DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28-Oct-2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 19, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappelletti (WO 2019/058204) in view of Satoh et al. (US 2020/0039484).
Regarding claim 19, Cappelletti discloses a braking system for vehicles (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-4) comprising - a first brake group (8S), a second brake group (16S) and a third brake group (16D), - each brake group comprising a rotor (24), a braking device (28) associated with said rotor (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0046), and an electro-hydraulic or electromechanical actuator (32) of each braking device (see ¶ 0048), - a first control unit (36-top left), a second control unit (36-bottom left) and a third control unit (36-bottom right) for said brake groups, - wherein the first control unit (36-top left) is operatively connected to the first brake group (8S) by a first piloting device (40-top left) for said electromechanical or electro-hydraulic actuator of the first brake group (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0049), - wherein the second control unit (36-bottom left) is operatively connected to the second brake group by a piloting device (40-bottom left) for said electromechanical or electro-hydraulic actuator of the second brake group (16S) (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0049), - wherein the first control unit is connected to and powered by a first power source (44-left), and wherein the second control unit is connected to and powered by a second power source (44-right), said first and second power sources being independent and galvanically isolated from each other (see ¶ 0052), - each control unit being programmed to implement, via the corresponding piloting system, a standard braking strategy in case of malfunctions for each brake group and a fault braking strategy, if it detects an electrical fault of one or more of the brake groups (see ¶ 0054), wherein the first control unit is directly connected to only one piloting device (40-top left) consisting of the first piloting device (see FIG. 1); wherein the first piloting device is not directly connected to either the second piloting device or the third piloting device (see FIG. 1).
Cappelletti does not disclose that the second control unit is operatively connected to the third brake group by a third piloting device for the electromechanical or electro-hydraulic actuator of the third brake. Rather, Cappelletti discloses a second control unit (36-bottom left) operatively connected to the second brake group and a third control unit (36-bottom right) operatively connected to the third brake group.
Satoh teaches a braking system for vehicles comprising a first brake group (Wa), a second brake group (Wc) and a third brake group (Wd), a first (40) and a second (42) control unit for said brake groups (see FIG. 1), wherein the first control unit (40) is operatively connected to the first brake group by a first piloting device (60) for an electromechanical or electro-hydraulic actuator (80) of the first brake group and the second control unit (42) is operatively connected to the second brake group (Wc) by a second piloting device (64) for an electromechanical or electrohydraulic actuator (84) and the second control unit (42) is operatively connected to the third brake group (Wd) by a second piloting device (65) for an electromechanical or electrohydraulic actuator (85) (see FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to configure the braking system of Cappelletti so that the second control unit is connected to the second and third actuators via second and third piloting devices (thereby eliminating the third control unit (36-bottom right) of Cappelletti), to reduce the number and type of control units required thereby reducing the cost of the brake system (see e.g. Satoh, ¶ 0064).
Regarding claim 24, Cappelletti discloses that the system comprises a first and a second manual actuation device (56) for a request for a braking action by a user (see ¶ 0085), wherein both the manual actuation devices are provided with two actuation sensors (see ¶¶ 0085, 0086), a first actuation sensor being connected to the first control unit and a second actuation sensor being connected to the second control unit (see ¶¶ 0085, 0086, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 25, Cappelletti discloses that each control unit is connected to said first and second power sources so that it can be alternately powered by each of said power sources in the event of a fault of one of them (see ¶ 0051).
Regarding claim 27, Cappelletti discloses that each piloting device is programmed to switch from a first switch position (see ¶ 0058), corresponding to the standard braking strategy, to a second switch position corresponding to the fault-braking strategy (see ¶ 0058).
Regarding claim 29, Cappelletti discloses that each electromechanical or electro-hydraulic actuator is equipped with an operating sensor suitable to monitor the operating condition of the relative electromechanical or electro-hydraulic actuator and/or of the relative braking device and to send the corresponding control unit an indication of standard or fault operation (see ¶ 0063).
Regarding claim 30, Cappelletti discloses that the control units are programmed so that in case of fault of one of the first brake group the second brake group or the third brake group, the actuation of the remaining brake groups is ensured and coordinated (see ¶ 0064).
Regarding claim 32, Cappelletti discloses that the control units are programmed so that in the event of a fault of a brake group, the actuation of the remaining brake groups is ensured and coordinated (see ¶ 0071), wherein the braking system is operatively connected to an electricity generating device operatively connected to the brake groups so as to obtain an additional braking action of the vehicle (see ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 33, Cappelletti discloses that each electromechanical or electro-hydraulic actuator is equipped with two operating sensors (see ¶ 0079), each suitable to monitor the operating condition of the relative electromechanical or electro-hydraulic actuator and/or of the relative braking device and to send an indication of standard or fault operation to both the control units (see ¶ 0079).
Regarding claim 34, Cappelletti discloses that the system is managed by a control unit of the vehicle which manages vehicle dynamics and is able to perform guidance and an independent braking action of the same (see ¶ 0087).
Regarding claim 36, Cappelletti discloses that each of said first, second and third brake groups is associated with a respective and distinct wheel of a vehicle (see ¶ 0045).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
November 10, 2025