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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant Contends, in Applicant Arguments filed 15th July 2026, that the rejection of Claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not “establish that the references teach or suggest the claimed control logic as a whole. This argument is not persuasive. Even assuming, arguendo, that the rejection does not teach of suggest the claimed control logic as a whole, Claim 1 is an apparatus claim directed to “A parking brake system of a tipper vehicle”, therefore, the prior art need not literally carry out the recited function, but rather the prior art needs to merely be capable of performing the functions upon experiencing the condition (see MPEP 2114 for more discussion of functional limitations of Apparatus Claims). In the instant case prior of record Schemmel (US 20140172240 A1), Sun et. al. (US 20230182709 A1), and Song (KR 101205112 B1), used in rejection of claim 1, need not literally carry out the conditional control logic of claim 1: “wherein upon receipt of said tipping signal, said neutral gear signal, and said low speed signal, and upon detecting that the parking brake is still in the released state, the valve device is changed from the inactive state to the activated state”. Thus, as the structural limitations of a valve device (160) (US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]), a tipping detecting device (30) (KR 101205112 B1 [Song]), neutral gear detecting device (132) (US 20140172240 A1 [Schemmel]), speed sensing device (134) (US 20140172240 A1 [Schemmel]), and a parking brake detecting device (126) (US 20140172240 A1 [Schemmel]) are taught by the prior art of record and a valve device changing from an inactive state to an active state (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; [0004-0005], [0040-0041]) is also taught by prior art of record, the combination of Schemmel, Sun, and Song is capable of performing the claimed function upon experiencing the condition. Rejection of claims 1-14 are therefore maintained.
Although Applicant’s arguments do not address rejection of independent Method Claim 15, many of the arguments made regarding Independent Claim 1 can be applied to Claim 15. Examiner considers these relevant arguments persuasive. Specifically, applicants’ argument that, “the proposed combination would require more than simply incorporating… so that a valve device is actuated only when all of the claim conditions are meet” is found persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would not explicitly be taught by a combination of prior art of record Sun, Schemmel, and Song to “upon receipt of said tipping signal, said neutral gear signal, and said low speed signal, and upon detecting that the parking brake is in the released state, fluidly connecting, by the valve device, a brake chamber of the parking brake to an exhaust port of the valve device, thereby discharging air from the brake chamber to the exhaust port, causing the parking brake to be changed to the applied state”. Therefore, rejection of independent Claim 15 and dependent Claim 16 have been withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel (US 20140172240 A1) in view of Sun et. al. (US 20230182709 A1) and further in view of Song (KR 101205112 B1).
It should be noted while Sun’s publication date is later than the effective filling date of the claimed invention, Sun’s effective filling date is before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, meaning Sun still qualifies as prior art under U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding Claim 1, Schemmel discloses a parking brake system of a tipper vehicle having a tipper body from which carried material is dispensable by tipping the tipper body, the parking brake system comprising: a parking brake (116), a neutral gear detecting device (132) configured to send a neutral gear signal to the valve device, the neutral gear signal being indicative of the vehicle gear being in neutral, a speed sensing device (134) configured to send a low speed signal to the valve device, the low speed signal being indicative of the vehicle speed being zero or below a predefined threshold speed, a parking brake detecting device (126) configured to send a parking brake signal to the valve device, wherein, by detecting the presence or absence of the parking brake signal (see Fig. 2, [0026], [0038]),
Schemmel does not disclose the parking brake containing a brake chamber, a valve device, or a tipping detecting device.
Sun teaches a parking brake which comprises a which comprises a brake chamber (170) which is pressurizable for releasing the parking brake, a valve device (160) in fluid communication with the brake chamber (170), the valve device (160) comprising an exhaust port (165), wherein the valve device (160) has an activated state in which the brake chamber (170) is in fluid communication with the exhaust port (165) whereby air from the brake chamber (170) is discharged, thereby applying the parking brake, and an inactivated state in which the fluid communication between the exhaust port (165) and the brake chamber (170) is disconnected (see Fig. 4, [0004-0005], [0040-0041]).
It would have been obvious to combine the Parking brake of Sun with the Parking brake system of a tipper vehicle of Schemmel in order to improve safety by ensuring the vehicle remains stationary in parked mode and reduce cost and system complexity (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; [0006-0009]).
Schemmel modified by Sun does not teach a tipping detecting device.
Song teaches a brake system of a tipper vehicle having a tipper body from which carried material is dispensable by tipping the tipper body, the brake system comprising: a tipping detecting device (30) configured to send a tipping signal to the valve device, the tipping signal being indicative of the tipper body (20) being lifted (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0015], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to combine the tipping detecting device of Song with the parking brake system of a tipper vehicle of Schemmel modified by Sun in order to improve safety by performing more informed braking operations automatically and to help protect the sensor from contamination (see Fig. 3, [0006-0009]).
Regarding Claim 2, Sun teaches wherein said valve device (160) is a first valve device and said exhaust port (165) is a first exhaust port, the parking brake system further comprising: a second valve device (150) comprising a second exhaust port (153), wherein when the first valve device (160) is in the inactivated state it allows fluid communication between the second valve device (150) and the brake chamber (170), wherein the second valve device (150) has an activated state and an inactivated stated, wherein when the first valve device (160) is in its inactivated state and the second valve device (150) is in the activated state, then the brake chamber (170) is in fluid communication with the second exhaust port (153), whereby air from the brake chamber (170) is discharged, thereby applying the parking brake, wherein when the second valve (150) device is in the inactivated state, then pressurized air from a pressurized air source is allowed to pass through the second valve device (150) to first valve device (160) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Sun teaches a parking brake system further comprising an operator-controlled device which is operatively connected to the second valve device (150), thereby enabling an operator to switch between the activated state and the inactivated state of the second valve device (150) (see Fig. 4, [0048-0049]).
Regarding Claim 4, Schemmel as modified by Sun and Song teaches wherein unless it is indicated to the first valve device (160) (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; Fig. 4, [0048-0049]) that the tipper body is being lifted (see KR 101205112 B1 [Song]; Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0015], [0025]), as well as the vehicle gear is in neutral, as well as the vehicle speed being zero or below a predefined threshold (see US 20140172240 A1 [Schemmel]; Fig. 2, [0026], [0038]), then the first valve is in the inactivated state, thereby allowing the applying/releasing of the parking brake to be controlled by controlling the state of the second valve device (150) (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; Fig. 4, [0048-0049]).
Regarding Claim 5, Schemmel as modified by Sun and Song teaches wherein the first valve device (160) comprises a solenoid valve (161) which is biased towards the inactivated state when it is not energized (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; Fig. 4, [0048-0049]), wherein upon receipt of said tipping signal (see KR 101205112 B1 [Song]; Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0015], [0025]), said neutral gear signal and said low speed signal, and upon detecting that the parking brake is still in the released state (see US 20140172240 A1 [Schemmel]; Fig. 2, [0026], [0038]), the valve device becomes energized to change from the inactivated state to the activated state (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; Fig. 4, [0048-0049]).
Regarding Claim 6, Schemmel as modified by Sun and Song teaches wherein the solenoid valve (161) (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; Fig. 4, [0048-0049]) is energized by an energization signal triggered by the receipt of said tipping signal (see KR 101205112 B1 [Song]; Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0015], [0025]), said neutral gear signal and said low speed signal, and the detecting that the parking brake is still in the released state (see US 20140172240 A1 [Schemmel]; Fig. 2, [0026], [0038]), wherein when the operator-controlled device has switched the second valve device (150) (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; Fig. 4, [0048-0049]) to the activated state to apply the parking brake, then any triggering of the energization signal is blocked, thereby avoiding energization of the solenoid valve (161) (see US 20230182709 A1 [Sun]; Fig. 4, [0048-0049]).
Regarding Claim 8, Sun teaches wherein the second valve device (150) comprises a lever-operated hand brake valve, wherein moving the lever between a first position and a second position causes the second valve (150) to change from its inactivated state to its activated state (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Song teaches a limit switch (30) provided at the chassis (12), the limit switch (30) forming part of the tipping detecting device (30), wherein when the tipper body (20) is lifted the limit switch becomes closed and the tipping signal is sent to the valve device (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0015], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 13, Schemmel discloses a Tipper Vehicle with a parking brake system (see Fig. 1, [0001]). Schemmel modified by Sun and Song, as applied in Claim 1, above, therefore teaches a tipper vehicle comprising the parking brake system of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Schemmel discloses wherein the Tipper Vehicle is a Tipper Truck (see Fig. 1, [0001]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel (US 20140172240 A1) as modified by Sun et. al. (US 20230182709 A1) and by Song (KR 101205112 B1) in Claim 2, above, further in view of Eberling (US 6322159 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Schemmel modified by Sun and Song teach the Parking Brake System of Claim 2.
Schemmel modified by Sun and Song do not explicitly teach wherein the second valve device (150) comprises an electronically controlled valve, wherein the second valve device (150) is switched to the activated state by an electrical signal triggered by actuation of an electronic parking switch (see Fig. 4)
Eberling teaches wherein a valve device comprises an electronically controlled valve (22), wherein the valve device is switched to the activated state by an electrical signal triggered by actuation of an electronic parking switch (see Fig. 2, 1:32-57, Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to combine the electronically controlled valve switched by an electronic parking switch of Eberling with the parking brake system of Schemmel modified by Sun and Song in order to reduce the amount of space taken up by non-electronic manually actuated parking brake systems and decrease the installation burden (see US 6322159 B1 [Eberling]; 1: 23-28, 1:54-57).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel (US 20140172240 A1) as modified by Sun et. al. (US 20230182709 A1) and by Song (KR 101205112 B1) in Claim 1 above, further in view of Atkins (US 3966266 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Schemmel modified by Sun and Song teaches the parking brake system of Claim 1.
Schemmel modified by Sun and Song does not explicitly teach wherein the parking brake system further comprises a speed sensor switch forming part of the speed sensing device, wherein when the vehicle speed is zero or below the predefined threshold speed the speed sensor switch becomes closed and the low speed signal is sent to the valve device.
Atkins teaches wherein a brake system further comprises a speed sensor switch (58) forming part of the speed sensing device, wherein when the vehicle speed is zero or below the predefined threshold speed the speed sensor switch becomes closed and the low speed signal is sent to the valve device (16) (see Fig. 2, 4:65-67, 5:1-5).
It would have been obvious to combine the speed sensor switch of Atkins with the parking brake system of Schemmel modified by Sun and Song in order to simplify the electrical signals being sent from the speed sensor, reducing electrical complexity, power usage, and improving space utilization.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel (US 20140172240 A1) as modified by Sun et. al. (US 20230182709 A1) and by Song (KR 101205112 B1) in Claim 1 above, further in view of Kimura (US 3684049 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Schemmel modified by Sun and Song teaches the parking brake system of Claim 1.
Schemmel modified by Sun and Song does not explicitly teach wherein the parking brake system further comprises a gear switch forming part of the neutral gear detecting device, wherein when the vehicle gear is in neutral state, the gear switch becomes closed and the neutral gear signal is sent to the valve device.
Kimura teaches a brake system further comprises a gear switch (58) forming part of the neutral gear detecting device, wherein when the vehicle gear is in neutral state, the gear switch (58) becomes closed and the neutral gear signal is sent to the valve device (see Fig. 1, 6:18-21).
It would have been obvious to combine the gear switch of Kimura with the parking brake system of Schemmel modified by Sun and Song in order to simplify the electrical signals being sent from the gear detecting device, reducing electrical complexity, power usage, and improving space utilization.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schemmel (US 20140172240 A1) as modified by Sun et. al. (US 20230182709 A1) and by Song (KR 101205112 B1) in Claim 1 above, further in view of Williams (US 10703270 B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Schemmel modified by Sun and Song teaches the parking brake system of Claim 1.
Schemmel modified by Sun and Song does not explicitly teach wherein the parking brake system further comprises a parking brake switch forming part of the parking brake detecting device, wherein when the parking brake is activated by an operator so that the parking brake becomes applied, then the parking brake switch becomes opened and the parking brake signal is disconnected from the valve device.
Williams teaches a brake system further comprises a parking brake switch (104) forming part of the parking brake detecting device, wherein when the parking brake is activated by an operator so that the parking brake becomes applied, then the parking brake switch becomes opened and the parking brake signal is disconnected from the valve device (see Fig. 2, 7:19-33).
It would have been obvious to combine the parking brake switch of Williams with the parking brake system of Schemmel modified by Sun and Song in order to simplify the electrical signals being sent from the gear detecting device, reducing electrical complexity, power usage, and improving space utilization.
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 Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights