DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Specification / Claim Objections
The claims and specification recite various instances of elements being “actuable”. This appears to be a typographical error or translation issue. The closest English word appears to be “actable”, which means that something is able to be acted or is suitable for acting. It is believed that the intended word is “actuatable”, since this is the word that carries the meaning of “able to be actuated” or “able to be put into mechanical action or motion”. Please amend the claims and specification accordingly to address these issues.
This issue was raised in the Non-Final Rejection of 11/26/2025 but was not addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites inter alia, “the hydraulic unit is formed as a single integrated housing block that contains the brake master cylinder, the simulator, the brake pressure generator, and the first electronic controller”. First, this characterization of the housing block does not appear ipsis verbis in the originally filed application, so PHOSITA must be able to understand that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention from the remainder of the originally filed written description. Second, page 5 lines 14-18 directly contradict the claim language, because this section describes that “a first electronic controller (28a) and an electrically activatable drive motor (30) for driving a brake pressure generator (32) are attached to opposing outer surfaces of the housing block (22) of this hydraulic unit (20)”. Accordingly, the housing block provides a place to mount the recited components, but this is not the same as the housing block literally “containing” the recited components, nor is there support for this concept.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganzel (U.S. 2022/0274575).
Regarding claim 1, Ganzel discloses (see figs. 1-21) An electronically slip-controllable power brake system (as shown), comprising:
pressure-medium-actuable wheel brakes (102B/D) on a first axle of a motor vehicle (front axle);
electromechanically actuable (via motors 138) wheel brakes (102A/C) on a second axle of the motor vehicle (rear axle); and
a hydraulic unit configured to supply the pressure-medium-actuable wheel brakes with a pressure medium under brake pressure (device as shown), wherein the hydraulic unit includes:
a brake master cylinder (115) which includes a master cylinder piston (118) which is displaceably received (within chamber 116) and is coupled to a brake actuation element (120), for specifying a braking request by the driver (standard brake pedal operation),
a simulator (106) coupled to the brake master cylinder (via shown fluid lines) configured to specify an actuator travel and an actuating force of the brake actuation element (standard operation of a simulator, see also pgh. 0026 at least),
a first electronic controller (114) which is supplied with electrical power by a first power supply unit (pgh. 0024, includes microprocessors and other electrical circuitry. “power supply unit” is at least implied since these devices need electrical power to operate) and identifies an activation signal based on the braking request that has been specified (via 134 at least, otherwise via pressure changes within the system due to pressing brake pedal),
a brake pressure generator (108) which can be driven by external energy based on the activation signal (pgh. 0023, functions as a source of pressure during typical/normal brake apply, which occurs due to indication that the pedal is depressed via sensor 134), for conveying the pressure medium under brake pressure to the pressure-medium-actuated wheel brakes, and
a pressure modulator (144B/D at least) which can be controlled by the first electronic controller, for adjusting a wheel-specific wheel brake pressure,
wherein a controllable first pressure medium connection (pathway via 126) between the brake master cylinder and the simulator, and a controllable second pressure medium connection (e.g. pathway via 142D) between the brake master cylinder and a pressure-medium-actuated wheel brake are provided, and
wherein the first electronic controller is configured to control the first and second pressure medium connections in opposite directions to one another, such that the first pressure medium connection is open when the second pressure medium connection is closed or the first pressure medium connection is closed when the second pressure medium connection is open (as shown, in an unpowered state 126 is closed while 142D is open, and vice versa when both are powered),
wherein the hydraulic unit is formed as a single integrated housing block that contains the brake master cylinder, the simulator, the brake pressure generator, and the first electronic controller (the components are a “single integrated housing block” in that they are functionally integral at least, and cooperate with one another in that manner. Further, in light of the 112(a) rejection above, the recited components cannot be a literal, physically integrated component without contradicting the written description. Accordingly, this is being interpreted as a function “containing” or “interaction”).
Regarding claim 2, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) each of the pressure-medium-actuated wheel brakes is contacted to the master cylinder chamber of the brake master cylinder via a controllable second pressure medium connection (pathways vis 142B and 142D respectively).
Regarding claim 3, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) for controlling the first pressure medium connection, a simulator control valve (126) activatable by the first electronic controller is provided and assumes a closed position when de-energized and an open position when energized (as shown).
Regarding claim 4, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) for controlling the second pressure medium connection, an isolation valve (142D, see pgh. 0037) activatable by the first electronic controller is provided and assumes an open position when de-energized and a closed position when energized (as shown).
Regarding claim 5, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) the vehicle brake system is equipped with a second electronic controller (see fig. 2, 114’) for activating the electromechanically actuable wheel brakes in a wheel-specific manner (second ECU 114 provided for redundancy at least. See pgh. 0034, the ECU 114 controls the rear brake motors 138).
Regarding claim 8, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) the brake pressure generator is connected to the pressure-medium-actuable wheel brakes via a third pressure medium connection (line connecting 108 and 140), and a plunger control valve (140), activatable by the first electronic controller, for controlling the third pressure medium connection is assigned to the pressure-medium-actuable wheel brakes (“assigned” as shown).
Regarding claim 9, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) the brake pressure generator is connected to one of the pressure-medium-actuable wheel brakes in each case via a third pressure medium connection (line between 108 and 140), and a plunger control valve (140), activatable by the first electronic controller, for controlling the third pressure medium connection is assigned to each of the pressure-medium-actuable wheel brakes (“assigned” as shown).
Regarding claim 10, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) the plunger control valve assumes a closed position when de-energized and assumes an open position when energized (as shown, line between 108 and 140 is closed unless energized).
Regarding claim 11, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) the brake master cylinder is configured as a single brake master cylinder including exactly one master cylinder chamber delimited by a master cylinder piston (as shown, one of each).
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.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganzel (U.S. 2022/0274575) in view of Besier et al. (U.S. 2017/0072920).
Regarding claim 6, Ganzel does not appear to disclose the two ECU being powered by separate power supply units. In the same field of endeavor of vehicle braking devices, Besier teaches (fig. 1) first and second electronic control devices (ECU 1, ECU 2) each powered by separate batteries (503, 504). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have separately powered the two ECU of Ganzel to provide for redundancy within the system in the event of power failure (see pgh. 0030 at least).
Regarding claim 7, Ganzel discloses (fig. 1) the braking request is detected by the first electronic controller by evaluating a sensor signal from a sensor unit (134).
While Ganzel discloses two ECU, it does not specifically state how the two ECU talk to one another such that the first electronic controller relays the braking request to the second electronic controller. Besier teaches (pgh. 0029 at least) relaying a braking request to the second electronic controller (comms bus 53 relays information from the control networks 1005,1004, from the inoperable ECU to the other ECU, i.e. in one direction, in the event of one of the ECUs failing or communication connections 501, 502 failing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relay a brake request to the second ECU in the event that the first ECU or communication lines thereof fails, thereby allowing the brake device to continue operating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the newly added limitations of claim 1. However, upon further consideration, Ganzel was deemed to read on the limitation, as described above.
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 DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1 For sake of simplicity, reference numbers of Ganzel will be referenced from fig. 1 throughout, but the embodiment of fig. 2 is also applicable mutatis mutandis.