DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Brake Valve responsive to signals generated from other Valves.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 requires “a first signal” which was already claimed in claim 13 from which it depends. This leads to indefiniteness as to whether this is requiring another signal or is in reference to this signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 13, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Boulivan (U.S. Pat. No. 10,549,742).
Regarding claim 1, Boulivan discloses a brake control system comprising:
a trailer brake valve (pv1) fluidly interposed between a vehicle brake assembly (26) and a trailer brake assembly (32, 34);
a brake module (the SL line) operably coupled with the vehicle brake assembly and configured to provide a first signal (shown in fig. 8 the pressure in the line signals the valve) to the trailer brake valve; and
a control valve (EV1, CL line) configured to provide a second signal to the trailer brake valve,
wherein the trailer brake valve is operated based on the first signal when a vehicle is operated in a first mode and operated based on the second signal when the vehicle is operated in a second mode (the pressure in the line feeding PV1 changes the valve).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 1, Boulivan discloses wherein the control valve (col. 7, line 53-54) is configured as an electronic proportional valve.
Regarding claim 13, Boulivan discloses a method for operating a brake control system, the method comprising: providing a first signal to a trailer brake valve based on an actuation of a master brake cylinder when operating a vehicle in a first mode; energizing a control valve thereby allowing a proportional pilot pressure to be provided to the trailer brake valve as a second signal when operating a vehicle in a second mode; and actuating a trailer brake assembly based on the first signal or the second signal (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above and in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 13, Boulivan discloses further comprising: de-energizing the control valve when a first signal is detected (108).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 13, Boulivan discloses wherein the trailer brake assembly includes one or more control line brakes fluidly coupled with a first fluid circuit and one or more supplementary line brakes fluidly coupled with a second fluid circuit (shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 15, Boulivan discloses further comprising: actuating a pilot valve (ev2) to engage the one or more supplementary line brakes in an event of a detected control line leak (col. 11, lines 40-55).
Regarding claim 17, Boulivan discloses a brake control system comprising: a trailer brake valve fluidly interposed between a vehicle brake assembly and a trailer brake assembly, the trailer brake assembly including one or more control line brakes fluidly coupled with a first fluid circuit and one or more supplementary line brakes fluidly coupled with a second fluid circuit; a brake module operably coupled with the vehicle brake assembly and configured to provide a first signal to the trailer brake valve; and a control valve configured to provide a second signal to the trailer brake valve, wherein the trailer brake valve is operated based on the first signal when a vehicle is operated in a first mode and operated based on the second signal when the vehicle is operated in a second mode, and wherein the first fluid circuit is segregated from the second fluid circuit (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 1 and fig. 2).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulivan (U.S. Pat. No. 10,549,742) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 1, Boulivan discloses wherein the trailer brake valve is configured as a proportional valve (col. 8, lines 45-48).
Boulivan does not disclose that the trailer brake valve is four way.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a four way valve, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4-7,11, 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulivan (U.S. Pat. No. 10,549,742) as applied to claims 1, 13 and 17 above, and in view of Goers (U.S. Pat. No. 10,933,852).
Regarding claim 4 and 20 which depends from claim 1 and 17 respectively, Boulivan does not disclose further comprising: a safety valve manifold interposed between the trailer brake valve and the trailer brake assembly.
Goers, which also deals in trailer brakes, teaches further comprising: a safety valve (10 is a considered a safety valve placed as the last valve before the brakes) manifold interposed between the trailer brake valve and the trailer brake assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Boulivan to have the safety valve of Goers because this is a suitable safety measure (col. 1, lines 42-48).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 4, Boulivan discloses wherein the trailer brake assembly includes one or more control line brakes (CL and SL are two lines) and one or more supplementary line brakes (one option addressed).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 5, Boulivan discloses wherein the one or more control line brakes are fluidly coupled with a first fluid circuit and the one or more supplementary line brakes are fluidly coupled with a second fluid circuit, the first fluid circuit segregated from the second fluid circuit (shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 6, Boulivan discloses wherein a first fluid is provided within the first fluid circuit and a second fluid is provided within the second fluid circuit, the first fluid varied from the second fluid (they are segregated fluids).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 5, Boulivan discloses further comprising: a computing system communicatively coupled to the control valve, the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor (col. 5, lines 9-15), configure the computing system to: determine a braking pressure of the vehicle; and actuate the control valve to provide the second signal to the trailer brake valve that dictates a magnitude of actuation of the trailer brake assembly (col. 5, lines 20-36).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 11, Boulivan discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to: actuate a pilot valve (ev2) to engage the one or more supplementary line brakes in an event of a detected control line leak (col. 11, lines 40-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 8, 18, 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2, 3, 18 and 19: the claims require that the control valve and the brake module both produce signals that the trailer brake valve respond to based on whether the system is driven autonomously.
Claim 8 requires two different brake lines with different fluids in the lines, one of those fluids being a glycol fluid and the other a petroleum based fluid that feeds the same brakes. This is a novel combination with the claims from which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747