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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0239441 A1 to Klostermann et al. in view of US 2019/0263371 A1 to Goers et al.
Re-claim 1, Klostermann et al. teach a vehicle brake system comprising:
a source of pressurized fluid (such as 7 and/or 13);
a service brake system 6 having at least one service brake fluid circuit (input P1 and input P11) that forwards a service brake demand;
a trailer brake control system 3 connected to a trailer drawn by a vehicle carrying the vehicle
brake system, the trailer brake control system having a trailer brake control coupling 23 and a trailer brake valve (such as relay valve within regulating module 3, see figure 1), the trailer brake valve comprises:
a service brake demand input port (input port controlled by valves 28/29 and deriving from P11);
an additional brake demand input port (from input P43, interpreted as a parking brake demand input port, as this line derives from a hand actuated brake valve);
a trailer brake demand output port P2 for connection to the trailer brake control coupling
(such as at shuttle valve 33), the trailer brake valve provides a fluid pressure output at the trailer brake demand output port P22 dependent upon the fluid pressure applied at the service brake demand input port or the additional brake demand input port;
an electronic trailer brake control system 5 includes a control valve 31 operative to selectively
connect the trailer brake control coupling 23 with the source of pressurized fluid (such as 13 along input P1), the electronic trailer brake control system is operative to selectively supply pressurized fluid indicative of the service brake demand (as requested by input H2) or the additional (parking) brake demand for the trailer to the trailer brake control coupling (such as via a shuttle valve).
However, Klostermann et al. fail to specifically teach the hand brake valve is a parking brake system for forwarding a parking brake demand, or that the input along line P43 is connected to a park brake demand input port.
Goers et al. teach a vehicle brake system having a trailer brake valve 11 with a service brake demand input port and a parking brake demand input port, and that the parking brake demand is known to be operated using a hand brake (see paragraph 4). The hand brake valve 19 of Klostermann et al. is easily usable as a parking brake valve, as suggested by Goers et al., and thus the input line P43 would have been the park brake demand input line. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the hand brake valve 19 of Klostermann et al. is capable of use as a parking brake hand valve as suggested by Goers et al., thus forming a park brake system having a park brake demand transmitted to a park brake demand input port formed at the relay valve of Klostermann et al.
Re-claim 2, the electronic trailer brake control system 5 comprises an electronic control system including an electronic control unit 4 (ECU), the ECU actuates the control valve 31 to supply the pressurized fluid (from line P1) indicative of a brake demand for the trailer to the brake coupling 23 in dependence on meeting at least operational condition selected from the group consisting of operational conditions of the vehicle and operational conditions of a trailer towed by the vehicle. Operational conditions include a failure condition of the regulating valve 3.
Re-claim 3, the at least one operational condition is indicative of a PUSH condition (see paragraph 115, the trailer is prevented from running up or into the tractor). This may occur during failure of the regulating valve 3.
Re-claim 4, the control valve 31 is an electronically actuated solenoid valve that causes a second pressurized fluid (as from P1, a primary source of fluid is line P11) indicative of a service brake demand for the trailer to be forwarded to the trailer brake control coupling 23 when activated.
Re-claim 5, a shuttle valve 33 connects the trailer brake demand output port (along P22) and an output fluid line (along P2) of the electronic trailer brake control system 5 to the trailer brake control coupling 23.
Re-claim 14, the service brake is a hydraulic brake system 6 (see paragraph 108), the source of pressurized fluid is pressurized air (see compressor 13).
Re-claim 16, the vehicle brake system is part of an agricultural vehicle (see paragraph 3 and figure 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klostermann et al. in view of Goers et al. and in further view of US 2012/0283925 A1 to Barlsen et al.
Klostermann et al. teach the source of pressurized fluid 13 is pressurized air (as element 13 is a compressor). However, Klostermann et al. fail to teach the service brake system as a pneumatic brake system.
Barlsen et al. teach a tractor or towing vehicle service brake system in the form of a pneumatic brake system, as opposed to a hydraulic brake system (see paragraph 47). The use of pneumatic in place of hydraulic is known in the art, as each is capable of providing a pressurized fluid, and is selected based upon desire or performance requirements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the hydraulic service brake of Klostermann et al. with a pneumatic service brake system as suggested and taught by Barlsen et al., as each fluid pressure system yields the same expectant result of carrying out a requested brake operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
February 26, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616