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 Status
Claims 2 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2-15, and 17-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to overcome the §101 rejections. Examiner respectfully disagrees as shown in the rejection below.
Applicant argues in Claim 1, Kono doesn’t disclose, “wherein the monitoring of the induced voltage generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve includes determining a difference between a voltage between a drain and a source of a field effect transistor connected to the first end of the coil for driving the solenoid valve and a voltage applied to the second end of the coil as the induced voltage.” Examiner respectfully disagrees as voltage is a potential difference and Kono discloses in ¶12 applying a predetermined voltage from the DC power source to one end of the coil and also in ¶13 discloses the voltage detection circuit being provided between the drain and source of the field effect transistor. Similar arguments apply to Claims 8 and 15.
Applicant also argues in Claim 8 that none of the cited references disclose, “determining whether a state of a plunger of the solenoid valve is a normal state or an abnormal state based on the voltage between the drain and the source of the field effect transistor,” and appears to argue that a spring failure would not be analogous to an abnormal state. Examiner respectfully disagrees as a spring failure would result in a valve failure and thus be abnormal. Similar arguments apply to Claims 1 and 15.
Further, in view of the rejections of independent Claims 1, 8, and 15, Claims 3-7, 9-14, and 17-20 stand as rejected as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “”
(C) “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) (B) fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) (B) fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations (B) encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations (B) include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) (A) constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, limitation(s) (B) constitute(s) insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claims and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claims .
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the analysis which follows.
For purposes of compact prosecution and clarity, designations have been assigned to limitations of as follows:
(A) “”
(B) “” and “wherein the controller is configured to determine a difference between a voltage between a drain and a source of the field effect transistor and a voltage applied to the second end of the coil as the induced voltage”
(C) “”
Step 1 – Statutory Category Determination - MPEP § 2106.03
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Eligibility Step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a . Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite an abstract idea? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong One analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claim , the following claim limitation(s) recite abstract idea(s):
Abstract Ideas:
Claim limitation(s) (B) fall within at least one of the three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Mental Processes – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
Claim limitation(s) (B) fall within the mental process grouping of patent ineligible subject matter. Each limitation relates to functions that could be performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) where our reviewing court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Claim limitations (B) encompass concepts within the mental process abstract idea grouping in that that capable of being performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper Limitations (B) include concepts that exemplify processes performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions.
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Step 2A, Prong Two - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? - MPEP § 2106.04:
Under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). This conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a generic outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of a(n) do(es) not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
A plain reading of the figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Extra-solution activity – See MPEP §2106.05(g)
In addition, limitation(s) (A) constitute(s) insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, limitation(s) (C) constitute(s) insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Step 2B – Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More – See MPEP § 2106.05:
Under the Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as a(n) ” does/do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the rejected dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim. None of the rejected dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “” in Claim ).
Regarding Claims : These claims depend from Claim and only add further details to the steps in that independent claim and do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims are merely going into more detail regarding . Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible and are also rejected on the same grounds provided for in the rejection of Claim .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pranjic et al. (DE 102016120655 A1) hereinafter Pranjic, Kono et al. (JPH 11159378 A) hereinafter Kono, and Kokubu et al. (US 2006/0054852 A1) hereinafter Kokubu.
Claim 1:
Pranjic discloses a method comprising: monitoring an induced voltage generated at first and second ends of a coil of a solenoid valve [¶¶7-8, 14; Fig. 3]; determining whether a state of a plunger of the solenoid valve is a normal state or an abnormal state based on a comparison of the induced voltage, generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve, and one or more pre-stored normal induced voltage values [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures].
Pranjic doesn’t explicitly disclose providing, via a communication circuit of the brake apparatus, information based on the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state to an external output device, controlling a brake apparatus the method being performed by a controller of the brake apparatus, wherein the monitoring of the induced voltage generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve includes determining a difference between a voltage between a drain and a source of a field effect transistor connected to the first end of the coil for driving the solenoid valve and a voltage applied to the second end of the coil as the induced voltage.
However, Kono discloses providing, via a communication circuit of the brake apparatus, information based on the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state to an external output device [¶6]; wherein the monitoring of the induced voltage generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve includes determining a difference between a voltage between a drain and a source of a field effect transistor connected to the first end of the coil for driving the solenoid valve and a voltage applied to the second end of the coil as the induced voltage. [¶¶12-13]
Kokubu discloses controlling a brake apparatus the method being performed by a controller of the brake apparatus [¶29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the solenoid abnormality detection of Pranjic with the information output of Kono to alert an operator of an equipment failure and to provide a known voltage measurement location to determine changes in the solenoid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the solenoid abnormality detection of Pranjic and Kono with the brake apparatus of Kokubu to improve the reliability of the brake system with the solenoid improvements.
Claim 3:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the monitoring of the induced voltage generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve comprises monitoring the induced voltage which is generated immediately after turning on or off the solenoid valve. [¶¶7-8]
Claim 4:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the one or more pre-stored normal induced voltage values include a voltage value of a normal induced voltage that changes over time during a predetermined period of time. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 5:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state includes determining that the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state when a difference between the induced voltage, generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve, and the one or more pre-stored normal induced voltage values is within a predetermined reference error range. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 6:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state includes determining that the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the abnormal state when a difference between the induced voltage, generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve, and the one or more pre-stored normal induced voltage values is out of a predetermined reference error range. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 7:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the abnormal state of the plunger of the solenoid valve includes at least one of a state of an influx of foreign matter into the plunger or a state of restricted movement of the plunger.
However, Kokubu does disclose wherein the abnormal state of the plunger of the solenoid valve includes at least one of a state of an influx of foreign matter into the plunger or a state of restricted movement of the plunger. [¶4]
Claim 8:
Pranjic discloses a method comprising: monitoring a voltage for driving a solenoid valve; [¶¶7-8, 14; Fig. 3] determining whether a state of a plunger of the solenoid valve is a normal state or an abnormal state based on the voltage between the drain and the source of the field effect transistor [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures].
Pranjic doesn’t explicitly disclose monitoring a voltage between a drain and a source of a field effect transistor for driving a solenoid valve; providing, via a communication circuit of the brake apparatus, information based on the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state to an external output device; controlling a brake apparatus the method being performed by a controller of the brake apparatus.
Kono does disclose monitoring a voltage between a drain and a source of a field effect transistor for driving a solenoid valve [¶¶12-13]; providing, via a communication circuit of the brake apparatus, information based on the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state to an external output device. [¶6].
Kokubu discloses (a controlling a brake apparatus the method being performed by a controller of the brake apparatus [¶29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the solenoid abnormality detection of Pranjic with the measurement locations of Kono to provide a known voltage measurement location to determine changes in the solenoid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the solenoid abnormality detection of Pranjic and Kono with the brake apparatus of Kokubu to improve the reliability of the brake system with the solenoid improvements.
Claim 9:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state includes: monitoring an induced voltage generated at first and second ends of a coil of the solenoid valve based on the voltage between the drain and the source of the field effect transistor; and determining whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state based on a comparison of the induced voltage, generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve, and one or more pre-stored normal induced voltage values. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 10:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein: the field effect transistor is connected to the first end of the coil of the solenoid valve, and the induced voltage of the coil is a difference of a voltage between the drain and the source of the field effect transistor and a voltage applied to the second end of the coil.
However, Kono does disclose wherein: the field effect transistor is connected to the first end of the coil of the solenoid valve, and the induced voltage of the coil is a difference of a voltage between the drain and the source of the field effect transistor and a voltage applied to the second end of the coil. [¶¶12-13]
Claim 11:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the one or more pre-stored normal induced voltage values include a voltage value of a normal induced voltage that changes over time during a predetermined time interval. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 12:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state includes determining that the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state when a difference between the induced voltage, generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve, and the one or more pre-stored normal induced voltages is within a predetermined reference error range. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 13:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state includes determining that the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the abnormal state when a difference between the induced voltage, generated at the first and second ends of the coil of the solenoid valve, and the one or more pre-stored normal induced voltages is out of a predetermined reference error range. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 14:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the abnormal state of the plunger of the solenoid valve includes at least one of a state of an influx of foreign matter into the plunger or a state of restricted movement of the plunger.
However, Kokubu does disclose wherein the abnormal state of the plunger of the solenoid valve includes at least one of a state of an influx of foreign matter into the plunger or a state of restricted movement of the plunger. [¶4]
Claim 15:
Pranjic discloses an apparatus, comprising: a solenoid valve including a coil and a plunger movably disposed in the coil; a drive circuit configured to drive the solenoid valve, a memory configured to store one or more normal induced voltage values; and a controller electrically connected to the coil of the solenoid valve [¶¶12, 14], wherein the controller is configured to: monitor an induced voltage generated at first and second ends of the coil, and [¶¶12, 14] determine whether a state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is a normal state or an abnormal state based on a comparison of the induced voltage generated at first and second ends of the coil and the one or more normal induced voltages stored in the memory [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures].
Pranjic doesn’t explicitly disclose providing, via a communication circuit of the brake apparatus, information based on the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state to an external output device, controlling a brake apparatus the method being performed by a controller of the brake apparatus wherein the drive circuit includes a field effect transistor connected to the first end of the coil, and wherein the controller is configured to determine a difference between a voltage between a drain and a source of the field effect transistor and a voltage applied to the second end of the coil as the induced voltage.
However, Kono does disclose providing, via a communication circuit of the brake apparatus, information based on the determining of whether the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state or the abnormal state to an external output device, [¶6] wherein the drive circuit includes a field effect transistor connected to the first end of the coil, and wherein the controller is configured to determine a difference between a voltage between a drain and a source of the field effect transistor and a voltage applied to the second end of the coil as the induced voltage. [¶¶12-13]
Kokubu discloses controlling a brake apparatus the method being performed by a controller of the brake apparatus [¶29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the solenoid abnormality detection of Pranjic with the information output of Kono to alert an operator of an equipment failure and to provide a known voltage measurement location to determine changes in the solenoid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the solenoid abnormality detection of Pranjic and Kono with the brake apparatus of Kokubu to improve the reliability of the brake system with the solenoid improvements.
Claim 17:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the controller is configured to identify the voltage between the drain and the source of the field effect transistor when a change in the voltage between the drain and the source of the field effect transistor, which is generated immediately after turning on or off the solenoid valve, is greater than a predetermined threshold change. [¶¶7-8]
Claim 18:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the stored one or more normal induced voltages include a voltage value of a normal induced voltage that changes over time during a predetermined period of time. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 19:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic also discloses wherein the controller is configured to: determine that the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the normal state when a difference between the induced voltage, generated at first and second ends of the coil, and the one or more pre-stored normal induced voltages is within a predetermined reference error range, and determine the state of the plunger of the solenoid valve is the abnormal state when the difference between the induced voltage, generated at first and second ends of the coil, and the one or more pre-stored normal induced voltages is within the predetermined reference error range. [¶¶14-19; Figs. 4-6 show how the voltage is compared to an expected response (change in sign) to determine failures]
Claim 20:
Pranjic, Kono, and Kokubu, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Pranjic doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the abnormal state of the plunger of the solenoid valve includes at least one of a state of an influx of foreign matter into the plunger or a state of restricted movement of the plunger.
However, Kokubu does disclose wherein the abnormal state of the plunger of the solenoid valve includes at least one of a state of an influx of foreign matter into the plunger or a state of restricted movement of the plunger. [¶4]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747