DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen et al. does not disclose a “identical current path… through the electrical component”.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points to fig. 5, which shows that the two control circuits ultimately redundantly communicate with electrical components (actuator 1 and actuator 2), and that the electrical connection therethrough is the same (motors or solenoid valves; par. 0090). Similar to applicant’s invention, the current path from the first and second power supplies and through the first and second electronic units, do not share an identical current path, as they are separate components.
Applicant argues that the “common area” of Chen et al. does not include a shared current path.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out that, similar to applicant’s invention, the current path from the first and second power supplies and through the common area (42), do not share an identical current path, as they are separate components that are separated by diodes (fig. 7).
Applicant argues that the “common area” of Chen et al. does not include shared evaluation and measurement elements (claim 4).
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out that the claims are broader than applicant is arguing; and that the components are not claimed as being shared, but are merely disposed within the common area.
Applicant argues that the two power supplies and diodes of Chen et al. are not equivalent to applicant’s invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out that the power supplies and diodes function in substantially the same fashion and exist to provide the exact same function. Although the block diagram of fig. 7 of Chen et al. shows the first and second power supplies in a stacked relationship, it would function exactly the same if the power supplies were disposed on opposing sides of the control circuits (4111, 4121), in a similar fashion to applicant’s drawing.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Shah et al. is related to the art of redundant electronic control systems in a vehicle braking system, and is merely relied upon to show that it was known to use wheel speed sensors in combination with a redundant vehicle electronic control units.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (WO 2021/232316 A1). US 2023/0356761 is referenced herein as an English translation.
In Re claim 1, Chen et al. disclose a control unit (figs. 5-8) in a vehicle (figs. 1 and 2), comprising: at least one electrical component (actuators 1 and 2); and first and second circuits (upper half and lower half of figs. 5-8), each containing: first and second electronic units (411, 412); and first and second power supplies (power supply component 1 and 2), wherein the at least one actuator contains identical circuit pathways therethrough (redundant electrical control system connected to motors or solenoid valves not described as having different current paths therethrough; Title; Abstract; par. 0090).
In Re claim 2, see single redundant electronic control system housing (40).
In Re claims 3 and 16, see common area (42) and connected electrical components (actuators 1 and 2).
In Re claim 4, see evaluation units (switch units 1-4).
In Re claims 5 and 17, see diodes (D1 - D4) in fig. 7, and pars. 0140-0141.
In Re claims 6 and 18, see communications components 1 and 2 (par. 0036).
In Re claim 7, see first and second power supplies (power supply component 1 and 2) and actuators (actuator 1 and 2).
In Re claim 8, Chen et al. disclose that the actuators may be solenoid valves (pars. 0090-0091).
In Re claim 9, Chen et al. disclose that the actuators may be hydraulic solenoid valves (par. 0090-0091).
In Re claims 10, 12-14, and 19, see separately provided (see 431 and 432) sensors (sensor components 1 and 2) redundantly connected to the control units (411, 412) in fig. 8.
In Re claim 15, Chen et al. disclose that the system is used for controlling wheel brakes (par. 0079), and that the actuators may be solenoid control valves (pars. 0090-0091).
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.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2021/232316 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Shah et al. (US 2019/0054909).
In Re claim 11, Chen et al. teach a vehicle brake system (par. 0079), but fail to specifically mention the use of wheel speed sensors.
Shah et al. is related to the art of redundant electronic control systems in a vehicle braking system (Abstract). Shah et al. teach that it was known to use wheel speed sensors (106, 110) in combination with a redundant vehicle electronic control units (see 102 and 104), to determine the vehicle’s speed and individual wheel speeds to improve vehicle stability through accurate braking control (Summary). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Chen et al. by employing wheel speed sensors, as taught by Shah et al., to accurately determine the vehicle’s speed and individual wheel speeds, for proper braking control, and thus improved vehicle stability.
In Re claim 20, see separately provided (see 431 and 432) sensors (sensor components 1 and 2) redundantly connected to the control units (411, 412) in fig. 8 of Chen et al..
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights