DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6, 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “”a pump”. It is not clear if this corresponds to the pump added to parent claim 1, or is an additional pump.
Claim 5 recites “at least one first shut-off valve”, “at least one second shut-off valve” and “at least one third shut-off valve”. It is not clear if these valves are part of the “at least first, second and third shut-off valves” of parent claim 1, or are additional valves.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 9-10, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US# 2021/014899) in view of Bauer et al (US# 20200070792).
Bayer discloses a method for operating a brake system of a motor vehicle, wherein the brake system has a brake pedal P, which can be actuated by a driver of the motor vehicle, a brake booster D, which can be coupled or is coupled to the brake pedal P, a brake cylinder Z, which can be coupled or is coupled to the brake booster and can be supplied with hydraulic fluid, and a hydraulic arrangement having at least first VB2, second VD and third VA2 shut-off valves, and a pump D, the hydraulic arrangement configured to act between the brake cylinder and at least one wheel brake R, wherein the method comprises at least the step of: hydraulically decoupling of the brake pedal from the at least one wheel brake the hydraulic arrangement; wherein decoupling is achieved by opening the at least first VB2, second VD and third VA2 shut-off valves such that hydraulic fluid displaced by the brake pedal is routed to a reservoir B and prevented from reaching the at least one wheel brake, and wherein the decoupling is performed exclusively hydraulically [0081]. Bayer lacks the disclosure of the pedal being moved or pushed back when the pump is activated, a haptic feedback message being generated by a pedal travel. Bauer et al disclose a similar brake system and method and further teach the use of a pump 60 and valve 52-2 to cause pedal movement to provide a haptic feedback message indicating an ABS event is occurring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ABS routine and haptic feedback taught by Bauer et al in the method of Bayer to improve vehicle stability and driver awareness in the brake system of Bayer.
Regarding claim 3, the hydraulic arrangement is activated in such a way that the brake pedal is decoupled from the at least one wheel brake at least temporarily [0081].
Regarding claim 5, the hydraulic arrangement has at least one brake circuit HL/VR, wherein the at least one brake circuit comprises the first shut-off valve VB2 for hydraulically separating the at least one wheel brake R and/or the at least one brake circuit from the brake cylinder Z, at least one second shut-off valve VD, which is assigned to the at least one wheel brake R, for hydraulically separating the at least one wheel brake R from the brake cylinder Z and/or from an outlet side of a pump D, and at least one third shut-off valve VA2, which is arranged in the return line of the at least one wheel brake R, wherein the at least one first shut-off valve VB2, the at least one second shut-off valve VD and the at least one third shut-off valve VA2 are activated in such a way as to open them. Figure 1.
Regarding claim 6, the at least one brake circuit comprises a fluid accumulator B, which is connected on the inlet side to the pump D, and is connected to the return line of the at least one wheel brake R, to the outlet side of the at least one third shut-off valve VA2, wherein hydraulic fluid is stored, in the fluid accumulator when the at least one first VB2, second VD and third VA2 shut-off valve are open. Note the fluid accumulator B always stores fluid, and fluid flows through the open valves to the accumulator B during the stowing operation [0081].
Regarding claim 9, the at least one second shut-off valve VD is activated in such a way as to close it, with the result that the at least one wheel brake R is separated from the brake cylinder Z and/or from the outlet side of the pump D.
Regarding claim 10, at least one third shut-off valve VA2 is activated in such a way as to close it, with a result that the at least one second shut-off valve VD is isolated. The closed valve VA2 isolates valve VD from the pump inlet or reservoir B.
Regarding claim 17, Bayer discloses a brake system for a motor vehicle, wherein the brake system is designed and/or configured to carry out the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the at least one second shut-off valve VD is activated in such a way as to close it, with the result that the at least one wheel brake R is separated from the brake cylinder Z and/or from the outlet side of the pump D.
Regarding claim 20, at least one third shut-off valve VA2 is activated in such a way as to close it, with a result that the at least one second shut-off valve VD is isolated. The closed valve VA2 isolates valve VD from the pump inlet or reservoir B.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US# 2021/014899) and Bauer et al (US# 20200070792), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Curran et al (US# 7281770).
Bayer and Bauer et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the brake system having a generator device, and/or is coupled to the generator, wherein the generator device is activated in such a way that no generator torque is generated or can be generated. Curran et al disclose a similar brake system and further teach the generator device for regenerative braking, the generator being activated in such a way that no generator torque is generated or can be generated when the battery is full (steps 54/56) or during an ABS event at the drive wheels (steps 60/64/66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the generator and generator control taught by Curran et al in the method of Bayer to improve the efficiency of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Bayer in view of Bauer et al, Applicant argues that “Bauer's teaching is specifically directed to providing haptic feedback during ABS events in brake-by-wire operation. Bauer discloses that "[e]ach routine relates to the behavior of the system during an ABS event (i.e., when the controller 20 switches into a programmed ABS routine to regulate brake pressure below an amount corresponding to driver request due to the detection of impending wheel lock-up)." Bauer, paragraph [0019]. Thus, the purpose of Bauer's haptic feedback is to alert the driver of wheel lock-up conditions during active braking. In contrast, claim 1, as amended, relates to hydraulic decoupling of the brake pedal from the wheel brakes, wherein the haptic feedback is generated during the decoupling operation-not during an ABS event.” Applicant further argues the method of claim 1 is performed during autonomous driving, not manual driving. It is noted that an autonomous driving mode is not recited until claim 3, and does not clearly require the haptic feedback during the autonomous driving mode. It is further noted that Bauer et al teach the generation of a haptic feedback while a brake pedal is decoupled (title, [0003]) and Bayer operates with the brake pedal decoupled during all modes of braking absent a failure of the brake-by-wire. It is maintained that the haptic feedback during ABS taught by Bauer et al reads on the recited haptic feedback of the claims.
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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights