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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 requires “the control valve is a pressure relief valve”. [0029]-[0032] describe an embodiment where the control valve is a pressure relief valve, however, this embodiment is passively activated and does not use an airbag controller such as required in parent claim 11. Claim 15 appears to therefore require a new combination of embodiments not supported by the original disclosure.
Claim 22 requires “the system is arranged in series such that fluid flows from the actuation pedal, through the entirety of the hydraulic branch, to the pedal feel simulator, and back through the system in reverse order.” The disclosure shows actuation pedal 8, hydraulic branch 24 and pedal feel simulator 20. It is first noted that fluid appears to flow from master cylinder 12 (claimed as a hydraulic pump in parent claim 11), not from actuation pedal 8. It is also unclear how the original disclosure supports the limitation “the system is arranged in series such that fluid flows from the actuation pedal, through the entirety of the hydraulic branch, to the pedal feel simulator, and back through the system in reverse order.” Applicant’s arguments rely on figures 2-3 for support, however, it is not clear how fluid flows through the entirety of hydraulic branch 24 before reaching pedal feel simulator 20.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 depends from canceled claim 12, thereby rendering it indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stockbauer (US# 2018/0118175).
Stockbauer discloses all the limitations of the instant claim including; an operating pedal [0043] operatively connected to a hydraulic pump 150 having a delivery circuit 130 fluidically connected to a pedal feel simulator 160/170/190, wherein the delivery circuit comprises a hydraulic branch equipped with at least one control valve 110/200 closed during a rest position of the actuation pedal, said control valve being opened by a control actuator which commands its opening when an impact or accident is detected by a special detector 210 [0058], wherein the pedal feel simulator 160/17/190 is located at a first end portion of the delivery circuit and the actuation pedal is located at a second end portion of the delivery circuit, wherein the entirety of the hydraulic branch is located between the pedal feel simulator and the actuation pedal, wherein said special detector comprises an airbag controller which supervises the operation of at least one airbag, and wherein the control actuator is operatively connected to said controller, so as to actuate the control valve to open when the airbag controller commands the activation of said airbag [0058].
PNG
media_image2.png
778
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the control valve is a pressure relief valve 110.
Regarding claim 18, Stockbauer discloses an actuation method of a braking system in case of impact, comprising: providing a braking system for vehicles with collapsible actuation pedal, comprising an actuation pedal [0043] operatively connected to a hydraulic pump 150 having a delivery circuit 130 fluidically connected to a pedal feel simulator 160/170/190, wherein the delivery circuit comprises a hydraulic branch equipped with at least one control valve 110/200 closed during a rest position of the actuation pedal, depressurizing the delivery circuit in the event of detection of an impact of the vehicle on which said braking system is installed [0058], wherein said control actuator is an airbag controller which supervises the operation of at least one airbag, and wherein the control actuator is operatively connected to said controller, so as to actuate the control valve to open when the airbag controller commands the activation of said airbag [0058], and the entirety of the hydraulic branch is located between the pedal feel simulator and the actuation pedal.
Regarding claim 21, the pedal feel simulator 160/170/190 is distal from the hydraulic branch.
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 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockbauer (US# 2018/0118175) in view of Michon (US# 2005/0000761).
Regarding claim 13, Stockbauer discloses all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the controller being equipped with an explosive charge which acts as control actuator, so that the explosive charge can directly activate the opening of the control device. Michon teaches the controller is equipped with an explosive charge which acts as control actuator, so that the explosive charge can directly activate the opening of the control device. [0048] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an explosive charge, such as taught by Michon, to open the valve of Stockbauer, to ensure the valve is opened as rapidly as possible, thereby minimizing potential leg injury of the driver.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockbauer (US# 2018/0118175) in view of Bohm et al (US# 2014/0368027).
Regarding claim 16, Stockbauer discloses all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the braking system comprises at least one electro-hydraulic or electro-mechanical actuator connected to at least one braking device, which controls the actuation of the braking device according to the actuation pedal stroke. Stockbauer does not provide details of downstream portions of the brake system. Bohm et al teach a brake system comprising at least one electro-hydraulic or electro-mechanical actuator 4 connected to at least one braking device 6, which controls the actuation of the braking device according to the actuation pedal stroke 17. [0037] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the downstream braking components such as taught by Bohm et al in the system of Stockbauer to facilitate automated braking, thereby facilitating further functions such as stability control or distance control and improving driver comfort.
Regarding claim 17, Bohm et al further teach a safety valve14a/14b which, in the event of an electrical fault of said electro-hydraulic or electro-mechanical actuator, fluidically connects the delivery circuit with at least one braking device. [0040]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Stockbauer, please note the modified rejection above. Applicant argues that the pedal feel simulator of Stockbauer must be located on the hydraulic branch which makes it impossible for the entirety of the hydraulic branch to be located between the pedal feel simulator and the actuation pedal. This argument is not clear. Stockbauer shows the simulator 160/170 at the end of the hydraulic branch. It is not clear why the fluid connection between the pedal and the simulator 160/170 cannot be considered a hydraulic branch entirely located between the pedal feel simulator and the actuation pedal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK