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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0346854 A1 to Horton et al.
Re-claim 1, Horton et al. disclose a brake system of a machine, the brake system comprising: a reverse modulated brake operatively connected to a wheel of the machine (paragraph 13 describes the system may be arranged as a spring applied brake); a relay valve 224, in fluid communication with the reverse modulated brake 120, for supplying, to the reverse modulated brake, at least one of a de-apply pressure that causes the reverse modulated brake to be in a de-applied position (such as fluid pressure provided to a chamber to release the brake) or an apply pressure that causes the reverse modulated brake to be in an applied position (such as exhausting a chamber and allowing the spring force to apply the brake), the apply pressure is based on at least one of a hydro-mechanical pressure signal or an electrohydraulic pressure signal, the apply pressure is lower than the de-apply pressure (the apply pressure is an exhaust pressure, which is lower than an application pressure); a hydraulic logic element (see figure 2 and shuttle valve leading to the relay valve input), in fluid communication with the relay valve, for supplying the at least one of the hydro-mechanical pressure signal (from valve 214) or the electrohydraulic pressure signal (from valve 222) to the relay valve, the hydraulic logic element includes a first inlet and a second inlet; a hydro-mechanical valve 214 is in fluid communication with the first inlet, for outputting the hydro-mechanical pressure signal to the first inlet; an electrohydraulic valve 222 is in fluid communication with the second inlet, for outputting the electrohydraulic pressure signal to the second inlet; a blocking valve 236 is in fluid communication with the hydraulic logic element and the hydro- mechanical valve and is movable between a closed position and an open position, wherein, when the blocking valve is in the closed position, the hydro-mechanical valve is not in fluid communication with the first inlet, and wherein the first inlet is in fluid communication with a tank 206 associated with the brake system, the reverse modulated brake is a spring applied and hydraulically released brake (see paragraph 13 lines 16-19).
Re-claim 2, the hydraulic logic element is a shuttle valve that outputs a higher-pressure signal of the hydro-mechanical pressure signal and the electrohydraulic pressure signal, see figure 2.
Re-claims 4 and 16, the electrohydraulic valve 222 is an electronic pressure reducing valve. The valve can reduce pressure to the relay valve input, and subsequently reduce or control pressure to the brake 120.
Re-claim 6, an accumulator 204 is operatively connected to relay valve and the electrohydraulic valve.
Re-claim 15, Horton et al. disclose a machine having a plurality of wheels 110/112, comprising: a reverse modulated brake system performing release of braking responsive to applied hydraulic pressure (see paragraph 13 lines 16-19) and including:
a first relay valve 224 in communication with a first brake (such as the front wheel 110) operatively connected to the first wheel 110, of a plurality of wheels, the first relay valve provides to the first brake, at least one of:
a first release brake pressure maintain the first brake in a de-applied position (as is common with spring applied fluid release brakes), and
a first modulated brake pressure, that is less than the first release brake pressure, associated with causing the first brake to move from the de-applied position to an applied position to apply a first brake force to the first wheel 110, the first modulated brake pressure is based on at least one of a first hydro-mechanical pressure signal (from valve 214) or a first electrohydraulic pressure signal (from valve 222);
a second relay valve 224 (as part of a rear wheel) in communication with a first brake (such as wheel 112) operatively connected to the second wheel 112, of a plurality of wheels, the second relay valve provides to the second brake, at least one of:
a second release brake pressure maintain the second brake in a de-applied position (as is common with spring applied fluid release brakes), and
a second modulated brake pressure, that is less than the second release brake pressure, associated with causing the second brake to move from the de-applied position to an applied position to apply a second brake force to the second wheel 112, the second modulated brake pressure is based on at least one of a second hydro-mechanical pressure signal (from valve 214) or a second electrohydraulic pressure signal (from valve 222);
a hydro-mechanical valve 118 in fluid communication with the first relay valve and the second relay valve, the hydro-mechanical valve provides, and each of the first relay valve and the second relay valve receives, the respective first or second hydro-mechanical pressure signal in response to receiving a hydro-mechanical input;
an electrohydraulic valve 222 in fluid communication with the first relay valve and the second relay valve, the electrohydraulic valve provides, and each of the first relay valve and the second relay valve receives, the respective first or second electrohydraulic pressure signal in response to receiving an electronic input; and
a blocking valve 234 is positioned in fluid communication between the hydro- mechanical valve and each of the first relay valve and the second relay valve, the blocking valve is movable between a closed position that prevents the first relay valve or the second relay valve from receiving the respective first or second hydro-mechanical pressure signal from the hydro-mechanical valve and an open position that enables the first relay valve or the second relay valve to receive the respective first or second hydro-mechanical pressure signal from the hydromechanical hydro-mechanical valve,
the reverse-modulated brake system controls application of the first brake force independent of application of the second brake force. With the exception of valve 118 (and pressure source), each wheel brake is understood as having the blocking valve, electro-hydraulic valve, and relay valve for independent control of the each wheel of the machine. See also paragraph 14 lines 4-7.
Re-claim 17, electronic input (from controller 116) is associated with an automatic electrohydraulic braking operation.
Re-claim 19, the brake is a spring applied and hydraulically released, as known in the art (see paragraph 13).
Re-claim 20, the machine is an underground articulated truck. The vehicle is capable of travelling underground, and has an articulated bed.
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) 3, 5, 8-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton et al. in view of US 5,411,323 to Takahashi et al.
Re-claims 3, 5, 13 and 18, Horton et al. teach a controller 116 that receives data from sensor devices on the machine. However, fail to teach stability data associated with multiple wheels of the machine; initiating, by the brake system and based on the stability data, or more specifically the data associated with an antilock, traction control or dynamic stability, having wheel slip or skid events.
Takahashi et al. teach an electrohydraulic brake system that carries out automatic control based upon wheel skid events as part of an antiskid (or anti-lock) system, as is known in the art. Automatic brake control in response to wheel stability conditions is common in the art, and specifically used to improve vehicle control. As such 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 brake system of Horton et al. with automative brake control responsive to wheel stability conditions as taught by Takahashi et al., as this would have provided improved vehicle control.
Re-claims 8 and 12, Horton et al. teach a method for reverse modulated brake pressure comprising: receiving, by a reverse-modulated brake system of a machine 100, data associated with multiple wheels of the machine; initiating, by the reverse-modulated brake system and based on the data, a first automatic electrohydraulic braking operation associated with a first brake (such as at a front wheel 110) that is operatively connected to a first wheel 110, of the multiple wheels, independent of a second automatic electrohydraulic braking operation associated with a second brake that is operatively connected to a second wheel 112, of the multiple wheels, each of the first brake and the second brake is movable from a de-applied position to an applied position to apply a first brake force to the first wheel and/or a second brake force to the second wheel independent of the first brake force (the systems are separately operated, see paragraph 12 lines 14-16); preventing, by the reverse-modulated brake system and based on initiating the first automatic electrohydraulic braking operation and the second automatic electrohydraulic braking operation, an operator input from controlling a first brake pressure that is supplied to the first brake via a first relay valve 224 and/or a second brake pressure that is supplied to the second brake via a second relay valve (valve 224 of the second brake assigned to wheel 112) of the reverse-modulated brake system; and decreasing, by the reverse-modulated brake system and based on an electrohydraulic pressure signal, the first brake pressure that is supplied to the first brake, via the first relay valve, to move the first brake from the de-applied position to the applied position to apply the first brake force to the first wheel and/or the second brake pressure that is supplied to the second brake, via the second relay valve, to move the second brake from the de-applied position to the applied position to apply the second brake force to the second wheel. However, Horton et al. is silent regarding a stability control response, such as part of an anti-lock brake system, a traction control system, or a dynamic stability system.
Takahashi et al. teach an electrohydraulic brake system that carries out automatic control based upon wheel skid events as part of an antiskid (or anti-lock) system, as is known in the art. Automatic brake control in response to wheel stability conditions is common in the art, and specifically used to improve vehicle control. As such 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 brake system of Horton et al. with automative brake control responsive to wheel stability conditions as taught by Takahashi et al., as this would have provided improved vehicle control.
Re-claim 9, the electrohydraulic valve 222 is an electronic pressure reducing valve.
Re-claim 10, the controller closing valve 236 (i.e. blocking valve) causes a pressure associated with the operator input to be lower than a pressure associated with the electrohydraulic pressure signal.
Re-claim 11, operator input is enabled when a failure is detected, see at least paragraphs 23-24.
Re-claim 14, the brake force is a mechanical spring (see paragraph 13), this arrangement is applicable to each of the first brake and the second brake.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to now amended claim 1 and the incorporation of previous claim 7. The claim is indicated as being rejected in cover sheet of the Office action. In addition, the subject matter of claim 7 is the same as the subject matter of claim 19 (and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102), as addressed in the Office action. As such it is clear that the subject matter is not allowable over the prior art, and as indicated in the above rejection.
With regards to the reverse modulated brake system and the release of brake pressure responsive to applied hydraulic pressure. As stated in the above Office action, Horton et al. do contemplate the brake system utilizing spring applied fluid released brake actuators, which are common in the art. These types of systems provide a fail-safe arrangement, such that a loss of fluid pressure will result in actuation of the brakes.
With regards to the independent control of each wheel, and separate relay valves. It stands to reason that any person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that layout shown in figure 2 is applicable to each wheel in an independent manner, and as stated by Horton in paragraph 14 (“ It will be apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a similar hydraulic circuit may be associated with the all the front and rear brakes 120, 122”). This arrangement would provide individual pressure control for each wheel, which is typical of a vehicle brake system. As such the rejection is maintained.
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 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
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights