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) has been considered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse et al. (U.S. 2023/0001897) in view of Boo et al. (U.S. 2024/0051509).
Regarding claim 1, Crouse discloses (figs. 1,2) a trailed vehicle (10) configured for coupling with a motor vehicle (1) and adapted to be towed by the motor vehicle, the trailed vehicle comprising: a frame (12); at least one axle (18) rotatably coupled to the frame and carrying a pair of wheels (20); and a brake system (22) operably coupled with the motor vehicle (functionally at least, since braking action also brakes the motor vehicle) and with each of the wheels of the trailed vehicle (mounted at each wheel, as shown).
Crouse does not appear to disclose the details of the claimed brake system, and whether the brake is hydraulic or not. Boo teaches (figs. 3 and 9-10 at least) a hydraulic brake system (100) operably coupled with the motor vehicle and with each of the wheels of the trailed vehicle (see claim 14), the hydraulic brake system comprising: a caliper assembly (110) provided with each of the wheels of the trailed vehicle and having at least one piston(150), and a manifold assembly (see bottom fig. 3 and figs. 9-10 at least) provided with each of the wheels of the trailed vehicle and having a pump (141) and a motor (130), wherein the manifold assembly is provided with and coupled to the caliper assembly (as shown throughout figures).
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 hydraulic brake of Boo at each wheel of the trailed vehicle of Crouse to simplify the system and reduce costs. Since each brake of Boo operates self-sufficiently, there is no need to run brake lines throughout the trailer to supply each brake (see fig. 2 of Crouse with brake lines
B
L
1
,
B
L
2
running under the frame.
Regarding claims 2-4, the combination of Crouse and Boo teaches the manifold assembly is directly fluidly coupled with the caliper assembly and piston (Boo, as shown throughout figures at least) via at least one fluid line (1415).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Crouse and Boo teaches the hydraulic brake system further comprises at least one controller (Boo, 180) operably coupled with the pump provided with each of the wheels (as shown).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Crouse and Boo teaches the at least one controller comprises multiple controllers, such that one controller is provided with each of the wheels (pgh. 0078, the brake 100 is provided at each wheel, and the brake is shown as having a controller 180, therefore there are multiple controllers, one at each wheel as claimed).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse et al. (U.S. 2023/0001897) in view of Boo et al. (U.S. 2024/0051509), and further in view of Putz (WO 2020/099329 A1).
Regarding claims 6-9, the combination of Crouse and Boo does not appear to disclose the controller utilizing PWM signals to adjust the pressure, or ABS control. In the same field of endeavor of vehicle brake system, Putz teaches a brake (4) provided at each wheel (7,8), each brake having a controller (3, see fig. 2), where each controller is configured to deliver separate pulse width modulation (PWM) signals independently to adjust a pressure (pgh. 0163, 0173 at least, the motor that controls brake pressure is controlled by a pulse width modulated signal), and the at least one controller is operably coupled with an anti-lock brake system of the motor vehicle (see pgh. 0179-0180 at least, braking action coupled to ABS control). In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the combination of Crouse and Boo would be further modified by PWM control of Putz, such that the controller 180 of Boo controls the motor 130 by PWM signals, which then controls the pump 141 to adjust fluid pressure generated, and this occurs at each brake provided. 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 PWM control for the brakes to reduce the need for an additional component for converting the actuation signal of the controller into an input voltage for the motor (see pgh. 0029 of Putz).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Hoenick ‘021 discloses a self-contained brake actuator.
Conclusion
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 MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616