DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 line 3, the recitation “the valve” should be changed to “the first valve” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 21, 24 and 25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the pressure supply device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 is rejected due to its dependence upon claim 5.
Claim 21 line 4, the phrase “window-like” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what features are equivalent to or like a window.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the pressure supply device" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The phrase should be changed to pressure generating device.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,333,944 to Shirai et al.
Re-claim 1, Shirai et al. disclose a hydraulic actuation system for a braking system, comprising: a brake circuit having hydraulically actuated wheel brakes (see figure 1); a master cylinder 12 actuated by an actuating device (i.e. pedal 10), the master cylinder is provided with two working chambers (see column 5 lines 41-45); a hydraulically acting travel simulator 88/90 generates a reacting force to the pedal; the working chambers are connected via a controlled 3/2-way valve to each brake circuit and to the travel simulator (see figure 1).
Re-claim 2, a pressure generating device 80 performs pressure control and regulation for each brake circuit.
Re-claim 3, normal operation places the pressure generating device in communication with the brake circuit and the working chambers in hydraulic communication with the travel simulator via the 3/2-way valve (see column 6 lines 40-45).
Re-claim 4, the 3/2-way valve is arranged in the hydraulic connection between the pressure generating device 80 and the master cylinder 12.
Re-claim 5, a further switching valve (such as 58, 60, 62 and 64) are arranged between the pressure generating device 80 and the 3/2-way valve in the connection between the pressure-generating device 80 and the master cylinder 12.
Re-claim 6, when in a non-normal working mode, the working chambers are hydraulically connected to the wheel brakes and brake circuit (see column 6 lines 50-56).
Re-claim 8, a plurality of valves, the 3/2-way valves are part of a valve module (as shown in the figure). This is also common in the art for space saving purposes.
Re-claim 9, the master cylinder 12 has two working chambers, each chamber is connected to a respective brake circuit and is shut off by a respective 3/2-way valve, see figure 1 and column 5 liens 41-49.
Re-claim 10, a brake system includes the hydraulic actuation system.
Re-claim 25, the at least one further switching valve (see valves 58, 60, 62 and 64) is arranged in a portion of the hydraulic connection that includes a hydraulic line connecting the pressure supply device to a brake circuit line.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 11-16 and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. in view of US 7,165,574 to Ryuen et al.
Re-claim 7, Shirai et al. fail to teach a filter arranged within the 3/2-way valve.
Ryuen et al. teach the use of fluid filters in valve units, as a way of preventing the ingress of foreign material into the valve unit, as is common in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the 3/2-way valve of Shirai et al. with a filter arranged in the valve housing as taught by Ryuen et al., thus preventing the ingress of foreign material.
Re-claims 11 and 14, Shirai et al. fail to provide the specific internal structure of the 3/2-way valve, and merely show the valve having at least 3 fluid ports.
Ryuen et al. teach a 3/2-way valve comprising two seats (such as 33 and 34, see figure 3), each seat is closed by a respective closing body (38/39b), a first closing body 39b is connected to a solenoid armature 39a/4a and cooperates with a first valve seat 34, a second valve closing body 38 cooperates with a second valve seat 33, a plunger 39c engages through both valve seats and is connected to the solenoid armature. This type of valve is capable of being connected and adapted for use as the 3/2-way valve in the hydraulic actuation system of Shirai et al., such as connecting port 36 to the travel simulator (and the second valve chamber 52), port 35 to the working chambers (of the master cylinder the third valve chamber) and port 37 to the brake circuit (and first valve chamber), as in the instant invention. Thereby providing communication even during non-excitation of the coil (as shown in figure 1 of Ryuen et al.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the 3/2-way solenoid valve taught in Ryuen et al. would have been capable for use in the hydraulic system of Shirai et al., as this valve would have met the functionality requirements of the hydraulic system. It is noted that all claims dependent upon claim 11 have the same motivation as stated above, and as such will not be repeated.
Re-claim 12, Ryuen et al. further teach the 3/2-way valve having the first valve closing body 39b arranged in a first valve chamber 32, the second valve closing body 38 arranged in a second valve chamber 52, the valve seats are annular with conical valve seat surfaces (see 33 and 34), a third valve chamber (such as part of passage 35) is arranged between the first and second valve chambers, a first position of the solenoid armature is reached by energizing an excitation coil 11, upon which the first valve closing body 39b is seated against the first valve seat 34 (see column 8 lines 45-54) closing a first hydraulic connection (i.e. passage defined by bore adjacent seat 34) between the first valve chamber 32 and the third valve chamber, the plunger 39c simultaneously pushes the second valve closing body 38 away from the second valve seat 33 (see column 8 lines 54-56) against a first valve spring 55a, such that a second hydraulic connection (passage defined by bore adjacent seat 33) is opened between the second valve chamber 52 and the third valve chamber.
Re-claim 13, Ryuen et al. further teach a second non-energizing position of the armature opens the first hydraulic connection and closes the second hydraulic connection (see condition shown in figures 1 and 3).
Re-claim 15, Ryuen et al. further teach the first valve spring (and its spring value) would determine an opening pressure of the second hydraulic connection, the first valve spring is arranged in the second valve chamber 52.
Re-claim 16, Ryuen et al. further teach a second valve spring 23 arranged to act on the first valve body and armature.
Re-claim 18, Ryuen et al. further teach the first valve seat 34 arranged on a solenoid yoke 30 of the armature.
Re-claim 19, Ryuen et al. further teach the excitation coil 11 cast with a housing (such as 10 and/or 12) of the 3/2-way valve.
Re-claim 20, Ryuen et al. further teach a structural unit (i.e. lower portion of 30) forms the second valve seat 33 and accommodates the first valve spring, the second closing body 38 and a spring plate 50a.
Re-claim 21, Ryuen et al. further teach the second valve chamber 52 is in hydraulic connection with the second connection of the 3/2-way valve via passages in the spring plate (see figure 3).
Re-claim 22, Ryuen et al. further teach the excitation coil 11 is cast with a solenoid housing (such as at least element 10).
Re-claim 23, Ryuen et al. further teach reducing (or cutting) a control current to the coil 11 after the solenoid armature has reached the second position (this is the non-energized position as shown in figure 1).
Re-claim 24, Ryuen et al. further teach a that in event of failure of a first valve seat (such as a lack of connection between 39b and 34), application of a pedal force using pressure generated by the pressure supply (generating) device and an actuation of the 3/2-way valve in order to simulate or generate a pedal reaction feeling. Application of fluid pressure to the non-working valve would allow transmission of fluid through the second valve seat thus providing a pedal feel. It is not clear which pressure source the applicant intends to use, as the pressure supply source DZ is not attached to the port AN3 of the 3/2-way valve.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. in view of Ryuen et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 5,029,807 to Fuchs.
Shirai et al. as modified by Ryuen et al. fail to teach a permanent magnet arranged in a yoke of the solenoid armature so as to support a spring force of the first valve spring when the coil 11 is not energized.
Fuchs teaches a solenoid coil having a permanent magnet 4 arranged in a yoke to support a plunger (or armature) in a bistable condition (see column 6 lines 63-68). This allows the coil current to be discontinued, thus reducing energy consumption. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the 3/2-way valve of Ryuen et al. used in the system of Shirai et al. with a permanent magnet as suggested by Fuchs, thus providing an additional holding force for the armature when the coil is de-energized and thereby providing assistance to the first valve spring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Campau, Aoyama and Ganzel each teach a travel simulator connected to a master cylinder via a 3/2-way valve. Dinkel and Avila teach a 3/2-way valve.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
December 5, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616