DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 3/26/2026 has been considered.
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 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 1-2, 5-6, 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (JP 2015-110361 A) in view of Cheon et al. (U.S. 2020/0331444).
Regarding claim 1, Shimada discloses (figs. 2-3) A method for controlling a brake system (1) having a linear actuator (13) and a hydraulic pump (26f) comprising:
monitoring a braking request signal (pgh. 0051, “emergency braking determination unit 41”, monitoring for emergency brake signal EB);
switching the linear actuator and the hydraulic pump into synchronous operation when a rate of change of the braking request signal is greater than a threshold value (pgh. 0052, corresponding to the emergency brake signal, in combination with “the pump motor 26f and the motor drive cylinder 13 may be driven based on this added or increased target brake fluid pressure”),
wherein, in synchronous operation, the linear actuator and the hydraulic pump are operated simultaneously (see pgh. 0052) to convey hydraulic volume into at least one wheel brake (7) in order to build up a brake pressure in the wheel brake (to actuate the brake, as described).
wherein the hydraulic pump and the linear actuator are connected in parallel (both can boost pressure to the wheel 7, so they provide pressure in “parallel”),
Shimada does not appear to disclose the suction side of the hydraulic pump is connected to a non-pressurized hydraulic reservoir. In the same field of endeavor of electrohydraulic brake systems, Cheon teaches (see fig. 6) a brake system (1) including a non-pressurized hydraulic reservoir (118) and a hydraulic pump (50), wherein the suction side of the hydraulic pump is connected to a non-pressurized hydraulic reservoir (as shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the suction side of the hydraulic pump to a non-pressurized hydraulic reservoir to ensure continuous braking performance even when another component malfunctions such as the linear actuator (see pgh. 0074 of Cheon).
Regarding claim 13, Shimada discloses A brake system for motor vehicles comprising:
at least one wheel brake (one of 7); a linear actuator (13); and a hydraulic pump (26f),
wherein the linear actuator and the hydraulic pump are configured to switch into synchronous operation when a rate of change of a braking request signal (from 10a) is greater than a threshold value (pgh. 0052, corresponding to the emergency brake signal, in combination with “the pump motor 26f and the motor drive cylinder 13 may be driven based on this added or increased target brake fluid pressure”),
wherein, in synchronous operation, the linear actuator and the hydraulic pump are configured to operate simultaneously (see pgh. 0052) to convey hydraulic volume into the at least one wheel brake (one of 7) in order to build up a brake pressure in the wheel brake (to actuate the brake, as described);
wherein the hydraulic pump and the linear actuator are connected in parallel (both can boost pressure to the wheel 7, so they provide pressure in “parallel”).
Shimada does not appear to disclose the suction side of the hydraulic pump is connected to a non-pressurized hydraulic reservoir. In the same field of endeavor of electrohydraulic brake systems, Cheon teaches (see fig. 6) a brake system (1) including a non-pressurized hydraulic reservoir (118) and a hydraulic pump (50), wherein the suction side of the hydraulic pump is connected to a non-pressurized hydraulic reservoir (as shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the suction side of the hydraulic pump to a non-pressurized hydraulic reservoir to ensure continuous braking performance even when another component malfunctions such as the linear actuator (see pgh. 0074 of Cheon).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Shimada discloses one of a brake sensor (10a) and a driving assistance system generating the braking request signal (standard brake sensor operation).
Regarding claim 15, Shimada discloses the hydraulic pump and the linear actuator are connected in series, by opening a hydraulic valve (e.g. one of 26b, 26d, 26e) between a suction side of the hydraulic pump and an outlet of the linear actuator (as shown, suction side of the pump is “upstream” from the outlet of the linear actuator).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Shimada discloses controlling the linear actuator with a first control unit (11) and the hydraulic pump with a second control unit (26a), wherein the first control unit and the second control unit communicate with one another via a communication interface (fig. 3, dashed line between 11 and 26a).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Shimada discloses evaluating the braking request signal with the first control unit (fig. 3, 41 part of 11) and sending a command for activating the hydraulic pump to the second control unit when a detected rate of change of the braking request signal is greater than the threshold value (pgh. 0052, both the hydraulic pump and linear actuator are activated under this condition).
Regarding claim 11, Shimada discloses a hydraulic valve (26e) is arranged in parallel with the hydraulic pump (as shown) and in series between the linear actuator and a wheel brake (one of 7), and the hydraulic valve is open or closed in synchronous operation (these are the only two options so the valve is in one of these two states during synchronous operation).
Regarding claim 12, Shimada discloses the brake system comprises two subcircuits (front wheels and rear wheels), wherein two wheel brakes (4 total, as shown) and a hydraulic pump (left and right connected to 26f as shown) are assigned to each subcircuit and, in synchronous operation, both pumps are activated (via 26f) and the linear actuator is connected to only one subcircuit or both subcircuits (as shown, connected to both).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-10 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cheon, as appears above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 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.
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights