CTNF 17/996,061 CTNF 77400 DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-34-01 Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “the availability of the hydraulic fallback level being checked after the motor vehicle equipped with the power brake system has come to a standstill, a drive of the secondary pressure generator being controlled electrically during the standstill to build up a braking pressure in at least one of the wheel brakes”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the “the availability of the hydraulic fallback level is checked when the vehicle is at a standstill, by electrically controlling the secondary pressure generator to build up braking pressure in at least one of the wheel brakes, and detecting and evaluating the pressure build-up electronically” added to parent claim 10. If it is the same check as parent claim 10, it is not clear how it further limits the subject matter of parent claim 10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10, 13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US# 2022/0324430) in view of Feigel et al (US# 2016/0031426) . Watanabe et al disclose a method for checking availability of a hydraulic fallback level in a power brake system with electronic slip control, of a motor vehicle, the power brake system configured to supply connected wheel brakes 3 with pressurized medium under braking pressure and including a plurality of pressure generators 24/214, of which respective drives are controllable separately from one another by at least one electronic control device 18/19, the power brake system being set up for operation in a normal operation in which a necessary braking event is detected by the electronic control device 18 and associated with a braking pressure which can be set at the wheel brakes by corresponding electrical control of the drive of a primary pressure generator 24 (S101/S104), and at least one electrically controllable secondary pressure generator 214 being provided configured to adapt the braking pressure to a respective wheel slip that currently prevails at wheels associated with the wheel brakes [0043], and the power brake system being set up for operation at a hydraulic fallback level at which the braking pressure can be set at the wheel brakes of the power brake system by a corresponding electronic control 19 of the drive of the secondary pressure generator 214 as a result of a fault occurring in the generation of braking pressure by the primary pressure generator (S100, S102), the method comprising: during the normal operation of the power brake system, checking availability of the hydraulic fallback level (S200) at determinable time intervals. [0054] The processing procedures are performed repeatedly per predetermined calculation cycle. The predetermined calculation cycle has a “determinable time interval”. Watanabe et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the availability of the hydraulic fallback level being checked when the vehicle is at a standstill, by electrically controlling the secondary pressure generator to build up braking pressure in at least one of the wheel brakes, and detecting and evaluating the pressure build-up electronically. Watanabe et al is silent as to how availability is determined. Feigel et al disclose a similar brake system and further teaches a method of determining the availability of the pressure generator being checked when the vehicle is at a standstill, by electrically controlling the secondary pressure generator to build up braking pressure in at least one of the wheel brakes, and detecting and evaluating the pressure build-up electronically. [0029] “dormant fault of the sealing element 61 can be detected by way of test routines. Thus, for example at certain time intervals, preferably in the starting phase, or in other operating states, in which the vehicle is at a standstill, the hydraulic valve can be opened, the piston can be advanced as far as beyond dipping into the second sealing element, the connecting valves to the wheel brakes can be kept closed and the pressure which is produced can be evaluated by means of a pressure sensor as an indication of an intact sealing action of the second sealing element.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine availability of the fallback portion of Watanabe et al using the method taught by DE ‘850 to detect failures in a manner that does not disturb the driver. Regarding claim 13, Watanabe, as modified, disclose that the availability of the hydraulic fallback level is checked after the motor vehicle equipped with the power brake system has come to a standstill, a drive of the secondary pressure generator being controlled electrically during the standstill to build up a braking pressure in at least one of the wheel brakes. Regarding claim 17, Watanabe et al disclose an electronic control device 18/19 for a power brake system with electronic slip control, of a motor vehicle, the electronic control device configured to check availability of a hydraulic fallback level in the power brake system, the power brake system configured to supply connected wheel brakes 3 with pressurized medium under braking pressure and including a plurality of pressure generators 24/214, of which respective drives are controllable separately from one another by the electronic control device 18/19, the power brake system being set up for operation in a normal operation in which a necessary braking event is detected by the electronic control device and associated with a braking pressure which can be set at the wheel brakes by corresponding electrical control of the drive of a primary pressure generator 24 (S101/S104), and at least one electrically controllable secondary pressure generator 214 being provided configured to adapt the braking pressure to a respective wheel slip that currently prevails at wheels associated with the wheel brakes [043], and the power brake system being set up for operation at a hydraulic fallback level at which the braking pressure can be set at the wheel brakes of the power brake system by a corresponding electronic control 19 of the drive of the secondary pressure generator 214 as a result of a fault occurring in the generation of braking pressure by the primary pressure generator (S100, S102), the electronic control device configured to: during the normal operation of the power brake system, check availability of the hydraulic fallback level at determinable time intervals. [0054] The processing procedures are performed repeatedly per predetermined calculation cycle. The predetermined calculation cycle has a “determinable time interval”. Watanabe et al is silent as to how availability is determined. Feigel et al disclose a similar brake system and further teaches a method of determining the availability of the pressure generator being checked when the vehicle is at a standstill, by electrically controlling the secondary pressure generator to build up braking pressure in at least one of the wheel brakes, and detecting and evaluating the pressure build-up electronically. [0029] “dormant fault of the sealing element 61 can be detected by way of test routines. Thus, for example at certain time intervals, preferably in the starting phase, or in other operating states, in which the vehicle is at a standstill, the hydraulic valve can be opened, the piston can be advanced as far as beyond dipping into the second sealing element, the connecting valves to the wheel brakes can be kept closed and the pressure which is produced can be evaluated by means of a pressure sensor as an indication of an intact sealing action of the second sealing element.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine availability of the fallback portion of Watanabe et al using the method taught by DE ‘850 to detect failures in a manner that does not disturb the driver. Regarding claim 18, Watanabe et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claims including; a power brake system with electronic slip control, which is equipped with an electronic control device 18/19, the electronic control device configured to check availability of a hydraulic fallback in the power brake system, the power brake system configured to supply connected wheel brakes 3 with pressurized medium under braking pressure and including a plurality of pressure generators 24/214, of which respective drives are controllable separately from one another by the electronic control device 18/19, the power brake system being set up for operation in a normal operation in which a necessary braking event is detected by the electronic control device and associated with a braking pressure which can be set at the wheel brakes by corresponding electrical control of the drive of a primary pressure generator 24 (S101/S104), and at least one electrically controllable secondary pressure generator 214 being provided configured to adapt the braking pressure to a respective wheel slip that currently prevails at wheels associated with the wheel brakes [0043], and the power brake system being set up for operation at a hydraulic fallback level at which the braking pressure can be set at the wheel brakes of the power brake system by a corresponding electronic control 19 of the drive of the secondary pressure generator 214 as a result of a fault occurring in the generation of braking pressure by the primary pressure generator (S100, S102), the electronic control device configured to: during the normal operation of the power brake system, check availability of the hydraulic fallback level at determinable time intervals. The processing procedures are performed repeatedly per predetermined calculation cycle. The predetermined calculation cycle has a “determinable time interval”. Watanabe et al is silent as to how availability is determined. Feigel et al disclose a similar brake system and further teaches a method of determining the availability of the pressure generator being checked when the vehicle is at a standstill, by electrically controlling the secondary pressure generator to build up braking pressure in at least one of the wheel brakes, and detecting and evaluating the pressure build-up electronically. [0029] “dormant fault of the sealing element 61 can be detected by way of test routines. Thus, for example at certain time intervals, preferably in the starting phase, or in other operating states, in which the vehicle is at a standstill, the hydraulic valve can be opened, the piston can be advanced as far as beyond dipping into the second sealing element, the connecting valves to the wheel brakes can be kept closed and the pressure which is produced can be evaluated by means of a pressure sensor as an indication of an intact sealing action of the second sealing element.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine availability of the fallback portion of Watanabe et al using the method taught by DE ‘850 to detect failures in a manner that does not disturb the driver . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US# 2022/0324430) and Feigel et al (US# 2016/0031426), as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of DE 102018212850 (also note US Equivalent 2021/0316709) . Watanabe et al, as modified above, further disclose the drive of the secondary pressure generator is controlled electrically and a hydraulic connection between the secondary pressure generator and the wheel brakes is broken, by electrical control of a valve device no later than a start of the electrical control of the drive of the secondary pressure generator. Note [0029] of Feigel et al. Watanabe et al and Feigel lack the disclosure of the test being carried out in absence of a braking request. DE ‘ 850 discloses a brake system and further teaches a method of determining availability of a brake system including a drive of a pressure generator 5 in an absence of a braking request. [0013] Note testing when unlocking or opening a door would be a condition where a braking request is not present. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine availability of the fallback portion of Watanabe et al in absence of a braking request, such as when unlocking or opening a vehicle door as taught by DE ‘850 to detect failures in a manner that does not disturb the driver . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US# 2022/0324430) and Feigel et al (US# 2016/0031426), as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Versin et al (US# 2019/0299961) . Watanabe et al, as modified above, disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to a conclusion being drawn that there is availability of the hydraulic fallback level when the braking pressure generated by the secondary pressure generator is equal to or greater than a specifiable limit value for the braking pressure which is stored in the electronic control device of the power brake system. Watanabe et al is silent as to how availability is determined. Versin et al disclose a brake system and further teach a conclusion being drawn that there is availability of the hydraulic fallback level when the braking pressure generated by the secondary pressure generator 42 is equal to or greater than a specifiable limit value for the braking pressure which is stored in the electronic control device of the power brake system. [0030] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine availability of the fallback portion of Watanabe et al using pressure limit values, such as taught by Versin et al as an obvious means of detecting inadequate pressure, thereby ensuring the safety of the brake system. Regarding claim 15, Versin et al teach that the braking pressure in the power brake system that the braking pressure that has built up is deduced indirectly based on a characteristic of power consumed by the drive of the secondary pressure generator. [0028][0029] 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US# 2022/0324430), Feigel et al (US# 2016/0031426) and Versin et al (US# 2019/0299961), as applied above, in further view of Kidston et al (US# 5308153) . Modified Watanabe et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the power of the secondary pressure generator is detected by measuring current flowing to the drive of the secondary pressure generator. Kidston et al disclose a brake system and teach the power of a pressure generator is detected by measuring current flowing to the drive of the pressure generator. Col. 13, lines 26-49. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine power and ultimately the pressure of the fallback portion of Watanabe et al using detected current flow of the drive, such as taught by Kidston et al as an obvious means of detecting inadequate pressure, thereby ensuring the safety of the brake system . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 11 is allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 2 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 3 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 4 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 5 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 6 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 7 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 8 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 9 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 17/996,061 Page 10 Art Unit: 3616
Prosecution Insights