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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, shown in Figs. 1-4 and 6-10 and corresponding to claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 15-20 in the reply filed on June 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Species I and Species II are not independent or distinct because both are directed to braking systems and share common features, and that examination of both species would not create a serious burden because both fall within the same field and allegedly could be covered by a single comprehensive search.
This is not found persuasive because the shared subject matter does not overcome the mutually exclusive hydraulic arrangements of the species. Species I requires a two-sided redundant subsystem having first and second redundant branches, third and fourth isolation valves, and a two-sided redundant boosting apparatus connected to the brake master cylinder through multiple ports. Species II requires a one-sided arrangement in which the second input end is hydraulically connected to the first input end and the second output end is hydraulically connected to the first output end, includes a third branch, and positions the one-way valve on a different isolation-valve side. Applicant has not provided evidence establishing that these arrangements are obvious variants. Further, the distinct arrangements require different search features, queries, and strategies. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 4, and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 4, 2026.
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “providing, by a redundant boosting apparatus provides, hydraulic pressure for a brake wheel cylinder.” The recitation contains both the gerund “providing” and the finite verb “provides,” resulting in an unclear and grammatically incompatible method step. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed step is “providing, by a redundant boosting apparatus, hydraulic pressure” or whether the applicant intended to recite that “a redundant boosting apparatus provides hydraulic pressure.”
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18 and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
For purposes of the prior-art rejection, claim 18 is interpreted as reciting “providing, by a redundant boosting apparatus, hydraulic pressure for a brake wheel cylinder.”
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “fourth isolative valve,” should be changed to “fourth isolation valve” for consistency with the terminology used elsewhere in the claims and specification.
In claim 19, “the control method of claim 18” should be changed to “The method of claim 18.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganzel (US 20190092304 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ganzel discloses a braking system (10; see Fig. 1), comprising:
a main braking subsystem (16) comprising a brake master cylinder (brake pedal unit 30 comprising primary piston 104, secondary piston 106, primary chamber 112, and secondary chamber 114; see Figs. 1-2); and
a redundant braking subsystem (power pack assembly 18, which functions as a secondary pressure source under failed conditions; see ¶ 0051) comprising:
a redundant boosting apparatus (pump assembly 270) comprising:
a first input end configured to input a brake-fluid (inlet of first pump 274 receiving brake-fluid through conduit 280); and
a first output end hydraulically connected to the brake master cylinder (outlet of first pump 274 hydraulically connected by conduit 126 to input chamber 110 of brake pedal unit 30); and a third isolation valve (solenoid-actuated valve 282) comprising:
a first end hydraulically connected to the first input end (one end of valve 282 connected to conduit 280 and the inlet of first pump 274); and
a second end hydraulically connected to the brake master cylinder (the opposite end of valve 282 connected by conduit 126 to input chamber 110 of brake pedal unit 30; see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0052-53).
Ganzel further discloses that the power pack assembly 18 functions as the redundant braking subsystem because closing valve 282 prevents pump discharge from recirculating to reservoir 36 and directs the pressure generated by pump assembly 270 into input chamber 110 to actuate the master-cylinder pistons, thereby predictably maintaining boosted braking when the main pressure source fails (see ¶¶ 0051-53, 0065-68).
Regarding claim 8, Ganzel discloses the braking system of claim 1, wherein the redundant braking subsystem further comprises a first connector configured to connect the redundant braking subsystem to the brake master cylinder (hydraulic conduit 126 connecting power pack assembly 18 to input chamber 110 of brake pedal unit 30; see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0019, 0051, 0053).
Regarding claim 9, Ganzel discloses the braking system of claim 1, wherein the main braking subsystem further comprises a fluid reservoir apparatus (fluid reservoir 36), and wherein the redundant braking subsystem further comprises a second connector configured to connect the redundant braking subsystem to the fluid reservoir apparatus (conduit 280 connecting power pack assembly 18, including pumps 274, 276, to reservoir 36; see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0021, 0053).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 5-7, 10, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganzel (US 20190092304 A1) in view of Yamanao et al. (US 20090096280 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ganzel discloses the braking system of claim 1, wherein the redundant boosting apparatus further comprises:
a second input end (inlet of second pump 276 connected to inlet conduit 280); and
a second output end hydraulically connected to the brake master cylinder (outlet of second pump 276 connected by outlet conduit 126 to input chamber 110 of brake pedal unit 30; see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0052-53).
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the redundant braking subsystem further comprises a fourth isolation valve having a third end hydraulically connected to the second input end and a fourth end hydraulically connected to the brake master cylinder.
Yamanao teaches a fourth isolation valve (normally closed gate-in valve 2S) comprising: a third end (pump-side end of gate-in valve 2S); and a fourth end hydraulically connected to the brake master cylinder (master-cylinder-side end of gate-in valve 2S connected by pipe 11S to master cylinder M/C), wherein the second input end is hydraulically connected to the third end (suction side of pump PS connected through pipe 11S and check valve 6S to the pump-side end of gate-in valve 2S (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0029-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganzel’s second pump 276 to include Yamanao’s separately controlled gate-in valve 2S because independently isolating each pump branch would limit the loss of brake-fluid and hydraulic pressure through a failed branch, thereby preserving boosted braking through the remaining operational branch.
Regarding claim 5, Ganzel as modified discloses the braking system of claim 1.
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the redundant braking subsystem further comprises a first pressure sensor configured to sense pressure of the brake fluid in the brake master cylinder, wherein the first pressure sensor is connected to a pipeline that is between the third isolation valve and the brake master cylinder.
Yamanao teaches a first pressure sensor configured to sense pressure of the brake-fluid in the brake master cylinder (pressure sensor PMC configured to detect the hydraulic pressure of master cylinder M/C), wherein the first pressure sensor is connected to a pipeline that is between the third isolation valve and the brake master cylinder (pressure sensor PMC installed on pipe 11P between gate-in valve 2P and master cylinder M/C; see Fig 1. and ¶ 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganzel’s conduit 126, between valve 282 and brake pedal unit 30, to include Yamanao’s pressure sensor PMC because sensing the master-cylinder pressure provides actual hydraulic-pressure feedback for controlling the pump and valves, thereby enabling accurate and stable boosted-pressure control (see ¶¶ 0040-42, 0141).
Regarding claim 6, Ganzel as modified discloses the braking system of claim 2.
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the redundant braking subsystem further comprises a first one-way valve connected in parallel to either the third isolation valve or the fourth isolation valve.
Yamanao teaches a first one-way valve (check valve 9P or 9S) connected in parallel to an isolation valve (gate-out valve 3P or 3S through bypass pipe 18P or 18S), wherein the one-way valve permits brake-fluid flow in one direction and prevents brake-fluid flow in the opposite direction (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify either the third isolation valve or the fourth isolation valve of Ganzel as modified to include Yamanao’s parallel one-way valve because the one-way bypass would permit desired forward fluid flow without opening the isolation valve while preventing reverse flow, thereby maintaining a passive brake-fluid path and preventing loss of boosted hydraulic pressure.
Regarding claim 7, Ganzel as modified discloses the braking system of claim 2, wherein the redundant boosting apparatus comprises:
a first hydraulic pump (first pump 274) comprising a first hydraulic pump input end (inlet of 274) and a first hydraulic pump output end (outlet of 274), wherein the first hydraulic pump input end is the first input end, wherein the first hydraulic pump output end is the first output end; and
a second hydraulic pump (second pump 276) comprising a second hydraulic pump input end (inlet of 276) and a second hydraulic pump output end (outlet of 276), wherein the second hydraulic pump input end is the second input end, and wherein the second hydraulic pump output end is the second output end (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0052-53).
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the redundant boosting apparatus is a plunger pump assembly.
Yamanao teaches pumps PP and PS driven by one motor M, wherein the pumps may be plunger pumps (see ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Ganzel’s first and second pumps as Yamanao’s plunger pumps because plunger pumps provide positive displacement pumping suitable for generating the hydraulic pressure required for brake boosting, thereby predictably providing boosted hydraulic output through Ganzel’s existing pump inlet and outlet connections.
Regarding claim 10, Ganzel discloses a hydraulic apparatus (power pack assembly 18 within power pack housing 14) comprising:
a first connection interface configured to hydraulically connect the hydraulic apparatus to a brake master cylinder (conduit 126 connecting power pack assembly 18 to input chamber 110 of brake pedal unit 30);
a redundant boosting apparatus (pump assembly 270) comprising:
a first input end configured to input a brake-fluid (inlet of first pump 274 receiving brake fluid through conduit 280); and
a first output end hydraulically connected to the connection interface (outlet of first pump 274 connected through conduit 126 to brake pedal unit 30); and
a third isolation valve (282) comprising:
a first end hydraulically connected to the first input end (end of valve 282 connected through conduit 280 to the inlet of first pump 274); and
a second end hydraulically connected to the connection interface (opposite end of valve 282 connected through conduit 126 to brake pedal unit 30; see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0019, 0051-53).
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the first connection interface comprises a first interface and a second interface, wherein the first output end is hydraulically connected to the first interface, and wherein the second end of the third isolation valve is hydraulic connected to the second interface.
Yamanao teaches a first connection interface (master-cylinder connection ports of hydraulic unit 31) comprising:
a first interface (port associated with pipe 13P) and a second interface (port associated with pipe 11P);
a first output end (delivery side of pump PP) hydraulically connected through pipes 12P, 13P and gate-out valve 3P to the first interface; and
a third isolation valve (gate-in valve 2P) comprising a first end hydraulically connected through pipe 11P and check valve 6P to the first input end (suction side of pump PP), and a second end hydraulically connected through pipe 11P to the second interface (see Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0026, 0031-33, 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganzel’s power pack assembly 18 to include Yamanao’s separate suction-side and discharge-side interfaces because the separate interfaces provide defined input and boosted-output flow paths, thereby enabling predictable hydraulic-pressure control and allowing the remotely housed power pack to be connected as a modular auxiliary unit.
Regarding claim 11, Ganzel as modified discloses the hydraulic apparatus of claim 10, wherein the redundant boosting apparatus further comprises:
a second input end (inlet of second pump 276 receiving brake fluid through conduit 280); and
a second output end (outlet of second pump 276 connected through conduit 126 to brake pedal unit 30; see Fig. 1).
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the first connection interface further comprises a third interface and a fourth interface, wherein the second output end is hydraulically connected to the third interface, and wherein the hydraulic apparatus further comprises a fourth isolation valve having a third end hydraulically connected to the second input end and a fourth end hydraulic connected to the fourth interface.
Yamanao teaches the first connection interface further comprising:
a third interface (master-cylinder port of hydraulic unit 31 associated with pipe 13S) and a fourth interface (master-cylinder port associated with pipe 11S), wherein the redundant boosting apparatus further comprises;
a second input end (suction side of pump PS);
a second output end (delivery side of pump PS) hydraulically connected through pipes 12S, 13S and gate-out valve 3S to the third interface; and
wherein the hydraulic apparatus further comprises:
a fourth isolation valve (gate-in valve 2S) comprising a third end hydraulically connected through pipe 11S and check valve 6S to the second input end, and a fourth end hydraulically connected through pipe 11S to the fourth interface (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0029, 0031-33, 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganzel’s second pump 276 to include Yamanao’s second set of interfaces and isolation valve because providing a dedicated suction path, discharge path, and isolation valve for each pump would allow the two hydraulic brake circuits to be boosted and controlled independently, thereby maintaining dual-circuit braking without relying on one common fluid path.
Regarding claim 15, Ganzel as modified discloses the hydraulic apparatus of claim 10 and a first pressure sensor configured to sense pressure of brake-fluid in the brake master cylinder (redundant pressure sensor 194 configured to detect pressure in secondary chamber 114 of brake pedal unit 30; see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0038).
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the first pressure sensor is connected to a pipeline that is between the third isolation valve and the second interface.
Yamanao teaches a first pressure sensor configured to sense pressure of the brake-fluid in the brake master cylinder (pressure sensor PMC configured to detect the hydraulic pressure of master cylinder M/C), wherein the first pressure sensor is connected to a pipeline that is between the third isolation valve and the second interface (pressure sensor PMC positioned on pipe 11P between gate-in valve 2P and the master-cylinder port associated with pipe 11P; see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the pressure sensor of Ganzel as modified between gate-in valve 2P and the second interface because measuring pressure directly on the master-cylinder side of the isolation valve provides actual hydraulic-pressure feedback for controlling the pump and valves, thereby enabling accurate and stable boosted-pressure control (see ¶¶ 0040-42).
Regarding claim 16, Ganzel as modified discloses the hydraulic apparatus of claim 11.
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the hydraulic apparatus further comprises a first one-way valve connected in parallel to either the third isolation valve or the fourth isolation valve.
Yamanao teaches a first one-way valve (check valve 9P or 9S) connected by a bypass pipe (18P or 18S) in parallel with an isolation valve (gate-out valve 3P or 3S), wherein the one-way valve permits brake fluid flow in one direction and prevents brake-fluid flow in the opposite direction (see Fig. 1 and ¶ 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yamanao’s parallel one-way bypass arrangement to either the third isolation valve (2P) or the fourth isolation valve (2S) because the passive bypass would permit fluid flow in a selected direction without energizing the isolation valve while preventing reverse flow, thereby providing a simple passive fluid path and preventing reverse hydraulic-pressure loss.
Regarding claim 17, Ganzel as modified discloses the hydraulic apparatus of claim 11, wherein the redundant boosting apparatus comprises:
a first hydraulic pump (first pump 274) comprising a first hydraulic pump input end (inlet of 274) and a first hydraulic pump output end (outlet of 274), wherein the first hydraulic pump input end is the first input end, wherein the first hydraulic pump output end is the first output end; and
a second hydraulic pump (second pump 276) comprising a second hydraulic pump input end (inlet of 276) and a second hydraulic pump output end (outlet of 276), wherein the second hydraulic pump input end is the second input end, and wherein the second hydraulic pump output end is the second output end (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 0052-53).
Ganzel does not expressly disclose wherein the redundant boosting apparatus is a plunger pump assembly.
Yamanao teaches first and second pumps PP, PS driven by motor M, wherein the pumps may be plunger pumps (see ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Ganzel’s first and second pumps as Yamanao’s plunger pumps because plunger pumps provide positive displacement pumping suitable for generating high hydraulic brake pressure and could be predictably operated by Ganzel’s existing motor-driven eccentric arrangement.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campau (US 20200216052 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Campau discloses a method for controlling a braking system (control of brake system 300 by secondary ECU 352), the method comprising:
obtaining a first signal (secondary ECU 352 receiving the proper-operation signal transmitted by main ECU 342 over the CAN bus),
controlling, based on the first signal, a third isolation valve of a redundant braking subsystem to be turned off (upon no longer receiving the proper-operation signal, secondary ECU 352 begins operating auxiliary EHCU 350 and energizes normally open valve 380 to its closed position, thereby isolating first brake conduit 374 from first pump outlet conduit 368); and
providing, by a redundant boosting apparatus, hydraulic pressure for a brake wheel cylinder using a first output end of the redundant boosting apparatus (pump assembly 360 operating first pump 364 to supply pressurized fluid through first pump outlet conduit 368 to wheel brake 340a; see Fig. 3 and ¶¶ 0057-61, 0080-81).
Campau does not expressly disclose obtaining a first signal, wherein the first signal indicates fault information of the braking system, because Campau’s received signal indicates proper operation and the absence of that signal triggers the redundant braking operation.
Campau teaches that secondary ECU 352 begins operating auxiliary EHCU 350 when the proper-operation signal from main ECU 342 is no longer received, because failure of main ECU 342 requires secondary ECU 352 to control the auxiliary EHCU (see ¶ 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Campau’s secondary ECU 352 to generate and obtain an affirmative fault-status signal when the proper-operation signal from main ECU 342 is no longer received because representing the detected communication loss as a fault signal provides a definite machine-readable trigger for closing valve 380 and activating pump assembly 360, thereby enabling a prompt and reliable transition to redundant braking.
Regarding claim 19, Campau as modified discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the method further comprises:
controlling a fourth isolation valve of the redundant braking subsystem to be turned off (secondary ECU 352 energizing normally open valve 430 to its closed position); and
providing, by the redundant boosting apparatus, hydraulic pressure for the brake wheel cylinder using the first output end and a second output end of the redundant boosting apparatus (pump assembly 360 operating first and second pumps 364, 366 to supply pressurized fluid through respective first and second pump outlet conduits 368, 418 to wheel brakes 340a, 340b; see Fig. 3 and ¶¶ 0059, 0069-70, 0080-81).
Regarding claim 20, Campau as modified discloses the method of claim 18 and a main boosting apparatus (plunger assembly 314 controlled by main ECU 342 to provide hydraulic pressure during normal braking; see ¶ 0076).
Campau does not expressly disclose wherein the first signal indicates that a main boosting apparatus is faulty.
Campau teaches operating auxiliary EHCU 350 during failure of the normal braking operation, including when plunger assembly 314 has faded and is unavailable to provide pressurized fluid to the wheel brakes (see ¶¶ 0078-80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the fault-status signal of Campau as modified to indicate that plunger assembly 314 has faded or otherwise unavailable because identifying failure of the normal pressure source provides a direct trigger for activating auxiliary pump assembly 360, thereby avoiding reliance on the failed boosting apparatus and maintaining hydraulic braking pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/K.A.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights