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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/05/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 16, 18, 21 and 24. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-14, 16 and 18-24 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(a), Applicant’s amendments filed on 5/05/2026 obviate the claim rejections — accordingly, the claim rejections under § 112(a) are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/05/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues that neither Heise nor Oosthoek disclose, teach or suggest (i) “the second driver circuit and the third driver circuit are respectively connected to different power sources which are the source of the first power, connected to the first driver circuit connected to the first motor, and a source of the second power” as recited in claim 1. Applicant argues that Oosthoek only provides a single power supply 560, which contrasts with the claim’s requirement for different power sources. Applicant further submits that Heise and Oosthoek do not disclose, teach or suggest (ii) “the first MCU is connected to both the first driver circuit and the second driver circuit to control the first motor and the second motor in a normal operating state” or (iii) “the second MCU is connected to only the third driver circuit which is not connected to the first MCU, to perform a one-channel ” as recited in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Addressing limitation (i), the combination of Heise and Oosthoek renders the claim limitation at issue as obvious. Heise discloses the foundation of the claim: a first micro control unit (MCU) which is connected to the first driver circuit and the second driver circuit receiving the first power according to a reception of an electric parking brake (EPB) switch signal (“In error-free operation of the two redundant core microcontrollers the first arithmetic unit 7 controls both parking brake actuators 8, 8′ directly.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.); and a second MCU connected to a driver circuit receiving second power (“second arithmetic unit 7′” - ¶ 51 and FIG. 3; see also ¶ 52.)
[AltContent: textbox (Heise, FIG. 3.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
430
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where Heise differs from the claimed invention is the provision of a third driver circuit — in contrast, Heise connects a second power to a second MCU to the second driver circuit. Hence, the purpose of Oosthoek in the rejection is to show that it is known in the art that a backup driver circuit can be added to a circuit path, especially in the context of electronic parking brakes. In fact, Oosthoek teaches that a “backup control branch supply power Pdc2” – i.e., a second power – may be supplied to the backup driver circuit, providing further motivation to combine given that the claimed third driver circuit receives a second power. (See Oosthoek, ¶ 55.)
Critically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the modification of Heise with Oosthoek would constitute placing Oosthoek’s backup driver circuit on a branch that stems from second power source 9’, goes through second MCU 7’ and ends with the redundant driver circuit connected to second motor 3b. Such would be the predictable and natural modification to achieve the redundancy of Oosthoek without going against Heise’s principle of operation to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, limitation (i) is obvious in view of Heise and Oosthoek.
Addressing limitation (ii), Heise directly discloses the claim limitation at issue: the first MCU is connected to both the first driver circuit and the second driver circuit to control the first motor and the second motor in a normal operating state (“In error-free operation of the two redundant core microcontrollers the first arithmetic unit 7 controls both parking brake actuators 8, 8′ directly.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.).
Addressing limitation (iii), the claim limitation would have been obvious in view of Heise and Oosthoek. Heise discloses: when a fault occurs in the first MCU, connecting a second MCU to a driver circuit to perform a one-channel motor operation for controlling only the second motor (“If a fault occurs with the first arithmetic unit 7 operating the two parking brake actuators 3 a, 3 b, then the second arithmetic unit 7′ takes over control at least of one electrical parking brake actuator. The first arithmetic unit 7 comprises a means of fault detection for this purpose, which in the event of a fault sends a signal 12 to the switch or multiplexer 11, which connects the drive circuit of at least one actuator to the second arithmetic unit 7′.” ¶ 52.) Again, the only element which Heise lacks is performing the claim limitation through a third driver circuit. Turning to Oosthoek, Oosthoek teaches: when a fault occurs in a first control branch, providing a second power to the backup driver circuit connected to the second motor and controlling the second motor for providing a driving force to an electronic brake (See at least ¶¶ 48, 53 and 55; and see FIG. 2.) As penned above, arriving at the claimed architecture would be arrived at through a predictable and natural modification to achieve the redundancy of Oosthoek without going against Heise’s principle of operation to arrive at the claimed invention. Further motivation lies in the fact that Oosthoek’s feature is useful to provide redundancy in the case of a failure associated with a primary control branch. (See Oosthoek, ¶ 5.) Hence, the incorporation of Oosthoek into Heise would yield the predictable result of providing a “backup” path for Heise’s second MCU to control a third driver circuit (i.e., Oosthoek’s backup driver circuit) connected to Heise’s second motor in order to yield the above advantages.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12, 16, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Heise et al. (US20130282249A1; “Heise”) in view of Oosthoek et al. (US20230136605A1; “Oosthoek”).
As to independent claim 1, Heise discloses a control unit of an electronic parking brake system, comprising:
a first driver circuit, wherein the first driver circuit is connected to a first line for a first power and is connected to a first motor for providing a driving force to an electronic parking brake to control the first motor (“Each of the redundant core microcontrollers 7,7′ has an associated drive circuit 8, 8′ for an electric parking brake actuator 3 a, 3 b.” ¶ 44. “The drive circuits 8, 8′ are also connected to separate power supplies.” ¶ 45. See also FIG. 3.), and
a second driver circuit, wherein the second driver circuit connected to the first line for the first power and is connected to a second motor for providing a driving force to an electronic parking brake to control the second motor (“Each of the redundant core microcontrollers 7,7′ has an associated drive circuit 8, 8′ for an electric parking brake actuator 3 a, 3 b.” ¶ 44. “The drive circuits 8, 8′ are also connected to separate power supplies.” ¶ 45. See also FIG. 3.);
a first switch connected between a source of the first power and the second driver circuit such that the second driver circuit receives the first power when the first switch is turned on (“A switch 11 connects the first arithmetic unit 7 to the second electrical parking brake actuator 8′.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.);
a first micro control unit (MCU) which is connected to the first driver circuit and the second driver circuit receiving the first power according to a reception of an electric parking brake (EPB) switch signal (“In error-free operation of the two redundant core microcontrollers the first arithmetic unit 7 controls both parking brake actuators 8, 8′ directly.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.); and
a second MCU connected to a driver circuit receiving second power (“second arithmetic unit 7′” - ¶ 51 and FIG. 3; see also ¶ 52.),
wherein the first MCU is connected to both the first driver circuit and the second driver circuit to control the first motor and the second motor in a normal operating state (“In error-free operation of the two redundant core microcontrollers the first arithmetic unit 7 controls both parking brake actuators 8, 8′ directly.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.), and
when a fault occurs in the first MCU, connecting a second MCU to a driver circuit to perform a one-channel motor operation for controlling only the second motor (“If a fault occurs with the first arithmetic unit 7 operating the two parking brake actuators 3 a, 3 b, then the second arithmetic unit 7′ takes over control at least of one electrical parking brake actuator. The first arithmetic unit 7 comprises a means of fault detection for this purpose, which in the event of a fault sends a signal 12 to the switch or multiplexer 11, which connects the drive circuit of at least one actuator to the second arithmetic unit 7′.” ¶ 52.).
Heise fails to explicitly disclose:
a third driver circuit connected to a second line for a second power and connected to a second motor for providing a driving force to an electronic parking brake to control the second motor;
a second MCU which is connected to the third driver circuit receiving the second power,
wherein the second driver circuit and the third driver circuit are respectively connected to different power sources which are the source of the first power, connected to the first driver circuit connected to the first motor, and a source of the second power, and
wherein the second MCU is connected to only the third driver circuit which is not connected to the first MCU, to perform a one-channel motor operation for controlling only the second motor when a fault occurs in the first MCU.
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches:
a backup driver circuit connected to a same motor as a primary driver circuit and receiving a second power (“The mode control utilities 530 are configured to selectively enable one of the primary inverter 512 and the backup inverter 522 with control signals En563a, En563b to the input power supply switches 563A, 563B.” ¶ 53 and FIG. 2. The backup inverter 522 is powered by “backup control branch supply power Pdc2” – see ¶ 55. Note: The backup inverter 522 analogizes to a driver circuit because it controls a motor.);
a backup MCU which is connected to the backup driver circuit (“The backup control branch 520 has a backup inverter 522 and a backup control module 521 to control operation of the backup inverter.” ¶ 48 and FIG. 2.); and
when a fault occurs in a first control branch, connecting a backup MCU to a backup driver circuit connected to the second motor and performing a one-channel motor operation for controlling the second motor (See at least ¶¶ 48, 53 and 55; and see FIG. 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the features of: a backup driver circuit connected to a same motor as a primary driver circuit and receiving a second power; a backup MCU which is connected to the backup driver circuit; and when a fault occurs in a first control branch, connecting a backup MCU to a backup driver circuit connected to the second motor and performing a one-channel motor operation for controlling the second motor, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful to provide redundancy in the case of a failure associated with a primary control branch. (See Oosthoek, ¶ 5.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing redundancy is a well-known motivation in the art to improve the safety and reliability of braking systems. Hence, the incorporation of Oosthoek into Heise would yield the predictable result of providing a “backup” path for Heise’s second MCU to control a third driver circuit (i.e., Oosthoek’s backup driver circuit) connected to Heise’s second motor in order to yield the above advantages. Critically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the modification of Heise with Oosthoek would constitute placing Oosthoek’s backup driver circuit on a branch that stems from second power source 9’, goes through second MCU 7’ and ends with the redundant driver circuit connected to second motor 3b. Such would be the predictable and natural modification to achieve the redundancy of Oosthoek without going against Heise’s principle of operation to arrive at the claimed invention.
As to independent claim 16, Heise discloses a controlling method of an electronic parking brake system wherein the electronic parking brake system comprises:
a first driver circuit, wherein the first driver circuit is connected to a first line for a first power and is connected to a first motor for providing a driving force to an electronic parking brake to control the first motor (“Each of the redundant core microcontrollers 7,7′ has an associated drive circuit 8, 8′ for an electric parking brake actuator 3 a, 3 b.” ¶ 44. “The drive circuits 8, 8′ are also connected to separate power supplies.” ¶ 45. See also FIG. 3.), and
a second driver circuit, wherein the second driver circuit connected to the first line for the first power and is connected to a second motor for providing a driving force to an electronic parking brake to control the second motor (“Each of the redundant core microcontrollers 7,7′ has an associated drive circuit 8, 8′ for an electric parking brake actuator 3 a, 3 b.” ¶ 44. “The drive circuits 8, 8′ are also connected to separate power supplies.” ¶ 45. See also FIG. 3.);
a first micro control unit (MCU) which is connected to the first driver circuit and the second driver circuit (“In error-free operation of the two redundant core microcontrollers the first arithmetic unit 7 controls both parking brake actuators 8, 8′ directly.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.);
a second MCU connected to a driver circuit receiving second power (“second arithmetic unit 7′” - ¶ 51 and FIG. 3; see also ¶ 52.);
a first switch connected between a source of the first power and the second driver circuit such that the second driver circuit receives the first power when the first switch is turned on (“A switch 11 connects the first arithmetic unit 7 to the second electrical parking brake actuator 8′.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.);
performing, by the first MCU, a two-channel motor operation for controlling the first motor and the second motor by driving the first driver circuit and the second driver circuit in a normal operating state (“In error-free operation of the two redundant core microcontrollers the first arithmetic unit 7 controls both parking brake actuators 8, 8′ directly.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.),
when a fault occurs in the first MCU, providing a second power to a driver circuit connected to the second motor and controlling only the second motor through a driver circuit for providing a driving force to an electronic parking brake (“If a fault occurs with the first arithmetic unit 7 operating the two parking brake actuators 3 a, 3 b, then the second arithmetic unit 7′ takes over control at least of one electrical parking brake actuator. The first arithmetic unit 7 comprises a means of fault detection for this purpose, which in the event of a fault sends a signal 12 to the switch or multiplexer 11, which connects the drive circuit of at least one actuator to the second arithmetic unit 7′.” ¶ 52.).
Heise fails to explicitly disclose:
a third driver circuit connected to a second line for a second power and connected to a second motor for providing a driving force to an electronic parking brake to control the second motor;
a second MCU which is connected to the third driver circuit receiving the second power; and
when a fault occurs in the first MCU, providing a second power to the third driver circuit connected to the second motor and controlling only the second motor through the third driver circuit which is not connected to the first MCU for providing a driving force to an electronic brake,
wherein the second driver circuit and the third driver circuit are respectively connected to different power sources which are the source of the first power, connected to the first driver circuit connected to the first motor, and a source of the second power
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches:
a backup driver circuit connected to a same motor as a primary driver circuit and receiving a second power (“The mode control utilities 530 are configured to selectively enable one of the primary inverter 512 and the backup inverter 522 with control signals En563a, En563b to the input power supply switches 563A, 563B.” ¶ 53 and FIG. 2. The backup inverter 522 is powered by “backup control branch supply power Pdc2” – see ¶ 55. Note: The backup inverter 522 analogizes to a driver circuit because it controls a motor.);
a backup MCU which is connected to the backup driver circuit (“The backup control branch 520 has a backup inverter 522 and a backup control module 521 to control operation of the backup inverter.” ¶ 48 and FIG. 2.); and
when a fault occurs in a first control branch, connecting a backup MCU to a backup driver circuit connected to the second motor and performing a one-channel motor operation for controlling the second motor (In contrast to a “normal operational mode”, the backup control branch 520 is enabled and utilizes “its backup inverter 522 controlled by its backup control module 521 in response to the external brake control signal IB.” ¶ 48. See also ¶¶ 49-55.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the features of: a backup driver circuit connected to a same motor as a primary driver circuit; and a backup MCU which is connected to the backup driver circuit, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to provide redundancy in the case of a failure associated with a primary control branch. (See Oosthoek, ¶ 5.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing redundancy is a well-known motivation in the art to improve the safety and reliability of braking systems. Hence, the incorporation of Oosthoek into Heise would yield the predictable result of providing a “backup” path for Heise’s second MCU to control a third driver circuit (i.e., Oosthoek’s backup driver circuit) connected to Heise’s second motor in order to yield the above advantages. Critically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the modification of Heise with Oosthoek would constitute placing Oosthoek’s backup driver circuit on a branch that stems from second power source 9’, goes through second MCU 7’ and ends with the redundant driver circuit connected to second motor 3b. Such would be the predictable and natural modification to achieve the redundancy of Oosthoek without going against Heise’s principle of operation to arrive at the claimed invention.
As to claims 3 and 18, Heise fails to explicitly disclose: a second switch connected between a source of the second power and the third driver circuit such that the third driver circuit receives the second power when the second switch is turned on.
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches: a switch connected between the source of backup power and a backup driver circuit such that the backup driver circuit receives the backup power when the backup switch is turned on (“The mode control utilities 530 are configured to selectively enable one of the primary inverter 512 and the backup inverter 522 with control signals En563a, En563b to the input power supply switches 563A, 563B.” ¶ 53 and FIG. 2. Note: That is, switch 563b provides power to inverter 522 (i.e., a driver circuit) upon activation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the feature of: a switch connected between a source of backup power and a backup driver circuit such that the backup driver circuit receives the backup power when the backup switch is turned on, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for activating a backup control branch when appropriate, thereby saving energy and improving efficiency.
As to claims 4 and 19, Heise fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the second switch is turned off when the first MCU operates normally.
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches: wherein a backup switch is turned off when a primary control branch operates normally (“During normal operation, the brake motor is controlled by the primary brake control branch.” ¶ 18. “The mode control utilities 530 are configured to selectively enable one of the primary inverter 512 and the backup inverter 522 with control signals En563a, En563b to the input power supply switches 563A, 563B.” ¶ 53 and FIG. 2. Note: That is, switch 563b provides power to inverter 522 (i.e., a driver circuit) upon activation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the feature of: wherein a backup switch is turned off when a primary control branch operates normally, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for activating a backup control branch when appropriate, thereby saving energy and improving efficiency.
As to claims 5 and 20, Heise discloses: wherein the second MCU receives the EPB switch signal through in-vehicle communication when a fault occurs in the first MCU (“[A]t least one of the arithmetic units comprises a means of error recognition, which on the occurrence of an error outputs a signal on the data bus …. [I]n the event of a fault of the monitored arithmetic unit ensures that corresponding error or changeover signals arrive at the other arithmetic unit and/or special switches.” See at least ¶ 19.).
As to claim 10, Heise discloses:
wherein the first MCU has a plurality of core processors (“[T]he controller 6 comprises two redundant core microcontrollers 7, 7′, each of which comprises two processor cores μC 1.1, μC 1.2 or μC 2.1, μC 2.2” – see at least ¶ 43 and FIGS. 2–5.), and
wherein the second MCU has at least one core processor (“[T]he controller 6 comprises two redundant core microcontrollers 7, 7′, each of which comprises two processor cores μC 1.1, μC 1.2 or μC 2.1, μC 2.2” – see at least ¶ 43 and FIGS. 2–5.).
As to claim 12, Heise discloses:
wherein the second MCU is configured to receive a Parking (P)-lock switch signal through in-vehicle communication when a fault occurs in the first MCU, and turns on a switch to control a driver circuit (“[A]t least one of the arithmetic units comprises a means of error recognition, which on the occurrence of an error outputs a signal on the data bus …. [I]n the event of a fault of the monitored arithmetic unit ensures that corresponding error or changeover signals arrive at the other arithmetic unit and/or special switches.” See at least ¶ 19. “The first arithmetic unit 7 comprises a means of fault detection for this purpose, which in the event of a fault sends a signal 12 to the switch or multiplexer 11, which connects the drive circuit of at least one actuator to the second arithmetic unit 7′.” See at least ¶ 52.).
Heise fails to explicitly disclose:
a second switch located on the second line for the second power and connected to the third driver circuit; and
when a fault occurs in the first MCU, turning on the second switch to control the third driver circuit.
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches: a switch connected between a source of backup power and a backup driver circuit such that the backup driver circuit receives the backup power when the backup switch is turned on when a fault occurs in a primary control branch (“The mode control utilities 530 are configured to selectively enable one of the primary inverter 512 and the backup inverter 522 with control signals En563a, En563b to the input power supply switches 563A, 563B.” ¶ 53 and FIG. 2. Note: That is, switch 563b provides power to inverter 522 (i.e., a driver circuit) upon activation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the feature of: a switch connected between a source of backup power and a backup driver circuit such that the backup driver circuit receives the backup power when the backup switch is turned on when a fault occurs in a primary control branch, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for activating a backup control branch when appropriate, thereby saving energy and improving efficiency.
As to claims 21 and 23, Heise fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the third driver circuit is connected to the second motor via a third line that is separate from the first line for the first power connected to the second driver circuit.
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches: wherein a backup driver circuit is connected to a backup line separate from a first line for a first power connected to another driver circuit (“The mode control utilities 530 are configured to selectively enable one of the primary inverter 512 and the backup inverter 522 with control signals En563a, En563b to the input power supply switches 563A, 563B.” ¶ 53 and FIG. 2. The backup inverter 522 is powered by “backup control branch supply power Pdc2” – see ¶ 55. Note: The backup inverter 522 analogizes to a driver circuit because it controls a motor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the features of wherein a backup driver circuit is connected to a backup line separate from a first line for a first power connected to another driver circuit, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to provide redundancy in the case of a failure associated with a primary control branch. (See Oosthoek, ¶ 5.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing redundancy is a well-known motivation in the art to improve the safety and reliability of braking systems. Hence, the incorporation of Oosthoek into Heise would yield the predictable result of providing a “backup” path for Heise’s second MCU to control a third driver circuit (i.e., Oosthoek’s backup driver circuit) connected to Heise’s second motor in order to yield the above advantages.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 22 and 24 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Heise in view of Oosthoek as applied to claim 5 – further in view of Odagiri (US20200313578A1; “Odagiri”).
As to claim 6, Heise fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the third driver circuit comprises a cut-off switch for preventing a malfunction of the second MCU when the first MCU operates normally.
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches: wherein a backup driver circuit comprises a cut-off switch for preventing a malfunction of the second MCU when the first MCU operates normally (During “normal operational mode,” the “mode control utilities 530 … blocks the brake motor drive signal D20 with the backup phase cut-off switch 526.” See at least ¶ 53 and FIG. 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the feature of: wherein a backup driver circuit comprises a cut-off switch for preventing a malfunction of the second MCU when the first MCU operates normally, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for activating backup power to a parking brake motor at an appropriate time in a relatively simple manner, thereby enhancing control optimization and decreasing manufacturing costs.
The combination of Heise and Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the cut-off switch is provided between a ground and the third driver circuit.
Nevertheless, Odagiri teaches: wherein a cut-off switch is provided between a ground and a driver circuit (“[A] transistor Tr1 [is] provided as a low-side switch between a connection point 34 and a ground point” – see at least ¶ 30 and FIG. 1. Here, Tr1 can be considered as a switch provided between a ground and the monitoring circuit 41; such follows Applicant’s description of a cut-off switch provided in Applicant’s FIG. 3. Continuing, the transistor Tr1 may function as a cut-off switch: “The transistor Tr1 that is the low-side switch remains in an OFF state (a cut-off state).” See at least ¶ 33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heise and Oosthoek to include the feature of: wherein a cut-off switch is provided between a ground and a driver circuit, as taught by Odagiri, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it is well-known and routine in the art that a cut-off switch should be connected to a ground as such completes the circuit and ensures that the cut-off switch can function properly.
As to claim 8, Heise discloses: wherein the first driver circuit drives the first motor and the second driver circuit drives the second motor in a normal operating state (“In error-free operation of the two redundant core microcontrollers the first arithmetic unit 7 controls both parking brake actuators 8, 8′ directly.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 3.).
As to claim 9, Heise fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the third driver circuit drives the second motor independently from the second driver circuit when a fault occurs in the first MCU, without being connected to the first MCU.
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches: a backup driver circuit drives a second motor independently from another driver circuit when a occurs in a first control branch, without being connected to the first MCU. (In contrast to a “normal operational mode”, the backup control branch 520 is enabled and utilizes “its backup inverter 522 controlled by its backup control module 521 in response to the external brake control signal IB.” ¶ 48. See also ¶¶ 49-55.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the features of: a backup driver circuit connected to a same motor as a primary driver circuit; and a backup MCU which is connected to the backup driver circuit, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to provide redundancy in the case of a failure associated with a primary control branch. (See Oosthoek, ¶ 5.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing redundancy is a well-known motivation in the art to improve the safety and reliability of braking systems. Hence, the incorporation of Oosthoek into Heise would yield the predictable result of providing a “backup” path for Heise’s second MCU to control a third driver circuit (i.e., Oosthoek’s backup driver circuit) connected to Heise’s second motor in order to yield the above advantages.
As to claims 22 and 24, Heise fails to explicitly disclose: a first cut-off switch connected to a line connecting the second MCU and one terminal of the third driver circuit.
Nevertheless, Oosthoek teaches: wherein a backup driver circuit comprises a cut-off switch connected to a line connecting a second MCU and a terminal of said driver circuit (During “normal operational mode,” the “mode control utilities 530 … blocks the brake motor drive signal D20 with the backup phase cut-off switch 526.” See at least ¶ 53 and FIG. 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Heise to include the feature of: wherein a backup driver circuit comprises a cut-off switch connected to a line connecting a second MCU and a terminal of said driver circuit, as taught by Oosthoek, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for activating backup power to a parking brake motor at an appropriate time in a relatively simple manner, thereby enhancing control optimization and decreasing manufacturing costs.
The combination of Heise and Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose: a second cut-off switch connected to another terminal of the third driver circuit.
Nevertheless, Odagiri teaches: a cut-off switch connected to another terminal of a driver circuit besides the terminal connecting the driver circuit to power (“[A] transistor Tr1 [is] provided as a low-side switch between a connection point 34 and a ground point” – see at least ¶ 30 and FIG. 1. Here, Tr1 can be considered as a switch provided between a ground and the monitoring circuit 41; such follows Applicant’s description of a cut-off switch provided in Applicant’s FIG. 3. Continuing, the transistor Tr1 may function as a cut-off switch: “The transistor Tr1 that is the low-side switch remains in an OFF state (a cut-off state).” See at least ¶ 33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heise and Oosthoek to include the feature of: a cut-off switch connected to another terminal of a driver circuit besides the terminal connecting the driver circuit to power, as taught by Odagiri, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is useful for providing further safety and redundancy to cut-off a driver circuit when appropriate.
Claim 11 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Heise in view of Oosthoek as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Zimmermann (US20190344769A1; “Zimmermann”).
As to claim 11, the combination of Heise and Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first MCU and the second MCU are implemented on separate PCBs.
Nevertheless, Zimmermann teaches: wherein a first MCU and a second MCU are implemented on separate PCBs (“[E]ach of the electronic open-loop and closed-loop control units 12, 112 comprises two independent (electrically separate) printed circuit boards” – see at least ¶ 122.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heise and Oosthoek to include the feature of: wherein a first MCU and a second MCU are implemented on separate PCBs, as taught by Zimmermann, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for ensuring redundancy of control units in the case of electrical failure, as this configuration is “electrically separate.” (See Zimmermann, ¶ 122.)
Claim 13 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Heise in view of Oosthoek as applied to claim 12 — further in view of Odagiri.
As to claim 13, Heise discloses: wherein a cut-off switch is turned on when a fault occurs in the first MCU (“[S]witch 11 is … designed in such a way that in each case an arithmetic unit can undertake control of the parking brake actuator of the arithmetic unit associated with the other wheel. Switch 11 can be viewed in principal as two separate switches, each of which is controlled by an error signal 12, 12′ of the arithmetic unit 7, 7′ normally connected to the drive circuit 8, 8′. Thus both parking brake actuators 3 a, 3 b can be controlled in each case by the error-free arithmetic unit (either 7 or 7′).” See at least ¶ 54 and FIG. 4.).
The combination of Heise and Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the cut-off switch is provided between a ground and the third driver circuit.
Nevertheless, Odagiri teaches: wherein a cut-off switch is provided between a ground and a driver circuit (“[A] transistor Tr1 [is] provided as a low-side switch between a connection point 34 and a ground point” – see at least ¶ 30 and FIG. 1. Here, Tr1 can be considered as a switch provided between a ground and the monitoring circuit 41; such follows Applicant’s description of a cut-off switch provided in Applicant’s FIG. 3. Continuing, the transistor Tr1 may function as a cut-off switch: “The transistor Tr1 that is the low-side switch remains in an OFF state (a cut-off state).” See at least ¶ 33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heise and Oosthoek to include the feature of: wherein a cut-off switch is provided between a ground and a driver circuit, as taught by Odagiri, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it is well-known and routine in the art that a cut-off switch should be connected to a ground as such completes the circuit and ensures that the cut-off switch can function properly.
Claim 14 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Heise in view of Oosthoek as applied to claim 3 — further in view of Frenzel et al. (US20190176789A1; “Frenzel”).
As to claim 14, the combination of Heise and Oosthoek fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the second MCU receives a wheel speed sensor (WSS) sensing signal through in-vehicle communication when a fault occurs in the first MCU, and turns on the second switch based on a wheel speed identified from the WSS sensing signal being 0 to control the third driver circuit.
Nevertheless, Frenzel teaches: wherein a second MCU receives a wheel speed sensor (WSS) sensing signal through in-vehicle communication when a fault occurs in the first MCU, and activates a parking brake based on a wheel speed identified from the WSS sensing signal being 0 (“[A] control device for the automatic parking brake ascertains information regarding the movement state of the vehicle depending upon information regarding at least one wheel rotational speed of at least one wheel of the vehicle …. As a consequence, it is also still possible to identify that the vehicle is at a standstill if the control device or one of the microchips fails.” See at least ¶ 15. Examiner notes that a vehicle being at a standstill necessitates a wheel speed being zero (0). “[T]he first microchip and a second microchip are embodied in a redundant manner with respect to one another in relation to actuating the end stage, wherein the second microchip actuates the end stage if a failure of the first microchip is identified.” See at least ¶ 16.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heise Oosthoek to include the feature of: wherein a second MCU receives a WSS sensing signal through in-vehicle communication when a fault occurs in the first MCU, and activates a parking brake based on a wheel speed identified from the WSS sensing signal being 0, as taught by Frenzel, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing “a redundant parking device … in order to safely park the vehicle” and ensuring that “it is also still possible to identify that the vehicle is at a standstill if the control device or one of the microchips fails.” (Frenzel, ¶¶ 5 and 15, respectively.)
CONCLUSION
This action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights