking torques {¶52-53 teaches that torque changes depend on the current operating state of the electric drive, and the current operating state determines the setpoint torque value 33, which then determine the torque request signal 62 to the electric drive 52 (all numbering found in Fig. 1) and the brake control unit 32 (¶52), leading to variable control of (or torques distribution) of the regeneration mode and retarders (¶22-26), with the actual distribution of braking forces between the three source of braking determined by brake control unit 32, per ¶55} is configured such that the a vehicle braking torque is generated exclusively by the service brake system {deactivating the automatic regeneration mode, ¶22, and switching off the trailer functions, ¶34, (and hence retarders 72) leaves only friction brakes 22 available for braking}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: an operating mode {operation of braking system involves consideration of multiple operating modes, ¶22 & ¶26} is selected by {selection of one or more operating modes, ¶63} the system controller {automatic activation of regeneration mode, ¶24, and the brake control unit operates automatically on the basis of the current vehicle operating conditions, ¶55, corresponding the adaptability of the control unit to vary torque when operating in the “automatic mode” or “automatic driving”, ¶23} taking into account one or more operating parameters of the motor vehicle selected from the group consisting of an outside temperature, a battery temperature, a required braking energy {the slowing down of the vehicle, mentioned in ¶26, requires capturing “braking” energy via a negative torque when the regeneration mode is active, ¶52, to change kinetic energy into potential energy”, ¶3}, a yaw angle, a vehicle wheel speed, a rotor speed, or a transmission temperature {operating unit (74, Fig. 1) is used to specify a desired operating state, such as the “state of charge of a battery”, ¶26, which as one skilled in the art will appreciated is key operating parameter in a regenerative braking system}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: at least two of the stored operating modes are executed simultaneously {selection of one or more operating modes, ¶63; operating modes 161 & 163, Fig. 4}.
Regarding Claim 12, Hillbring disclose the limitations: a braking system {friction brakes 22, brake control unit 32, electric drive 52 and retarders 72, Fig. 1 and ¶55} for a motor vehicle {vehicle/trailer combination 10, Fig. 1, ¶46}, comprising: a brake device {retarders 72, Fig. 1, ¶55}; an electric machine {electric motor 58, Fig. 1 and ¶55} comprising a rotor arranged to be torque-transmittingly coupled {electric drive 52, Fig. 1, ¶55, wherein a rotor and stator are inherent components of an electric motor/machine used to provide the motive force for an electric vehicle} to a vehicle wheel {electric drive 52 relative to adjacent wheels 20, Fig. 1; Examiner Note: the limitation “torque-transmittingly coupled to a brake device and to at least one vehicle wheel” addressed separately}; a service brake system {friction brakes 22, Fig. 1} arranged for selectively braking the vehicle wheel {each wheel has a friction brake 22, ¶46}; and a system controller {brake control unit 32, Fig. 1, and ¶55; brake control unit 32 determines the state of the vehicle, ¶19} comprising: a memory {brake control unit 32 includes processor 73, which indicates a computerized controller that inherently requires memory to permanently store computer coding and, minimally, temporary data concerning vehicle operation, ¶55} comprising a plurality of stored operating modes {operation of braking system involves consideration of multiple operating modes, ¶22 & ¶26, ¶63; operating modes 161&163, Fig. 4}; and a processor {brake control unit 32 includes processor 73, ¶55} arranged for commanding a braking torque from the brake device {a braking request leads to the torque requirement being split between friction braking, regenerative braking (i.e., generator mode) and the retarders, ¶52 and ¶55}, the electric machine operating in a generator mode, or the service brake system depending on a driving operating state {brake control unit determines vehicle state, ¶19} of the motor vehicle {¶55 described the control of friction brakes 22, the retarders 72 and the electric drive 52 by brake control unit 32 during deceleration, and in combination with converter 56, Fig. 1, determines whether the electric motors operate in a generator mode or motor mode, determine whether a regenerative mode is used, and determines the braking torque, ¶52}.
Hillbring does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: an electric machine comprising a rotor arranged to be torque-transmittingly coupled to the brake device and to a vehicle wheel.
However, Barna explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the electric machine has a rotor {traction motor 13 of drive unit 10, Figs. 1-2}, which can be torque-transmittingly coupled to a brake device {central brake 14, Figs. 1-2 and ¶47} and to at least one vehicle wheel {central brake 14 produces torque delivered wheel axel 12, Figs. 1-2 ¶47}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a one of the stored operating modes {selection of one or more operating modes, ¶63; operating modes 161 & 163, Fig. 4} can be selected by {selection of one or more operating modes, ¶63} a user of the braking system {retarders can be turned on-and-off by a lever, ¶28}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a one of the stored operating modes {operation of braking system involves consideration of multiple operating modes, ¶22 & ¶26, ¶63; operating modes 161&163, Fig. 4} can be selected by {selection of one or more operating modes, ¶63} the system controller {automatic activation of regeneration mode, ¶24, and the brake control unit operates automatically on the basis of the current vehicle operating conditions, ¶55, corresponding the adaptability of the control unit to vary torque when operating in the “automatic mode” or “automatic driving”, ¶23}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a one of the stored operating modes {operation of braking system involves consideration of multiple operating modes, ¶22 & ¶26, ¶63; operating modes 161&163, Fig. 4} is arranged to distribute the braking torque {¶52-53 teaches that torque changes depend on the current operating state of the electric drive, and the current operating state determines the setpoint torque value 33, which then determine the torque request signal 62 to the electric drive 52 (all numbering found in Fig. 1) and the brake control unit 32 (¶52), leading to variable control of (or torques distribution) of the regeneration mode and retarders (¶22-26), with the actual distribution of braking forces between the three source of braking determined by brake control unit 32, per ¶55} such that a vehicle braking torque is provided exclusively by the brake device or the electric machine operating in the generator mode {setting a ratio of braking torque distribution provided by the retarders (72, Fig. 1) and the electric drive (i.e., regeneration mode 178, Fig. 4), ¶25, with zero regeneration associated with deactivating the automatic regeneration mode (176, Fig. 4, ¶25), described in ¶22 as “the regeneration mode can also be completely switched off”} when the motor vehicle is operating within a first speed interval {a vehicle undergoing negative acceleration, ¶46, or slowing of the vehicle, ¶55, inherently involves a time period that can be divided into multiple intervals}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein: wherein a one of the stored operating modes {operation of braking system involves consideration of multiple operating modes, ¶22 & ¶26, ¶63; operating modes 161&163, Fig. 4} is arranged to distribute the braking torque {¶52-53 teaches that torque changes depend on the current operating state of the electric drive, and the current operating state determines the setpoint torque value 33, which then determine the torque request signal 62 to the electric drive 52 (all numbering found in Fig. 1) and the brake control unit 32 (¶52), leading to variable control of (or torques distribution) of the regeneration mode and retarders (¶22-26), with the actual distribution of braking forces between the three source of braking determined by brake control unit 32, per ¶55} such that a vehicle braking torque is provided by the brake device, the service brake system, and the electric machine operating in the generator mode {a braking request 29, Fig. 1 and ¶47, corresponding to pressing brake pedal 26, Fig. 1, establishes a setpoint torque (33, ¶47) that brake control unit 32 splits between the friction brakes 22, the retarders 72 and the electric drive 52 (Fig. 1), ¶55, which one skilled in the art will appreciate that the nature of the splitting between the three negative torque sources (see ¶55 for explicit meaning of the brake control unit providing such splitting) will change in time owing to the changes in the “operating state of the electric drive”, ¶52} when the motor vehicle is operating within a second speed interval {a vehicle undergoing negative acceleration, ¶46, or slowing of the vehicle, ¶55, inherently involves a time period that can be divided into multiple intervals}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a one of the stored operating modes is arranged to distribute the braking torque {¶52-53 teaches that torque changes depend on the current operating state of the electric drive, and the current operating state determines the setpoint torque value 33, which then determine the torque request signal 62 to the electric drive 52 (all numbering found in Fig. 1) and the brake control unit 32 (¶52), leading to variable control of (or torques distribution) of the regeneration mode and retarders (¶22-26), with the actual distribution of braking forces between the three source of braking determined by brake control unit 32, per ¶55} such that a vehicle braking torque is at least partially provided by the brake device {deactivating the automatic regeneration mode, ¶22, and switching on the trailer functions, ¶34, (and hence retarders 72), with the operator optionally using the brake pedal, such as pumping the brake pedal on-and-off, as is known in the art of braking} when the motor vehicle is operating within a third speed interval {a vehicle undergoing negative acceleration, ¶46, or slowing of the vehicle, ¶55, inherently involves a time period that can be divided into multiple intervals}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a one of the stored operating modes is arranged to distribute the braking torque {¶52-53 teaches that torque changes depend on the current operating state of the electric drive, and the current operating state determines the setpoint torque value 33, which then determine the torque request signal 62 to the electric drive 52 (all numbering found in Fig. 1) and the brake control unit 32 (¶52), leading to variable control of (or torques distribution) of the regeneration mode and retarders (¶22-26), with the actual distribution of braking forces between the three source of braking determined by brake control unit 32, per ¶55} such that a vehicle braking torque is provided exclusively by the service brake system {deactivating the automatic regeneration mode, ¶22, and switching off the trailer functions, ¶34, (and hence retarders 72) leaves only friction brakes 22 available for braking}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. In addition, Hillbring explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the system controller {brake control unit 32, Fig. 1 and ¶55; brake control unit 32 determines the state of the vehicle, ¶19} selects {electric motor automatically controlled by the brake control unit 32, ¶26, based on selected modes, which determines a “setpoint torque value”, ¶55; also, “request signals preferably include function requests for selecting the or some of the aforementioned operating modes or other operating modes”, ¶33} a one of the stored operating modes {operation of braking system involves consideration of multiple operating modes, ¶22, &¶26} based on an operating parameter selected from the group consisting of an outside temperature, a battery temperature, a required braking energy {the slowing down of the vehicle, mentioned in ¶26, requires capturing “braking” energy via a negative torque when the regeneration mode is active, ¶52, to change kinetic energy into potential energy”, ¶3}, a yaw angle, a vehicle wheel speed, a rotor speed, or a transmission temperature {operating unit (74, Fig. 1) is used to specify a desired operating state, such as the “state of charge of a battery”, ¶26, which as one skilled in the art will appreciated is key operating parameter in a regenerative braking system}.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hillbring, Barna and Deng (US 2021/0310528 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Hillbring and Barna does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein: the brake device comprises a friction brake selected from the group consisting of disc brakes, drum brakes, and multi-disc brakes, wherein the friction brake is accommodated in a brake housing.
However, Deng explicitly recites limitation: wherein: the brake device {auxiliary braking system 50, Fig. 3} comprises a friction brake selected from the group consisting of disc brakes, drum brakes, and multi-disc brakes {auxiliary braking system 50 includes a disc stack, ¶58}, wherein the friction brake is accommodated in a brake housing {“auxiliary braking system 50 includes a disc stack 58 within housing 54 (FIGS. 4, 6, and 7)”, ¶58}.
The combination of Hillbring and Barna along with Deng are analogous art because they deal with supplementing standard friction brakes with an auxiliary brake.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hillbring, Barna and Deng before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Hillbring and Barna to include the teachings of Deng to reduce wear on the main brakes {¶3}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hillbring, Barna and Bellinger et al. (US 11,230,969 B2, henceforth Bellinger).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hillbring and Barna discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Hillbring and Barna does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein: brake device comprises a brake cooling circuit, by means of which heat can be dissipated from the brake device and supplied to a thermal management system of the motor vehicle .
However, Bellinger explicitly recites limitation: wherein: brake device {driveline retarder 803, Fig. 8} comprises a brake cooling circuit {with regard to Fig. 8 and Col. 11, Lns. 38-46, valve control module 802 control coolant flow to retarder 803}, by means of which heat can be dissipated from the brake device and supplied to a thermal management system of the motor vehicle {a coolant diverter couples a retarder to the engine, to provide single engine cooling system that also cools a retarder, Col. 4, Lns. 24-34; also, “coolant flow through driveline retarders may be dynamically controlled as a function of vehicle operating conditions to maintain the operating efficiency of the cooling system and the vehicle.”, Col. 4, Lns. 3-7}.
The combination of Hillbring and Barna along with Bellinger are analogous art because they deal with supplementing standard friction brakes with auxiliary braking built into the drivetrain.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hillbring, Barna and Bellinger before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Hillbring and Barna to include the teachings of Bellinger to prevent over-cooling a driveline retarder by dynamically controlling fluid flow through the retarder heat exchanger {Col. 4, Lns. 3-7}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 109606096 A – Discloses a vehicle braking system with three braking components: friction braking, double-rotor motor regenerative braking, and an electromagnetic retarder, in which all three braking types can be used simultaneously or in variable amounts over a braking period.
US 12,071,116 B2 – Discloses a vehicle braking system with primary and auxiliary braking components, with “wheel slip” determination setting a limit on primary braking levels, and thus determining the level of auxiliary braking needed to make up the difference to meet the required total torque needed to brake safely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights