DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/407061 filed 1/8/2024.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 1/8/24 and 1/23/24 have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-“a main valve unit (generic placeholder) configured to receive the pilot pressure……..(function) in claims 1 and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note: claims 1 and 21 recite “said (the) pilot control unit (generic placeholder) is configured to modulate a pilot pressure…..(function)”. This isn’t being interpreted via 112(f) due to the claims reciting structure of unit in the form of “an electromagnetic solenoid valve”.
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.
Claims 6, 7, 21 and 22 are 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.
-A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation 250kPa to 350kPa, and the claim also recites 200 kPa to 400 kPa which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation and claim 7 recites the broad recitation 500kPa to 900kPa, and the claim also recites 600 kPa to 800 kPa which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Based on the description of the ranges in paragraph [0018] in specification describing broader range as more preferable than the narrow range pertaining to claim 6 and the narrow range as more preferable than the broader range pertaining to claim 7, the claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
-Claim 22 recites the limitation “A commercial vehicle comprising an electronically controllable pneumatic brake system, wherein said electronically controllable pneumatic brake system includes the electropneumatic valve arrangement of claim 1.” while claim 1 recites the limitation “An electropneumatic valve arrangement for actuating a parking brake function of an electropneumatic brake system of a commercial vehicle….”. Based on both claims 1 and 22 reciting common limitations, it is unclear as to what applicant is further limiting (including or excluding) in claim 22 currently depending from claim 1, please clarify.
-Claim 21 recites a method for controlling a parking brake function of a commercial vehicle while also reciting the apparatus of the system as recited in claim 1. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): a claim to a device, apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter may contain reference to the process in which it is intended to be used without being objectionable under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as it is clear that the claim is directed to the product and not the process. However, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Claim 21 is understood to be a method claim; however, based on the apparatus limitations within the preamble of claim, the examiner would like clarification as to what applicant considers the claim to cover in scope (method or apparatus).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Note: the use of the term “or” indicates that the limitations preceding or following the term doesn’t need to be met entirely and the recitations are in the form of “alternative” embodiments. Further, the use of the phrase “at least one of” indicates the limitations following the phrase doesn’t need to be met entirely and the recitations are in the form of “alternative” embodiments.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 15-17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102019125747 (with machine translation). As to claim 1, DE discloses an electropneumatic valve arrangement for actuating a parking brake function of an electropneumatic brake system of a commercial vehicle, the electropneumatic valve arrangement comprising: a pilot control unit (30) including an electromagnetic solenoid valve (12) having at least one first permanent magnet (page 6, lines 29-30 of machine translation), wherein said pilot control unit is configured to modulate a pilot pressure (via switching positions between 12.1 to 12.3) in dependence upon an electronic parking brake signal (SB); a main valve unit (40) configured to receive the pilot pressure and modulate a parking brake pressure (via switching positions between 42.1 to 42.4) at least at one spring accumulator connection (6) in dependence upon the pilot pressure; said electromagnetic solenoid valve having a safety control connection (via 14.2 to 12.1 connection) for receiving a safety control pressure (P1; pressure exceeding threshold value as described in abstract, lines 10-12); and, said electromagnetic solenoid valve being configured to supply said pilot control unit with a supply pressure (via 12.2) or connect said pilot control unit to an air-purging in dependence on the safety control pressure, wherein the safety control pressure is a pressure modulated by said electromagnetic solenoid valve (via switching positions between 12.1 to 12.3) or a pressure derived from said electromagnetic solenoid valve.
As to claim 2, wherein: said electromagnetic solenoid valve has a first solenoid valve connection (12.1) configured to receive the supply pressure, a second solenoid valve connection (12.2) configured to modulate (via switching between 12.1 and 12.3) the pilot pressure, and a third solenoid valve connection (12.3) connected to the air-purging (5); wherein, in an air-supplying position of said electromagnetic solenoid valve, said first solenoid valve connection is connected to said second solenoid valve connection and, in an air-purging position of said electromagnetic solenoid valve, the third solenoid valve connection is connected to the second solenoid valve connection (page 6, lines 31-38); said electromagnetic solenoid valve has at least one permanent magnet (page 6, lines 29-30 describes end magnets operating an armature wherein it is well known in the art to have magnets in the form of permanent magnets energized via coil) and a coil; wherein, by energizing said coil, said electromagnetic solenoid valve is configured to be switchable into the air-supplying position or the air-purging position, wherein said electromagnetic solenoid valve is configured to be holdable magnetically in the respective switching position via said at least one permanent magnet (page 6, lines 29-30); and, wherein, in the event that the safety control pressure is below a first threshold value (when P1 doesn’t exceed threshold value), said electromagnetic solenoid valve is switched into the air-purging position independently of a previous switching position (page 6, lines 44-51).
As to claim 8, wherein said electromagnetic solenoid valve has a preferred position (12.1 to 12.2 or 12.2 to 12.3).
As to claim 9, wherein in said preferred position said pilot control unit is connected to the air-purging (12.2 to 12.3; page 6, lines 33-38).
As to claim 15, a method for controlling a parking brake function of a commercial vehicle having an electropneumatic brake system, the method comprising: electromagnetically switching an electromagnetic solenoid valve (12) having at least one first permanent magnet from an air-purging position into an air-supplying position for modulating a parking brake pressure (page 6, lines 32-38) at least at one spring accumulator connection (6) for supplying air to at least one spring-loaded brake cylinder; at least one of confining a pilot pressure modulated by the electromagnetic solenoid valve and holding the electromagnetic solenoid valve in the air-purging position (page 6, lines 33-38 and 44-51); and, when a supply pressure provided to the electromagnetic solenoid valve drops below a first threshold value: pneumatically (via 14) or mechanically switching the solenoid valve into the air-purging position (when P1 doesn’t exceed first threshold; abstract, lines 10-12).
As to claim 16, wherein the electromagnetic solenoid valve has a preferred position (12.1 to 12.2), which can be canceled by modulating a safety control pressure at a safety control connection (via 14.2 to 12.1 connection) of the electromagnetic solenoid valve (page 6, lines 44-51).
As to claim 17, further comprising: modulating a safety control pressure at a safety control connection of the electromagnetic solenoid valve for holding the electromagnetic solenoid valve in the air-purging position (page 6, lines 44-51) or for switching the electromagnetic solenoid valve into the air-purging position, wherein the safety control pressure is a pressure modulated by the electromagnetic solenoid valve (via switching positions between 12.1 to 12.3) or derived from it.
As to claim 21, DE discloses an electropneumatic valve arrangement for actuating a parking brake function of an electropneumatic brake system of a commercial vehicle, the electropneumatic valve arrangement comprising: a pilot control unit (30) including an electromagnetic solenoid valve (12) having at least one first permanent magnet (page 6, lines 29-30 of machine translation), wherein the pilot control unit is configured to modulate a pilot pressure (via switching positions between 12.1 to 12.3) in dependence upon an electronic parking brake signal (SB); a main valve unit (40) configured to receive the pilot pressure and modulate a parking brake pressure (via switching positions between 42.1 to 42.4) at least at one spring accumulator connection (6) in dependence upon the pilot pressure; said electromagnetic solenoid valve having a safety control connection (via 14.2 to 12.1 connection) for receiving a safety control pressure (P1; pressure exceeding threshold value as described in abstract, lines 10-12); and, said electromagnetic solenoid valve being configured to supply said pilot control unit with a supply pressure (via 12.2) or connect said pilot control unit to an air-purging in dependence on the safety control pressure, wherein the safety control pressure is a pressure modulated by said electromagnetic solenoid valve (via switching positions between 12.1 to 12.3) or a pressure derived from said electromagnetic solenoid valve, the method comprising: electromagnetically switching an electromagnetic solenoid valve (12) having at least one first permanent magnet from an air-purging position into an air-supplying position for modulating a parking brake pressure (page 6, lines 32-38) at least at one spring accumulator connection (6) for supplying air to at least one spring-loaded brake cylinder; at least one of confining a pilot pressure modulated by the electromagnetic solenoid valve and holding the electromagnetic solenoid valve in the air-purging position (page 6, lines 33-38 and 44-51); and, when a supply pressure provided to the electromagnetic solenoid valve drops below a first threshold value: pneumatically (via 14) or mechanically switching the solenoid valve into the air-purging position (when P1 doesn’t exceed first threshold; abstract, lines 10-12).
As to claim 22, DE discloses a commercial vehicle comprising an electronically controllable pneumatic brake system, wherein said electronically controllable pneumatic brake system includes the electropneumatic valve arrangement of claim 1 (page 6, lines 33-38 and 44-51 and abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE in view of EP 3168097. DE discloses that a safety pressure operation is triggered based on a first threshold value (abstract, lines 10-12), but doesn’t disclose the range of the value as recited.
EP discloses an electropneumatic valve arrangement for operating an electric parking brake system and shows that it is well known in the art to determine operation of the brake based on kPa values less than 450, which encompasses the ranges as recited).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the threshold value in DE with a kPa value in view of EP to ensure the braking system operates effectively under various conditions to provide consistent performance and safety which achieves optimal braking force while minimizing risk of brake failure.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE in view of DE 102017005757 (IDS cited with machine translation). As to claims 10 and 18, DE ‘747 discloses at least one spring accumulator connection (6), but doesn’t disclose an emergency release connection as recited.
DE ’757 discloses an electropneumatic valve arrangement for actuating a parking brake function of an electropneumatic brake system of a commercial vehicle, the electropneumatic valve arrangement comprising: a pilot control unit (16-20) including an electromagnetic solenoid valve (16) having at least one first permanent magnet (shown connected to side of 16), wherein said pilot control unit is configured to modulate a pilot pressure (via switching positions between 42, 44, 46) in dependence upon an electronic parking brake signal (via 4); a main valve unit (6) configured to receive the pilot pressure and modulate a parking brake pressure (via switching positions between 8, 10, 12, 14) at least at one spring accumulator connection (50) in dependence upon the pilot pressure and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an emergency release connection (via 22) having an emergency release path (via 24, 26, 28) for inputting and modulating an emergency release pressure which brings about the modulation of the parking brake pressure at said at least one spring accumulator connection.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide DE ‘747 with an emergency release connection as recited in view of DE ‘757 to prevent unintentional release of the brake system during high pressure operation via pilot control unit to ensure the braking system operates effectively to provide consistent performance and safety which achieves optimal braking force while minimizing risk of brake failure.
As to claim 11, DE ‘747 discloses wherein said electromagnetic solenoid valve is configured to supply said pilot control unit with supply pressure (via 12.2) or connects said pilot control unit to an air-purging in dependence upon the emergency release pressure.
As to claim 20, DE ‘747 in view of DE ‘757 discloses wherein the emergency release pressure is modulated at the safety control connection of the electromagnetic solenoid valve or at a further control connection of the electromagnetic solenoid valve (via 22 connection to 24, 42 and 44 in DE ‘757).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 12-14 and 19 are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-(as to claim 3 in combination with claims 1 and 2 exactly as written)……. wherein, in an event that the safety control pressure exceeds the first threshold value, said electromagnetic solenoid valve is held in a previous switching position.
-(as to claim 12 in combination with claims 1 and 10 exactly as written)……. wherein the emergency release path enters an air-purging path of said electromagnetic solenoid valve.
-(as to claim 13 in combination with claims 1 and 2 exactly as written)……. an emergency release connection having an emergency release path for inputting an emergency release pressure which brings about the modulation of the parking brake pressure at said at least one spring accumulator connection; and, wherein the emergency release pressure is modulated via said emergency release path at said safety control connection of said electromagnetic solenoid valve or a further control connection of said electromagnetic solenoid valve.
-(as to claim 19 in combination with claims 15 and 18 exactly as written)……. wherein the emergency release pressure is input into an air-purging path of the solenoid valve.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Leinung et al 20170072930 (corresponds to IDS cited DE 102014107278) discloses an electropneumatic valve arrangement for actuating a parking brake function of an electropneumatic brake system of a commercial vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to use a “safety valve, 58” which can be part of pilot unit (30; [0047]) to vent electromagnetic solenoid valve 36 during supply pressure drop.
-Bensch et al 20200189545 discloses an electropneumatic valve arrangement for actuating a parking brake function of an electropneumatic brake system of a commercial vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the arrangement with a permanent magnet type valve (21) outputting pilot pressure to a main valve unit (10) that supplies safety pressure to a spring accumulator connection (4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 March 21, 2026