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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 10/31/2025 has been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied phrases, e.g. “Also disclosed is…” is implied by the title at least. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 13-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 13, 14, 18 and 20 recite the following limitations:
Claim 13: “wherein the linear actuator and the hydraulic pump switches into synchronous operation…” and “the linear actuator and the hydraulic pump operate simultaneously…”.
Claim 14: “one of a brake sensor and a driving assistance system generates the braking request signal.”
Claim 18: “the first control unit evaluates… and sends a command…”,
Claim 20: “the second control unit evaluates… and activates the hydraulic pump…”
Claims 13-20 are directed to an apparatus (“A brake system for motor vehicles”), but these limitations appear to recite active method steps performed by the device. It is unclear what the scope of protection is being sought by the claim is, whether the structure is literally required to perform the function, or whether the structure merely has to be capable of performing the function (i.e. due to the device being “configured to” perform the function or “capable of performing” the function). For purposes of examination, the elements will be interpreted as being merely capable of performing the recited functions but need not literally perform them (e.g. “configured to switch into synchronous operation”, “configured to generate the braking request signal”, etc.). All of these instances should be amended to recite a capability to avoid confusion.
Dependent claims not specifically addressed are nonetheless rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 recites, “The brake system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the hydraulic pump and the linear actuator are connected in parallel, wherein the suction side of the hydraulic pump is connected to a hydraulic reservoir.”. Claim 13 was amended to include this limitation verbatim. Accordingly, Claim 16 fails to further limit claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada et al. (JP 2015-110361 A) (cited on the IDS of 5/27/2023).
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”), wherein the suction side of the hydraulic pump is connected to a hydraulic reservoir (at 26c).
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 switches 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 operated 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”), wherein the suction side of the hydraulic pump is connected to a hydraulic reservoir (at 26c).
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, though the sensor need not literally perform this function, see 112(b) above).
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 and 7 are allowed. Claims 8-10 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 filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection, Applicant states that the amendments to claims 13-15 have alleviated those rejections. Further, Applicant contends for claims 18 and 20 that “the terms “evaluates”, “sends” and “activates” does not identify the performance of functions” and further contends that “One skilled in the art would readily understand the meaning of those terms in the context of the respective claims”.
First, it is unclear how “evaluates”, “sends”, and “activates” do not identify the performance of functions. These words are all being used as verbs within the claim(s), such that they express an action or occurrence of something happening. For example, “sends a command” is an action carried out by the first control unit (see claim 18). Accordingly, these limitations identify the performance of functions, in all of claims 13, 14, 18 and 20.
Second, while PHOSITA would readily understand the meaning of the terms per se, this is not why the claims are indefinite. The issue is that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of protection being sought by the claim based on the current verbiage. Claim 13 is presently drafted as an apparatus claim (“A brake system for motor vehicles”), yet includes active method steps carried out by the system (e.g. “switches”). Accordingly, it is unclear where infringement occurs, whether when another makes the invention that is merely capable of performing the active methods steps but never performs them, or infringement occurs only when the active method steps are performed. The rejection is maintained. See 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant contends that Shimada does not disclose a “parallel” arrangement of the linear actuator (13) and hydraulic pump (26f), and instead submits that only a “series” arrangement is disclosed.
With regard to the instant application, it is noted that the linear actuator and hydraulic pump could be characterized as either “parallel” or “series” for a given structural arrangement. In the instant invention, the outlet of the linear actuator 5 can pressurize the same fluid line as the outlet of the pump 26 that ultimately supplies pressure to the wheel brakes 6,7. See annotated figures below. If this is characterized as the fluid starting from the linear actuator and flowing toward the hydraulic pump at some downstream location, this characterization is “in series”. However, both systems provide pressure to the brakes 6,7, and if pressure is provided simultaneously, those pressures combine/add together, and this characterization would be “in parallel”, similar to how amperages add in a parallel electrical circuitry. Accordingly, the linear actuator and hydraulic pump of the instant invention are both “in series” and “in parallel”.
PNG
media_image1.png
613
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of instant application.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
877
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 2 of instant application
Similarly, the linear actuator (13) and hydraulic pump (26f) of Shimada can be characterized as either “series” or “parallel”. In fig. 2, the outlet of the linear actuator (13) can pressurize the same fluid line as the outlet of the pump (26f) that ultimately supplies pressure to the wheel brakes via valve 26e at least. If this is characterized as the fluid starting from the linear actuator and flowing toward the hydraulic pump, this characterization is “in series”. However, both systems ultimately provide pressure to the brakes, and if pressurization occurs simultaneously, those pressures combine/add together, and this characterization would be “in parallel”. Accordingly, to the same extent that the instant invention can be characterized as having these components “in parallel” so too can the device of Shimada. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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