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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “to determining” on line 6. For the purpose of examination the limitation will be construed as “to determine”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 control arrangement in claims 13-15.
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 (See Fig. 5, and Pages 14-16 of the originally filed specification) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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) 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soo et al. (U.S. 2016/0144721A1) in view of Kokubo et al. (U.S. 2007/0018499A1). Soo discloses “A vehicle includes traction wheels, an electric machine configured to provide regenerative braking torque to the traction wheels, wheel brakes configured to provide friction braking torque to the traction wheels, and at least one power source configured to provide drive torque to the traction wheels. The vehicle additionally includes, a sensor configured to detect a forward object, and at least one controller. The controller is configured to control the power source, wheel brakes, and electric machine according to an adaptive cruise control (ACC) algorithm. The ACC algorithm is configured to command the electric machine to provide regenerative braking torque without application of the wheel brakes in response to a detected forward object and a maximum regeneration braking distance. The maximum regeneration braking distance is calculated based on a powertrain regenerative braking limit and a distance to the forward object.” (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 1, Soo discloses: A method (Fig. 2) for controlling operation of a vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶0016) comprising secondary brakes (Fig. 1, 18, ¶0024), the method comprising; determining, based on current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 2, 42, 44, 46; ¶0046-0047), braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2, step 50; also ¶0028-0029; ¶0035; “regenerative brake torque limit”); and controlling the vehicle to automatically actuate the secondary brakes (Fig.2, steps 50 and/or 54), in response to the vehicle reaching a brake actuation distance to a vehicle traveling ahead (¶0047; “the ACC algorithm may calculate a deceleration distance and deceleration time based on the regenerative torque limit and the distance to the forward vehicle”; see also ¶0031-0032; in response “to a detected forward vehicle”), wherein the brake actuation distance is based on the estimated braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2; step 50 and/or step 54; “based on regenerative torque limit”)
Soo does not explicitly disclose taking into consideration friction data between the road surface and a tire of the vehicle in determining the regenerative brake torque limit and therefore does not explicitly disclose obtaining friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle; determining, a brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle
Kokubo teaches obtaining friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle (Fig. 4c; ¶0037; Fig. 6 step 630); determining, a vehicle regenerative brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 6, Steps 640 and 665) in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle regenerative brake control system of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Kokubo to include obtaining friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle; determining, a brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
Regarding Claim 2, Soo further discloses wherein the brake actuation distance is long enough to ensure that a braking force required to maintain a safety distance to the vehicle travelling ahead (¶0021; “automatically controlling a vehicle including maintaining both a desired speed and a safe distance from forward vehicles in the lane of travel. A host vehicle equipped with ACC is configured to maintain at least a predefined distance from a target vehicle positioned forward of the host vehicle”), does not exceed the estimated braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2, and Fig. 4, step 50 and/or 54; ¶0029; ¶0031-0032; regenerative braking torque limit)
Regarding Claim 3, Soo further discloses wherein the safety distance corresponds to a distance where primary brakes are automatically actuated (Fig. 2, Steps 52/56/58; friction brakes automatically actuated)
Regarding Claim 4, Soo further discloses wherein required braking forces above a certain level are disregarded as a basis for the brake actuation distance (Fig. 2, braking requests above the regenerative torque limit result in automatic actuation of the friction brakes, step 58)
Regarding Claim 5, Soo further discloses wherein the certain level corresponds to a braking force applied by the vehicle during a certain preceding time period (Fig. 2, step 52/56 additional brake force request received by the host vehicle)
Regarding Claim 6, Soo does not explicitly disclose wherein the brake actuation distance is adjusted based on the friction data and/or a road inclination.
Kokubo teaches: wherein the brake actuation distance is adjusted based on the friction data and/or a road inclination (Fig. 4c and 4d; Fig. 6 steps 630 and 640) in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle regenerative brake control system of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Kokubo to include wherein the brake actuation distance is adjusted based on the friction data and/or a road inclination in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
Regarding Claim 7, Soo does not explicitly disclose wherein the brake actuation distance is longer than a configured following distance upon the determined braking force falling below a predefined value.
Kokubo teaches: wherein the brake actuation distance is longer than a configured following distance upon the determined braking force falling below a predefined value (Fig. 4c and 4d; Fig. 6 steps 630 and 640; braking distance increases in response to decreased road gradient and/or decreased road surface friction coefficient due to decrease in amount of available regenerative torque; see ¶0039-0040) in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle regenerative brake control system of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Kokubo to include wherein the brake actuation distance is longer than a configured following distance upon the determined braking force falling below a predefined value in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039)
Regarding Claim 8, Soo further discloses estimating a braking force required to maintain the safety distance ((¶0021; “automatically controlling a vehicle including maintaining both a desired speed and a safe distance from forward vehicles in the lane of travel. A host vehicle equipped with ACC is configured to maintain at least a predefined distance from a target vehicle positioned forward of the host vehicle”) to the vehicle travelling ahead based on: operating conditions of the vehicle; and one or more of physical properties, braking behavior, driving speed of the vehicle traveling ahead (¶0002, ‘relative speed difference between the vehicles; ‘slow the vehicle as necessary to maintain the selected minimum distance’) ; and determining the brake actuation distance such that the estimated braking force matches the determined braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2, step 44 distance based on regenerative braking torque limit)
Regarding Claim 9, Soo further discloses wherein the brake actuation distance depends on braking distance of the secondary brakes for the determined braking capacity (Fig. 2, step 44 distance based on regenerative braking torque limit) and the current operating condition (Steps 40/42)
Regarding Claim 10, Soo discloses wherein the current operating conditions comprises one or more of velocity, acceleration (Fig. 2, ¶0021 “automatically controlling a vehicle including maintaining both a desired speed and a safe distance from forward vehicles in the lane of travel. A host vehicle equipped with ACC is configured to maintain at least a predefined distance from a target vehicle positioned forward of the host vehicle” and ¶0002, ‘relative speed difference between the vehicles; ‘slow the vehicle as necessary to maintain the selected minimum distance’; Fig. 2 acceleration request steps 46/48)
Regarding Claim 11, A computer program product (Fig. 2; method) stored on a non-transitory computer- readable medium (¶0026 “computer readable storage devices”), said computer program product for controlling operation of a vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶0016) comprising secondary brakes (Fig. 1, 18, ¶0024), wherein said computer program product comprising computer instructions to cause a computer (¶0026; controller 24) to perform the following operations: determining, based on current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 2, 42, 44, 46; ¶0046-0047), braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2, step 50; also ¶0028-0029; ¶0035; “regenerative brake torque limit”); and controlling the vehicle to automatically actuate the secondary brakes (Fig.2, steps 50 and/or 54), in response to the vehicle reaching a brake actuation distance to a vehicle traveling ahead (¶0047; “the ACC algorithm may calculate a deceleration distance and deceleration time based on the regenerative torque limit and the distance to the forward vehicle”; see also ¶0031-0032; in response “to a detected forward vehicle”), wherein the brake actuation distance is based on the estimated braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2; step 50 and/or step 54; “based on regenerative torque limit”)
Soo does not explicitly disclose taking into consideration friction data between the road surface and a tire of the vehicle in determining the regenerative brake torque limit and therefore does not explicitly disclose obtaining friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle; determining, a brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle
Kokubo teaches obtaining friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle (Fig. 4c; ¶0037; Fig. 6 step 630); determining, a vehicle regenerative brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 6, Steps 640 and 665) in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle regenerative brake control system of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Kokubo to include obtaining friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle; determining, a brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
Regarding Claim 13, Soo discloses A control arrangement (Fig. 1) configured to operate a vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶0016) comprising secondary brakes (Fig. 1, 18, ¶0024), wherein the control arrangement is configured: to determine, based on current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 2, 42, 44, 46; ¶0046-0047), braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2, step 50; also ¶0028-0029; ¶0035; “regenerative brake torque limit”); and to control the vehicle to automatically actuate the secondary brakes (Fig.2, steps 50 and/or 54), in response to the vehicle reaching a brake actuation distance to a vehicle traveling ahead (¶0047; “the ACC algorithm may calculate a deceleration distance and deceleration time based on the regenerative torque limit and the distance to the forward vehicle”; see also ¶0031-0032; in response “to a detected forward vehicle”), wherein the brake actuation distance is based on the estimated braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2; step 50 and/or step 54; “based on regenerative torque limit”)
Soo does not explicitly disclose taking into consideration friction data between the road surface and a tire of the vehicle in determining the regenerative brake torque limit and therefore does not explicitly disclose to obtain friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle; determine, a brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle
Kokubo teaches to obtain friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle (Fig. 4c; ¶0037; Fig. 6 step 630); to determine, a vehicle regenerative brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 6, Steps 640 and 665) in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle regenerative brake control system of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Kokubo to include to obtain friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle; determine, a brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
Regarding Claim 14, Soo further discloses wherein the brake actuation distance is long enough to ensure that a braking force required to maintain a safety distance to the vehicle travelling ahead, does not exceed the estimated braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2, step 44; distance based on regenerative braking torque limit), wherein the control arrangement is further configured to estimating a braking force required to maintain the safety distance to the vehicle travelling ahead based on: operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 2, ¶0021 “automatically controlling a vehicle including maintaining both a desired speed and a safe distance from forward vehicles in the lane of travel. A host vehicle equipped with ACC is configured to maintain at least a predefined distance from a target vehicle positioned forward of the host vehicle” and ¶0002, ‘relative speed difference between the vehicles; ‘slow the vehicle as necessary to maintain the selected minimum distance’; Fig. 2 acceleration request steps 46/48) ; and one or more of: physical properties, braking behavior, driving speed and/or acceleration of the vehicle travelling ahead (Fig. 2, ¶0021 “automatically controlling a vehicle including maintaining both a desired speed and a safe distance from forward vehicles in the lane of travel. A host vehicle equipped with ACC is configured to maintain at least a predefined distance from a target vehicle positioned forward of the host vehicle” and ¶0002, ‘relative speed difference between the vehicles; relative speed and distance between vehicles, deceleration/braking event of vehicle ahead); and determining the brake actuation distance such that the estimated braking force matches the determined braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2, step 44 distance further based on regenerative braking torque limit)
Regarding Claim 15, Soo discloses vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶0016) comprising secondary brakes (Fig. 1, 18, ¶0024) and a control arrangement (Fig. 1) for operating the vehicle, wherein the control arrangement is configured: to determine, based on current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 2, 42, 44, 46; ¶0046-0047), braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2, step 50; also ¶0028-0029; ¶0035; “regenerative brake torque limit”); and to control the vehicle to automatically actuate the secondary brakes (Fig.2, steps 50 and/or 54), in response to the vehicle reaching a brake actuation distance to a vehicle traveling ahead (¶0047; “the ACC algorithm may calculate a deceleration distance and deceleration time based on the regenerative torque limit and the distance to the forward vehicle”; see also ¶0031-0032; in response “to a detected forward vehicle”), wherein the brake actuation distance is based on the estimated braking capacity of the secondary brakes (Fig. 2; step 50 and/or step 54; “based on regenerative torque limit”)
Soo does not explicitly disclose taking into consideration friction data between the road surface and a tire of the vehicle in determining the regenerative brake torque limit and therefore does not explicitly disclose to obtain friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle; determine, a brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle
Kokubo teaches to obtain friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle (Fig. 4c; ¶0037; Fig. 6 step 630); to determine, a vehicle regenerative brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle (Fig. 6, Steps 640 and 665) in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle regenerative brake control system of Soo to incorporate the teachings of Kokubo to include to obtain friction data indicative of friction between a road surface and a tire of the vehicle; determine, a brake torque limit based on the obtained friction data and based on current operating conditions of the vehicle in order that “the occurrence of locking of the driven wheels, which locking would otherwise occur at a later time because of the regenerative braking force, can be suppressed without fail, and when the road surface friction coefficient is large, the electrical energy collection efficiency can be increased” (¶0039).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuragaki et al. (U.S. 6622078) discloses “A vehicle control device smoothly and constantly stops a controlled vehicle at the same vehicle-to-vehicle distance each time a preceding vehicle stops. The vehicle control device includes a unit that detects the speed of the preceding vehicle, and a unit that detects the distance between the preceding vehicle and the controlled vehicle. “ (Abstract) and “FIG. 2 is a graph that shows the relationship between the running target vehicle-to-vehicle distance, the stoppage target vehicle-to-vehicle distance and the own vehicle speed. From the minimum value (for example, 5 m) of the running target vehicle-to-vehicle distance, the running target vehicle-to-vehicle distance is set in response to the own vehicle speed and the friction coefficient .mu..sub.HF of a road surface and a tire.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R KIRBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3665. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: M-F, 9a-5p.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
