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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 01/16/2026 have been considered and entered. Claims 1-9 have been canceled and claim 12 has been amended. Claims 10-18 are pending in the present application.
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 10, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito (US 2019/0210581).
Regarding claims 10, 17 and 18, Saito discloses a method for operating a brake system of a vehicle (see Abstract, FIG. 1), the brake system including a first actuator (2A) and a second actuator (2B) for generating a hydraulic pressure in the brake system (see ¶¶ 0035, 0037), a first control device (9A) which is configured to control the first actuator (see ¶ 0035), and a second control device (9B) which is configured to control the second actuator (see ¶ 0037), the method comprising the following steps:
monitoring the brake system for emergency braking (see ¶ 0036);
controlling the first actuator, by the first control device, to generate a first hydraulic pressure for achieving a prespecified emergency deceleration of the vehicle when emergency braking is detected (see ¶¶ 0035, 0036, 0038); and
controlling the second control device, by the first control device, to control the second actuator to generate a second hydraulic pressure when deceleration that can be or is achieved using the first actuator is less than the pre-specified emergency deceleration (see ¶¶ 0037, 0038).
Re-claim 11, Saito discloses vehicle data of the vehicle are monitored to detect emergency braking (see ¶ 0035).
Re-claim 13, Saito discloses the vehicle data include sensor data from sensors of the vehicle that acquire information about surroundings of the vehicle, and emergency braking is initiated when a dangerous driving situation is identified during the evaluation of the sensor data (see ¶ 0035).
Re-claim 14, Saito discloses that an actual deceleration of the vehicle is measured (see ¶ 0038, “first control unit 9A determines whether the pressure increase gradient of the wheel cylinder hydraulic pressure (change gradient of the braking force or the vehicle deceleration) is insufficient”) and that the second actuator is activated when the actual deceleration is less than the prespecified emergency deceleration (see ¶¶ 0036-0038).
Re-claim 15, Saito discloses an actual hydraulic pressure in the brake system is measured, and the second actuator is activated only when the actual hydraulic pressure is less than a target hydraulic pressure which is prespecified as a function of the prespecified emergency deceleration (see ¶¶ 0036-0038).
Re-claim 16, Saito discloses that the second actuator is activated to generate a maximum possible hydraulic pressure when no actual deceleration and/or no actual hydraulic pressure can be measured (see ¶ 0036, when pressure is detected, deceleration is not detected and vice versa).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2019/0210581) in view of Ngomssu et al. (US 2018/0162336).
Re-claim 12, Saito discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including generating various signals to operate braking of the vehicle but fails to disclose the vehicle data includes an actuating path and a speed of actuation of a brake pedal by a driver, and emergency braking is initiated when the actuating path and the speed both exceed a prespecified limit value as recited in the claim.
Ngomssu teaches a method for operating a brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2) wherein vehicle data of the vehicle are monitored to detect emergency braking (see ¶ 0013, claims 2, 13), wherein the vehicle data includes an actuating path and a speed of a brake pedal by a driver (see ¶ 0013, claims 2, 13) and an emergency braking is initiated when the actuating path and the speed both exceed a prespecified limit value (see ¶ 0013, claim 2, 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the brake system of Saito to determine an emergency braking situation based upon a pedal actuation amount and speed, as taught by Ngomssu, thereby improving the safety of the brake system by taking into account a driver’s indication of the need for maximum braking (see e.g. Ngomssu, ¶ 0013).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Saito fails to disclose or suggest evaluating whether the first actuator alone is incapable of achieving a target emergency deceleration. The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that it is not clear what the applicant is referring to by alone as stated in the remarks since the claim does not recite the first actuator alone is incapable of achieving a target emergency deceleration. However, Saito discloses a first control unit 9A comprising a first receiving portion 91A, a first computing portion 92A, and a first drive portion 93A, wherein the first computing portion 92A calculates a target deceleration based on driving conditions of the vehicle and information regarding obstacles ahead of the vehicle in addition to the driver's brake operation state, wherein, the first drive portion 93A supplies electric power to the first actuators of the first hydraulic control unit 1A in response to command signals from the first computing portion 92A (see ¶¶ 0035, 0036). In other words, the first unit is configured to set a target deceleration via the first computing portion and the first drive portion. Therefore, it is clear that Saito as set forth above, discloses all the limitations as recited in the claim.
Applicant further argues that Saito fails to disclose triggering control of the second control device in response to such a deceleration deficiency. The examiner disagrees. Saito discloses the computing portion 92A of the first control unit 9A determines whether the pressure increase gradient of the wheel cylinder hydraulic pressure (change gradient of the braking force or the vehicle deceleration) is insufficient under any of various brake controls (for example, boosting control, ABS or AEB), wherein, when an abnormality of the first control unit 9A is detected, the computing portion 92A outputs a command signal to the drive portion 93A of the second control unit 9B to operate the second pump 20B at a predetermined rotation speed for the assist control (see ¶¶ 0038). Saito further disclose the failure-state brake control causes the second control unit 1B to continue the brake control in the case of detection of a failure of the first control unit 1A (see ¶¶ 0037) Therefore, it is clear that Saito as set forth above, discloses all the limitations as recited in the claim and thus the rejections are proper and valid.
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 MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights