DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 3-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtaka (US# 2019/0359192) in view of Hurst et al (US# 5808471).
Ohtaka disclose a hydraulic pressure control unit (5) used for a behavior control system (10) of a vehicle (100), the hydraulic pressure control unit comprising: a hydraulic pressure control mechanism (51) that includes: a base body (51a); and components that include an electromagnetic valve (30) assembled in the base body (51a) for controlling a hydraulic pressure generated in a hydraulic fluid for the behavior control system (10); and a controller (52) that includes a control section (52b) controlling operation of the components; wherein the electromagnetic valve (31) includes a wire (30d) and an armature (30b) that moves in association with application of a current to the wire (30d), and is a valve that is closed or a valve that is opened in an energized state where the current is applied to the wire (30d), the controller (52) includes an estimation section (52c) that estimates a stroke amount of the armature (30d), and the estimation section (52c) estimates the stroke amount on the basis of a reduced amount of a current value at a time when the current value (i) is temporarily reduced in a process that the current value (i) of the current flowing through the wire (30d) is increased toward a target current value at beginning of the application of the current to the wire (30d). [0068][0071][0072] The determination that valve fixation occurs is an estimate of a zero stroke amount and the determination that fixation does not occur is an estimation of a full stroke amount. Ohtaka lack the disclosure of the control section (52b) controlling the target current value (isw) on the basis of an estimation result of the stroke amount (Δx). Ohtaka disclose alerting the driver [0080] in the case of insufficient stroke amount (estimation of a zero stroke amount) but fail to disclose any further valve control. Hurst et al disclose a braking system and further teach disabling the output signals to solenoids, thereby reverting to normal brakes in the case of a failure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the target current value of Ohtaka to zero when the valve is determined to be defective (estimated zero stroke amount), such as taught by Hurst et al, to ensure predictable operation of the brake system as the stuck valve will not reliably respond to control signals and energy is wasted if it is not moving as commanded.
Regarding claim 3, the estimation section (52c) estimates the stroke amount on the basis of viscosity index information that is information as an index of viscosity evaluation of the hydraulic fluid in addition to the reduced amount. [0077]
Regarding claim 4, viscosity index information includes temperature information of the hydraulic fluid. [0077][0078]
Regarding claim 8, the control section (52b) controls notification operation on the basis of an estimation result of the stroke amount. [0080]
Regarding claim 9, the estimation section (52c) determines that the current value (i) is temporarily reduced in the case where the current value (i) at a time point after a lapse of a reference time (t2-t1 from a reduction start time point of the current value (i) is lower than the current value (i) at the reduction start time point by a reference value or greater. Figure 7.
Regarding claim 10, the vehicle (100) is a motorcycle. [0020]
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtaka (US# 2019/0359192) and Hurst et al (US# 5808471), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Rooke et al (US# 5808471).
Regarding claim 2, Ohtaka, as modified, disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the estimation section (52c) estimating the stroke amount on the basis of the target current value in addition to the reduced amount. Rooke et al disclose a solenoid valve testing method and system and further teach estimating the stroke amount on the basis of the target current value Peak PK to identify the dip (reduced amount of current). Col. 5, line 7 to col., 6, line 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the target current value such as taught by Rooke et al in the movement detection of Ohtaka, as an obvious means of accurately detecting the dip in the case of varying control currents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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 filed 2/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Hurst et al, Applicant argues that the reference does not teach controlling a target current valve based on an estimation result of a stroke amount. It is noted that Ohtaka discloses the determination that valve fixation occurs which is an estimate of a zero stroke amount [0068][0072] and alerting the driver based on that determination [0080]. Hurst et al is not relied upon for estimating a stroke amount. Hurst discloses that current practice in antilock braking systems is to disable the output signals to the solenoids, thereby reverting to normal brakes in response to an error. Col. 5, lines 22-27. It is maintained that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disable the output signals to the valve in response to the error (valve fixation) in the device of Ohtaka as current practice as taught by Hurst is to disable the output signals in response to error. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to ensure predictable operation of the brake system as the stuck valve will not reliably respond to control signals and energy is wasted if it is not moving as commanded. While Hurst et al disclose a different error than Ohtaka, it is maintained that the teachings are applicable to any error which would prevent proper operation of the system.
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights