DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (CN 113573962 A).
Re claim 1, Ma et al. disclose a method of automatically evacuating and filling a brake system comprising, providing a brake system control module, the brake system control module including a reservoir tank (01), sensors (80, 60, 70), a processor (2101), and a memory (2102); determining if a low fluid level is detected in the reservoir tank [0196]; monitoring a value of the sensors (60, 70) to determine if the value of the sensors is less than or greater than evacuation (evac) and fill start and stop thresholds; and automatically managing an evacuation and a filling of the brake system based on the value of the sensors ([0169] – [0176], 101-103, Fig. 15A). See Ma et al. - US 2023/0347860 A1 for Translation purposes.
Re claim 10, Ma et al. disclose a brake system control module for use in a brake system, the brake system control module comprising: a reservoir tank (01) having a brake fluid level sensor (80); the brake system control module being configured to: automatically determine if the brake fluid level sensor detects a low fluid level in the reservoir tank; monitor a value of sensors (60, 70) to determine if the value of the sensors is less than or greater than evac and fill start and stop thresholds; and manage an evacuation and a filling of the brake system based on the value of the sensors. ([0169] – [0176], 101-103, Fig. 15A) See Ma et al. - US 2023/0347860 A1 for Translation purposes..
Re claim 11, Ma et al. disclose wherein the sensors (60, 70) are pressure sensors to sense a pressure in the brake system.
Re claim 12, Ma et al. disclose a processor (2101) and a memory (2102), wherein evac and fill process parameters are recorded and stored on the memory. ([0292])
Re claim 14, Ma et al. disclose method of automatically evacuating and filling a brake system comprising, providing a brake system control module, the brake system control module including a reservoir tank sensor (80), a processor (2101), and a memory (2102); determining if a low fluid level is detected in the reservoir tank; monitoring a value of sensors (60, 70) to determine if the value of the sensors is less than an evac start threshold; automatically managing an evacuation of the brake system; monitoring a value of the sensors to determine if the value of the sensors is greater than a fill start threshold; monitoring the value of the sensors to determine if the value of the sensors is less than a fill stop threshold; and automatically managing filling the brake system with a fluid. ([0169] – [0176], 101-103, Fig. 15A) See Ma et al. - US 2023/0347860 A1 for Translation purposes.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN 113573962 A).
Re claims 19 and 20, Ma et al. do not teach wherein at least one of the sensors is a pressure sensor, and wherein the evac start threshold is in a range from -1 bar to 1 bar or wherein the fill start threshold is in a range from 2 bar to 10 bar and the fill stop threshold is in a range from 0 bar to 7 bar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the appropriate threshold ranges desired for appropriate system pressurization through routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 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.
Claims 13, and 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Ma et al. do not teach a method of evacuating and filling a brake system. However, the only limitation regarding the claimed “brake system” and the “brake system control module” recited is the reservoir tank. It is the examiner’s position that applicant’s remarks are more specific than the claim language. As explained above, as broadly claimed, Ma et al. anticipates the claimed subject matter. Ma et al. discloses evacuating and filling a brake system comprising a brake system control module that includes a reservoir tank. No additional components or limitations are claimed with regard to the brake system control module.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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 at 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTW
March 21, 2026