DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Status
The following is an Office Action in response to the communication received 11/10/2025. Claims 1, 10, 13 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and associated arguments, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the objection to the claims have been considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and associated arguments, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Arguments drawn to the Nichlas reference are moot as the they do not apply to the current prior art rejection.
Applicant further argues that neither Heise, Zajax or Kilmurry disclose a first arbitration unit and a second arbitration unit nor that they are connected in series. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Heise, in Fig. 2-4, and paragraphs 0047, 0051, and 0052 disclose that the result of one unit can be transmitted to the other unit via data bus, such as status/error messages via internal data bus 13, where when a fault occurs with one arithmetic unit, the other takes over control of the parking brake actuators. Under BRI, the claims do not preclude the first arbitration to have multiple processing paths (i.e., a parallel processing path AND a redundancy that re-directs processing and control through a series configuration).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heise (US-2013/0282249, hereinafter Heise; already of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Heise discloses:
A braking system for a motor vehicle (Heise Fig. 1-4) comprising:
a first parking brake actuator and a second parking brake actuator (Heise See at least Fig. 2-4, parking brake actuator 3a, 3b,);
a first control device and a second control device which each have a driver for driving at least the first and/or the second parking brake actuator (Heise 0044 the two arithmetic units 7,7' can control the electric motor parking brake actuator(s) 3a, 3b);
a first arbitration unit of the first control device which is set up to receive first parking brake request data and to ascertain from the received first parking brake request data whether a parking brake action should be carried out; a second arbitration unit of the second control device which is connected in series to the first arbitration unit and is set up to receive second parking brake request data and to ascertain from the received second parking brake request data whether a parking brake action should be carried out, (Heise 0043 microcontrollers 7, 7', each of which comprises two processor cores .mu.C 1.1, .mu.C 1.2 or .mu.C 2.1, .mu.C 2.2,; … If deviations occur, then the cause of the error can be determined in an error handling routine);
wherein a result of the second arbitration unit is fed to the input end of the first arbitration unit as part of the first parking brake request data such that a single decision is produced (See at least Heise: Fig. 2-4, data bus 13; Para. 0047, 0051, 0052: the result of one unit can be transmitted to the other unit via data bus, such as status/error messages via internal data bus 13, where when a fault occurs with one arithmetic unit, the other takes over control of the parking brake actuators); and
wherein a result of the first arbitration unit is transmitted to the driver of at least one of the first and the second control device for driving the first and the second parking brake actuators (See at least Heise: Para. 0044, 0051, 0052, 0054: receiving status/error messages via internal data bus 13 where when a fault occurs with one arithmetic unit, the other takes over control of the parking brake actuators and either arithmetic unit can control both actuators)
Regarding claim 2, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
further comprising a parking brake switch, wherein a switching state of the parking brake switch is fed to at least one of the first arbitration unit and the second arbitration unit as part of the at least one first and the second parking brake request data (See at least Heise: Fig. 1, switch 5; Para. 0038, 0043, 0047).
Regarding claim 3, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
wherein the driver of the first control device is set up only to drive the first parking brake actuator and the driver of the second control device is set up only to drive the second parking brake actuator (See at least Heise: Fig. 2-4, Para. 0044, Each of the redundant core microcontrollers 7,7' has an associated drive circuit 8, 8' for an electric parking brake actuator 3a, 3b, in particular a bridge circuit. Thus the two arithmetic units 7,7' can control the electric motor parking brake actuator(s) 3a, 3b of a respective wheel independently of each other; 0051, In error-free operation of the two redundant core microcontrollers the first arithmetic unit 7 controls both parking brake actuators 8, 8' directly. The second arithmetic unit 7' can execute an independent program, whereby the available computing power is used optimally and additional functions can be provided, which e.g. increase the comfort of the driver. ).
Regarding claim 4, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
wherein the drivers of the first control device and the second control device are each set up to drive the first and the second parking brake actuator (See at least Heise: Para. 0054, Fig. 4: either arithmetic unit can control both actuators).
Regarding claim 5, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
wherein both control devices determine the state of the respectively associated parking brake actuators and transmit the determined state to the respective other control device (See at least Heise: Para. 0010, 0012, 0014, 0019, 0051 receipt/transmission of status messages and/or error messages.).
Regarding claim 6, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
wherein the first control device and the second control device communicate with one another via one of a separate communication line and a vehicle bus (See at least Heise Fig. 2-4, data bus 13)
Regarding claim 7, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
wherein the first control device and the second control device exchange availability information, wherein the second control device assumes that the first control device has failed when one of the availability information does not indicate and no availability information is received (See at least Heise: Fig. 2-4, data bus 13; Para. 0010, 0043, 0047, 0051, 0052, 0056: error detection routines, wherein the result of one unit can be transmitted to the other unit via data bus).
Regarding claim 8, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
wherein the second arbitration unit is set up to transmit the result of the arbitration to the driver of the second control device for driving the at least one parking brake actuator if the first control device fails (See at least Heise: Fig. 2-4, data bus 13; Para. 0010, 0043-0044, 0047, 0051, 0052, 0054, 0056: error detection routines, wherein the result of one unit can be transmitted to the other unit via data bus and when a fault occurs with one arithmetic unit, the other takes over control of the parking brake actuators).
Regarding claim 16, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 5. Heise teaches wherein in at least one of the first and the second control device, the states of the two parking brake actuators are combined to form an overall state (Heise, 0043: whereupon the results are checked for agreement in a comparator. If deviations occur, then the cause of the error can be determined in an error handling routine and/or the processor cores can be re-synchronised)
Regarding claim 17, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
wherein the exchange availability information is mutual (See at least Heise: Para. 0044, 0047, 0051; bidirectional data sharing via bus 13).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Heise as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zittlau et al. (US 6,213,567 B1)
Regarding claim 9, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
wherein at least one of the parking brake actuator is connected in a drivable manner to the first and the second control device, wherein the first and the second control device are set up to ... drive the parking brake actuator that is connected in a drivable manner to the first and the second control device ... (Heise Fig. 2-4).
Yet, Heise does not explicitly teach:
... transfer the authorization ...
... by exchanging a token.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Zittlau teaches:
... transfer the authorization…by exchanging a token (Zittlau, col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6 -15 : (15) Data traffic travels over the data bus 12 …each of the subscribers (brake actuators 4, pedal unit 6, central controller 13) forms a node of the data bus. For reasons of safety no further token-holding nodes are connected to the bus (keeping the number of subscribers as low as possible results in a low error rate). The data traffic is not event controlled but time controlled, i.e. within a fixed cyclic sequence each subscriber is allocated a fixed time slice (or time slot) in which it holds the token. If each subscriber is allocated an equal time slice of 2 ms, for example, the complete bus communications cycle lasts 12 ms in a system with six subscribers, after which a new bus cycle begins (FIG. 2).; col. 3, ll. 1-10: a subscriber is detected as having failed if the respective subscriber fails to transmit a data block in the time slot assigned to the respective subscriber; col. 4, ll. 25-40: special safety requirements must be fulfilled for the electrical transmission of the braking moment demand in the system. This must be fail-safe and fault-tolerant, i.e. errors occurring during the transmission of data and signals (or: communication) must be detected reliably and suitable strategies must be available for handling errors. In addition, all subscribers in the communication process must be able to recognize faulty behavior on the part of another subscriber and a minimum braking capability must be guaranteed even if communication is interrupted.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the token-based communication of Zittlau to the braking system in Heise would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that make it possible to react simply and rapidly to all errors and without complex circuitry (col. 7, ll. 25-35).
Regarding claim 10, Heise in view of Zittlau teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 9.
Heise teaches wherein during a switch-on process one of the first and the second control device driving of the parking brake actuator that is connected in a drivable manner to the first and the second control device (see claim 9 above, Heise Fig. 2-4). Zittlau further teaches:
... receives the token which authorizes ... does not receive a token (Zittlau, col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6 -15 : (15) Data traffic travels over the data bus 12 …each of the subscribers (brake actuators 4, pedal unit 6, central controller 13) forms a node of the data bus. For reasons of safety no further token-holding nodes are connected to the bus (keeping the number of subscribers as low as possible results in a low error rate). The data traffic is not event controlled but time controlled, i.e. within a fixed cyclic sequence each subscriber is allocated a fixed time slice (or time slot) in which it holds the token. If each subscriber is allocated an equal time slice of 2 ms, for example, the complete bus communications cycle lasts 12 ms in a system with six subscribers, after which a new bus cycle begins (FIG. 2).; col. 3, ll. 1-10: a subscriber is detected as having failed if the respective subscriber fails to transmit a data block in the time slot assigned to the respective subscriber; col. 4, ll. 25-40: special safety requirements must be fulfilled for the electrical transmission of the braking moment demand in the system. This must be fail-safe and fault-tolerant, i.e. errors occurring during the transmission of data and signals (or: communication) must be detected reliably and suitable strategies must be available for handling errors. In addition, all subscribers in the communication process must be able to recognize faulty behavior on the part of another subscriber and a minimum braking capability must be guaranteed even if communication is interrupted.
Regarding claim 11, Heise in view of Zittlau teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 9.
Heise teaches wherein at least one of the first and the second control device is set up to drive the parking brake actuator. Zajac further teaches:
... when the control device itself has the token and the other control device does not have the token (Zittlau, col. 5, l. 65 – col. 6 -15 : (15) Data traffic travels over the data bus 12 …each of the subscribers (brake actuators 4, pedal unit 6, central controller 13) forms a node of the data bus. For reasons of safety no further token-holding nodes are connected to the bus (keeping the number of subscribers as low as possible results in a low error rate). The data traffic is not event controlled but time controlled, i.e. within a fixed cyclic sequence each subscriber is allocated a fixed time slice (or time slot) in which it holds the token. If each subscriber is allocated an equal time slice of 2 ms, for example, the complete bus communications cycle lasts 12 ms in a system with six subscribers, after which a new bus cycle begins (FIG. 2).; col. 3, ll. 1-10: a subscriber is detected as having failed if the respective subscriber fails to transmit a data block in the time slot assigned to the respective subscriber; col. 4, ll. 25-40: special safety requirements must be fulfilled for the electrical transmission of the braking moment demand in the system. This must be fail-safe and fault-tolerant, i.e. errors occurring during the transmission of data and signals (or: communication) must be detected reliably and suitable strategies must be available for handling errors. In addition, all subscribers in the communication process must be able to recognize faulty behavior on the part of another subscriber and a minimum braking capability must be guaranteed even if communication is interrupted)
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Heise as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (US-20200406869).
Regarding claim 12, Heise teaches the braking system as claimed in claim 1. Heise further teaches:
further comprising four wheel speed sensors which are each associated with one of four wheels of the motor vehicle, wherein one of the first and the second control device receives data from all four wheel speed sensors and the other control device receives data from …wheel speed sensors (See at least Heise [0023] Preferably, the electronic controller comprises at least one acceleration sensor, at least one yaw rate sensor, and at least one interface for wheel revolution rate sensors. Said information enables driving dynamics control of the motor vehicle and traction control of the brake system. [0039] In order to provide a traction control function and/or a driving dynamics control function of the service brake, the electronic controller 6 is preferably provided with wheel revolution rate sensors on all controlled wheels and/or at least one yaw rate sensor and a transverse acceleration sensor (the sensors are not shown in FIG. 1).
Heise discloses multiple controllers receiving wheel speed data, but does not clearly establish that one controller receives data from fewer wheel speed sensors that the other. Hwang discloses a redundant brake device system wherein the other control device receives data from only two wheel speed sensors (Hwang Fig. 1 [0062] first control transfer conditions for the first brake controller 10 to transfer the control of the brake module 80 to the second brake controller 20 …. include a failure of one or more wheel speed sensors…. In this case, when at least one of the first control transfer conditions is satisfied, the first brake controller 10 transfers the control to the second brake controller 20. )
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the redundant sensing conditions of Hwang to the fail-safe braking system of Heise would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that even when an emergency occurs in the brake module as the result of sensor failure, it is possible to ensure the safe operation and to ensure the reliability of the braking system (Hwang [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No closest reference was found in the art to render "further comprising a multiplexer for the data from two wheel speed sensors, wherein when there is no fault the multiplexer feeds the data from the two wheel speed sensors to the control device that receives data from all four wheel speed sensors and, only if this control device fails, supplies the data from the two wheel speed sensors to the control device that receives data from only two wheel speed sensors" from claim 13 obvious, leading to a determination of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-9855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, James Trammel can be reached at 571-272-676312. 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.
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663