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
The amendment filed 12/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 28 have been amended and claims 4, 29 have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-28 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein wherein the first valve”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-3, 5-9, 14-22 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US – 2017/0001612 A1) and further in view of Linhoff et al. (US – 2016/0339885 A1).
As per claim 1, Bauer discloses Hydraulic Brake System And Method For Operating comprising:
. a second functional unit (2, Fig: 1) for brake pressure control at each wheel brake of a multiplicity of wheel brakes in a redundant manner in relation to a first functional unit (1, [0007], [0024], Fig: 1) of a hydraulic motor vehicle brake system (Abstract), comprising:
at least one electrical brake pressure generator (9, 25, Fig: 1) that is configured to generate a respective brake pressure, on a wheel-specific basis, at the multiplicity of wheel brakes ([0027], Fig: 1),
wherein the second functional unit (2) comprises, for each wheel brake (6, Fig: 1) , a first valve arrangement including a first valve unit (5, Fig: 1) connected in parallel with respect to the brake pressure generator (Fig: 1) and a second valve (7, Fig: 1) arrangement arranged in a fluid line between the brake pressure generator (25, Fig: 1) and the wheel brake (6, Fig: 1).
As per claim 2, Bauer discloses wherein the second functional unit (2) has four inlets (4, Fig: 1), which are each coupled or couplable to an outlet, of the first functional unit (1, Fig: 1), wherein the inlets of the second functional unit and/or the outlets of the first functional unit are assigned to in each case at least one wheel brake (6, Fig: 1) and at least one inlet of the brake pressure generator is couple or couplable to an unpressurized reservoir (8, Fig: 1).
As per claim 3, Bauer discloses wherein the first valve arrangement (Attached figure and Fig: 1) is configured to be activatable for the brake pressure control at the corresponding wheel brake ([0027], Fig: 1)
As per claim 5, Bauer discloses wherein the first valve unit is configured to, during operation of the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit (9, 25), assume a blocking position at least counter to a conveying direction of the brake pressure generator, and/or to otherwise assume a passage position (via isolation valve 3, Fig: 1).
As per claim 6, Bauer discloses wherein the first valve arrangements comprise in each case one second valve unit (5, Fig: 1) which is configured to couple the wheel brake (6, Fig: 1) assigned to the respective first valve arrangement (Attached figure and Fig: 1), for the purposes of increasing brake pressure, selectively to an inlet, of the second functional unit and/or to the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit ([0030], Fig: 1).
As per claim 7, Bauer discloses wherein the second functional unit comprises a third valve unit (7, Fig: 1) per wheel brake of the multiplicity of wheel brakes, which third valve unit is configured to selectively dissipate brake pressure at the wheel brake assigned to the third valve unit ([0040], Fig: 1).
As per claim 8, Bauer discloses wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit has at least one inlet (Attached figure and Fig: 1), which is coupled or couplable to an inlet of the second functional unit and/or to an outlet of the first functional unit (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
As per claim 9, Bauer discloses wherein the second functional unit comprises at least one fluid accumulator (8, Fig: 1) provided at an inlet side of the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
As per claim 14, Bauer discloses wherein the at least one inlet (Attached figure and Fig: 1) of the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit (9, 25) is directed towards a corresponding inlet of the second functional unit (4, Fig: 1), and at least one outlet (Attached figure and Fig: 1), of the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit is directed towards at least one wheel brake of the multiplicity of wheel brakes (via valves 5 to 6, Fig: 1).
As per claim 15, Bauer discloses wherein the second functional unit (2, Fig: 1) comprises a second valve arrangement (5, Fig: 1) per wheel brake of the multiplicity of wheel brakes (6, Fig: 1), wherein the second valve arrangement (5) is arranged in a fluid line between the at least one outlet (Attached figure and Fig: 1) of the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit (9, 25) and the wheel brake (6) assigned to the respective second valve arrangement (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 16, Bauer discloses wherein the second valve arrangements comprise in each case at least one fourth valve unit (7, Fig: 1) that is configured to selectively assume a blocking position and/or passage position (27, Fig: 1).
As per claim 17, Bauer discloses wherein at least one, of the second valve arrangements (5) has two fourth valve units (7), which are arranged in series (Fig: 1).
As per claim 18, Bauer discloses wherein the second valve arrangements (5) comprise in each case at least one fifth valve unit (5, Fig: 1), which is configured as a check valve (24, Fig: 1) which allows a flow of hydraulic fluid to the respective wheel brake and which has a blocking action in the opposite direction (Fig: 1).
As per claim 19, Bauer discloses wherein at least one of the second valve arrangements (5) comprise(s) a fourth valve unit (7, Fig: 2), which is configured to selectively assume a blocking position and/or passage position, and a fifth valve unit (5, Fig: 1), which is configured as a check valve (Attached figure and Fig: 1) which allows a flow of hydraulic fluid to the respective wheel brake and which has a blocking action in the opposite direction, wherein the fourth and fifth valve units (Fig: 1) are arranged in series.
As per claim 20, Bauer discloses wherein the multiplicity of wheel brakes comprises all wheel brakes of the motor vehicle brake system or of the motor vehicle (Fig: 1), and/or the second functional unit (2, Fig: 1) is configured such that the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit (9, 25, Fig: 1) can implement an in particular wheel-specific brake pressure buildup at all wheel brakes of the motor vehicle ([0040], Fig: 1).
As per claim 21, Bauer discloses wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit (2) comprises two, fluid- conveying devices (two of pump 9, Fig: 1), which are actuatable by means of an electric motor (25, Fig: 1).
As per claim 22, Bauer discloses wherein the motor vehicle brake system comprises two front-wheel brakes (FR, FL) and two rear-wheel brakes (RR, RL), wherein in each case one front-wheel brake (FR, FL) and one rear-wheel brake (RR, RL) are jointly assigned and/or connected to one fluid-conveying device, and/or wherein the two front-wheel brakes (FR, FL) are jointly assigned and/or connected to one fluid-conveying device and the two rear-wheel brakes (RR, RL) are jointly assigned and/or connected to the other fluid-conveying device (As per figure 1, left side two brakes 6 are connected to left pump 9 and right side two brake 6 are connected to right pump 9, its inherently disclose that either left or right set of wheels are two front-wheel and two rear-wheel, Fig: 1).
As per claim 26, Bauer discloses wherein the wheel brakes, or the front-wheel brakes (two of 6) and rear-wheel brakes (other two of 6), are connected to the second functional unit (2, Fig: 1).
As per claim 27, Bauer discloses a hydraulic motor vehicle brake system with redundant brake pressure control ([0007] and [0024], Fig: 1), comprising:
- a first functional unit (1, Fig: 1), with a first electrical brake pressure generator (1, Fig: 1) that is configured to generate a respective brake pressure at a multiplicity of wheel brakes (Fig: 1); and
- a second functional unit (2, Fig: 1) which is configured according to Claim 1, wherein the second functional unit (2, Fig: 1) is configured to implement a brake pressure at each wheel brake of the multiplicity of wheel brakes (Fig: 1), on a wheel-specific basis, in a redundant manner in relation to the first functional unit (40, Fig: 1).
As per claim 28, Bauer discloses wherein the method comprises the steps:
- detecting a requirement for brake pressure control in the absence of functionality of the first functional unit ([0029] – [0030], Fig: 1); and
- in response to the detection, performing brake pressure control to at least one wheel brake of the multiplicity of wheel brakes by the second functional unit ([0027], 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.
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US – 2017/0001612 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Nakaoka et al. (US – 2016/0082937 A1).
As per claim 10, Bauer discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one fluid accumulator is configured as a piston-type accumulator with a cylinder and with a piston received displaceably therein, wherein the piston has an accumulation position when the cylinder has been filled, and wherein the piston-type accumulator is arranged in a fluid path of at least one of the wheel brakes of the multiplicity of wheel brakes such that a hydraulic fluid flowing from the wheel brake in the direction of an inlet of the second functional unit and/or in the direction of the first functional unit can force the piston into its accumulation position.
Nakaoka discloses Brake Apparatus comprising:
wherein the at least one fluid accumulator (88Rr, 88Fr, Fig: 2) is configured as a piston-type accumulator with a cylinder and with a piston received displaceably therein (Each regulating valve 90 is disposed in the upper part of the pressure control reservoir 88, and switches between an opened status and a closed status by a valve element moving according to the location of a piston disposed in the interior of the pressure control reservoir 88. This piston strokes according to the quantity of the hydraulic fluid stored in the pressure control reservoir 88, [0065], Fig: 2), wherein the piston has an accumulation position when the cylinder has been filled, and wherein the piston-type accumulator is arranged in a fluid path of at least one of the wheel brakes of the multiplicity of wheel brakes such that a hydraulic fluid flowing from the wheel brake in the direction of an inlet of the second functional unit and/or in the direction of the first functional unit can force the piston into its accumulation position ([0065], Fig: 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Hydraulic Brake System of the Bauer to use the accumulator in which the at least one fluid accumulator is configured as a piston-type accumulator with a cylinder and with a piston received displaceably therein, wherein the piston has an accumulation position when the cylinder has been filled, and wherein the piston-type accumulator is arranged in a fluid path of at least one of the wheel brakes of the multiplicity of wheel brakes such that a hydraulic fluid flowing from the wheel brake in the direction of an inlet of the second functional unit and/or in the direction of the first functional unit can force the piston into its accumulation position as taught by Nakaoka in order to quick control of the wheel cylinder pressure.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US – 2017/0001612 A1) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Nakazawa et al. (US – 2018/0162332 A1).
As per claim 11, Bauer discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit has at least one inlet, which is coupled or couplable to a first unpressurized reservoir for hydraulic fluid of the first functional unit, and/or in that the second functional unit has a second unpressurized reservoir for hydraulic fluid, wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit has at least one inlet, which is coupled or couplable to the second unpressurized reservoir for hydraulic fluid of the second functional unit.
Nakazawa discloses Brake Apparatus comprising:
wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit (2, Fig: 2) has at least one inlet (24a, Fig: 2), which is coupled or couplable to a first unpressurized reservoir (RSV via 4R1, Fig: 2) for hydraulic fluid of the first functional unit (Fig: 2), and/or in that the second functional unit has a second unpressurized reservoir for hydraulic fluid (32, Fig: 2), wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit (P1, M1, Fig: 2) has at least one inlet (24a, Fig: 2), which is coupled or couplable to the second unpressurized reservoir for hydraulic fluid of the second functional unit (Fig: 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Hydraulic Brake System of the Bauer to make the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit has at least one inlet, which is coupled or couplable to a first unpressurized reservoir for hydraulic fluid of the first functional unit, and/or in that the second functional unit has a second unpressurized reservoir for hydraulic fluid, wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit has at least one inlet, which is coupled or couplable to the second unpressurized reservoir for hydraulic fluid of the second functional unit as taught by Nakazawa in order to capable of acquiring the desired brake hydraulic pressure when the opening failure has occurred in the shut-off valve.
As per claim 12, Nakazawa further disclose wherein the second functional unit has a fifth inlet (at 32, Fig: 2), which is coupled or couplable to the first unpressurized reservoir (RSV) for hydraulic fluid of the first functional unit (1, Fig: 2), wherein the at least one inlet (24a, Fig: 2) of the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit is coupled or couplable to the fifth inlet of the second functional unit (Fig: 2).
As per claim 13, Nakazawa further disclose wherein the outlets (at 22, Fig: 2), of the third valve units (29, Fig: 2) of the second functional unit (2), which outlets are directed away from the wheel brakes (W/C, Fig: 2), are coupled and/or couplable to the first unpressurized reservoir of the first functional unit and/or to the second unpressurized reservoir of the second functional unit (Fig: 2).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US – 2017/0001612 A1) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Alford et al. (US – 2021/0179051 A1).
As per claim 23, Bauer discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit comprises a double-acting cylinder-piston arrangement that is actuatable by an electric motor.
Alford discloses Hydraulic Motor Vehicle Braking System comprising:
wherein the brake pressure generator (192, 192’, Fig: 1) of the second functional unit (180’, Fig: 1) comprises a double-acting cylinder-piston arrangement that is actuatable by an electric motor (the two pumps 192, 192′ could also be replaced by a single pump working by the plunger principle (for example with a single- or double-acting cylinder-piston arrangement), [0069], Fig: 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Hydraulic Brake System of the Bauer to use the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit comprises a double-acting cylinder-piston arrangement that is actuatable by an electric motor as taught by Alford in order to provide exact fluid pressure and prevent pressure lost.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US – 2017/0001612 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Plewnia Heinrich (WO – 2018/134333 A1, Examiner disclosed English machined translation in previous office action).
As per clam 24, Bauer discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit comprises a multi-piston pump, which is actuatable by an electric motor, wherein in each case at least two of the wheel brakes are jointly assigned and/or connected to one piston of the multi- piston pump.
Plewnia discloses Hydraulic Brake System For A Motor Vehicle and Method Of Operation comprising:
wherein the brake pressure generator (188, Abstract, Fig: 1-8) of the second functional unit (180’, Fig: 6) comprises a multi-piston pump (Instead of a double-acting cylinder-piston arrangement, a single acting cylinder-piston arrangement (for example in the manner of a plunger arrangement), Short Outline, [0031]), a gear pump or multi -piston pump can also be provided) which is actuatable by an electric motor(190, Fig: 1), wherein in each case at least two of the wheel brakes are jointly assigned and/or connected to one piston of the multi- piston pump (Fig: 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Hydraulic Brake System of the Bauer to use the brake pressure generator of the second functional unit comprises a multi-piston pump, which is actuatable by an electric motor, wherein in each case at least two of the wheel brakes are jointly assigned and/or connected to one piston of the multi- piston pump as taught by Plewnia in order to achieved positive brake pressure control.
As per claim 25, Plewnia further discloses wherein the multi-piston pump comprises two pistons, and the motor vehicle brake system comprises two front-wheel brakes (FR, FL) and two rear-wheel brakes (RR, RL), wherein in each case one front-wheel (FR, FL) brake and one rear-wheel brake (RR, RL) are jointly assigned and/or connected to one piston, and/or wherein the two front-wheel brakes (FR, FL) are jointly assigned and/or connected to one piston and the two rear-wheel brakes (RR, RL) are jointly assigned and/or connected to the other piston (For example, the multi-piston pump comprises at least four pistons. If the brake system includes two front brakes and two rear wheel brakes, each front brake and each rear brake may be associated with at least one of these four pistons. In a six-piston pump, therefore, each front brake can be assigned exactly two pistons, each rear brake is associated with exactly one piston. The two front brakes and the two rear brakes can be connected to the second function unit, Short Outline, [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 2 of REMARK, the applicant argued that “More specifically, Bauer does not disclose a second functional unit with an
electrical brake pressure generator capable of generating brake pressure independently for each wheel. Bauer's system may provide redundant braking, but it does not teach or suggest wheel-specific control by a second, electrically actuated brake pressure generator. Accordingly, for at least this reason, Bauer fails to anticipate claim 1.
Claim 1 also requires, for each wheel brake, a first valve arrangement including a first valve unit connected in parallel with respect to the brake pressure generator. Bauer fails to disclose this arrangement. Indeed, Bauer does not disclose, for each wheel brake, a first valve arrangement with a valve unit connected in parallel to the brake pressure generator of a second functional unit. Bauer's disclosure is limited to conventional valve arrangements and does not teach the specific parallel configuration required by claim. For this additional reason, claim 1 is not anticipated by Bauer.
Claim 1 further requires a second valve arrangement arranged in a fluid line
between the brake pressure generator and the wheel brake. Bauer fails to disclose this arrangement. For this further reason, claim 1 is not anticipated by Bauer.
Finally, claim 1 also requires redundant operation in relation to a first functional unit. More specifically, claim 1 recites "in a redundant manner in relation to a first functional unit of a hydraulic motor vehicle brake system..." While Bauer discusses redundancy in brake systems, it does not disclose the specific architecture and control logic for a second functional unit operating in the manner claimed, including the specific valve arrangements and wheel-specific brake pressure generation.
In summary, Bauer fails to disclose, either expressly or inherently, all of the recitations of amended claim 1. More specifically, Bauer fails to teach or suggest:
" A second functional unit with an electrical brake pressure generator for
wheel-specific control,
" The required parallel and series valve arrangements for each wheel brake,
" The specific fluid line architecture and redundancy logic”.
In response to applicant’s arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Bauer clearly showed motor 9 and two pumps unit 9 in FIG. 1. This is second functional unit. Master cylinder and brake pedal function as first functional unit. As per figure 1, Bauer further disclose 5 inlet valves which parallel with respect to pressure generator 9, 25. And also include 4, outlet valves 7 between pressure generator 9, 25 and wheel cylinder 6.
Therefore, all limitations recited in independent claim 1 including newly added limitations read on Bauer. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1 over Bauer (US – 2017/0001612) is proper for the reason set forth above and maintained the rejection. Further, independent claims 2-3, 5-28 depend directly or indirectly on claim 1, and therefore, rejection over Bauer et al. (US – 2017/001612 A1)[claims 1-3, 5-9, 14-22 and 26-28] and further in view of Nakaoka et al. (US – 2016/0082937 A1) [claim 10], Nakazawa et al. (US – 2018/0162332 A1) [claims 11-13], Alford et al. (US – 2021/0179051 a1) [claim 23], and Plewnia Heinrich (WO – 2018/134333 A1) [claims 24-25].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616