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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
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 Theil 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.
Theil 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 Theil
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
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 2-3 of Remarks, filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, and 15-16 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Theil DE 102021122501 A1.
Conclusion
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
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights