DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. US 20180056960 A1 in view of Thiel DE 102021122501 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Krueger et al. discloses [a braking system for a vehicle having at least four brakable wheels 112, 114] (Fig. 1 & 2A; Paragraph 0027) comprising
[at least four brake actuator units 120a – 120d, each of which can be associated with one of the wheels of the vehicle,] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0027)
[a first electronic control unit 200a,] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0030)
[a second electronic control unit 200b,] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0030)
[wherein each brake actuator unit has its own signal line via which a corresponding brake actuator unit is connected in terms of signaling to the first control unit and the second control unit, so that each of the brake actuator units can be actuated both by the operation of the first control unit and the second control unit.] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0041; Krueger discloses that the EBS controllers 200a, 200b communicates and signals to each of the brake assemblies which individually include a brake actuator unit.)
Krueger et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the brake actuator units have dual signal paths to each brake actuator unit.
Thiel teaches wherein [the brake actuator units has two independent, dedicated signal lines via which the brake actuator unit has dual signal paths such that each brake actuator can be actuated by an operation of the first control unit and the second control unit.] (Annotation of Fig. 7; As shown in Fig. 7, Thiel illustrates brake actuator units 442a, 442b having two independent and dedicated signal paths that are linked to a first control unit 410 and a trailer control unit 250.)
PNG
media_image1.png
671
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Thiel
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the dual signal path configuration of Thiel with the braking system of Krueger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for redundant signaling and increased reliability of the braking system, thus ensuring continued brake functionality even in the event of a failure of one control path.
Regarding claim 2, Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [a first power supply unit 204a and a second power supply unit 204b, the power supply units being independent of one another.] (Fig. 2C; A shown in Fig. 2C, Krueger illustrates the power supply units 204a, 204b, being independent from each other.)
Regarding claim 3, Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a first subset of the brake actuator units is coupled to the first power supply unit for the supply of power and a second subset of the brake actuator units is coupled to the second power supply unit for the supply of power.] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0039 & 0040; Krueger discloses a fault-tolerant BBW system with an isolator module 206 and two power sources 204a, 204b. The isolator module ensures that if a power source fails, the remaining power source can continue providing power the brake actuators. This creates two independent power paths, where some brake actuators are powered by one sources and others by the second.)
Regarding claim 4, Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein each of the brake actuator units can optionally be coupled to the first power supply unit and to the second power supply unit for the supply of power.] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0039 & 0040; Krueger discloses a fault-tolerant BBW system with an isolator module 206 and two power sources 204a, 204b. The isolator module detects power source failures and automatically disconnects a failed power source while maintaining power to the brake actuators using the remaining source, which ensures that the brake actuators are not tied to a single power source and can dynamically switch when needed.
Regarding claim 5, Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the first control unit and/or the second control unit can optionally be coupled to the first power supply unit and to the second power supply unit for the supply of power.] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0039 & 0040; Krueger discloses a fault tolerant BBW system where the isolator module manages power distribution and fault handling. Specifically, if a power source fails, the isolator module automatically disconnects the failed source while keeping the system operational while using the remaining power sources. This applies not only to the brake actuators (as in claim 4) but also to the first and second control units.)
Regarding claim 7, Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein each of the brake actuator units 120a-120d comprises an electromechanical brake actuator.] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0029)
Regarding claim 8, Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a brake actuation unit 116 is provided which is coupled in terms of signaling to both the first control unit 200a and the second 200b control unit, with the brake actuation unit comprising a brake pedal 124. (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0020)
Regarding claim 10, Krueger et al. Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the first control unit 200a and the second control unit 200b are arranged adjacent to or at a distance from one another.] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0030; As shown in Fig. 2C, Krueger illustrates the first controller being arranged at a distance from the second controller.)
Regarding claim 15, Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein at least one driving state sensor 122a-122d is coupled in terms of signaling both to the first control unit and to the second control unit.] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0022 & 0030; Krueger discloses that the first and second controllers receive data signals delivered by one or more vehicle sensors. These vehicles sensors provide various types of vehicle data including speed, acceleration, deceleration, vehicle angle with respect to the ground, and wheel slippage.
Regarding claim 16, Krueger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the first subset and the second subset are free of intersections.] (Fig. 2C; As shown in Fig. 2C, Krueger illustrates the brake system in which the brake actuators are divided into two subsets, with the two left brake actuators 120a, 120d being controlled by a first control unit 200a and the two right brake actuators 120b, 120c being controller by a second control unit 200b. Because each brake actuator is exclusively assigned to either the first or second control unit, the subsets do not overlap.)
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. in view of Thiel and further in view of Holzwarth US 20100243388 A1.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Krueger et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein:
the first control unit is coupled to a first power supply switch for the supply of power, the first power supply switch connecting the first control unit to the first power supply unit in a first switching position and connecting the first control unit to the second power supply unit in a second switching position and/or
the second control unit is coupled to a second power supply switch for the supply of power, the second power supply switch connecting the second control unit to the first power supply unit in a first switching position and connecting the second control unit to the second power supply unit in a second switching position and
each of the brake actuator units is coupled to a first power supply switch or a second power supply switch for the supply of power, the first power switch connecting the relevant brake actuator unit to the first power supply unit in a first switching position and connecting the relevant brake actuator unit to the second power supply unit in a second switching position, and the second power supply switch connecting the relevant brake actuator unit to the first power supply unit in a first switching position and connecting the relevant brake actuator unit to the second power supply unit in a second switching position.
Holzwarth teaches wherein:
[the first control unit is coupled to a first power supply switch SM12 for the supply of power, the first power supply switch connecting the first control unit to the first power supply unit in a first switching position and connecting the first control unit to the second power supply unit in a second switching position] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0048; Holzwarth discloses a first control device SG1 connected to a power supply switch SM12, which allows it to switch from a first power source HVE and a second power source NEV1.) and/or
[the second control unit is coupled to a second power supply switch SM22 for the supply of power, the second power supply switch connecting the second control unit to the first power supply unit in a first switching position and connecting the second control unit to the second power supply unit in a second switching position] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0050; Holzwarth discloses a second control device SG2 connected to a power supply switch SM22, which allows it to switch from a first power source HVE and a second power source NEV2.) and
[each of the brake actuator units is coupled to a first power supply switch or a second power supply switch for the supply of power,] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0055) [the first power switch connecting the relevant brake actuator unit to the first power supply unit in a first switching position and connecting the relevant brake actuator unit to the second power supply unit in a second switching position,] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0047; Holzwarth discloses a first brake actuator BAE1 connected to a power supply switch SM11, which allows it to switch from a first power source HVE and a second power source NEV1.) and [the second power supply switch connecting the relevant brake actuator unit to the first power supply unit in a first switching position and connecting the relevant brake actuator unit to the second power supply unit in a second switching position.] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0049; Holzwarth discloses a second brake actuator BAE2 connected to a power supply switch SM21, which allows it to switch from a first power source HVE and a second power source NEV2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the power supply switching mechanism of Holzwarth with the brake system of Krueger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for fault tolerance and redundancy in the braking system, ensuring continued operation in the event of a power source failure, thus aligning with the general goal of improving fault tolerance in vehicle braking systems. (Paragraph 0010 of Holzwarth)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. in view of Thiel and further in view of Hwang US 20200409360 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Krueger et al. does not disclose wherein the first control unit and the second control unit are coupled to the signal lines of the brake actuator units via at least one gateway.
Hwang teaches [wherein the first control unit and the second control unit are coupled to the signal lines of the brake actuator units via at least one gateway 60.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0046; Hwang discloses a first gateway 60 that transmits deceleration commands from the first and second controllers 30, 40 to the first and second brake modules 10, 20, which correspond to the brake actuator units 14, 24. The brake modules communicate with the controller through a first communication network through the gateway, ensuring indirect signaling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the gateway system of Hwang with the brake system of Krueger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for efficient and structured communication between the control units and brake actuator units, enabling reliable transmission of the braking commands and system status, thus aligning with the general goal of improving communication reliability in electronic braking systems.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. in view of Thiel and further in view of Fuchs et al. WO 2018073038 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 11, Krueger et al. does not disclose wherein at least one of the signal lines is a bus line.
Fuchs et al. teaches [wherein at least one of the signal lines is a bus line BUS-1, BUS-2.] (Fig. 1; Page 6, lines 24-26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the bus-based communication system of Fuchs et al. with the brake system of Krueger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for efficient data transmission between control units and brake actuators, reducing wiring complexity and improving system reliability, thus enhancing communication efficiency in electronic brake systems.
Claims 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. in view of Thiel and further in view of Pischinger DE 102019121297 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Krueger et al. does not disclose wherein the first control unit and/or the second control unit can be or is coupled in terms of signaling to a steering actuator unit, so that the steering actuator unit can be actuated by the first control unit and/or by the second control unit.
Pischinger teaches [wherein the first control unit and/or the second control unit can be or is coupled in terms of signaling to a steering actuator unit 6, 14, so that the steering actuator unit can be actuated by the first control unit and/or by the second control unit;] (Fig. 2; Page 5, lines 29-33; Pischinger discloses a first control unit 10 in communication with a steering actuator 6 and a second control unit 16 in communication with another steering actuator 14, which allows the control unit to control the steering function.) [wherein the steering actuator unit 6, 14 is a steering drive unit that can be associated with a front axle;] (Fig. 2 of Pischinger et al.; As shown in Fig. 2, Pischinger illustrates the steering drive unit being associated with an axle, thus implying that steering actuator unit could be associated with a front axle.) [wherein a steering actuation unit 28 is coupled in terms of signaling both to the first control unit and the second control unit.] (Fig. 2; A shown in Fig. 2, Pischinger illustrates the steering actuation unit 28 being in communication with the first control unit 10 and the second control unit 16.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the steering control configuration of Pischinger with the brake system of Krueger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for coordinated control of both braking and steering functions, enhancing vehicle stability, safety, and redundancy in case of control unit failure, thus improving overall vehicle control and fault tolerance.
Regarding claim 13, Krueger et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the steering actuator unit recited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 14, Krueger et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the steering actuator unit signaling recited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 20, Krueger et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [wherein at least one driving state sensor is coupled in terms of signaling both to the first control unit and to the second control unit.] (Fig. 2C of Krueger; Paragraph 0022 & 0030 of Krueger; Krueger discloses that the first and second controllers receive data signals delivered by one or more vehicle sensors. These vehicles sensors provide various types of vehicle data including speed, acceleration, deceleration, vehicle angle with respect to the ground, and wheel slippage.
Claim 18 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. in view of Thiel and Pischinger and further in view of Ehrmann et al. DE 102019219393 A1 (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the present Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Krueger et al., as modified, further teaches [wherein the steering actuator unit is a steering drive unit that can be associated with a steering wheel.] (Fig. 2 of Pischinger; As shown in Fig. 2, Pischinger illustrates the steering actuation unit 28 being in communication with the first control unit 10 and the second control unit 16.) [wherein a steering actuation unit is coupled in terms of signaling both to the first control unit and the second control unit, wherein the steering actuation unit comprises a steering wheel.] (Fig. 2 of Pischinger; Page 6, lines 25-27 of Pischinger; As shown in Fig. 2, Pischinger illustrates the steering actuation unit 28 communication with the first and second control units 10, 16. Additionally, Pischinger discloses that the steering actuation unit comprises of a steering wheel.)
Krueger et al., as modified does not disclose wherein a feedback unit that can be associated with a steering wheel.
Ehrmann et al. teaches [wherein a feedback unit 38a that can be associated with a steering wheel 36a.] (Fig. 1b; Page 6, lines 3-5; Ehrmann discloses a feedback actuator 38a that is intended to receive signals from the steering actuation unit (steering wheel).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the feedback unit of Ehrmann et al. with the brake system of Krueger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved steering control by providing feedback to the driver, thus enhancing stability, responsiveness, and overall vehicle safety.
Regarding claim 19, as modified, Krueger et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the steering actuator unit coupling recited in the rejection of claim 12 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments (Pages 6-20 on Remarks) filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 6-7 on Remarks) that Krueger fails to disclose “each brake actuator unit has two independent, dedicated signal lines via which the brake actuator unit is connected in terms of signaling to the first control unit and the second control unit,” contending that Krueger’s redundancy is provided at the controller-to-power-circuit level rather than at the individual brake actuator unit level. Examiner respectfully agrees that Krueger does not explicitly disclose the claimed arrangement. However, Thiel is relied upon for this limitation. As shown in the annotation of Fig. 7 of Thiel above, Thiel illustrates the claimed signaling connections between the control units and respective brake actuator units. Thus, the combination of Krueger and Thiel teaches the claimed signaling arrangement.
Applicant further argues (Page 7-8 on Remarks) that Thiel does not disclose two independent, dedicated signal lines for each brake actuator unit, contending that the connections shown in Fig. 7 correspond to system-level components, pneumatic pressure lines, or connection to other system components rather than dedicated signal lines associated with each brake actuator unit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the annotation of Fig. 7 of Thiel above, Thiel illustrates sperate signaling paths associated with the brake actuator units, providing respective communication paths between the control units and the brake actuator units. The fact that Thiel additionally includes pneumatic components and other system-level connections does not negate the disclosed signaling paths. Accordingly, Thiel teaches the claimed independent signal connections at the brake actuator-unit level.
Applicant also argues (Page 8 on Remarks) that Thiel’s redundancy is fundamentally different from the redundancy recited in claim 1 because Thiel allegedly relies on pneumatic fallback and pressure modulation rather than redundant electronic signaling. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on Thiel’s pneumatic redundancy as satisfying the claimed signal lines. Rather, Thiel is relied upon for the disclosed signaling connections shown in Fig. 7. Accordingly, the presence of additional pneumatic redundancy in Thiel does not preclude Thiel from teaching the claimed electronic signaling arrangement.
Applicant argues (Page 6-9 on Remarks) that there is insufficient motivation to modify Krueger in view of Thiel, contending that the Examiner’s rationale of providing redundant signaling and increased reliability is too general because Krueger already provides a fault-tolerant braking system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Thiel demonstrates that providing separate signaling paths between control units and brake actuator units is a known approach for providing redundancy in a braking system. Applying the signaling arrangement taught by Thiel to Krueger’s fault-tolerant braking system would have provided an additional redundant communication path for controlling the brake actuator units and would have predictably improved continued operation in the event of a failure of a signaling path or control component. Therefore, the proposed modification is directed to the same purpose of maintaining reliable brake control and represents the predictable use of a known redundant signaling arrangement in Krueger’s braking system.
Applicant further argues (Page 9 on Remarks) that the proposed combination would require a fundamental reconstruction of Krueger and Thiel rather than a predictable modification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not require bodily incorporation of all of Thiel’s components into Kruger or an entire reconstruction of either reference. Rather, the rejection relies on the specific signaling arrangement taught by Thiel and applies that known arrangement to the corresponding brake actuator control configuration of Kruger. Such a modification would involve applying a known signaling arrangement to a known braking system for its known purpose of providing redundant control and would therefore have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
