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 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 37 and 38 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.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, the phrases “a first working chamber” and “a second working chamber” are indefinite because it is unclear whether these are included within the previously recited “at least one working chamber” (see claims 1, 35).
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 35, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Knechtges et al. (US 2016/0221554).
Regarding claim 35, Knechtges discloses a method of controlled pressure reduction and pressure build-up (see e.g. ¶¶ 0067-0072) in wheel brakes using a pressure supply unit (110) comprising a piston-cylinder unit (110, 112, 114) with at least one piston (112, 114), wherein the piston defines at least one working chamber (116, 118), wherein the method includes: establishing a fluid connection between at least one first wheel brake (RB1, RB4), from among the wheel brakes, and the at least one working chamber via an open switching valve (154, 156) (see ¶ 0067), which is assigned to the respective at least one wheel brake; operating the piston to reduce a volume of the at least one working chamber (see ¶¶ 0052, 0067); and time controlling an outlet valve (170, 172) associated with a second wheel brake (RB2, RB3), from among the wheel brakes, to enable simultaneous pressure reduction into a reservoir (see ¶ 0072).
Regarding claim 36, Knechtges discloses that said operating the piston to reduce the volume of the at least one working chamber is performed at least temporarily via a forward stroke of the piston (see ¶¶ 0052, 0067).
Regarding claim 38, Knechtges discloses that the piston (114) defines a first working space (116) and a second working space (118) (see 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.
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 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2016/0159331) in view of Bohn et al. (US 2013/0080016).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yang discloses a method of controlled pressure reduction in wheel brakes (see e.g. ¶ 0071; FIG. 3) using a via at least one pressure supply unit (100) comprising a piston-cylinder unit (110, 120) with at least one piston (120), wherein the piston defines at least one working chamber (112) wherein the method includes: establishing a fluid connection between the at least one working chamber and at least one first wheel brake (FL o RR), from among the wheel brakes, via an open switching valve (231), which is assigned to the respective at least one wheel brake (see FIG. 3, working chamber (112) is connected to first wheel (RR or FL) via open switching valve (231)); operating the piston to increase a volume of the at least one working chamber (see FIG. 3, piston is driven in rightward direction, thereby increasing volume of chamber (112)); and controlling an outlet valve (222) associated with a second wheel brake (RL or FR), from among the wheel brakes (see FIG. 3, outlet valve (222) is controlled to be open).
Yang does not explicitly disclose that the outlet valve is “time” controlled.
Bohn teaches a method of controlled pressure reduction in wheel brakes (see Abstract, ¶ 0020) wherein the outlet valve (7) is used to reduce a brake pressure (see ¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to control the outlet valve of Yang using a time control to provide a rapid reduction in brake pressure (see e.g. Bohn, ¶ 0020) when the brake is released (see e.g. Yang, ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 37, Yang discloses that the piston defines a first working space (111) and a second working space (112).
Claims 1 and 35-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden (US 2013/213025) in view of Bohn et al. (US 2013/0080016).
Regarding claim 1, Linden discloses a method of controlled pressure reduction in wheel brakes (see e.g. ¶ 0038, pressure reduction during “ABS” control) using a via at least one pressure supply unit (116) comprising a piston-cylinder unit (134, 136) with at least one piston (136), wherein the piston defines at least one working chamber (142, 144) wherein the method includes: establishing a fluid connection between the at least one working chamber and at least one first wheel brake (106, 108), from among the wheel brakes, via an open switching valve (see FIG., “ABS ISO” valve in open condition establishes connection), which is assigned to the respective at least one first wheel brake (see FIG.); operating the piston to increase a volume of the at least one working chamber (see FIG., piston is driven in leftward direction, thereby increasing volume of chamber (144)); and controlling an outlet valve (see FIG., “dump” valve) associated with a second wheel brake (110, 112), from among the wheel brakes (see e.g. ¶¶ 0029, 0038, during “ABS” control, “dump” valves for locked wheels are controlled to be opened to reduce pressure thereby unlocking the locked wheel).
Linden does not explicitly disclose that the outlet valve is “time” controlled.
Bohn teaches a method of controlled pressure reduction in wheel brakes (see Abstract, ¶ 0020) wherein the outlet valve (7) is time controlled during an antilock brake operation (see ¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to control the outlet valve of Linden using a time control during ABS control to provide a rapid reduction in brake pressure, as is necessary in the case of ABS control (see e.g. Bohn, ¶ 0020).
Regarding claim 35, Linden discloses a method of controlled pressure reduction and pressure build-up (see ¶ 0018; FIG.) in wheel brakes using a pressure supply unit (116) comprising a piston-cylinder unit (134, 136) with at least one piston (136), wherein the piston defines at least one working chamber (142, 144), wherein the method includes: establishing a fluid connection between at least one first wheel brake (106, 108), from among the wheel brakes, and the at least one working chamber via an open switching valve (see FIG. open “ABS ISO” valve), which is assigned to the respective at least one wheel brake (see FIG.); operating the piston to reduce a volume of the at least one working chamber (see ¶ 0036; chamber (142) is reduced when piston is driven forward to generate pressure); and time controlling an outlet valve (see FIG., “Dump” valve) associated with a second wheel brake (110, 112), from among the wheel brakes, to enable simultaneous pressure reduction into a reservoir (see ¶ 0038; during “ABS” control of wheel, “Dump” valve is opened to reduce pressure thereby releasing locking of wheel).
Linden does not explicitly disclose that the outlet valve is “time” controlled.
Bohn teaches a method of controlled pressure reduction in wheel brakes (see Abstract, ¶ 0020) wherein the outlet valve (7) is time controlled during an antilock brake operation (see ¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to control the outlet valve of Linden using a time control during ABS control to provide a rapid reduction in brake pressure, as is necessary in the case of ABS control (see e.g. Bohn, ¶ 0020).
Regarding claim 36, Linden discloses that said operating the piston to reduce the volume of the at least one working chamber is performed at least temporarily via a forward stroke of the piston (see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 37, Linden discloses that the piston defines a first working chamber (142) and a second working chamber (144).
Regarding claim 38, Linden discloses that the piston (136) defines a first working chamber (142) and a second working chamber (144) (see FIG.).
Regarding claim 39, Linden discloses a method of controlling pressure reduction and build-up in wheel brakes (see ¶ 0018; FIG.) using a pressure supply unit (116) comprising a piston-cylinder unit (134, 136) with at least one piston (136) that separates a first working chamber (144) from a second working chamber (142), the method including: establishing a fluid connection between the first working chamber (144) and at least one first wheel brake (110, 112) via an open switching valve (see FIG., “dump” valve opened wheel is under ABS control, thereby establishing connection via check (168)); establishing a fluid connection between the second working chamber (142) and at least one second wheel brake (106, 108), from among the wheel brakes, via an open switching valve (see FIG., “ABS ISO” valve is open when wheel is not under ABS control); and operating the piston to at least temporarily simultaneously reduce pressure in the at least one first wheel brake, from among the wheel brakes (see e.g. FIG., ¶ 0038; “ABS” control requires “dump” valve to open to reduce pressure thereby releasing locking condition of wheel) and build up pressure in the at least one second wheel brake (see FIG., ¶ 0036, pressure is generated by displacing piston (136) and transmitting fluid through “ABS ISO” valve to wheel cylinder).
Regarding claim 40, Linden discloses that the at least one first wheel brake is assigned to a first brake circuit (104) and/or the at least one second wheel brake is assigned to a second brake circuit (102).
Regarding claim 41, Linden discloses time controlling an outlet valve associated with a third wheel brake (110 or 112) to reduce pressure into a reservoir (124) (see FIG., ¶0038; during ABS control, “dump” valves are opened to reduce pressure, thereby connecting the brake cylinders to a reservoir (124)).
Regarding claim 42, Linden discloses closing a switching valve associated with the third wheel brake (see FIG., ¶0038; during ABS control, “ABS ISO” valves are closed to prevent buildup of pressure).
Regarding claim 43, Linden discloses that the pressure supply unit is a pressure supply unit driven by an electric motor (see ¶ 0025).
Regarding claim 44, Linden discloses that the piston is a double-stroke piston with two hydraulic surface areas (138, 140), wherein the piston is operated in a forward stroke and a return stroke (see ¶ 0030).
Regarding claim 45, Linden discloses that the hydraulic surface areas are different in the forward stroke and the return stroke (see FIG.; rod connected to surface (40) reduces hydraulic surface area acting on the piston), wherein brake pressure is built up in at least one of the brake circuits by the forward stroke and the return stroke (see ¶ 0030).
Claims 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linden (US 2013/213025) and Bohn et al. (US 2013/0080016), as applied to claims 1, 35, 39 and 44 in view of Leiber et al. (US 2009/0115247).
Regarding claim 46, Linden discloses that during normal brake boosting and/or recuperation and/or in anti-lock braking (ABS) operation with a low road friction value (low p), pressure in all wheel brakes or wheel brake cylinders is built up and reduced simultaneously or sequentially via a travel control of the double-stroke piston (see ¶ 0036).
Linden does not disclose taking into account at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve.
Leiber teaches a method of controlling pressure reduction and build-up in wheel brakes (see Abstract), comprising taking into account at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve (see ¶ 0069).
It would have been obvious to take into consideration in at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve in Linden to provide gradient control when generating the braking pressure (see e.g. Leiber, ¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 47, Linden discloses that wherein in ABS operation in cases of high road friction (high p), pressure in the at least first wheel brake and the at least second wheel brake is reduced simultaneously or with a time offset via the piston of the pressure supply unit (see ¶ 0038, ABS pressure is reduced via opening of “dump valves” and connecting to expanding chamber of piston cylinder unit).
Linden does not disclose taking into account at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve.
Leiber teaches a method of controlling pressure reduction and build-up in wheel brakes (see Abstract), comprising taking into account at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve (see ¶ 0069).
It would have been obvious to take into consideration in at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve in Linden to provide gradient control when generating the braking pressure (see e.g. Leiber, ¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 48, Linden discloses that wherein in ABS operation in cases of high road friction (high p), pressure in the at least first wheel brake and the at least second wheel brake is reduced simultaneously or with a time offset via the piston of the pressure supply unit (see ¶ 0038, ABS pressure is reduced via opening of “dump valves” and connecting to expanding chamber of piston cylinder unit).
Linden does not disclose taking into account at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve.
Leiber teaches a method of controlling pressure reduction and build-up in wheel brakes (see Abstract), comprising taking into account at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve (see ¶ 0069).
It would have been obvious to take into consideration in at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve in Linden to provide gradient control when generating the braking pressure (see e.g. Leiber, ¶ 0069).
Regarding claim 49, Linden discloses that wherein in ABS operation in cases of high road friction (high p), pressure in the at least first wheel brake and the at least second wheel brake simultaneously or with a time offset via the piston of the pressure supply unit (see ¶ 0038, ABS pressure is reduced via opening of “dump valves” and connecting to expanding chamber of piston cylinder unit).
Linden does not disclose taking into account at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve.
Leiber teaches a method of controlling pressure reduction and build-up in wheel brakes (see Abstract), comprising taking into account at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve (see ¶ 0069).
It would have been obvious to take into consideration in at least one pressure-volume characteristic curve in Linden to provide gradient control when generating the braking pressure (see e.g. Leiber, ¶ 0069).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims 1 and 35 as being anticipated by Yang and/or separately as being anticipated by Linden are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 35 as being anticipated by Knechtges, Applicant argues that “[w]hile time multiplexing control valves involves opening and closing valves for different amounts of time, it is not ‘time control’ in the sense of the present application, as explained above, namely, controlling a valve to be open for a specific amount of time to permit a specific volume of fluid to pass through, determined from a pressure-volume characteristic” (see amendment, page 10). Nothing in claim 35, however, requires “controlling a valve to be open for a specific amount of time to permit a specific volume of fluid to pass through, determined from a pressure-volume characteristic.” Rather, claim 35 simply recites “time controlling an outlet valve.” As noted by Applicant, Knechtges discloses “time multiplexing control valves involves opening and closing valves for different amounts of time,” thereby anticipating the broad recitation of “time controlling.”
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 39 as being anticipated by Linden, Applicant argues that paragraphs 36 and 38 “are addressing completely different situations and thus cannot possibly be describing simultaneous operations” because paragraph 36 discusses normal braking operations and paragraph 38 discusses ABS braking (see Amendment, page 12). One of ordinary skill, however, would understand that a wheel lock condition is created when pressure is generated (i.e. when the piston of Linden is being translated to generate pressure) and that the wheel lock condition is relieved by simultaneously closing the inlet valve of the locked wheel (thereby preventing the introduction of any pressure) and opening the outlet or dump valve of the locked wheel (thereby relieving the locked wheel of brake pressure and releasing the brake).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights