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 .
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.
Claim 16 and 17 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 16 appears to be missing at least part of the claim limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. (DE 102018122193 A1). The examiner notes that US 2021/0197780 is referenced herein as English equivalent.
In Re claim 1, Mueller et al. disclose a brake pressure modulator (fig. 1), comprising: a relay valve (10) to control a supply of pressurized air from a primary source (see 2, pV) to at least one brake actuator (see 6, 8); a first valve sub-unit (12) configured to be electronically actuated, and receiving a primary control pressure from the primary source (see 28); and a second valve unit (20) configured to receive at least a secondary control pressure from a secondary source (see 4, pBS) and at least part of the primary control pressure from the primary source (see 24) and transmit either pressure to the relay valve (see 26), wherein said second valve unit is a mechanically operable double-sided check valve (shuttle valve), and wherein the first valve sub-unit includes two solenoid valves (14, 16) and an outlet (14.2) of a first solenoid valve (14) leads to an inlet (20.2) of said shuttle valve and also to an inlet (16.2) of a second solenoid valve (16).
In Re claim 7, see 2/2-way solenoid valves (14, 16). The valves operate to at least enable the primary control pressure from the primary source to actuate the relay valve.
In Re claim 8, Mueller et al. disclose a single common housing (par. 0047).
In Re claim 9, see par. 0023.
In Re claim 11, see pressure sensor (22).
In Re claim 12, Mueller et al. disclose a pneumatic brake system (Abstract); centralized pressure modulator (pV); and centralized ECU (not shown; par. 0035; see S1, S2, Sb).
In Re claim 13, Mueller et al. disclose employing the device in a vehicle (Abstract).
In Re claim 14, Mueller et al. disclose discloses using the device as a trailer control valve (par. 0025; fig. 2).
In Re claim 15, see pars. 0023, 0054.
In Re claim 16, see first 2/2-way valve (14) in fig. 1.
In Re claim 17, see first 2/2-way valve (14); second 2/2-way valve (16); shuttle valve (20); and exhaust (5) in fig. 1. The valves are configured in substantially the same manner as applicant’s invention.
In Re claim 18, see primary pressure source (see pV, 2) and split control pressure line (21, 28) in fig. 1.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (DE 102018122193 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rebenstorf (US 4,054,327).
In Re claim 2, Mueller et al. discloses a schematic diagram of the brake pressure modulator and brake system, but fails to teach specifics of the components, including failing to teach that the shuttle valve includes a spool.
Rebenstorf is related to the art of pneumatic brake systems for vehicles, and more specifically to a shuttle valves for such a system, teaching forming the shuttle valve (54) with a spool (67) for actuation therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed a spool-type shuttle valve in the brake system of Mueller et al., as taught by Rebenstorf, as it was a well-known, proven, and reliable valve type, suitable for use in a pneumatic braking system.
In Re claim 3, see casing (59) and spool (67) in fig. 2 of Rebenstorf.
In Re claim 4, see shoulders (63A, 63B) which limit the movement of the spool (fig. 2 of Rebenstorf).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616