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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 42 line 10 (of the US publication document), reference character 206c should be 202c.
Appropriate correction is required.
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-claims 1 and 15, 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 brake is part of a machine, as required by instant claim 15.
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 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, 8, 12, 13 and 18, Horton et al. teach a method for enhanced reverse modulated brake control for a machine, comprising: receiving, by a brake system of the machine, an automatic electrohydraulic braking operation is associated with a brake that is operatively connected to a wheel (brake operations are carried out by the controller 116 based upon vehicle parameters, see at least paragraphs 14-25), of the multiple wheels, the brake is movable from a de-applied position to an applied position to apply a brake force to the wheel (see paragraph 13); preventing, by the brake system and based on initiating the automatic electrohydraulic braking operation, an operator input from controlling a brake pressure that is supplied to the brake via a relay valve of the brake system (by closure of valve 236); and decreasing, by the brake system and based on an electrohydraulic pressure signal, the brake pressure that is supplied to the brake, via the relay valve, to move the brake from the de-applied position to the applied position to apply the brake force to the wheel. Horton et al. 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-claim 9, 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 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 spring applied (see paragraph 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dabbs teaches a common spring applied brake. Van Thiel teach a relay valve input connected to a shuttle valve having two pressure inputs.
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 30, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616