DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mechanical stop device which, in the installed state of the assembly, is spaced apart at a distance from an adjacent vehicle component and, by interaction with the vehicle component, outputs a warning signal in the event of a loss of support of the brake control module stop device, the vehicle component being a redundant, second brake control module as required by claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al (US# 2013/0291533).
Inoue et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; at least one brake control module which has an electronically controlled pressure supply device 16 which, in the installed state of the assembly, is fluidically coupled to at least one wheel brake 32 of the vehicle, and wherein the brake control module 16 is connected to a holding device 290 for arrangement on a vehicle body 1, wherein the brake control module has a mechanical stop device 172/283c/300 which, in the installed state of the assembly, is spaced apart at a distance from an adjacent vehicle component (figures 15-16) and, by interaction with the vehicle component 280/282/297d/293/294, outputs a warning signal in the event of a loss of support of the brake control module. Figures 12-16. Inoue et al utilizes resilient elements 280a/298/299 which support the module to absorb shock and vibration [0142] to reduce sound generated by occurrence of vibration [0159][0160]. Failure of the resilient supports would increase sound noise, serving as a warning of failure of the resilient mounts and indicate a loss of support.
Regarding claim 2, the stop device 172/283c/300 is connected to the brake control module in a form-fitting 300 and/or integral 172/283c manner.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the stop device has at least one stop element 300.
Regarding claim 4, the stop element 300 is formed of a hard and solid material. Mounting bolts in braking systems are understood to be formed hard and solid material.
Regarding claims 5 and 12-14, the stop device 300 is arranged on a connecting element 298/299 via which the brake control module is connected to the holding device 290.
Regarding claims 6 and 15-18, the brake control module 16 is designed to build up individual wheel brake pressures in coordination with module 18.
Regarding claims 7 and 19-20, the brake control module 16 is designed as the first brake control module which is active during normal operation of a brake-by-wire brake system [0086].
Regarding claim 8, the stop device 172/283c/300 is connected to a fluid reservoir 84 of the first brake control module.
Regarding claim 9, the vehicle component 18/1/280/282/297d/293/294 is designed as a redundant, second brake control module 18.
Regarding claim 10, the vehicle component 280/282/297d/293/294 is formed as an element of the vehicle body 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objection, Applicant argues that “one having ordinary skill in the art would understand, from the description of the specification of the mechanical stop device and stop elements, that a mechanical stop device would be similarly positioned with respect to the second brake module.” 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) specifically requires that the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights