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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Overzier et al (US# 2024/0083401).
Overzier et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; a brake system for a vehicle comprising a master brake module 22 which comprises an electrofluidic pressure-generating unit 24 designed to selectively pressurize a volume flow of hydraulic fluid and supply it to the pressure connectors, an auxiliary brake module 26 configured to supply a pressure to the pressure connectors independently of the master brake module, and wherein the auxiliary brake module is configured to be selectively coupled fluidically to the master brake module or fluidically disconnected therefrom (via valves 38/42 and/or 44/46), and wherein the auxiliary brake module comprises at least one auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir which is disconnected from a master hydraulic fluid reservoir 32 of the master brake module, wherein the master brake module and the auxiliary brake module each have at least one sensor 61a/b for detecting a fluid pressure in the respective brake module, and a control unit 52a/b which is configured to monitor and compare a fluid pressure in the master brake module and in the auxiliary brake module by the measured values detected by the sensors, and, based on the pressure and/or pressure curve, to draw a conclusion about the functional capability of the auxiliary brake module. [0074] The volume of pressure medium which has been additionally displaced into the brake circuit by the second pressure-medium delivery device indicates a “functional capability” as broadly recited.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, a supply line (18a, line with 44a/48b and 50b) runs to the auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the auxiliary brake module comprises at least one pressure generator 28 which is driven by an electric motor 62, which is configured to pressurize the hydraulic fluid present in the auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir brake module and supply it at at least one of the pressure connectors. [0057]
Regarding claim 5, the auxiliary brake module comprises a fluid circuit in which are arranged the at least one pressure generator 28 and the sensor 61b for detecting the fluid pressure in the auxiliary brake module, and a valve 44b which acts as a non-return valve in its closed position (note parallel check valve).
Regarding claim 6, the at least one pressure generator 28 is connected to the auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir in order to draw in fluid.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the fluid circuit begins downstream from the auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir.
Regarding claim 8, the auxiliary brake module has a bypass path (line with 44b/48c) which bypasses the auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir, wherein the master brake module is fluidically connected to a pressure connector via the bypass path (via 18b).
Regarding claim 9, the bypass path bypasses the at least one pressure generator (pump of pressure device 28).
Regarding claim 10, a valve 44b is arranged in the bypass path.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, a sensor unit for detecting a volume displaced by the electrofluidic pressure-generating unit is provided. Figure 1a, sensor r/U at motor 58.
Regarding claim 12, Overzier et al discloses a method for performing a functional test of the brake system according to claim 1, comprising the following steps: the auxiliary brake module is fluidically disconnected from the master brake module (valves 44a/b close, t2, [0058]), whilst the auxiliary brake module is disconnected from the master brake module, the auxiliary brake module is activated in order to generate a defined pressure in the auxiliary brake module [0058], after the auxiliary brake module has been activated, it is coupled to the master brake module and the master brake module is activated (t3.1/t3.2, maximum pressure is obtained in chamber 60 [0060] or t5 [0065]), and the control unit monitors and compares the pressure and/or pressure curve in the master brake module and in the auxiliary brake module and, based on the pressure and/or pressure curve, draws a conclusion about the functional capability of the auxiliary brake module. [0074] The volume of pressure medium which has been additionally displaced into the brake circuit by the second pressure-medium delivery device indicates a “functional capability” as broadly recited.
Regarding claim 13, the auxiliary brake module is coupled to the master brake module for all the pressure connectors at the same time.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the auxiliary brake module is deactivated (t3.1) before the master brake module is activated (t3.2 or t5)
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.
Claims 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overzier et al (US# 2024/0083401) in view of Yagashira (US# 2013/0062932).
Overzier et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claims with exception to the control unit sending a signal to a vehicle acceleration unit when the auxiliary brake module is activated. Yagashira discloses a similar brake and further teaches a control unit 7 sending a signal to a vehicle acceleration unit 104 when the auxiliary brake module is activated [0058][0060] to provide an appropriately blended braking force in a vehicle with regenerative brake capabilities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control unit of Overzier et al send a signal to a vehicle acceleration unit when the auxiliary brake module is activated, as taught by Yagashira et al to facilitate the incorporation of regenerative braking, thereby improving the efficiency of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: “Overzier explicitly teaches that both the brake pressure generator 22 and the brake pressure modulator 26 draw hydraulic fluid from the same reservoir 32. See, e.g., Overzier, ¶0010: "Both the brake pressure generator (24) and the brake pressure modulator (28) are supplied with hydraulic pressure medium via a common reservoir (32) ... " Thus, Overzier cannot anticipate an auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir disconnected from a master hydraulic fluid reservoir, because it teaches the opposite - a single, shared reservoir. For at least this reason, claim 1, as amended is patentable over the cited art.”
It is noted that the claim limitation “wherein the auxiliary brake module comprises at least one auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir which is disconnected from a master hydraulic fluid reservoir 32 of the master brake module” does not limit where the auxiliary brake module draws hydraulic fluid from. Overzier discloses a fluid reservoir in the auxiliary module that is disconnected from the master hydraulic fluid reservoir, such as required by the claims. Note the annotated figure above identifying the auxiliary reservoir.
Applicant also argues that: “Further, Overzier's system is not an auxiliary brake module. More specifically, claim 1 recites an auxiliary brake module that is configured as a fallback system providing independent pressure generation. As such, it stores and circulates hydraulic fluid from its own reservoir, thereby permitting operation when the master module is unavailable.” It is noted that the auxiliary hydraulic fluid reservoir 28 of the instant invention is filled via supply line 36 from the master module [0056]. Therefore, in light of Applicant’s disclosure, the recited “independent pressure generation” does not preclude supply of fluid from the master module. The power brake system of Overzier provides redundant brake pressure which allows the vehicle to be braked to a standstill automatically in the event of a fault occurring at one of the pressure-medium delivery devices [0003], which indicates they are capable of independent operation. [0057] also discloses that the auxiliary brake module 26 provides braking pressure in a phase where the master module 22 can no longer be provided, further indicating the capability of the module 26 to provide pressure independent of the master 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 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