Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/260,260

HYDRAULIC PRESSURE CONTROL UNIT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 13, 2023
Examiner
LAGUARDA, GONZALO
Art Unit
3747
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Robert Bosch GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
503 granted / 694 resolved
+2.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
755
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§103
35.9%
-4.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 694 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Hydraulic Brake Diagnostic Based on Motor Current Fluctuations. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the drawings should be sufficiently detailed that someone familiar with the specification understands what is depicted (fig. 3 is not detailed) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pat. No. 10,513,249) in view of Shimizu (U.S. Pat. No. 5,884,986). Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a hydraulic pressure control unit (fig. 1) used for a brake system (fig. 1) of a vehicle (col. 1, lines 23-25), the hydraulic pressure control unit comprising: a hydraulic pressure control mechanism including an inlet valve (243 to the pump, 221 to the wheel cylinder) that is provided to a primary channel (shown in fig. 1) communicating a master cylinder (111) and a wheel cylinder (40), an outlet valve (222) that is provided to a secondary channel (shown in fig. 1) through which a hydraulic fluid in the wheel cylinder is released to an intermediate portion (shown in fig. 1) of the primary channel, a pump (100) that is provided on a downstream side of the outlet valve (30 is downstream of outlet valves that feeds 100) in the secondary channel, and a motor (120) that drives the pump; and a controller (ECU) that controls operation of the hydraulic pressure control mechanism (col. 12, lines 63-67), wherein the controller includes a diagnosis section (Abstract discloses that the ECU determines fixation of the piston) that executes a diagnostic mode to diagnose presence or absence of abnormality in the hydraulic pressure control mechanism. Kim does not disclose that the diagnosis is performed on the basis of a current fluctuation of the motor in a state where the pump is driven by the motor. Shimizu, which deals in brakes where motors drive pumps, teaches that the diagnosis is performed on the basis of a current fluctuation of the motor in a state where the pump is driven by the motor (col. 10, lines 30-50 discloses the motor and current fluctuations). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim with the diagnostic of Shimizu because this indicates a motor trouble (col. 10, lines 45-50). Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Kim discloses wherein in the diagnostic mode, the diagnosis section (522b) diagnoses presence or absence of fixation of the pump (34) as the presence or the absence of the abnormality in the hydraulic pressure control mechanism (abstract). Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Shimizu discloses wherein in the diagnostic mode, in the case where an amplitude of the current fluctuation of the motor (35) is smaller than a reference amplitude (RA), the diagnosis section (522b) diagnoses that the hydraulic pressure control mechanism (51, 51A) is abnormal (the size of the current fluctuations is what is considered). Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 1, Shimazu discloses wherein the diagnosis section controls notification on the basis of a diagnosis result in the diagnostic mode (s14). Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Pat. No. 10,513,249) in view of Shimizu (U.S. Pat. No. 5,884,986) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nishikawa (U.S. Pat. No. 7,267,411). Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 1, Kim does not disclose wherein the vehicle is a motorcycle. Nishikawa, which deals in hydraulic brakes, teaches wherein the vehicle is a motorcycle (col. 1, lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim with the vehicle of Nishikawa because motorcycles are known vehicles using hydraulic brakes. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-8 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims require the detection of an abnormality of a pump by analyzing the current fluctuations of a motor with the dependent claims specifying the position of the valves connected to the pump. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review when considering a response to this office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F. 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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. GONZALO LAGUARDA Primary Examiner Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov /GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594921
ELECTROMECHANICAL BRAKE PRESSURE GENERATOR INCLUDING AN ANTI-TWIST PROTECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589738
VEHICLE-TRAVELING CONTROL SYSTEM AND VEHICLE-TRAVELING CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583518
METHOD FOR OPERATING A PARKING ASSISTANCE SYSTEM, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, PARKING ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565191
VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE AND VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559116
VEHICLE FOR PREGNANT WOMAN AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+7.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 694 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month