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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/15/26 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-19814867 (DE’867) in view of US Patent Application 2015/0239441 to Klostermann et al. and US Patent 2013/0080014 to Wieder et al.
Re: claims 8 and 10. DE’867 shows in the figure a braking system for a vehicle, comprising: at least one pressure regulating module 5 to set a setpoint brake pressure to be introduced into at least one brake cylinder 1.1, 1.2 of a wheel of the vehicle; at least one wheel speed sensor 10.1-10.4 (one for each wheel as shown) to detect the wheel slip of the one wheel of the vehicle; at least one pressure control valve 6.1, 6.2, which is assigned to the brake cylinder of a wheel, to control the brake pressure applied at the brake cylinder in dependence on the wheel slip; and a central processing unit 8 to control the at least one pressure regulating module 5 and the at least one pressure control valve 6.1, 6.2 at least starting from a brake signal and the detected data of the at least one wheel speed sensor 10.1-10.4; wherein the at least one wheel speed sensor 10.1-10.4 has a direct connection to the central processing unit 8 to transmit data detected by the wheel speed sensor as shown, and wherein when the at least one pressure regulating module 5 fails and cannot communicate with the central processing unit 8, due to the at least one wheel speed sensor 10.1-10.4 or 10.1, 10.2 having the direct connection to the central processing unit 8 as shown in figure 1, the central processing unit 8 carries out a traction control as understood by the paragraph beginning “A special feature of the invention” in which the ECU 8 is described as controlling solenoid valves 6.5, 6.6 and valves 6.3, 6.4 which can perform the three functions of increase pressure, maintain pressure, and reduce pressure or brake pressure modulation steps used in traction control, and wherein the at least one brake cylinder includes a plurality of brake cylinders, and wherein the brake system includes at least one further sensor 7 configured to detect the brake pressures applied to the brake cylinders, and wherein the at least one further sensor 7 has direct connection to the central processing unit 8 and transmits data directly to the central processing unit 8 as shown in figure 1. Examiner notes that the claim language recites a product by process and further emphasizes that independent claim 8 is an apparatus claim. MPEP 2113 states that in a product-by-process claim the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. However, DE’867 is silent with regard to the limitation wherein the central processing unit, the at least one pressure regulating modular, and the at least one pressure control valve are arranged in a central unit and is silent with regard to the at least one further sensor being a plurality of further sensors as recited.
Klostermann et al. teach in claim 7 the limitation wherein a central processing unit or controller, a pressure regulating module, and a valve arrangement are arranged in a central unit/common housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the arrangement of the central processing unit, the pressure regulating module, and the at least one pressure control valve of DE’867 to have been in a central unit/common housing, in view of the teachings of Klostermann et al., in order to provide a means of facilitating repair by being able to access the critical components in one common place.
Wieder et al. teach in figure 1 a plurality of further sensors 26 and 27 configured to detect the brake pressures applied to brake cylinders 7 and 8, and wherein the further sensors have direct connection to a central processing unit 11 and transmits data directly to the central processing unit 11.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the at least one further sensor of DE’867, as modified, to have included a plurality of further sensors as recited, in view of the teachings of Wieder et al., in order to provide more precise information about the status of each individual wheel and to improve such brake controls as ABS performance.
Re: claim 11. With regard to the plurality of wheel speed sensors, see elements 10.1-10.4 in the figure of DE’867.
Re: claim 12. With regards to the plurality of pressure control valves, see elements 6.1, 6.2 in the figure of DE’867.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’867 in view of Klostermann et al. and Wieder as applied above, and further in view of KR-100839159 (KR’159).
DE’867, as modified, is silent with regards to the at least one regulating module including a plurality of pressure regulating control modules with one pressure regulating module for each axle or for each double axle of the vehicle.
KR’159 teaches the use of at least one pressure regulating module for each axle or for each double axle of the vehicle 21, 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the brake system of DE’867, as modified, to have included at least one pressure regulating module for each axle of the vehicle, in view of the teachings of KR’159, in order to provide a means of ensuring anti-lock control at both the front and rear of the vehicle for improved vehicle safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior Office action. Examiner notes that pressure sensor 7 of DE’867 has direct connection to central processing unit 8 as shown in figure 1. Paragraph [0030] of the instant published application describes the direct connection as follows: “[t]his is to be understood to mean that due to the direct connection, they are capable of being able to transmit their data directly to the control unit 60, without firstly conducting these data to the pressure regulating module”. Since there is no intervening pressure regulating module between the pressure sensor 7 and the central processing unit 8, Examiner maintains that the direct connection limitation, as defined by Applicant, is satisfied by DE’867.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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 on 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.
mmb
May 28, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights