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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, “an input volume value of a pressure chamber produced” in line 11 of the claim is not clear where such pressure chamber is produced as recited in the claim. It is also not clear if the volume detection part compute and detect, a pressure value of the second hydraulic circuit measured by a pressure sensor as circuit volume value or the circuit volume value as a pressure value of the second hydraulic circuit measured by a pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 1, “a control part configured to perform control to stop the low-pressure pressing mode” in line 20 of the claim is not clear and confusing. The examiner believes it to be overly wording. It is also not clear how the control part detects a leakage occurrence valve among the plurality of valves when the determination part determines that a leakage occurs as recited in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a driver’s pedal effort” in line 3 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to be a different driver pedal effort or the same pedal effort introduced in the parent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “determining whether the predetermined condition is satisfied” in line 3 and 5 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to be the same or different conditions. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a leakage occurs” in line 2 and line 3 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to be the same or different conditions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, “an input volume value of a pressure chamber produced” in line 6 of the claim is not clear where such pressure chamber is produced as recited in the claim. It is also not clear if the volume detection part compute and detect, a pressure value of the second hydraulic circuit measured by a pressure sensor as circuit volume value or the circuit volume value as a pressure value of the second hydraulic circuit measured by a pressure sensor.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “a driver’s pedal effort” in line 3 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to be a different driver pedal effort or the same pedal effort introduced in the parent claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “determining whether the predetermined condition is satisfied” in line 4 and 6 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to be the same or different conditions. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “a leakage occurs” in line 1 and line 2 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to be the same or different conditions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the mode" in line 1 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to the low-pressure pressing mode state or the high-pressure pressing operation mode state.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (KR 20190101130 A) in view Leiber et al. (US 11,279,337 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 11 and 13, Roh discloses an electronic brake system (1; fig. 1), which comprises different first and second hydraulic circuits (200) configured to transmit hydraulic pressure, which is discharged in a low-pressure pressing mode state or a high-pressure pressing operation mode state of a hydraulic pressure supply device, to a wheel cylinder provided on at least one vehicle wheel, the electronic brake system comprising:
a plurality of valves (note all the valves 54, 60, 221a, 221b, 221c, 221d, 222a, 222b, 222c, 222d, 233, 235, 236, 243 in fig. 2) provided in hydraulic pressure flow path that connects the hydraulic pressure supply device and the first and second hydraulic circuits (200), the plurality of valves being configured to regulate hydraulic pressure, wherein pressure of the first and second hydraulic circuits detected via pressure sensors (PS11 and PS12);
a determination part (104 determines the leak of the circuit based on various methods in addition to the method of determining the leak by comparing the error between the measured pressure and the calculated pressure); and
a control part (the controller 108 performs control to close the inlet valve 221 when the leakage in the circuit is determined, and determines the amount of current for operating the valve closing) configured to perform control to stop the low-pressure pressing mode, switch the mode to the high-pressure pressing operation mode, and detect a leakage occurrence valve among the plurality of valves when the determination part determines that a leakage occurs.
Roh discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the method of determining the leak by comparing the error between the measured pressure and the calculated pressure based on a pressure chamber produced when a motor piston (114) is moved by a rotational force of a motor (120) corresponding to a pedal effort measured by a pedal displacement sensor (11) but fails to disclose a volume detection part configured to detect an input volume value of the pressure chamber produced by the pedal displacement, and compute and detect the pressure value of the second hydraulic circuit measured by the pressure sensor as a circuit volume value, and configured to compare the circuit volume value with the input volume value detected by the volume detection part, determine whether a predetermined condition is satisfied, and determine whether a leakage occurs in the second hydraulic circuit. However, Leiber et al. discloses a similar braking system comprising a diagnostic method to determine whether a leakage occurs in the second hydraulic circuit by calculating a difference between the input volume value and the circuit volume value, determining whether the predetermined condition is satisfied, comparing the pressure value of the second hydraulic circuit with a target pressure, and then determining whether the predetermined condition is satisfied via a determination part, wherein a volume detection part configured to detect an input volume value of the pressure chamber produced by the pedal displacement, and compute and detect the pressure value of the second hydraulic circuit measured by the pressure sensor as a circuit volume value, and configured to compare the circuit volume value with the input volume value detected by the volume detection part, determine whether a predetermined condition is satisfied, and determine whether a leakage occurs in the second hydraulic circuit (note col. 5, line 44 to col. 6, line 28, col. 8, line 37 to col. 9, line 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application to upgrade the brake system Roh with the teaching of Leiber et al. will further support the diagnostic of the leakage of the brake system to improve the quality of the braking operation.
Re-claims 2 and 12, Roh discloses the pressure sensor (PS 11, PS12) measures hydraulic pressure to be transmitted to at least one wheel cylinder of the second hydraulic circuit, and the pedal displacement sensor (11) measures a driver's pedal effort.
Re-claims 4 and 14, the modified device of Roh in view of Leiber et al. discloses the determination part determines whether a leakage occurs by performing the process of determining whether a leakage occurs in the second hydraulic circuit repeatedly but fails to disclose performing the process of determining at least three times as recited in the claim. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application to repeat the process at least three times, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art will provide more accurate result.
Re-claim 5, Roh discloses the plurality of valves (note all the valves 54, 60, 221a, 221b, 221c, 221d, 222a, 222b, 222c, 222d, 233, 235, 236, 243 in fig. 1) comprises a second cut valve, a first control valve, a second control valve, a third control valve, a fourth control valve, and a fifth control valve between the hydraulic pressure supply device and the second hydraulic circuit.
Re-claims 6 and 16, Roh discloses when the determination part determines that a leakage occurs, the control part switches the mode to the high-pressure pressing operation mode of the hydraulic pressure supply device, operates the first control valve of the second hydraulic circuit in a closed state, operates the second control valve in an open state, and then performs control to allow the determination part to repeatedly determine whether a leakage occurs in the second hydraulic circuit (note the determination unit 104 may determine the leak of the circuit based on various methods in addition to the method of determining the leak by comparing the error between the measured pressure and the calculated pressure, and when the determination unit 104 determines that a leak has occurred, the control unit 108 transmits a leak generation signal, so that the control unit 108 closes the inlet valve 221 in order to minimize the occurrence of the leak).
Re-claims 7 and 17, Roh discloses the determination part determines that no leakage occurs in the high-pressure pressing operation mode state, the control part detects the second control valve as the leakage occurrence valve (note third control valve 233 is normally closed and may be provided as a normal closed solenoid valve that operates to open the valve when the open control signal is received from the electronic control unit 2000).
Re-claims 8 and 18, Roh discloses when the determination part determines that a leakage occurs in the high-pressure pressing operation mode state, the control part detects the second cut valve as the leakage occurrence valve (note the determination unit 104 determines that a leak has occurred (YES in 620), the control unit 108 controls the inlet valve 221 of the circuit in which the leak has occurred (630), wherein, the controller 108 may control the inlet valve 221 until the preset available time in the electronic control unit 2000 is reached (YES in 640)).
Re-claims 9 and 19, Roh discloses the determination part determines that a leakage occurs in the high-pressure pressing operation mode state, the control part performs control to open the first and second cut valves and switch the mode to a fall-back mode (note step 650).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 15 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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