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 .
Amended claims 1 thru 16 have been entered into the record.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the drawings overcome the drawing objections from the previous office action (6/25/2026). The drawing objections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the drawings and to the specification overcome the specification objections from the previous office action (6/25/2026). The specification objections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims overcome the claim objections from the previous office action (6/25/2026). The claim objections are withdrawn.
The interpretation of the display device of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) remains are recited in the previous office action (6/25/2026), and is recited below in this office action.
The amendments to the claims overcome the some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous office action (6/25/2026). Those 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn, and the pending 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are recited below in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art of Yokoo does not disclose the claimed determining a driver preferred deceleration based on a brake pedal input value indicated by the brake pedal sensor whenever the driver operates the brake pedal, and the claimed generating a personalized regenerative braking map based on the determined driver preferred deceleration. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s argument regarding the 102 rejections states, “Yokoo monitors driver behavior and determines an adaptable pedal map based on such behavior. The office action relies on Yokoo's disclosure that different adaptable pedal maps may be selected according to user preference and/or driver behavior. Yokoo, however, describes monitoring driver behavior patterns, such as the frequency or amount of brake-pedal depression, to determine whether a driver is more or less likely to brake and to select an adaptable pedal map. Thus, Yokoo describes driver behavior-based map selection, rather than determination of a particular driver preferred deceleration from brake-pedal input during regenerative braking while coasting. Yokoo merely discloses selecting one of multiple existing adaptable pedal maps. However, selecting an existing map is not the same as generating a personalized map based on a determined driver preferred deceleration. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the above anticipation rejection.” (9/25/2026 response page 9).
Regarding the claimed determining and generating steps, Yokoo discloses, “The braking apparatus 104 may obtain user input that indicates a user preference (302). The braking apparatus 104 may use the user interface 110 to obtain the user input that indicates one or more user preferences. The one or more user preferences may indicate whether the driver, user or other operator desires to have the adaptable pedal map turned on or otherwise initialized to adapt or adjust the regenerative braking torque continuously during the trip.” (P[0050] and Figure 3), “The braking apparatus 104 may obtain one or more driver behavior patterns (306). The one or more driver behavior patterns may include the frequency, amount and/or rate that the driver depresses the brake pedal 112. As the rate of depression of the brake pedal 112 or frequency of braking increases, this may indicate that the driver is more prone or likely to brake, and thus, the braking apparatus 104 may use an adaptable pedal map with a higher range of regenerative braking force in response.” (P[0052] and Figure 3), and “The braking apparatus 104 selects, obtains or determines an adaptable pedal map from among multiple adaptable pedal maps to be applied (308). The braking apparatus 104 may store in the memory and/or have any number of adaptable pedal maps.” (P[0057] and Figure 3). The applicant argues that the “selecting an existing map is not the same as generating a personalized map based on a determined driver preferred deceleration” of Yokoo is not the same as the claims determining a driver preferred deceleration based on a brake pedal input value indicated by the brake pedal sensor whenever the driver operates the brake pedal, and generating a personalized regenerative braking map based on the determined driver preferred deceleration. According to the applicant’s specification P[0006], a regenerative braking map may be input and stored in advance in a controller of a vehicle. The applicant’s braking map exists and is stored in the vehicle in advance. The claims are written broadly enough to encompass the regenerative braking map stored in advance in a vehicle, and are interpreted as such in light of the specification (P[0006] in particular). The disclosure of Yokoo reads directly on this interpretation of the applicant’s claims and in light of the specification. The claimed driver preferred deceleration based on a brake pedal input value when the driver operates the brake pedal does not prevent a baking map from being used. In Yokoo, a braking apparatus obtains a driver preference from the operation of the brake pedal (Figure 3 steps 302 and 306), and then determines and applies a braking map, based on the driver preferences and braking patterns (Figure 3 steps 308 and 310). There are no limitations directed to preferences only be determined in real-time, and a map being generated in real-time. Therefore, the 102 rejections of claims 1, 2 and 11 are maintained.
Regarding the 103 rejections of claims 3 and 6 thru 8, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a personalization process based on a driver’s learned preferred deceleration, learning a driver’s preferred deceleration from a brake pedal operation during regenerative braking while coasting, and generating a new personalized regenerative braking map based on that learned information) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims and specification do not recite any “learned or learning” process or preference. The braking preferences (driver input to braking) are merely used to determine a braking map for the driver. Additionally, the claims and specification do not recite any new, adjusted, changed, modified, updated or second personalized regenerative braking map based on any type of learning. Therefore, the 103 rejections of claims 3 thru 6 and 8 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a display device of the vehicle to output in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The display device is interpreted as “a hardware device implemented by various electronic circuits (e.g., computer, microprocessor, CPU, ASIC, circuitry, logic circuits, etc.). The display device 140 may be implemented by a non-transitory memory storing, e.g., a program(s), software instructions reproducing algorithms, etc., which, when executed, performs various functions described hereinafter, and a processor configured to execute the program(s), software instructions reproducing algorithms, etc. Herein, the memory and the processor may be implemented as separate semiconductor circuits. Alternatively, the memory and the processor may be implemented as a single integrated semiconductor circuit. The processor may embody one or more processor(s). In some embodiments, the display device can include, but is not limited to, a touchscreen display, digital dashboard, head-up display (HUD), dedicated display screen located on the center console of the vehicle, LED indicator, etc.” P[0066].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 13 and 16 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 13 recites the limitation "the vehicle speed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the vehicle speed" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yokoo Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0314810 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Yokoo discloses the claimed method of personalizing regenerative braking of a vehicle, process for controlling a regenerative braking torque that corresponds to a deceleration drive force when the vehicle is decelerating or coasting using the braking system (Figure 2), process for determining the adaptable pedal map that controls a regenerative braking torque that corresponds to a deceleration drive force when the vehicle is decelerating or coasting using the braking system (Figure 3), and process for determining the adaptable pedal map based on either the driver behavior pattern or the user input that is used by the braking system (Figure 4), comprising:
the claimed collecting driving data of the vehicle by a controller, “The braking apparatus 104 may include an ECU 106. The ECU 106 may be implemented as a single ECU or as multiple ECUs. The ECU 106 may be electrically coupled to some or all of the other components within the vehicle 102, such as the motor and/or generator 118, the engine 130, the battery 120, the inverter 124, the battery management control unit (BMCU) 122, the memory 108, the network access device 126 and/or one or more sensors 116.” (P[0023] and Figure 1), and “The braking apparatus 104 may include one or more sensors 116. The one or more sensors 116 include an accelerator pedal sensor 116a, a brake pedal sensor 116b and/or an engine/motor speed sensor 116c. The accelerator pedal sensor 116a detects or measures a position of the accelerator pedal 114 and may detect or measure a rate of change in the position of the accelerator pedal 114. The brake pedal sensor 116b detects or measures a position of the brake pedal 112 and may detect or measure a rate of change in the position of the brake pedal 112. The brake pedal sensor 116b may provide to an inverter the range of brake pedal stroke where regeneration may be maximized. The engine/motor speed sensor 116c may measure the engine/motor speed of the engine 130 and/or the motor and/or generator 118.” (P[0027] and Figure 1), the information from the sensors equates to the collecting driving data;
the claimed determining that braking situation of the vehicle is a regenerative braking situation while coasting based on the collected driving data while the vehicle is driving, “The braking apparatus 104 detects, obtains or otherwise determines a position of a brake pedal 112 (202).” (P[0038] and Figure 2), “The braking apparatus 104 detects, obtains or determines a position of an accelerator pedal 114 (204).” (P[0039] and Figure 2), and “The braking apparatus 104 determines whether a vehicle 102 is coasting or decelerating (206). The braking apparatus 104 may determine whether the vehicle 102 is coasting or decelerating based on the position of the accelerator pedal 114 and/or the position of the brake pedal 112. When the braking apparatus 104 determines that the brake pedal 112 is in the released positioned and the accelerator pedal 114 is in the released position, the braking apparatus 104 may determine that the vehicle is coasting and/or decelerating due to regenerative braking torque.” (P[0040] and Figure 2);
the claimed receiving a brake pedal sensor signal dependent on operation of a brake pedal by a driver during regenerative braking while coasting, “The braking apparatus 104 obtains or determines an adaptable pedal map to apply to determine the amount of engine braking torque (210).” (P[0043] and Figure 2), and “The braking apparatus 104 determines an amount of regenerative braking torque to be applied (212). The braking apparatus 104 may determine the amount of regenerative braking torque based on the engine/motor speed, the adaptable pedal map and/or the position of the brake pedal 112, which corresponds to an amount of braking force. Given the amount of braking force or the position of the brake pedal 112 and the engine/motor speed, the braking apparatus 104 may map the braking force and the engine/motor speed to a regenerative braking torque to be applied using the adaptable pedal map.” (P[0044] and Figure 2);
the claimed determining a driver preferred deceleration based on a brake pedal input value indicated by the brake pedal sensor whenever the driver operates the brake pedal, “The braking apparatus 104 may obtain user input that indicates a user preference (302). The braking apparatus 104 may use the user interface 110 to obtain the user input that indicates one or more user preferences. The one or more user preferences may indicate whether the driver, user or other operator desires to have the adaptable pedal map turned on or otherwise initialized to adapt or adjust the regenerative braking torque continuously during the trip. The one or more user preferences may indicate a level of regenerative braking torque, such as between a low level and a high level of regenerative braking torque.” (P[0050] and Figure 3), and “The braking apparatus 104 may obtain one or more driver behavior patterns (306). The one or more driver behavior patterns may include the frequency, amount and/or rate that the driver depresses the brake pedal 112. As the rate of depression of the brake pedal 112 or frequency of braking increases, this may indicate that the driver is more prone or likely to brake, and thus, the braking apparatus 104 may use an adaptable pedal map with a higher range of regenerative braking force in response.” (P[0052] and Figure 3);
the claimed generating a personalized regenerative braking map based on the determined driver preferred deceleration, “The braking apparatus 104 selects, obtains or determines an adaptable pedal map from among multiple adaptable pedal maps to be applied (308). The braking apparatus 104 may store in the memory and/or have any number of adaptable pedal maps. For example, the multiple adaptable pedal maps may include a first adaptable pedal map 502, a second adaptable pedal map 504 and a third adaptable pedal map 506, as shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B. The first adaptable pedal map 502 may have a first level or range of regenerative braking torque for an engine/motor speed and/or a position of the brake pedal 112. The first level or range of regenerative braking torque may be greater than a second level or range of regenerative braking torque and greater than a third level or range of regenerative braking torque. The second adaptable pedal map 504 may have the second level or range of regenerative braking torque. The second level or range of regenerative braking torque may be less than the first level or range of regenerative braking torque and greater than the third level or range of regenerative braking torque. The third adaptable pedal map 506 may have the third level or range of regenerative braking torque. The third level or range of regenerative braking torque may be less than the first level or range of regenerative braking torque and less than the third level or range of regenerative braking torque.” (P[0057] and Figure 3); and
the claimed controlling operations of the vehicle based on the personalized regenerative braking map, “Once the adaptable pedal map is selected, the braking apparatus 104 applies the selected or determined adaptable pedal map to control the regenerative braking torque (310). The braking apparatus 104 applies the selected or determined adaptable pedal map to control the regenerative braking torque to apply when the vehicle 102 is coasting and/or decelerating” (P[0062] and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 2 Yokoo discloses the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), wherein the controlling of the vehicle based on the personalized regenerative braking map further comprising:
the claimed controlling a display device of the vehicle to output a message to recommend experience of a regenerative braking personalization mode, “The braking apparatus 104 may display one or more notifications and/or alerts. The one or more notifications may notify the user of the amount of regenerative braking or regenerative braking torque that is being applied. The one or more notification may include the amount of regenerative energy that is being generated and/or the amount that the brake pedal 112 is depressed. The user interface 110 may include an input/output device that receives user input, such as a user interface element, a button, a dial, a microphone, a keyboard, or a touch screen, and/or provides output, such as a display, a speaker, an audio and/or visual indicator, or a refreshable braille display. The user interface 110 may receive user input that may include configuration settings for one or more user preferences that indicate the amount of regenerative braking to be applied during deceleration or coasting of the vehicle 102.” P[0025]; and
the claimed if the driver select the experience off the regenerative braking personalization mode through an input device, then control regenerative operation of a motor with a regenerative braking torque determined by the personalized regenerative braking map, “The braking apparatus 104 may obtain user input that indicates a user preference (302). The braking apparatus 104 may use the user interface 110 to obtain the user input that indicates one or more user preferences. The one or more user preferences may indicate whether the driver, user or other operator desires to have the adaptable pedal map turned on or otherwise initialized to adapt or adjust the regenerative braking torque continuously during the trip. The one or more user preferences may indicate a level of regenerative braking torque, such as between a low level and a high level of regenerative braking torque.” (P[0050] and Figure 3), and “Each of the adaptable pedal maps of the multiple adaptable pedal maps may have a different mapping of the regenerative braking torque, engine/motor speed and brake pedal position. An adaptable pedal map is a pedal map that continuously changes or adapts to driver or vehicle behavior patterns or user preferences of the driver of the vehicle 102. For example, the amount of regenerative braking torque associated with a position of the brake pedal 112 and/or the engine/motor speed changes based on the driver or vehicle behavior patterns and/or user or vehicle preferences. This allows the adaptable pedal map to match an engine's or a motor's feel to a driver's requirements.” P[0043].
Regarding claim 11 Yokoo discloses the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), wherein the controlling of the vehicle based on the personalized regenerative braking map further comprising:
the claimed controlling regenerative operation of a motor of the vehicle with a regenerative braking torque determined by the personalized regenerative braking map in a state in which a regenerative braking personalization mode is selected by the driver, “the braking system may change or adapt the amount of regenerative braking torque based on a user preference or comfort level. The braking system may receive user input that indicates the user preference or comfort level and adjust the frequency and amount of regenerative braking that is applied during deceleration and/or coasting of the vehicle.” P[0019], “The braking system 100 monitors driver behavior patterns and/or user input and adjusts, controls or manages the electric motor or regenerative braking torque (hereinafter referred to as “regenerative braking torque”) that is applied and that corresponds to a deceleration drive force to reduce or retard the movement of the vehicle during deceleration and/or coasting of the vehicle 102.” P[0021], “The user interface 110 may receive user input that may include configuration settings for one or more user preferences that indicate the amount of regenerative braking to be applied during deceleration or coasting of the vehicle 102.” P[0025], “The braking apparatus 104 may obtain user input that indicates a user preference (302). The braking apparatus 104 may use the user interface 110 to obtain the user input that indicates one or more user preferences. The one or more user preferences may indicate whether the driver, user or other operator desires to have the adaptable pedal map turned on or otherwise initialized to adapt or adjust the regenerative braking torque continuously during the trip. The one or more user preferences may indicate a level of regenerative braking torque, such as between a low level and a high level of regenerative braking torque.” P[0050], and “the braking apparatus 104 may select a first adaptable pedal map 402 when the user input indicates that the user preference is for a high/strong amount of regenerative braking and/or when the driver behavior patterns indicate that the driver has a frequency of depressing the brake pedal 112 more than a first threshold amount that is greater than a second threshold amount. In another example, the braking apparatus 104 may select a second adaptable pedal map 504 when the user input indicates that the user preference is for a medium/normal amount of regenerative braking and/or when the driver behavior patterns indicate that the driver has a frequency of depressing the brake pedal 112 more than a second threshold amount but less than a first threshold amount. In another example, the braking apparatus 104 may select a third adaptable pedal map 506 when the user input indicates that the user preference is for a low/weak amount of regenerative braking and/or when the driver behavior patterns indicate that the driver has a frequency of depressing the brake pedal 112 that is less than a first threshold amount and a second threshold amount. FIG. 4 further describes a process for the selection among the various adaptable pedal maps.” P[0060].
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 thru 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoo Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0314810 A1 in view of Petridis et al Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0270251 A1.
Regarding claim 3 Yokoo teaches the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), wherein in determining the driver preferred deceleration, the claimed controller determines the driver preferred deceleration based on the brake pedal input value indicated by a brake pedal sensor signal input during the regenerative braking while coasting, “The braking system 100 monitors driver behavior patterns and/or user input and adjusts, controls or manages the electric motor or regenerative braking torque (hereinafter referred to as “regenerative braking torque”) that is applied and that corresponds to a deceleration drive force to reduce or retard the movement of the vehicle during deceleration and/or coasting of the vehicle 102.” P[0021], “The braking apparatus 104 detects, obtains or otherwise determines a position of a brake pedal 112 (202). The braking system 100 detects, obtains or otherwise determines the position of the brake pedal 112 using the brake pedal sensor 116b.” P[0038], and “The braking apparatus 104 may obtain one or more driver behavior patterns (306). The one or more driver behavior patterns may include the frequency, amount and/or rate that the driver depresses the brake pedal 112. As the rate of depression of the brake pedal 112 or frequency of braking increases, this may indicate that the driver is more prone or likely to brake, and thus, the braking apparatus 104 may use an adaptable pedal map with a higher range of regenerative braking force in response. And as the rate of depression of the brake pedal 112 or frequency of braking decreases, this may indicate that the driver is less prone or likely to brake, and thus, the braking apparatus 104 may use a different adaptable pedal map with a lower range of regenerative braking force in response.” P[0052].
Yokoo does not teach the claimed determination of the driver preferred deceleration when the vehicle speed is a set speed or higher. Yokoo continually determines the vehicle regenerative braking for brake pedal mapping, this would include a situation where the vehicle speed is at a set speed or higher.
Petridis et al teach, “At step 706, a second regenerative braking profile is selected or activated, wherein the second regenerative braking profile has higher regenerative braking than the first regenerating braking profile. At step 708, it is determined if the first vehicle's speed is below a second threshold speed, higher than the first threshold speed. If the answer to step 708 is yes, process 700 continues on to step 710. If the answer to step 704 is no, process 700 continues on to step 712.” (P[0073] and Figure 7), and “At step 710, a third regenerative braking profile is selected, wherein the third regenerative braking profile has lower regenerative braking than the first regenerative braking profile.” P[0074]. The vehicle speed being above or below different threshold speeds triggers different regenerative braking profiles (Petridis et al). These profiles would be integrated into the pedal mapping of Yokoo, and the thresholds of Petridis et al equate to the claimed set speed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the continuously adaptable braking pedal mapping for regenerative braking of Yokoo with the vehicle speed thresholds indicating different regenerative braking profiles of Petridis et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, extend the range of the vehicle and reduce wear on the mechanical brakes (Petridis et al P[0003]).
Regarding claim 6 Yokoo teaches the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), Yokoo teaches the claimed set regenerative braking torque in the personalized regenerative braking map is the regenerative braking torque capable of controlling a vehicle deceleration to be the driver preferred deceleration during the regenerative braking while coasting, “The braking apparatus 104 obtains or determines an adaptable pedal map to apply to determine the amount of engine braking torque (210). The braking apparatus 104 may obtain and/or determine the adaptable pedal map from among multiple adaptable pedal maps stored in the memory 108. The memory 108 may store a single adaptable pedal map, as shown in FIG. 5A or multiple adaptable pedal maps, as shown in FIG. 5B, for example. Each of the adaptable pedal maps of the multiple adaptable pedal maps may have a different mapping of the regenerative braking torque, engine/motor speed and brake pedal position. An adaptable pedal map is a pedal map that continuously changes or adapts to driver or vehicle behavior patterns or user preferences of the driver of the vehicle 102.” (P[0043] and Figure 2), “The braking apparatus 104 determines an amount of regenerative braking torque to be applied (212). The braking apparatus 104 may determine the amount of regenerative braking torque based on the engine/motor speed, the adaptable pedal map and/or the position of the brake pedal 112, which corresponds to an amount of braking force.” (P[0044] and Figure 2), and “Once the braking apparatus 104 determines the amount of regenerative braking torque to be applied, the braking apparatus 104 controls the regenerative braking torque based on the determined amount (214).” (P[0046] and Figure 2).
Yokoo does not teach the claimed personalized regenerative braking map is a map configured such that a regenerative braking torque is set to a value depending of a vehicle speed, but instead sets the braking map based on the engine motor speed (which would be used to control the vehicle speed). Petridis et al teach, “FIG. 8 illustrates regenerative braking profiles based on vehicle speed, in accordance with some examples of the present disclosure. FIG. 8 shows a plurality of regenerative braking profiles based on a vehicle speed, VS. It is possible to adapt the regenerative braking profile of a HEV/EV based on vehicle speed. By measuring the speed of the vehicle, the EV's regenerative braking system can adjust the amount of energy captured during braking.” (P[0077] and Figure 8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the continuously adaptable braking pedal mapping for regenerative braking of Yokoo with the vehicle speed used to set the regenerative braking profile of Petridis et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, extend the range of the vehicle and reduce wear on the mechanical brakes (Petridis et al P[0003]).
Regarding claim 7 Yokoo and Petridis et al teach the claimed method of claims 1 and 6 (see above). Yokoo teaches the claimed controller is provided with a plurality of regenerative braking stages set to be selectable and a preset regenerative braking map provided for each of the regenerative braking stages, “The braking apparatus 104 may store in the memory and/or have any number of adaptable pedal maps. For example, the multiple adaptable pedal maps may include a first adaptable pedal map 502, a second adaptable pedal map 504 and a third adaptable pedal map 506, as shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B. The first adaptable pedal map 502 may have a first level or range of regenerative braking torque for an engine/motor speed and/or a position of the brake pedal 112. The first level or range of regenerative braking torque may be greater than a second level or range of regenerative braking torque and greater than a third level or range of regenerative braking torque. The second adaptable pedal map 504 may have the second level or range of regenerative braking torque. The second level or range of regenerative braking torque may be less than the first level or range of regenerative braking torque and greater than the third level or range of regenerative braking torque. The third adaptable pedal map 506 may have the third level or range of regenerative braking torque. The third level or range of regenerative braking torque may be less than the first level or range of regenerative braking torque and less than the third level or range of regenerative braking torque.” P[0057], wherein
the claimed in generating the personalized regenerative braking map, the controller generates the personalized regenerative braking map based on map values of the preset regenerative braking map provided for each of the regenerative braking states and the driver preferred deceleration, “the braking apparatus 104 may select a first adaptable pedal map 402 when the user input indicates that the user preference is for a high/strong amount of regenerative braking and/or when the driver behavior patterns indicate that the driver has a frequency of depressing the brake pedal 112 more than a first threshold amount that is greater than a second threshold amount. In another example, the braking apparatus 104 may select a second adaptable pedal map 504 when the user input indicates that the user preference is for a medium/normal amount of regenerative braking and/or when the driver behavior patterns indicate that the driver has a frequency of depressing the brake pedal 112 more than a second threshold amount but less than a first threshold amount. In another example, the braking apparatus 104 may select a third adaptable pedal map 506 when the user input indicates that the user preference is for a low/weak amount of regenerative braking and/or when the driver behavior patterns indicate that the driver has a frequency of depressing the brake pedal 112 that is less than a first threshold amount and a second threshold amount.” P[0060].
Regarding claim 8 Yokoo and Petridis et al teach the claimed method of claims 1, 6 and 7 (see above). Yokoo does not teach the claimed preset regenerative braking map is a map configured such that a regenerative braking torque is set to a value depending on the vehicle speed, and the claimed regenerative braking torque is set to be capable of controlling the vehicle deceleration to be a deceleration predetermined for each of the regenerative braking stages.
Petridis et al teach,
the claimed preset regenerative braking map is a map configured such that a regenerative braking torque is set to a value depending on the vehicle speed, “At step 106, in response to the detection of the first driver attempting to maintain a steady vehicle speed, a first regenerative braking profile is selected based on the plurality of driving signals. For example, in response to the detection of the first driver attempting to maintain a steady vehicle speed, the control circuitry of the computing device may activate a first regenerative braking profile based on the plurality of driving signals.” (P[0035] and Figure 1), wherein
the claimed regenerative braking torque is set to be capable of controlling the vehicle deceleration to be a deceleration predetermined for each of the regenerative braking stages, “FIG. 8 shows a plurality of regenerative braking profiles based on a vehicle speed, VS. It is possible to adapt the regenerative braking profile of a HEV/EV based on vehicle speed. By measuring the speed of the vehicle, the EV's regenerative braking system can adjust the amount of energy captured during braking.” (P[0077] and Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the continuously adaptable braking pedal mapping for regenerative braking of Yokoo with the vehicle speed used to set regenerative braking profiles of Petridis et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, extend the range of the vehicle and reduce wear on the mechanical brakes (Petridis et al P[0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Related Art
The examiner points to Bryan et al PGPub 2017/0015202 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Bryan et al is directed to monitoring for an upcoming deceleration of an electrified vehicle, permitting an amount of regenerative braking if the upcoming deceleration is detected, and reducing the amount of regenerative braking if the upcoming deceleration is not detected (abstract), with a driver of the vehicle able to choose to activate or deactivate adaptive regenerative braking due to driving preferences (P[0065]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights