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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 07/01/2025 and 12/19/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Sweden Patent Application No SE2450749-3, filed on July 02, 2024.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated in view of Minarcin et al (US 2009/0118888 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Minarcin discloses a computer system for coordinating braking between a service brake system and one or more auxiliary braking systems of a vehicle, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: (see Minarcin paras “0020-0025” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93” and “The HCP 5 provides supervisory control of the hybrid powertrain”),
receive a braking force value based on the position of a brake pedal of the vehicle (see Minarcin paras “0020-0025” “The BrCM 22 monitors the operator input to the brake pedal 112 and generates control signals to control the friction brakes and sends a control signal to the HCP 5 to operate the first and second electric machines 56 and 72 based thereon”),
the braking force value comprising a braking force currently applied by the service brake system or a requested braking force for the service brake system (see Minarcin paras “0020-0025” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93. The BrCM 22 monitors the operator input to the brake pedal 112 and generates control signals to control the friction brakes and sends a control signal to the HCP 5 to operate the first and second electric machines 56 and 72 based thereon”),
acquire a braking capability of the one or more auxiliary braking systems (see Minarcin paras “0020-0025” and “0031” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93”, “The HCP 5 provides supervisory control of the hybrid powertrain” and “The BrCM 22 generates a regenerative braking request (‘Regen Request’) based upon a total braking torque request and a regenerative braking capacity (‘Regen Capacity’)”),
determine a respective braking control input (see Minarcin para “0031” “A driver intended total brake torque is determined by the BrCM 22 (‘Driver Intended Total Brake Torque’) utilizing operator inputs to the brake pedal 112 (‘Inputs to Brake Pedal’). The driver intended total brake torque preferably comprises the immediate brake output torque. The BrCM 22 monitors the vehicle speed (‘Vehicle Speed’) based on the wheel speed determined using sensor 94. The BrCM 22 generates a regenerative braking request (‘Regen Request’) based upon a total braking torque request and a regenerative braking capacity (‘Regen Capacity’)”), for each of the service brake system and the one or more auxiliary braking systems based on the acquired braking capability (see Minarcin para “0031” “The BrCM 22 generates a friction brake control signal (‘Friction Braking Control’) to control the actuable friction brake in each of the wheels 93. The BrCM 22 acts as a master arbitrator for controlling the friction brakes and the transmission 10 to meet the driver intended total brake torque”), and the received braking force value, such that a resultant braking force applied by the service brake system based on the respective determined braking control input is less than or equal to the received braking force value (see Minarcin paras “0024”, “0031-0033” and “0074-0075” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93. The BrCM 22 monitors the operator input to the brake pedal 112 and generates control signals to control the friction brakes and sends a control signal to the HCP 5 to operate the first and second electric machines 56 and 72 based thereon.” and “Areas labeled as ‘overshoot’ indicate where the regenerative braking request exceeds the regenerative braking capacity, with actual braking (not shown) less than the total brake torque (‘Driver Intended Total Brake Torque’). During an ‘overshoot’ condition, more regenerative energy is requested than is available. Areas labeled as ‘undershoot’ indicate where the regenerative braking request is less than the regenerative braking capacity, with actual braking (not shown) meeting the total brake torque (‘Driver Intended Total Brake Torque’). During an ‘undershoot’ condition, less regenerative energy is captured than is available.”),
and transmit the respective control inputs to each of the service brake system and the one or more auxiliary braking systems (see Minarcin at least paras “0024”, “0031-0033” and “0074-0075”).
Regarding claim 2, Minarcin discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive the braking force value from a controller of the service brake system (see Minarcin paras “0024”, “0031” and “0035” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93. The BrCM 22 monitors the operator input to the brake pedal 112 and generates control signals to control the friction brakes and sends a control signal to the HCP 5 to operate the first and second electric machines 56 and 72 based thereon”).
Regarding claim 3, Minarcin discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire each braking capability from a controller of each of the one or more auxiliary braking systems (see Minarcin paras “0024” and “0031-0035” “the HCP 5 executes a motor torque determination function to estimate the presently applied regenerative braking torque transmitted between the driveline 90 and the output member 64 of the transmission 10, and communicates the regenerative braking capacity and the presently applied regenerative braking torque”).
Regarding claim 4, Minarcin discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the respective braking control inputs such that a total resultant braking force applied by the service brake system and the one or more auxiliary braking systems based on the determined braking control inputs is equal to the received braking force value (see Minarcin paras “0024”, “0031-0035” and “0074-0075” “The BrCM 22 monitors the vehicle speed (‘Vehicle Speed’) based on the wheel speed determined using sensor 94. The BrCM 22 generates a regenerative braking request (‘Regen Request’) based upon a total braking torque request and a regenerative braking capacity (‘Regen Capacity’). The BrCM 22 generates a friction brake control signal (‘Friction Braking Control’) to control the actuable friction brake in each of the wheels 93. The BrCM 22 acts as a master arbitrator for controlling the friction brakes and the transmission 10 to meet the driver intended total brake torque”).
Regarding claim 5, Minarcin discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the respective braking control inputs such that a total resultant braking force applied by the service brake system and the one or more auxiliary braking systems based on the determined braking control inputs is less or more than the received braking force value (see Minarcin paras “0024”, “0031-0035” and “0074-0075” “Areas labeled as ‘overshoot’ indicate where the regenerative braking request exceeds the regenerative braking capacity, with actual braking (not shown) less than the total brake torque (‘Driver Intended Total Brake Torque’). During an ‘overshoot’ condition, more regenerative energy is requested than is available. Areas labeled as ‘undershoot’ indicate where the regenerative braking request is less than the regenerative braking capacity, with actual braking (not shown) meeting the total brake torque (‘Driver Intended Total Brake Torque’). During an ‘undershoot’ condition, less regenerative energy is captured than is available” and “The regenerative braking request (‘Regen Request-Modified’) does not exceed the regenerative capacity, and undershoot is minimized. The BrCM 22 continually executes the maximum regenerative braking output torque determination function to determine the regenerative braking request to maximize regenerative braking and associated energy recovery, without overshooting with minimal undershooting.”).
Regarding claim 12, Minarcin discloses a vehicle comprising the computer system (see Minarcin at least para “0025”).
Regarding claim 13, Minarcin discloses a computer-implemented method for coordinating braking between a service brake system and one or more auxiliary braking systems of a vehicle, the method comprising: (see Minarcin paras “0020-0025” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93” and “The HCP 5 provides supervisory control of the hybrid powertrain”),
receiving, by processing circuitry of a computer system, a braking force value based on the position of a brake pedal of the vehicle (see Minarcin paras “0020-0025” “The BrCM 22 monitors the operator input to the brake pedal 112 and generates control signals to control the friction brakes and sends a control signal to the HCP 5 to operate the first and second electric machines 56 and 72 based thereon”),
the braking force value comprising a braking force currently applied by the service brake system or a requested braking force for the service brake system (see Minarcin paras “0020-0025” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93. The BrCM 22 monitors the operator input to the brake pedal 112 and generates control signals to control the friction brakes and sends a control signal to the HCP 5 to operate the first and second electric machines 56 and 72 based thereon”),
acquiring, by the processing circuitry, a braking capability of the one or more auxiliary braking systems (see Minarcin paras “0020-0025” and “0031” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93”, “The HCP 5 provides supervisory control of the hybrid powertrain” and “The BrCM 22 generates a regenerative braking request (‘Regen Request’) based upon a total braking torque request and a regenerative braking capacity (‘Regen Capacity’)”),
determining, by the processing circuitry, a respective braking control input (see Minarcin para “0031” “A driver intended total brake torque is determined by the BrCM 22 (‘Driver Intended Total Brake Torque’) utilizing operator inputs to the brake pedal 112 (‘Inputs to Brake Pedal’). The driver intended total brake torque preferably comprises the immediate brake output torque. The BrCM 22 monitors the vehicle speed (‘Vehicle Speed’) based on the wheel speed determined using sensor 94. The BrCM 22 generates a regenerative braking request (‘Regen Request’) based upon a total braking torque request and a regenerative braking capacity (‘Regen Capacity’)”), for each of the service brake system and the one or more auxiliary braking systems based on the acquired braking capability (see Minarcin para “0031” “The BrCM 22 generates a friction brake control signal (‘Friction Braking Control’) to control the actuable friction brake in each of the wheels 93. The BrCM 22 acts as a master arbitrator for controlling the friction brakes and the transmission 10 to meet the driver intended total brake torque”), and the received braking force value, such that a resultant braking force applied by the service brake system based on the respective determined control input is less than or equal to the received braking force value (see Minarcin paras “0024”, “0031-0033” and “0074-0075” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93. The BrCM 22 monitors the operator input to the brake pedal 112 and generates control signals to control the friction brakes and sends a control signal to the HCP 5 to operate the first and second electric machines 56 and 72 based thereon.” and “Areas labeled as ‘overshoot’ indicate where the regenerative braking request exceeds the regenerative braking capacity, with actual braking (not shown) less than the total brake torque (‘Driver Intended Total Brake Torque’). During an ‘overshoot’ condition, more regenerative energy is requested than is available. Areas labeled as ‘undershoot’ indicate where the regenerative braking request is less than the regenerative braking capacity, with actual braking (not shown) meeting the total brake torque (‘Driver Intended Total Brake Torque’). During an ‘undershoot’ condition, less regenerative energy is captured than is available.”),
and transmitting, by the processing circuitry, the respective control inputs to each of the service brake system and the one or more auxiliary braking systems (see Minarcin at least paras “0024”, “0031-0033” and “0074-0075”).
Regarding claim 14, Minarcin discloses the method comprising receiving, by the processing circuitry, the braking force value from a controller of the service brake system (see Minarcin paras “0024”, “0031” and “0035” “A brake control module (hereafter ‘BrCM’) 22 is operatively connected to friction brakes (not shown) on each of the vehicle wheels 93. The BrCM 22 monitors the operator input to the brake pedal 112 and generates control signals to control the friction brakes and sends a control signal to the HCP 5 to operate the first and second electric machines 56 and 72 based thereon”).
Regarding claim 15, Minarcin discloses the method comprising acquiring, by the processing circuitry, each braking capability from a controller of each of the one or more auxiliary braking systems (see Minarcin paras “0024” and “0031-0035” “the HCP 5 executes a motor torque determination function to estimate the presently applied regenerative braking torque transmitted between the driveline 90 and the output member 64 of the transmission 10, and communicates the regenerative braking capacity and the presently applied regenerative braking torque”).
Regarding claim 19, Minarcin discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the computer-implemented method (see Minarcin at least para “0025”).
Regarding claim 20, Minarcin discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method (see Minarcin at least para “0025”).
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 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.
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 6-7, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Minarcin et al (US 2009/0118888 A1) in view of Volkmar et al (US 2020/0108722 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the respective braking control inputs based on acquired input from a system for automated or assisted driving.
However, Volkmar teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the respective braking control inputs based on acquired input from a system for automated or assisted driving (see Volkmar paras “0004”, “0015” and “0056-0058” “the target braking torque is specified by the driver by means of a brake pedal position or directly by a driving assistance function which is configured, for example, for the autonomous driving of the motor vehicle” and “The motor vehicle 2 is designed to be controlled by means of a special procedure as shown in FIG. 2. For this purpose, the motor vehicle 2 comprises a control device 12. In the design of FIG. 1, the vehicle 2 in addition comprises a (automatic drive) driving assistance function 14 which is a part of the control device 12 in the embodiment example shown”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to determine the braking control inputs based on input from an automated or assisted driving system” as taught by Volkmar (paras. [0015]- [0056-0058]) in order to improve automated vehicle braking control.
Regarding claim 7, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the respective braking control inputs based on acquired parameters relating to vehicle stability, brake conditions and/or predicted brake actuator response.
However, Volkmar teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the respective braking control inputs based on acquired parameters relating to vehicle stability, brake conditions and/or predicted brake actuator response (see Volkmar paras “0024”, “0027”, “0039”, “0044-0046” and “0068” “an expected braking profile, i.e., an expected temporal course of the braking torque is determined (predicted)”, “an expected braking duration is determined” and “a maximum achievable dynamics of the braking torque M and a maximum achievable braking torque M are used, which can be achieved with use of the regenerative brake 4. In this manner, design- and/or operation-related limitations of the regenerative brake 4 with respect to the dynamics and the maximum amount of the braking torque M are taken into consideration”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to determine the braking control inputs based on input from an automated or assisted driving system” as taught by Volkmar (paras. [0027]- [0044-0046]) in order to improve automated vehicle braking control.
Regarding claim 11, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more auxiliary braking systems comprises a regenerative braking system, an engine brake system, and/or a retarder brake system.
However, Volkmar teaches wherein the one or more auxiliary braking systems comprises a regenerative braking system, an engine brake system, and/or a retarder brake system (see Volkmar paras “0010”, “0047”, “0050” and “0055-0060” “As energy source for the electric machine 4, the motor vehicle 2 comprises a battery 8 which is charged in the generator operation of the electric machine 4. In summary, the electric machine 4 in the generator operation is a regenerative (recuperative) brake.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to determine the braking control inputs based on input from an automated or assisted driving system” as taught by Volkmar (paras. [0047]- [0055-0060]) in order to improve automated vehicle braking control.
Regarding claim 18, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more auxiliary braking systems comprises a regenerative braking system, an engine brake system, and/or a retarder brake system.
However, Volkmar teaches wherein the one or more auxiliary braking systems comprises a regenerative braking system, an engine brake system, and/or a retarder brake system (see Volkmar paras “0010”, “0047”, “0050” and “0055-0060” “As energy source for the electric machine 4, the motor vehicle 2 comprises a battery 8 which is charged in the generator operation of the electric machine 4. In summary, the electric machine 4 in the generator operation is a regenerative (recuperative) brake.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to determine the braking control inputs based on input from an automated or assisted driving system” as taught by Volkmar (paras. [0047]- [0055-0060]) in order to improve automated vehicle braking control.
Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Minarcin et al (US 2009/0118888 A1) in view of Xavier et al (WO2009103914A2).
Regarding claim 8, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the respective braking control inputs based on a minimum braking force requirement for the service brake system.
However, Xavier teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the respective braking control inputs based on a minimum braking force requirement for the service brake system (see Xavier paras “0013-0017” and “0033” “determining a range of regenerative braking distribution values between the front and rear axles may include a means for determining the minimum and maximum braking force”, “A minimum and maximum value of the forces applicable to the rear axle can be determined based on information received from the sensors” and “The means 29 for determining the minimum and maximum braking force applicable to the rear axle determines the maximum braking forces and minimum applicable on the rear axle”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to determine braking control inputs based on minimum braking force” as taught by Xavier (paras. [0015]- [0033]) in order to improve vehicle safety and reduce braking response time.
Regarding claim 9, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement the minimum braking force requirement for the service brake system by applying a limit to the braking capability of the one or more auxiliary braking systems.
However, Xavier teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to implement the minimum braking force requirement for the service brake system by applying a limit to the braking capability of the one or more auxiliary braking systems (see Xavier paras “0013”, “0026-0027” and “0039” “The limiting means 57, suitable for limiting the braking force applied to the rear axle”, “a means for determining the minimum and maximum braking force applicable to the rear axle connected in input to the sensors 7 by connections 27 and 28, connection 28 being a branch of connection 7b. The outputs of the means for determining the minimum and maximum braking force applicable on the rear axle are connected to a subtractor 35 by a connection 31 and to a subtractor 34 by a connection 30. A branch 68 of the connection 30 is connected to a computing means 78. A branch 58 of the branch 68 is connected to the limiting means 57” and “The limiting means 57 suitable for limiting the braking force applied to the rear axle outputs the setpoint value of the braking force”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to determine braking control inputs based on minimum braking force” as taught by Xavier (paras. [0026-0027]- [0039]) in order to improve vehicle safety and reduce braking response time.
Regarding claim 16, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach determining, by the processing circuitry, the respective braking control inputs based on a minimum braking force requirement for the service brake system.
However, Xavier teaches determining, by the processing circuitry, the respective braking control inputs based on a minimum braking force requirement for the service brake system (see Xavier paras “0013-0017” and “0033” “determining a range of regenerative braking distribution values between the front and rear axles may include a means for determining the minimum and maximum braking force”, “A minimum and maximum value of the forces applicable to the rear axle can be determined based on information received from the sensors” and “The means 29 for determining the minimum and maximum braking force applicable to the rear axle determines the maximum braking forces and minimum applicable on the rear axle”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to determine braking control inputs based on minimum braking force” as taught by Xavier (paras. [0015]- [0033]) in order to improve vehicle safety and reduce braking response time.
Regarding claim 17, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach implementing, by the processing circuitry, the minimum braking force requirement for the service brake system by applying a limit to the braking capability of the one or more auxiliary braking systems.
However, Xavier teaches implementing, by the processing circuitry, the minimum braking force requirement for the service brake system by applying a limit to the braking capability of the one or more auxiliary braking systems (see Xavier paras “0013”, “0026-0027” and “0039” “The limiting means 57, suitable for limiting the braking force applied to the rear axle”, “a means for determining the minimum and maximum braking force applicable to the rear axle connected in input to the sensors 7 by connections 27 and 28, connection 28 being a branch of connection 7b. The outputs of the means for determining the minimum and maximum braking force applicable on the rear axle are connected to a subtractor 35 by a connection 31 and to a subtractor 34 by a connection 30. A branch 68 of the connection 30 is connected to a computing means 78. A branch 58 of the branch 68 is connected to the limiting means 57” and “The limiting means 57 suitable for limiting the braking force applied to the rear axle outputs the setpoint value of the braking force”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to determine braking control inputs based on minimum braking force” as taught by Xavier (paras. [0026-0027]- [0039]) in order to improve vehicle safety and reduce braking response time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Minarcin et al (US 2009/0118888 A1) in view of Naito et al (US 2012/0074768 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Minarcin fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive the braking capability as a negative value and determine the braking control inputs by adding the negative value to the received braking force value; and/or receive the braking capability as a positive value and determine the braking control inputs by subtracting the positive value from the received braking force value.
However, Naito teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive the braking capability as a negative value and determine the braking control inputs by adding the negative value to the received braking force value; and/or receive the braking capability as a positive value and determine the braking control inputs by subtracting the positive value from the received braking force value (see Naito para “0049” “The maximum value of the upper limit re-generable brake force FXU is the value of regenerative brake capacity CA, since the upper limit re-generable brake force. FXU theoretically never exceeds the regenerative brake capacity CA, even the calculation result should indicate such exceeded value. On the other hand, the lower limit re-generable brake force FXL is obtained by adding the lower re-generable slope SLL (negative value) to the regeneration request brake force FR”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Minarcin for a method for controlling regenerative braking in a vehicle “to a brake control system which is adapted to cooperatively control the hydraulic brake force generated by the hydraulic brake device and the regenerative brake force generated by the regenerative brake device” as taught by Naito (paras. [0049]) in order to provide a vehicle brake system which can exhibit high regeneration efficiency as well as improve brake operation feeling of an operator of the vehicle by controlling brakes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights