DETAILED ACTION
The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 10/14/25 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-24 are still pending, with claims 2 ad 25 being cancelled. Despite the substantive claim amendments and Applicant’s arguments, the previous 112 and 103 rejections are maintained as detailed below. For this reason, this action is made FINAL despite the filing of an RCE. 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 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.
Claims 18-22 are 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.
Claims 18-22 are rejected because claim 18 still recites “the isolation valves of the second module and the first pressure supply unit” but isolation valves have only been defined with regard to the second module, not the first pressure supply unit (or the first module). See claim 18, lines 32-33.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Tanimoto in view of Strehle
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 15, 17-21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (U.S. Patent No. 10,486,665) in view of Strehle et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0341631). Tanimoto is directed to a braking control apparatus for a vehicle. See Abstract. Strehle is directed to a vehicle brake system having electronic pressure regulation. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Tanimoto discloses a brake system [Figs. 2, 3] including a first module (200), comprising a first pressure supply unit (211, 212) having an electromotive drive (212) and a first control apparatus (51) for controlling the first pressure supply unit, wherein the first module is configured to apply a pressurizing medium to at least one first brake circuit (320RL, 320RR) by way of a first connection point (310R), and at least one second brake circuit (320FL, 320FR) by way of a second connection point (310F), wherein the brake circuits are assigned wheel brakes (54FL, 54FR, 54RL, 54RR), a second module (300), comprising a second pressure supply unit (350), in the form of a motor/pump unit (351F, 351R, 355), brake pressure adjustment valves (321, 322), comprising outlet valves (322) and inlet valves (321), configured to adjust pressures in the wheel brakes, and a second control apparatus (51) for controlling the brake pressure adjustment valves, a detection unit (71FL, 71FR, 71RL, 71RR, 74) configured to detect a first event [see col. 18, likes 38-49], wherein, to provide an ABS function during the first event [see col. 16, line 13 – col. 17, line 15 (“…when each of the rear wheels is locked and a slip amount of the rear wheel is increased…”)], the brake system is configured to implement a wheel-individual and/or selective adjustment of the pressures in the wheel brakes while actuating at least one of the brake pressure adjustment valves of the second module [see col. 11, lines 13-25], wherein pressure is released from the wheel brakes via respective ones of the outlet valves associated with respective ones of the wheel brakes to provide the ABS function generates a pressure sink having a lower pressure than the pressure sink the wheel brakes [see col. 13, lines 6-21; also col. 15, line 13 - col. 17, line 15 (“…when the master pressure Pm is reduced in order to cancel the locked states of the rear wheels, the brake pressure Pt of the target wheel 10T is also simultaneously reduced”)]. See Figs. 2, 3.
Tanimoto discloses all the limitations of this claim except: (1) the “isolation valves” and, more generally, the overall circuit structure of the second module such that the outlet valves release wheel brake pressure due to a pressure sink generated by the first pressure supply unit; and (2) distinct first and second control apparatuses.
First, Strehle discloses an essentially identical pressure supply unit [Fig. 2], with isolation valves (44, 58) to a given brake circuit, and brake adjustment valves that include both inlet valves (46) and outlet valves (48), wherein this pressure unit releases pressure from the wheel brakes (14.1-14.4) via respective outlet valves to provide ABS functionality by generating a pressure sink having a lower pressure than the wheel brake pressure due to another pressure unit (34) [see para. 0034]. See Fig. 2. Again, Figure 2 of Strehle depicts an essentially identical pressure supply unit as that of the instant application [see Fig. 4], achieving the same pressure delivery/boost system to wheel brakes via inlet valves [compare Fig. 6 with Strehle Fig. 2 (34 provides pressure via 22.1 and 44, 46 to 14.1/14.3)] and pressure release system from wheel brakes via outlet valves [compare Fig. 5 with Strehle Fig. 2 (releases pressure from 14.1/14.3 via 48, 50, 58, 22.1 to 34)].
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the isolation valves in Tanimoto to ensure that brake fluid pressure is properly permitted or restricted to/from the wheel brakes. These valves provide an added layer of accuracy and functionality. It would also be obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the first pressure supply unit (34) and outlet valves (48) to provide the pressure sink because this achieves the same function of negative pressure to reduce wheel brake pressure, but relies on an alternative pressure supply unit to do so, which again provides an added layer of functionality, i.e., redundancy.
Second, Strehle discloses the use of two distinct control apparatuses (30, 40) of two distinct actuator modules (24, 36) in a vehicle brake system. See Figs. 1-3, para. 0029, 0031. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a different control unit for each module because this redundancy provides some degree of operational independence, ensuring that the modules are effective in case of malfunction of the other module/unit.
Claim 3: Tanimoto discloses that the brake system in the first event, for dissipating pressure in one of the wheel brakes, is preferably configured for opening the respective outlet valve (322) associated with the one of the wheel brakes. See col. 15, line 13 - col. 17, line 15; Fig. 3.
Claim 4: Tanimoto discloses that a communications link, in particular a bus link, is configured between the first control apparatus and the second control apparatus, wherein the first control apparatus is preferably configured for receiving pressure measurement values of the third pressure supply unit and/or wheel rotational speed signals by way of the communications link. See col. 6, lines 31-37.
Claim 5: Tanimoto discloses that a communications link, in particular a bus link, is configured between the first control apparatus and the second control apparatus, wherein the first control apparatus and the second control apparatus are preferably configured for receiving pressure measurement values of the third pressure supply unit and/or wheel rotational speed signals by way of the communications link. See col. 6, lines 31-37.
Claim 6: Tanimoto discloses that the first control apparatus (51) or the second control apparatus or a third control apparatus in the first event are configured for controlling the first pressure supply unit and the brake pressure adjustment valves so as to implement a wheel-individual and/or brake circuit-individual pressure feedback control in the wheel brakes or the brake circuits. See claim 1 above.
Claim 7: Strehle discloses that a first isolation valve (44 or 58) of the first module is disposed in a first hydraulic line between the first pressure supply unit and the first connection point, and a second isolation valve (other 44 or other 58) is disposed in a second hydraulic line between the first pressure supply unit and the second connection point, wherein the brake system is configured to detect a second error event, in particular a total failure of the second module, in the second error event to control the first pressure supply unit and the first and the second isolation valve so as to implement at least a brake circuit-individual pressure feedback control in the at least two brake circuits. See Fig. 2.
Claim 8: Tanimoto discloses that the brake system, in particular the first control apparatus, is specified to detect a non-homogenous road condition, in particular a μ-split situation, and in the second error event and in the non-homogenous road condition to control the first pressure supply unit so as to adjust in at least one selected brake circuit of the brake circuits a target brake pressure which is determined as a function of a wheel blocking pressure of that wheel brake of the selected brake circuit that has the coefficient of friction that is higher in comparison to the other wheel brake of the selected brake circuit. See col. 15, line 13 - col. 17, line 15.
Claim 9: Tanimoto discloses that at least the second module has wheel sensors (71FL, 71FR, 71RL, 71RR, 74) for detecting a wheel speed, said wheel sensors by way of the communications link being specified to transmit wheel rotational speed signals generated from the detected wheel speed, or the detected wheel speed, to the first module, in particular to the first control apparatus. See Figs. 2, 3.
Claim 10: Tanimoto discloses that the brake system, in particular the first control apparatus, in a third event, by means of the first pressure supply unit is configured to control the pressure buildup and the pressure dissipation, so as to implement a 1-channel ABS while using wheel rotational speed sensors, and/or in a fourth event is configured to implement an intermittent brake by modulating the pressure between two fixedly adjusted pressure levels in two brake circuits. See col. 15, line 13 - col. 17, line 15.
Claim 11: Tanimoto discloses that at least one pressure sensor (215, 250) for detecting a brake pressure within the at least one brake circuit is provided. See Fig. 2.
Claim 12: Tanimoto discloses that the first module comprises: a rotary pump (211), in particular a 1-piston pump or a 3-piston pump, for building up pressure and dissipating pressure; a solenoid valve (220, 230) hydraulically connected to a reservoir (240) optionally at least one pressure transducer which for feedback-controlling the pressure buildup and the pressure dissipation is preferably communicatively connected to the first control apparatus. See Fig. 2.
Claim 15: Strehle discloses at least one third isolation valve (other 44 or other 58) is provided, said third isolation valve being disposed and configured in such a manner that, in a closed state of the third isolation valve, the first brake circuit is hydraulically decoupled from the first and the second pressure supply unit. See Fig. 2.
Claim 17: Tanimoto discloses that an activation element, in particular a brake pedal (52), is disposed on the second pressure supply unit, wherein the second pressure supply unit comprises a master brake cylinder (110) having a single piston (120) that is activatable by means of the activation element. See Figs. 1, 2.
Claim 18: see claim 1 above.
Claim 19: Strehle discloses detecting a second error event, in particular a total failure of the third pressure supply unit, controlling the first pressure supply unit and at least two isolation valves of the first module in such a manner that, in the second error event, a brake circuit-individual pressure feedback control is implemented in the at least two brake circuits. See para. 0017-18, 0038; Fig. 2. It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to include this redundancy feature to ensure that all brake fluid pressure is delivered by the functioning module in case of malfunction of the other.
Claim 20: Tanimoto discloses detecting a non-homogenous road condition, in particular a μ-split situation, controlling the first pressure supply unit in the second error event in such a manner that in non-homogenous road conditions that wheel brake of a selected brake circuit that has the coefficient of friction that is higher in comparison to the other wheel brake is utilized for determining a target brake pressure. See col. 15, line 13 - col. 17, line 15.
Claim 21: see claim 10 above.
Claim 23: Strehle discloses that at least some of the isolation valves of the second module are disposed and configured for establishing a hydraulic connection between outlet valves as the brake pressure adjustment valves and the connection points. See Fig. 2.
Claim 24: Strehle discloses that detecting the first event comprises detecting an at least partial failure of the second pressure supply unit. See Abstract; para. 0017-18, 0038.
Tanimoto in view of Strehle and Heinz
Claim(s) 13-14, 16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto in view of Strehle and Heinz et al. (DE 10 2017 113 563) (previously cited). Heinz is directed to a braking system.
Claim 13: Tanimoto and Strehle are relied upon as in claim 1 above but do not explicitly discuss the first pressure supply unit as a “gear pump.” Heinz discloses a similar braking system with a first module with a first pressure supply unit (7, 8) with an electromotive drive (8) and option second pressure supply unit (HZ, 1, 3, 12, 16) and a second module with a third pressure supply unit (M, P) and inlet/outlet isolation valves (EV, AV), each with their own control apparatus [see Translation (“both electronic control or regulation units ( ECU ) from the X-Boost and ESP”)], wherein the first pressure supply unit is configured as a gear pump for building up pressure and dissipating pressure. See Translation (“gearbox”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a gear pump for the first pressure supply unit because Tanimoto already discloses the use of a motor and the manner of connectivity to drive the piston/pump is ultimately a design choice to achieve the same objective, but with considerations of efficacy and cost/availability.
Claim 14: Heinz discloses that the gear pump is controlled while using a pressure transducer or as a function of a measurement of a current, in particular a phase current i of the electromotive drive of the gear pump, and of an angle a of a rotor of the electromotive drive. See Fig. 1 (DG).
Claim 16: Heinz discloses that the first hydraulic line and/or the second hydraulic line are (in each case) connected to a reservoir by way of a suction valve. See Fig. 1 (28).
Claim 22: Heinz discloses determining a first wheel blocking pressure on a first wheel brake which is assigned to one of the two brake circuits; determining a second wheel blocking pressure on a wheel brake which is assigned to the same brake circuit, wherein a non-homogenous road condition is detected when the first and the second wheel blocking pressure differ. See Translation (“brake force distribution…as a result, ESP interventions for vehicle stabilization, especially on slippery and uneven road surfaces…). The difference between pressures of 30% or more would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention because this is a fairly large range, and there is no criticality here. Clearly, detection of pressure differences at such a high value is desirable to ensure proper functionality of the braking operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/14/25 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-24 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Tanimoto fails to disclose the revised claim 1 limitation that the first pressure supply unit includes “outlet valves and inlet valves” such that “when releasing pressure from the wheel brakes via…the outlet valves…[it] generates a pressure sink.” See Remarks, pages 10-11. In response, and as stated above in the rejection of claim 1, Figure 2 of Strehle discloses these features since it depicts an essentially identical pressure supply unit as that of the instant application [see Fig. 4]. Strehle achieves the same pressure delivery/boost system to the wheel brakes via inlet valves [compare Fig. 6 with Strehle Fig. 2 (34 provides pressure via 22.1 and 44, 46 to 14.1/14.3)] and the same pressure release system from the wheel brakes via outlet valves [compare Fig. 5 with Strehle Fig. 2 (releases pressure from 14.1/14.3 via 48, 50, 58, 22.1 to 34)]. Strehle relies upon control of actuator unit (34) to create a pressure sink such that pressure is released from wheel brakes (14.1, 14.3) via outlet valves (48). In the Remarks, Applicant mistakenly focuses only on buildup valves 46, when it is the pressure reducing outlet valves 48 that disclose the claimed feature.
Also, Applicant failed to address all of the 112 rejections detailed in the 05/09/25 Final Rejection, specifically the deficiency with claim 18, so the indefiniteness rejection of claims 18-22 is maintained as well.
For the foregoing reasons all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 October 15, 2025