DETAILED ACTION
Status
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the communication received 4/27/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 16, and 18 have been amended
Claim 15 has been canceled.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 4/27/26, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection.
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, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (20040201270).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses:
A braking system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a first parking brake actuator (Fig. 1, components of 2a/b, such as actuator 2a/b);
a second parking brake actuator (Fig. 1, the other of components of 2a/b, such as actuator 23a/b);
a first control device (Fig. 1, controller 3a/b) comprising:
a first driver (Fig. 1, 17a/b) configured to drive at least one of the first parking brake actuator and the second parking brake actuator (Fig. 1, components of 2a/b, such as actuator 23a/b)) and
a first arbitration unit of the first control device ((Fig. 1. source of rotation/stop command from each controller fed to other controller, see [0042]),) which is set up configured to;
receive first parking brake request data (Fig. 1 – Host ECU data, monitoring data such as described in [0042]-[0048])); and
ascertain whether a parking brake action should be carried out based on the received first parking brake request data (Fig. 1, Rotation/Stop Commands output from 3a/b);
a second control device (Fig. 1, the other of 3a/b ) comprising:
a second driver (Fig. 1, the other of 17a/b) configured to drive at least one of the first parking brake actuator and the second parking brake actuator (Fig. 1, the other of components of 2a/b, such as actuator 23a/b); and
a second arbitration unit, of the second control device which is connected in series to the first arbitration unit (Fig. 1. source of rotation/stop command from each controller fed to other controller, see [0042]), and is set up configured to:
receive second parking brake request data (Fig. 1 – Host ECU data, monitoring data such as described in [0042]-[0048]); and
ascertain whether a parking brake action should be carried out based on the received second parking brake request data (Fig. 1, the other of the Rotation/Stop Commands output from 3a/b);
wherein an input of the first arbitration unit comprises both (i) the first parking brake request data (Fig. 1 – Host ECU data, monitoring data such as described in [0042]-[0048]) and (ii) a result of the second arbitration unit (Fig. 1. command from each controller fed to other controller, see [0042]); and
wherein a result of the first arbitration unit is transmitted to the first driver and the second driver ([0048] The controller 3a of the first brake system section 10a is connected to the correction unit 18b of the second brake system section 10b. Likewise, the controller 3b of the second brake system section 10b is connected to the correction unit 18a of the first brake system section 10a. Each of the controllers 3a and 3b outputs a correction signal to the correction unit 18a or 18b of the other brake system when an incorrect drive command is output from the controller 3a or 3b of the other brake system. In this way, each of the controllers 3a and 3b optimizes a drive command of the other brake system; see Fig. 1 – Flow from 18a/b to 17a/b to 2a/b)
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki further discloses:
The braking system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a parking brake switch, wherein a switching state of the parking brake switch is fed, as part of parking brake request data, to at least one of the first arbitration unit and the second arbitration unit (Fig. 1, Switch 13 fed via Host ECU 11 to each Controller 3a/b; see also [0029])
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki further discloses;
The braking system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first driver is further configured to drive only the first parking brake actuator and the second driver is further configured to drive only the second parking brake actuator. ([0025] As shown in FIG. 1, an electric parking brake system 1 includes a first brake system section 10a, a second brake system section 10b, and a host ECU (electronic control unit) 11. The host ECU 11 outputs a brake command signal to each of the first brake system section 10a and the second brake system section 10b. The first brake system section 10a includes an electric parking brake 2a and a controller 3a. The controller 3a outputs a drive command for controlling the operation of the electric parking brake 2a. The second brake system section 10b includes an electric parking brake 2b and a controller 3b. The controller 3b outputs a drive command for controlling the operation of the electric parking brake 2b.)
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki further discloses:
The braking system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first driver and the second driver are each further configured to drive the first parking brake actuator and the second parking brake actuator. (Fig. 1, [0025] As shown in FIG. 1, an electric parking brake system 1 includes a first brake system section 10a, a second brake system section 10b, and a host ECU (electronic control unit) 11. The host ECU 11 outputs a brake command signal to each of the first brake system section 10a and the second brake system section 10b. The first brake system section 10a includes an electric parking brake 2a and a controller 3a. The controller 3a outputs a drive command for controlling the operation of the electric parking brake 2a. The second brake system section 10b includes an electric parking brake 2b and a controller 3b. The controller 3b outputs a drive command for controlling the operation of the electric parking brake 2b.)
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki further discloses:
The braking system as claimed in claim 1, 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. (Fig. 1. rotation/stop command from each controller fed to other controller, see [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki further discloses:
The braking system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second arbitration unit is further configured to transmit the result of the second arbitration to the second driver if the first control device fails. ( Fig. 1 [0004] According to the above structure, even when an electric failure occurs in a circuit including one of the controllers, at least one electric parking brake can be actuated by a circuit including another controller. This ensures execution of an emergency operation mode. Further, even when, for example, the output signals from the controllers differ from one another, the voter determines a final output signal with the majority vote. This enables each electric parking brake to be provided with a stable output signal; [0064] In other words, the controllers 3a and 3b mutually monitor the state of the other brake system. Each of the controllers 3a and 3b can detect a failure occurring in the other brake system at an early stage so that the failure may quickly be cooed with. This ensures high braking stability.; [0067] In such a structure, the controllers 3a and 3b mutually optimize an incorrect drive command that is output when a failure occurs in the other brake system. This ensures reliable braking even in a brake system in which an abnormality has occurred and ensures highly braking stability. [0074] (7) The host ECU 11 detects vehicle state information used for the same purpose, by a plurality of methods involving one or a predetermined combination of the vehicle state detection units. This enables vehicle state information, which is used to determine a brake command signal, to have redundancy, so that the performance of parking braking can be more suitably adjusted. As a result, high reliability is ensured.
Regarding Claim 18, Suzuki discloses:
A method for controlling a braking system comprising a first parking brake actuator (Fig. 1, components of 2a/b, such as actuator 2a/b) and a second parking brake actuator (Fig. 1, the other of components of 2a/b, such as actuator 2a/b), a first control device (Fig. 1, controller 3a/b) and a second control device (Fig. 1, the other of controller 3a/b), the first control device including a first arbitration unit and the second control device including a second arbitration unit (Fig. 1. source of rotation/stop command from each controller fed to other controller, see [0042]), the method comprising:
receiving, by the first arbitration unit, first parking brake request data (Fig. 1 – Host ECU data, monitoring data such as described in [0042]-[0048]));
receiving, by the second arbitration unit, second parking brake request (Fig. 1 – Host ECU data, monitoring data such as described in [0042]-[0048]);
ascertaining, by the second arbitration unit, whether a parking brake action should be carried out based on the received second parking brake request data (Fig. 1, the other of the Rotation/Stop Commands output from 3a/b));
providing a result of the second arbitration unit to the first arbitration unit, wherein an input of the first arbitration unit comprises both (i) the first parking brake request data (Fig. 1 – Host ECU data, monitoring data such as described in [0042]-[0048]) and (ii) the result of the second arbitration unit (Fig. 1. command from each controller fed to other controller, see [0042]);;
ascertaining, by the first arbitration unit, whether a parking brake action should be carried out based on the input (Fig. 1, the Rotation/Stop Commands output from 3a/b – which includes the output of the Rotation/Stop Commands output from the other of 3a/b);
transmitting a result of the first arbitration unit to a driver of at least one of the first control device and the second control device; and driving the first parking brake actuator and the second parking brake actuator based on the result of the first arbitration unit ([0048] The controller 3a of the first brake system section 10a is connected to the correction unit 18b of the second brake system section 10b. Likewise, the controller 3b of the second brake system section 10b is connected to the correction unit 18a of the first brake system section 10a. Each of the controllers 3a and 3b outputs a correction signal to the correction unit 18a or 18b of the other brake system when an incorrect drive command is output from the controller 3a or 3b of the other brake system. In this way, each of the controllers 3a and 3b optimizes a drive command of the other brake system.; see Fig. 1 – Flow from 18a/b to 17a/b to 2a/b)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (20040201270) in view of Heise (US-2013/0282249, hereinafter Heise; already of record).
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki further discloses:
The braking system as claimed in claim 1, 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. (Fig. 1 [0138] (10) The controller 3a outputs an abnormality detection signal to the host ECU 11 when detecting a failure. This enables early repair of such a failure and prevents damage caused by the failure from being expanded; [0075] In the present embodiment, because the first brake system section 10a and the second brake system section 10b have the same structure, the following description is focused on the structure of the first brake system section 10a.)
While Suzuki discloses transmitting state information, the transmission is to the ECU. The ECU sends control signals to the alternate/functional controller, which strongly suggests the transmission of the state information to the other control device. However, the concept of direct communication with the other control device is more explicitly recited by Heise (See at least Heise: Para. 0010, 0012, 0014, 0019, 0051 receipt/transmission of status messages and/or error messages directly between control units).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that directly communicating a fault to a redundant controller would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would facilitate a higher transfer rate without latency (Heise [0044])
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki further discloses:
The braking system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first control device and the second control device exchange availability information, wherein the second control device determines that the first control device has failed when the availability information is not received. ([0046] When detecting an abnormality in the other brake system, each of the controller 3a and 3b outputs an abnormality detection signal to the host ECU 11. The host ECU 11 communicates with the controller 3a or 3b included in the abnormality-detected brake system, based on the abnormality detection signal. When no response is made to the communication, the host ECU 11 determines that a failure has occurred in the controller 3a or 3b included in the abnormality-detected brake system.; [0074] (7) The host ECU 11 detects vehicle state information used for the same purpose, by a plurality of methods involving one or a predetermined combination of the vehicle state detection units. This enables vehicle state information, which is used to determine a brake command signal, to have redundancy, so that the performance of parking braking can be more suitably adjusted. As a result, high reliability is ensured.)
While Suzuki discloses transmitting state information, the transmission is to the ECU. The ECU sends control signals to the alternate/functional controller, which strongly suggests the transmission of the state information to the other control device. This concept of direct communication between the control devices is more explicitly disclosed by Heise (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).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that directly communicating a fault to a redundant controller would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would facilitate a higher transfer rate without latency (Heise [0044])
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki further discloses:
The braking system as claimed in claim 5, wherein in at least one of the first control device and the second control device, the states of the first brake actuator and the second brake actuator are combined to form an overall state ([0048] The controller 3a of the first brake system section 10a is connected to the correction unit 18b of the second brake system section 10b. Likewise, the controller 3b of the second brake system section 10b is connected to the correction unit 18a of the first brake system section 10a. Each of the controllers 3a and 3b outputs a correction signal to the correction unit 18a or 18b of the other brake system when an incorrect drive command is output from the controller 3a or 3b of the other brake system. In this way, each of the controllers 3a and 3b optimizes a drive command of the other brake system; [0066] (2) The brake systems 10a and 10b respectively include the correction units 18a and 18b to optimize an incorrect drive command. Each of the controller 3a and 3b outputs a correction signal to the correction unit 18a or 18b of the other brake system when an incorrect drive command is output from the controller 3a or 3b of the other brake system.; [0067] In such a structure, the controllers 3a and 3b mutually optimize an incorrect drive command that is output when a failure occurs in the other brake system. This ensures reliable braking even in a brake system in which an abnormality has occurred and ensures highly braking stability.)
Regarding Claim 17, Suzuki further discloses:
The braking system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the exchange availability information is mutual ([0048] The controller 3a of the first brake system section 10a is connected to the correction unit 18b of the second brake system section 10b. Likewise, the controller 3b of the second brake system section 10b is connected to the correction unit 18a of the first brake system section 10a. Each of the controllers 3a and 3b outputs a correction signal to the correction unit 18a or 18b of the other brake system when an incorrect drive command is output from the controller 3a or 3b of the other brake system. In this way, each of the controllers 3a and 3b optimizes a drive command of the other brake system; [0066] (2) The brake systems 10a and 10b respectively include the correction units 18a and 18b to optimize an incorrect drive command. Each of the controller 3a and 3b outputs a correction signal to the correction unit 18a or 18b of the other brake system when an incorrect drive command is output from the controller 3a or 3b of the other brake system.; [0067] In such a structure, the controllers 3a and 3b mutually optimize an incorrect drive command that is output when a failure occurs in the other brake system. This ensures reliable braking even in a brake system in which an abnormality has occurred and ensures highly braking stability.)
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 13-14, 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights