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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/27/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wheel brake an an outlet” in line 6 from the bottom of claim 1 should be changed to --wheel brake and an outlet-- for grammatical purposes. Appropriate correction is required. The remaining claims are objected to due to their dependency from claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 2016/0272178 to Feigel in view of US Patent 2021/0146908 to Ganzel and DE-102017000472 (DE’472).
Re: claim 1. Feigel shows in the figure a hydraulic motor vehicle brake system that is operable in a brake-by-wire mode and/or a push-through mode, wherein the brake system comprises: a pedal module 2, 4 comprising a master cylinder 2 mentioned in the abstract actuatable by a pedal as described in the abstract, in the push-through mode to generate a respective brake pressure at wheel brakes FL, RR, FR, and RL of the motor vehicle, a hydraulic reservoir 4; and a functional module having at least one electrical brake pressure generator 5 configured to generate brake pressure at the wheel brakes in the brake-by-wire mode, and at least a first valve device for each wheel brake, the first valve device including at least one first valve device 26b that in a non-activated state provides a direct hydraulic connection between an assigned wheel brake an an outlet of the electrical brake pressure generator, a second valve device 23b configured to selectively couple the master cylinder of the pedal module and/or the electrical brake pressure generator 5 of the functional module to the wheel brakes FR, RL and describes at least one assembly of the brake system as being of modular construction in paragraph [0029], but is silent specifically with regard to the pedal module being disposed entirely in a first housing block and comprising a hydraulic fluid reservoir divided into a plurality of partial reservoirs that are hydraulically connected as far as a minimum fill level and hydraulically separated from one another below the minimum fill level and the functional module being disposed in a second housing block that is separated from the first housing block.
Ganzel teaches in figure 1A the use of a pedal module 20 being disposed in a first housing block 12 and comprising a hydraulic fluid reservoir 18 as well as a functional module 130 being disposed in a second housing block 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the brake system of Feigel to have included the pedal module in a first housing block and the functional module in a second housing block, in view of the teachings of Ganzel, in order to provide a means of simplifying testability or repair and installation of the brake system.
DE’472 teaches in figure 1 the use of a reservoir 122 divided into a plurality of partial reservoirs, as labeled, that are hydraulically connected as far as a minimum fill level, as labeled, and hydraulically separated from one another below the minimum fill level.
[AltContent: textbox (Minimum fill level)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Partial reservoirs)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
274
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the reservoir of Feigel, as modified, to have included a plurality of partial reservoirs with a minimum fill level, in view of the teachings of DE’472, in order to provide a level of redundancy in case of a leak.
Examiner notes Feigel, as modified, results in that the two modules being arranged separately from one another in separate housing blocks.
Re: claims 2 and 16. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the hydraulic motor vehicle brake system and/or the functional module is configured to generate a respective brake pressure at the wheel brakes on a wheel specific basis as described in paragraph [0024].
Re: claims 3 and 4. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the pedal module has a pedal simulator arrangement 3 that is connected to the master cylinder 2.
Re: claim 5. Feigel, as modified, teaches in Feigel wherein the pedal module has a first controller described in paragraph [0028] and the functional module has a second controller described in paragraph [0023].
Re: claim 6. Feigel, as modified, teaches Feigel in paragraph [0029] wherein the first controller and the second controller are implemented as separate control units.
Re: claim 7. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the functional module is arranged so as to act between, particularly fluidly between as shown, the pedal module and the and the wheel brakes.
Re: claim 8. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the functional module comprises a first valve device per wheel brake with at least one first valve 26a, 26b, wherein the first valve device in an electrically non-activated state, connects the wheel brake assigned thereto to an outlet of the electrical brake pressure generator of the functional module and in an electrically activated state, separates the wheel brake from the outlet of the electrical brake pressure generator 5 of the functional module.
Re: claims 9 and 10. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the functional module comprises a second valve device with at least one valve 6b, 6c wherein the second valve device is configured to selectively couple the master cylinder of the pedal module or decouple the master cylinder from the wheel brakes.
Re: claims 11 and 12. Feigel, as modified, teaches in Feigel in paragraph [0003] wherein the first controller described in paragraph [0028] of the pedal module and/or the second controller described in paragraph [0023] of the functional module is configured to identify a functional failure of the functional module and thereupon initiate a switch from the brake by wire mode to the push through mode.
Re: claim 13. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the functional module is configured to generate brake pressure blending and/or wheel blending by comprising a third valve device with at least one third valve 7c.
Re: claim 15. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the pedal module has or is couplable and/or coupled to a reservoir 4 for storing a hydraulic fluid.
Re: claims 17 and 18. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the pedal module 2, 4 is configured to implement a respective brake pressure at the wheel brakes.
Re: claim 19. Feigel, as modified, teaches in the figure of Feigel wherein the electrical brake pressure generator 5 comprises at least one fluid conveying device 42 such as a piston pump and or radial piston pump and/or gear pumps and/or multi piston pumps which is /are actuatable by an electric motor 43.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Feigel fails to teach the separate housing block modules. Examiner emphasizes that Feigel disclosed modular construction, however, Ganzel was used to particularly teach the separate modules including the pedal module including the master cylinder and reservoir and the functional module including the electric brake generator and the valve devices. Applicant further argues that Feigel also lacks the teaching of the reservoir divided into partial reservoirs with the minimum fill interconnection. Examiner notes that DE’472 clearly teaches the recited reservoir. Examiner reiterates that it is Feigel, in view of the teachings of Ganzel and DE’472, that teaches the claimed limitations.
According the above rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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.
mmb
March 7, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616