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 Statements (IDS) filed on 08/08/2023 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP21160866.6, filed on 03/05/2021.
Status of Application
Claims 14-18 and 20-34 are pending.
Claims 14 and 23-26 are the independent claims.
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/16/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 14-18, 20-24, 27, 28, & 33 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder (bolded) coupled with functional language (underlined) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
a pressure setting module to set the pressure
a detection module to detect a potential malfunction of the pressure sensor, and issue a warning
Since Claims 14-18, 20-24, 27, 28, & 33 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 14-18, 20-24, 27, 28, & 33 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to “pressure setting module” and “a detection module” is generic computer (Pg. 8 line 26 – Pg. 9 line 6).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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) 14-18 and 20-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-11313103-B2 to Mizutani et. al. (“Mizutani”) in view of DE-19633835-A1 to Kaisers et al (“Kaisers”), further in view of US-8087732-B2 to Averbeck et. al. (“Averbeck”).
Regarding claim 14, Mizutani teaches a parking brake of a vehicle, wherein the parking brake includes a plurality of valves for setting the pressure (Mizutani Claims 1-2), a pressure sensor being configured to measure a pressure in a pressure chamber of the parking brake (Mizutani (43) “The pressure P2 detected by the pressure sensor 75 is the pressure of the pressure oil at the inlet of the parking brake device PB, namely the parking brake chamber pressure.”), and a pressure setting module configured to set the pressure based on a deliberate change of the pressure in the pressure chamber, wherein the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber (Mizutani (63) “the controller 100 decides whether or not a release signal is received from the parking brake release switch 91 and if the release signal is received (S1/Yes), it turns ON the directional solenoid valve 71 (S2).”), using one or more valves of the plurality of valves (Mizutani ref 71 “solenoid valve”), to a value that is proportional to a value for releasing a parking brake of the vehicle, but deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake (Mizutani Fig. 9 and (63) – (65));
Mizutani does not teach a sensor test system for a pressure sensor in an electronic parking brake (EPB) of a vehicle, the sensor test system comprising: a detection module configured to detect, based on a comparison of the deliberately set pressure set by the pressure setting module and a measured pressure from the pressure sensor, a potential malfunction of the pressure sensor, and wherein the sensor test system, including the pressure setting module and the detection module, is part of an electronic control unit of the EPB. However, Kaisers teaches a sensor test system for a pressure sensor in an electronic parking brake (EPB) of a vehicle (Kaisers Fig. 1 & 3, col 6 lines 17-20 “The program outlined in FIG. 3 is provided to check the detection of the parking brake actuation and in particular to check the function of the pressure sensor.”), the sensor test system comprising: a detection module configured to detect, based on a comparison of the deliberately set pressure set by the pressure setting module and a measured pressure from the pressure sensor, a potential malfunction of the pressure sensor (Kaisers ref 18 & Fig. 4 steps 310, 312 and Description “In FIG. 4, in a flow chart a further possibility for checking the parking brake actuation detection or the pressure sensor function is shown… In the subsequent step 306, a setpoint value for the pressure in the trailer control line is read from a table or a characteristic curve depending on the wheel speed difference. In the subsequent query step 308, the measured pressure is compared with the target pressure. If the measured pressure exceeds the target pressure by a predetermined tolerance range, the status bit for the parking brake actuation is reset in accordance with step 310 and a defect in the pressure sensor is assumed.”), and wherein the sensor test system, including the pressure setting module configured to deliberately set the pressure (Kaisers Description “When the brake pedal 10 is actuated, the driver generates an electrical signal which represents the actuation of the brake pedal and which is fed to the control unit 18 . In accordance with the prior art mentioned at the outset, this forms pressure setpoints for the individual wheel brakes of the towing vehicle and for the trailer brake system as a function of the actuation signal and other measured variables (not shown) such as axle loads, etc. These target braking pressures are transmitted via lines 56 to the pressure control modules and via line 54 to the trailer control module 28”) and the detection module, is part of an electronic control unit of the EPB (Kaisers ref 18 “electronic control unit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Mizutani to incorporate the teachings of Kaisers such that there is a sensor test system for a pressure sensor in an electronic parking brake (EPB) of a vehicle, the sensor test system comprising: a detection module configured to detect, based on a comparison of the deliberately set pressure set by the pressure setting module and a measured pressure from the pressure sensor, a potential malfunction of the pressure sensor, and wherein the sensor test system, including the pressure setting module configured to deliberately set the pressue and the detection module, is part of an electronic control unit of the EPB.. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description).
Mizutani as modified by Kaisers does not teach to issue a warning signal if the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor is detected. However, Averbeck teaches to issue a warning signal if the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor is detected (Averbeck col 5 lines 51-54 “the pressure sensor in the brake circuit having the smaller (as measured in step (a)) pressure difference is checked to determine if it is operating without fault, and if it is, a warning device is actuated in a step (f).” & col 2 lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Kaisers to incorporate the teachings of Averbeck such that the system issues a warning signal if the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor is detected. Doing so would ensure that malfunctions or failures are detected (Averbeck col 1 lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 15, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Kaisers further discloses that the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber to the value that is proportional to the value for releasing the parking brake of the vehicle, but deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake, when the vehicle is at standstill (Kaisers col 4 line 60- col 5 line 9 “On the one hand, it becomes the most common during driving case of braking of the vehicle with the Service brake until standstill z. B. in front of a red one Traffic light the pressure sensor checked. In the booth the Drivers usually use the parking brake to subsequently apply the To release the service brake. In this state the Pressure sensor checked with a test routine and at the same time be calibrated. So there is a certain brake signal Time below a limit detection speed for the standstill, and then follows a recognized Parking brake actuation, it can be assumed that the vehicle is at a standstill. The measured Pressure then generally corresponds to the maximum Supply pressure. The value measured by the pressure sensor deviates from this value within the usual tolerances can vary from one faulty work of the sensor can be assumed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kaisers to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber to the value that is proportional to the value for releasing the parking brake of the vehicle, but deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake, when the vehicle is at standstill. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description).
Regarding claim 16, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Kaisers further discloses that the vehicle includes a further brake (Kaisers ref 10), and wherein the pressure setting module is configured to apply the further brake, and/or to receive a signal indicating an actuation of the further brake, and/or check that the further brake is applied, while setting the pressure (Kaisers Description of exemplary embodiments “When the parking brake and the service brake are actuated simultaneously, the higher pressure to the trailer resulting from the actuation is controlled. When the parking brake is actuated in the partial braking position with only a slightly higher pressure than the requested service brake signal, the control electronics (trailer control module 28) attempts to reduce the trailer control pressure. When the parking brake is released, the service brake pressure is therefore too low, so that the trailer is braked too little overall.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kaisers to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that the vehicle includes a further brake, and wherein the pressure setting module is configured to apply the further brake, and/or to receive a signal indicating an actuation of the further brake, and/or check that the further brake is applied, while setting the pressure. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description).
Regarding claim 17, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Mizutani further teaches that the pressure setting module is configured to set the pressure in the pressure chamber to at least one of the following: more than one value in a predetermined sequence, and/or more than one value in a continuous manner with a specific gradient, and/or a sequence of values in a periodic manner (Mizutani Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 18, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Kaisers further discloses that the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber to the value that is proportional to the value for releasing the parking brake of the vehicle, but deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake depending on a parking and/or driving status of the vehicle (Kaisers col 4 line 60- col 5 line 9 “On the one hand, it becomes the most common during driving case of braking of the vehicle with the Service brake until standstill z. B. in front of a red one Traffic light the pressure sensor checked. In the booth the Drivers usually use the parking brake to subsequently apply the To release the service brake. In this state the Pressure sensor checked with a test routine and at the same time be calibrated. So there is a certain brake signal Time below a limit detection speed for the standstill, and then follows a recognized Parking brake actuation, it can be assumed that the vehicle is at a standstill. The measured Pressure then generally corresponds to the maximum Supply pressure. The value measured by the pressure sensor deviates from this value within the usual tolerances can vary from one faulty work of the sensor can be assumed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kaisers to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that that the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber to the value that is proportional to the value for releasing the parking brake of the vehicle, but deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake depending on a parking and/or driving status of the vehicle. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description).
Regarding claim 20, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Kaisers further discloses that the detection module is configured to trigger the pressure setting module to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber to the value that is proportional to the value for releasing the parking brake of the vehicle, but deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake. (Kaisers Fig. 2 and Description of exemplary embodiments “detection of the parking brake application. The program is activated at predetermined times. In the first step 100, the pressure measured by the pressure sensor in the trailer control line PANH and the target brake pressure PSOLL determined as a function of the brake pedal actuation are read. Thereupon it is checked in the subsequent query step 102 whether the trailer pressure is less than the target pressure. If this is the case, pressure is built up in accordance with step 104 by appropriate valve actuation and the program part is ended.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kaisers to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that the detection module is configured to trigger the pressure setting module to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber to the value that is proportional to the value for releasing the parking brake of the vehicle, but not sufficient to release the parking brake. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description).
Regarding claim 21, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Kaisers further discloses that the detection module is configured to detect a potential malfunction of the pressure sensor based on at least one of the following: a nominal output of the pressure sensor, and/or a recorded previous output of the pressure sensor, and/or a supply brake pressure, and/or a vehicle weight, and/or a driving or parking status of the vehicle, and/or a force exerted by a brake of the vehicle, and/or a motion and/or movement of a brake, and/or a temperature, and/or an air humidity (Kaisers Fig. 3 & Description of exemplary embodiments “provided to check the detection of the parking brake actuation and in particular to check the function of the pressure sensor. This is also initiated at predefined times. In the first step 200, the vehicle speed VFZG, the target pressure PSOLL or a corresponding signal indicating the brake pedal actuation (eg brake light switch) is read. Furthermore, the determined status of the parking brake status FB and the pressure in the trailer control line PANH are read” More disclosed in col 6 lines 17-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kaisers to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that the detection module is configured to detect a potential malfunction of the pressure sensor based on at least one of the following: a nominal output of the pressure sensor, and/or a recorded previous output of the pressure sensor, and/or a supply brake pressure, and/or a vehicle weight, and/or a driving or parking status of the vehicle, and/or a force exerted by a brake of the vehicle, and/or a motion and/or movement of a brake, and/or a temperature, and/or an air humidity. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description).
Regarding claim 22, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Averbeck further discloses that the detection module is configured to issue the warning signal to at least one of: a driver, and/or surroundings of the vehicle, and/or a further component of the vehicle (Averbeck col 2 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Averbeck to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that the detection module is configured to issue the warning signal to at least one of: a driver, and/or surroundings of the vehicle, and/or a further component of the vehicle. Doing so would ensure that malfunctions or failures are detected (Averbeck col 1 lines 31-35).
Claim 23 recites analogous limitations to claim 14, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 24, Mizutani teaches a vehicle (Mizutani Fig. 1). The additional limitations of claim 24 are also analogous to claim 14, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 25 recites analogous limitations to claim 14, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 26, Kaisers teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer program (Kaisers drawing “a running program in the microcomputer”), which is executable by a processor (Kaisers Abstract), comprising: a program code arrangement having program code for testing a pressure sensor in a brake unit of a vehicle (Kaisers Fig. 1 & 3, col 6 lines 17-20 “The program outlined in FIG. 3 is provided to check the detection of the parking brake actuation and in particular to check the function of the pressure sensor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kaisers to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that a non-transitory computer readable medium having a computer program, which is executable by a processor, comprising: a program code arrangement having program code for testing a pressure sensor in a brake unit of a vehicle is provided. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description). The additional limitations of claim 26 are also analogous to claim 14, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 27, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 26. Claim 27 also recites analogous limitations to claim 14, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 28, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 25. Claim 28 also recites analogous limitations to claim 14, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 29, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 25. Claim 29 also recites analogous limitations to claim 15, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 30, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 25. Claim 30 also recites analogous limitations to claim 18, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 31, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 25. Claim 31 also recites analogous limitations to claim 22, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 32, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 25. Claim 32 also recites analogous limitations to claim 21, which was disclosed by Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck as above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 33, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbech teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Mizutani further discloses that the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber to a value which is deliberately insufficient to release the brake (Mizutani Fig. 9). Kaisers further discloses that the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure to a value, during a test of the pressure sensor, by the sensor test system, for the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor (Kaisers ref 18 & Fig. 4 steps 310, 312 and Description “In FIG. 4, in a flow chart a further possibility for checking the parking brake actuation detection or the pressure sensor function is shown… In the subsequent step 306, a setpoint value for the pressure in the trailer control line is read from a table or a characteristic curve depending on the wheel speed difference. In the subsequent query step 308, the measured pressure is compared with the target pressure. If the measured pressure exceeds the target pressure by a predetermined tolerance range, the status bit for the parking brake actuation is reset in accordance with step 310 and a defect in the pressure sensor is assumed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kaisers to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure to a value, during a test of the pressure sensor, by the sensor test system, for the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description).
Regarding claim 34, Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbech teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 25. Kaisers further discloses that the deliberately setting of the pressure, the measuring, and the detecting, occur during the testing of the pressure sensor for the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor (Kaisers ref 18 & Fig. 4 steps 310, 312 and Description “In FIG. 4, in a flow chart a further possibility for checking the parking brake actuation detection or the pressure sensor function is shown… In the subsequent step 306, a setpoint value for the pressure in the trailer control line is read from a table or a characteristic curve depending on the wheel speed difference. In the subsequent query step 308, the measured pressure is compared with the target pressure. If the measured pressure exceeds the target pressure by a predetermined tolerance range, the status bit for the parking brake actuation is reset in accordance with step 310 and a defect in the pressure sensor is assumed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kaisers to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that the deliberately setting of the pressure, the measuring, and the detecting, occur during the testing of the pressure sensor for the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor. Doing so would increase the chances that a fault in the parking brake system can be prevented (Kaisers Description).
Averbeck further discloses that the the issuing occurs during the testing of the pressure sensor for the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor (Averbeck col 5 lines 51-54 “the pressure sensor in the brake circuit having the smaller (as measured in step (a)) pressure difference is checked to determine if it is operating without fault, and if it is, a warning device is actuated in a step (f).” & col 2 lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Averbeck to Mizutani as modified by Kaisers and Averbeck such that the the issuing occurs during the testing of the pressure sensor for the potential malfunction of the pressure sensor. Doing so would ensure that malfunctions or failures are detected (Averbeck col 1 lines 31-35).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/16/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant Remarks:
The amendments clarify that the pressure in the pressure chamber is deliberately set to a value that is deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake. For the setting of the pressure, the final Office Action relies on Mizutani. In Mizutani, the pressure is not set to a value which is deliberately not sufficient to release a parking brake. Mizutani appears to try to set the value to something sufficient for braking; however, due to various malfunctions in various components of the brake system (e.g., the directional solenoid valve, or the reducing valve), the pressure is measured downstream as too low. None of the other cited references teach or suggest deliberately setting the pressure in the pressure chamber to a value that is proportional to a value for releasing a parking brake of the vehicle, but deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake. With respect to the Examiner's comments in the Advisory Action relating to Kaisers and Averbeck, neither of these references teaches or suggests deliberately setting the pressure to a value that is deliberately not sufficient to release a parking brake.
Office Response:
In an interview on 02/02/2026, the office asked the attorney for support of the amendments in the specification for clarity and because the office could not find support for it to satisfy 112a’s. The attorney pointed to claim 4 in the original application, specifically “the pressure setting module is configured to set the pressure in one or more of the following ways: to a value which is proportional, in particular not sufficient, to a value for releasing a brake…”. Therefore, the office is interpreting the “deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake” as claim 4 in the original application. Based on that interpretation, Mizutani would indeed teach “a pressure setting module configured to set the pressure based on a deliberate change of the pressure in the pressure chamber, wherein the pressure setting module is configured to deliberately set the pressure in the pressure chamber (Mizutani (63) “the controller 100 decides whether or not a release signal is received from the parking brake release switch 91 and if the release signal is received (S1/Yes), it turns ON the directional solenoid valve 71 (S2).”), using one or more valves of the plurality of valves (Mizutani ref 71 “solenoid valve”), to a value that is proportional to a value for releasing a parking brake of the vehicle, but deliberately not sufficient to release the parking brake (Mizutani Fig. 9 and (63) – (65));”. The office respectfully disagrees that Mizutani does not deliberately set a pressure that is deliberately not sufficient for braking. Mizutani, even with the malfunctions, is choosing to set a pressure to a value, resulting in a pressure not sufficient for brake release. Additionally, Kaisers teaches deliberately setting pressures for a sensor test to check for potential malfunctions of the pressure sensor (See mapping above), so deliberately setting pressures to a value is not something new in the art. Therefore, the office respectfully disagrees with applicant’s remarks.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666