Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The effective filing date is recognized as February 20, 2023, in continuity with DE 102023201428.9.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 12, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses language which can be
implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure
describes," etc. Specifically, the abstract states, “The invention relates to …” which is implied. A
corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b)
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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: “first processing module”, “second processing module” and “control unit” as appears in Claims 11, 17, and 18, a “third processing module” as appears in Claim 12, and a “device configured to control a braking torque of the vehicle” as found in Claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Examiner did not find sufficient structure for the above limitations in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 17-18,
Claims 11-12 and 17-18 recite limitations which, as shown above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Specifically, the claims recite a “first processing module”, “second processing module”, and “control unit” as found in Claims 11 and 17-18, a “third processing module” as found in Claim 12, and “a device configured to control a braking torque of the vehicle” as found in Claim 18. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides no further description for what constitutes a module, device, or a control unit. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting the above limitations as referring to generic computer technology. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 12-17,
Claims 12-17 depend from claims which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and thus are themselves rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henderson (US 20230047444 A1), herein after referred to simply as Henderson.
Regarding Claim 11,
Henderson discloses the following limitations,
A device for controlling a braking torque of an at least partially electrically driven vehicle, (Paragraph [0001], “The present disclosure relates to vehicle motion management for heavy duty vehicles, i.e., coordinated control of motion support devices such as service brakes and propulsion devices.”)
comprising: a first processing module (Paragraph [0161], “FIG. 8 schematically illustrates, in terms of a number of functional units, the components of a control unit such as the VUC 130, 140. … Processing circuitry 810 is provided using any combination of one or more of a suitable central processing unit CPU, multiprocessor, microcontroller, digital signal processor DSP, etc., capable of executing software instructions stored in a computer program product” – a plurality of functions, i.e., modules, are embodied by the control circuitry) configured to ascertain an actual speed of the vehicle; (Paragraph [0085], “By determining vehicle unit motion using, e.g., global positioning systems, vision-based sensors, wheel speed sensors, radar sensors and/or lidar sensors, and translating this vehicle unit motion into a local coordinate system of a given wheel 210 (in terms of, e.g., longitudinal and lateral velocity components), it becomes possible to accurately estimate wheel slip in real time by comparing the vehicle unit motion in the wheel reference coordinate system to data obtained from the wheel speed sensor 240 arranged in connection to the wheel 210.” An actual speed is determined, limits are set with respect to this speed)
a second processing module configured to ascertain a friction coefficient between a road surface and tires of the vehicle; (Paragraph [0156], “The current operating conditions may furthermore comprise an estimated tyre road friction coefficient μ of the wheel. This road friction can be estimated in real time using known methods”)
and a control unit configured to determine a minimum rotational speed for wheels of an axle of the vehicle by using the ascertained actual speed and the ascertained friction coefficient, (Paragraph [0260], “Moreover, the wheel speed limit may also comprise an upper wheel speed limit and a lower wheel speed limit, where the upper wheel speed is used during acceleration, i.e. during propulsion, and the lower wheel speed limit is used during deceleration, i.e. during braking.” And Paragraph [0046], “According to aspects, the current operating condition comprises a normal load of the wheel or a vertical force acting on the wheel. The normal load of a given wheel, together with friction coefficient, determines the maximum achievable wheel force.” The frictional coefficient is used to calculate a maximum wheel force, which determines the lower wheel speed limit during deceleration, and this is calculate with respect to the actual vehicle speed.)
and to issue a request for regenerative deceleration of the vehicle by using the ascertained minimum rotational speed for the wheels of the axle. (Paragraph [0003], “. A modern heavy duty vehicle may comprise a wide range of different physical devices, such as combustion engines, electric machines, friction brakes, regenerative brakes, shock absorbers, air bellows, and power steering pumps. These physical devices are commonly known as Motion Support Devices (MSD). The MSDs may be individually controllable” and Paragraph [0109], “the VMM can translate the desired tyre force into an equivalent wheel slip (or, equivalently, a wheel speed relative to a speed over ground) and request this slip instead. The main advantage being that the MSD control device 230 will be able to deliver the requested torque with much higher bandwidth by maintaining operation at the desired wheel slip, using the vehicle speed v.sub.x and the wheel rotational velocity ω.sub.x.” The torque device may be a regenerative brake, and the system controls the torque of the torque device with a torque request. Further, an axle may be controlled as a whole, Paragraph [0079], “An MSD control unit 230 may be arranged to control one or more actuators. For instance, it is not uncommon that an MSD control unit 230 is arranged to control both wheels on an axle.”)
Regarding Claim 12,
Henderson, as shown, discloses all the limitations of Claim 11. Henderson further discloses the following limitation,
further comprising: a third processing module configured to ascertain a side slip angle of the vehicle; (Paragraph [0261], “The model may also represent a relationship between the maximum available lateral wheel forces for a given longitudinal wheel slip. The model can also, for a predetermined lateral slip angle of the tire, represent the achieved lateral wheel force for a given longitudinal wheel slip.” And Paragraph [0085], “By determining vehicle unit motion using, e.g., global positioning systems, vision-based sensors, wheel speed sensors, radar sensors and/or lidar sensors, and translating this vehicle unit motion into a local coordinate system of a given wheel 210 (in terms of, e.g., longitudinal and lateral velocity components), it becomes possible to accurately estimate wheel slip in real time” The wheel state includes a lateral, i.e., angled motion.)
wherein the control unit is configured to determine the minimum rotational speed for the wheels of the axle of the vehicle by also using the ascertained side slip angle. (Paragraph [0050], “The maximum allowed lateral slip angle can be used by the vehicle controller to ensure that the yaw moment balance or the side-slip of the vehicle is maintained at acceptable levels in agreement with the maneuver to be executed.” Side slip of the wheels is a further constraint on acceptable torque actions.)
Regarding Claims 18 and 19,
Claims 18 and 19 recite essentially the same limitations, respectively, as a vehicle comprising the apparatus and a corresponding method to that of the apparatus, respectively. Henderson, as shown, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses a vehicle with an electric drive system (Figure 1, and Paragraph [0039], “According to an example of this method, VMM (vehicle motion management) sends a torque request to the electric machine”). Therefore, Claims 18 and 19 are also disclosed.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 2, except it is as depends on Claim 19. Henderson, as shown, discloses all of the limitations of Claims 2 and 19, therefore, Claim 20 is also disclosed.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Henderson as applied to Claim 11 above, in view of Beever (US 20150175009 A1), herein after referred to simply as Beever.
Regarding Claim 13,
Henderson, as shown, discloses all the limitations of Claim 11. Henderson further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the control unit is configured to receive a request for a braking torque to be set, (Paragraph [0009], “A control system for controlling motion of a vehicle over a surface, the control system being operable to limit an amount of drive torque that may be applied to one or more wheels”)
and to set a distribution of the braking torques … by using the ascertained friction coefficient. (Paragraph [0098], “If the wheel is connected to the electric machine via a differential, then the torque and wheel speeds are distributed over the wheels in a known manner.” A torque distribution is controlled. Further, the friction coefficient is used, Paragraph [0046], “According to aspects, the current operating condition comprises a normal load of the wheel or a vertical force acting on the wheel. The normal load of a given wheel, together with friction coefficient, determines the maximum achievable wheel force.”)
However, Henderson does not disclose the following limitation,
and to set a distribution of the braking torques on multiple axles of the vehicle by using the ascertained friction coefficient.
However, Beever, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a friction coefficient may be obtained with respect to a measured wheel slip (Paragraph [0027], “The control system may be configured to determine wheel slip and to determine whether measured wheel slip is consistent with a currently stored value of coefficient of surface friction between the wheel and the driving surface for the amount of drive torque currently applied to the wheel, the control system being configured to update the currently stored value of coefficient of surface friction in the event an inconsistency is identified.”) and that this is used to set a torque distribution (Paragraph [0121], “At step S105 the controller 140 determines whether the current value of Tq_dd is sufficiently high to cause excessive wheel slip. In the present embodiment the controller 140 determines how much torque should be applied to each wheel in order to deliver a total torque substantially equal to Tq_dd.” And Paragraph [0053-0054], “Where two or more wheels are driven by the powertrain, the control means may determine (where possible) an appropriate torque distribution between the two or more wheels such that the prescribed allowable value of slip of each wheel is not exceeded whilst still delivering a total torque (being the sum of the torque values applied to each of the two or more wheels) that is substantially equal to the driver demanded torque. … In some embodiments the control means may take into account possible differences between the value of prescribed allowable slip of different respective driven wheels. For example in the case of a four wheel drive vehicle the control means may take into account the fact that rear wheels of the vehicle may have an increased downward force thereon during periods of acceleration compared with the front wheels. In such a case the rear wheels may have a different maximum value of drive torque that may be applied thereto in order to obtain slip corresponding to the maximum prescribed value compared with the front wheels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the torque control of a differential, and friction estimation, of Henderson with the distributed axle control, and friction estimation method of Beever, as this improves vehicle stability (Paragraph [0005], “It is desirable to provide a vehicle having improved stability.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Henderson and Beever, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Henderson further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the vehicle includes multiple axles, and the control unit is configured to determine a maximum braking torque for one of the axles of the vehicle by using the ascertained friction coefficient, (Paragraph [0121], “It is appreciated that the MSD control units discussed herein may also be configured to control one or more MSDs associated with other wheels, in addition to the wheel 210, such as MSDs for controlling wheels of a given axle, or the wheels on one side of a trailer unit, or all wheels of a trailer unit.” Multiple axles may be controlled. See also, Figure 1, the vehicle has multiple axles. A friction coefficient is used, Paragraph [0046], “According to aspects, the current operating condition comprises a normal load of the wheel or a vertical force acting on the wheel. The normal load of a given wheel, together with friction coefficient, determines the maximum achievable wheel force.”)
Beever further already teaches the following limitations,
and to determine a distribution for the braking torque on the multiple axles of the vehicle by using the maximum braking torque on the one of the axles of the vehicle. (Paragraph [0121], “At step S105 the controller 140 determines whether the current value of Tq_dd is sufficiently high to cause excessive wheel slip. In the present embodiment the controller 140 determines how much torque should be applied to each wheel in order to deliver a total torque substantially equal to Tq_dd.” And Paragraph [0054], “In some embodiments the control means may take into account possible differences between the value of prescribed allowable slip of different respective driven wheels. For example in the case of a four wheel drive vehicle the control means may take into account the fact that rear wheels of the vehicle may have an increased downward force thereon during periods of acceleration compared with the front wheels. In such a case the rear wheels may have a different maximum value of drive torque that may be applied thereto in order to obtain slip corresponding to the maximum prescribed value compared with the front wheels”)
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Henderson and Beever, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 14. Henderson further discloses the following limitation,
The device according to claim 14, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the maximum braking torque for the one of the axles of the vehicle by using a maximum possible regenerative braking power. (Paragraph [0003], “A modern heavy duty vehicle may comprise a wide range of different physical devices, such as combustion engines, electric machines, friction brakes, regenerative brakes, shock absorbers, air bellows, and power steering pumps. These physical devices are commonly known as Motion Support Devices (MSD). The MSDs may be individually controllable, for instance such that friction brakes may be applied at one wheel,” The MSD may be a regenerative brake, which is commanded to carried out a desired braking. Thus, a braking request may be a regenerative braking request, and a maximum braking torque of an MSD may be a maximum regenerative braking torque.)
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Henderson and Beever, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 14. Henderson further discloses the following limitations,
wherein a braking torque that does not exceed the maximum braking torque is set on the one of the axles of the vehicle for which the maximum braking torque has been determined, (Paragraph [0098], “If the electric machine is connected to one or more wheels via a transmission then the transmission determines the conversion between motor speed and wheel speed. If the wheel is connected to the electric machine via a differential, then the torque and wheel speeds are distributed over the wheels in a known manner.” A vehicle wheel torque may be mechanically related to other wheel torques, via a differential. A torque of an axle is determined, Paragraph [0009], “A control system for controlling motion of a vehicle over a surface, the control system being operable to limit an amount of drive torque that may be applied to one or more wheels”)
Beever further already teaches the following limitations,
and a remaining portion of the requested braking torque is set on another axle of the axles of the vehicle. Paragraph [0053-0054], “Where two or more wheels are driven by the powertrain, the control means may determine (where possible) an appropriate torque distribution between the two or more wheels such that the prescribed allowable value of slip of each wheel is not exceeded whilst still delivering a total torque (being the sum of the torque values applied to each of the two or more wheels) that is substantially equal to the driver demanded torque. … In some embodiments the control means may take into account possible differences between the value of prescribed allowable slip of different respective driven wheels. For example in the case of a four wheel drive vehicle the control means may take into account the fact that rear wheels of the vehicle may have an increased downward force thereon during periods of acceleration compared with the front wheels. In such a case the rear wheels may have a different maximum value of drive torque that may be applied thereto in order to obtain slip corresponding to the maximum prescribed value compared with the front wheels”)
Regarding Claim 17,
Henderson, as shown, discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11. However, Henderson does not disclose the following limitations
wherein the second processing module is configured to determine a slip between a wheel of the vehicle and the road surface and to ascertain the friction coefficient by using the slip.
However, Beever, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a friction coefficient may be obtained with respect to a measured wheel slip (Paragraph [0027], “The control system may be configured to determine wheel slip and to determine whether measured wheel slip is consistent with a currently stored value of coefficient of surface friction between the wheel and the driving surface for the amount of drive torque currently applied to the wheel, the control system being configured to update the currently stored value of coefficient of surface friction in the event an inconsistency is identified.”) and that this is used to set a torque distribution (Paragraph [0121], “At step S105 the controller 140 determines whether the current value of Tq_dd is sufficiently high to cause excessive wheel slip. In the present embodiment the controller 140 determines how much torque should be applied to each wheel in order to deliver a total torque substantially equal to Tq_dd.” And Paragraph [0053-0054], “Where two or more wheels are driven by the powertrain, the control means may determine (where possible) an appropriate torque distribution between the two or more wheels such that the prescribed allowable value of slip of each wheel is not exceeded whilst still delivering a total torque (being the sum of the torque values applied to each of the two or more wheels) that is substantially equal to the driver demanded torque. … In some embodiments the control means may take into account possible differences between the value of prescribed allowable slip of different respective driven wheels. For example in the case of a four wheel drive vehicle the control means may take into account the fact that rear wheels of the vehicle may have an increased downward force thereon during periods of acceleration compared with the front wheels. In such a case the rear wheels may have a different maximum value of drive torque that may be applied thereto in order to obtain slip corresponding to the maximum prescribed value compared with the front wheels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the torque control of a differential, and friction estimation, of Henderson with the distributed axle control, and friction estimation method of Beever, as this improves vehicle stability (Paragraph [0005], “It is desirable to provide a vehicle having improved stability.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (US 20140074369 A1), previously of record, teaches that a maximum braking may be delivered entirely with regenerative braking (Paragraph [0011], “when a driver request braking deceleration D is equal to or less than a first reference value Df — 1, vehicle braking is allowed to be performed only by a regenerative braking force (maximum value of a regenerative braking force is Ff — 1) of a front wheel (driving wheel).”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights