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 without traverse of Species A, namely, a valve assembly integrated into the modulator as shown in Fig. 4, in the reply filed on 04/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 22 is directed to a computer program product comprising commands, without reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or other physical or tangible structure. As claimed, the computer program product is software per se and is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶¶ 0044 and 0046, “FSZ” should be corrected to “FBZ” to be consistent with the list of reference signs and the remainder of the specification.
In ¶ 0051, “outputs 20” should be corrected to “outputs 18,” since reference numeral 20 identifies the pressure sensor.
In ¶ 0064, “inside the module AM” should be clarified or corrected to be consistent with the Fig. 6 embodiment, wherein valve assembly 22 is integrated into parking valve 28.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites that “the safety margin is at least 1 to 2 bar.” It is unclear whether the claimed safety margin must be at least 1 bar, at least 2 bar, or within a range of 1 to 2 bar. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 5 are not reasonably certain.
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, 6-11, 13-14, 16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Thiel et al. (US 20200079341 A1) in view of Marsh et al. (US 20040119332 A1).
A method for operating a parking brake system (brake system 520) with a spring-loaded brake (spring-type actuators 6) and a control module (electropneumatic control module 1) in a motor vehicle or trailer (tractor vehicle 502), wherein the control module is connected to a parking brake circuit (immobilizing brake unit EPH connected to spring-type actuators 6, see Fig. 3), the method comprising:
supplying the parking brake circuit with reservoir pressure (reservoir pressure PV from reservoir 525 through reservoir input 11 and line 50a to immobilizing brake unit EPH, see Fig. 3); and,
applying spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure to the spring-loaded brake cylinders in order to have the spring-loaded brake assume a release position (spring-type actuator working pressure PF supplied through line 62 to cylinder 6a of spring-type actuator 6 to release the brake, see Figs. 3 and 5).
Van Thiel does not expressly disclose that the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure is less than the reservoir pressure in the parking brake circuit.
Marsh teaches the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure is less than the reservoir pressure in the parking brake circuit (spring brake modulating relay valve 60 receives reservoir-supplied pressure at supply port 112 and supplies spring brake chambers 76 through delivery port 114, while limiting the delivered pressure to 105 psi when system pressure is above 105 psi, thereby holding the spring brakes released at the limited pressure; see Figs. 3, 5-6; ¶¶ 0024, 0026, 0031-33)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Thiel’s immobilizing brake unit EPH to provide the pressure-limiting spring-brake operation taught by Marsh, because Marsh teaches limiting the pressure delivered to released spring brakes to a predetermined pressure while continuing to hold the spring brakes in the release position. The modification would have predictably allowed Van Thiel’s spring-type actuators 6 to remain released using a spring-type actuator working pressure PF less than the available reservoir pressure PV (see Marsh ¶¶ 0031-33).
Regarding claim 6, Van Thiel as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure is determined by a valve assembly which acts in at least one of a pressure-limiting manner, a pressure-reducing manner, and a pressure-regulating manner (Marsh’s spring brake modulating relay valve 60 limits pressure delivered to spring brake chambers 76 to 105 psi; see Figs. 3 and 5 and ¶¶0031-32).
Regarding claim 7, Van Thiel as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure is set by computer program-controlled regulation of a valve assembly (ECU receives signal SF from pressure sensor 64 sensing pressure PF and performs closed-loop control by controlling bistable valve 10 and auxiliary brake valve 55; see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Van Thiel as modified discloses a parking brake system (520) comprising:
a spring-loaded brake (6);
a control module (electropneumatic control module 1) for a motor vehicle or trailer (500, 502, 504);
said control module being connected to a brake circuit (immobilizing brake unit EPH connected to spring-type actuators 6; see Fig. 3), wherein the brake circuit is supplied with a reservoir pressure (pressure PV from reservoir 525 through reservoir input 11 and reservoir distribution line 50);
said spring-loaded brake including spring-loaded brake cylinders configured to have a spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure applied thereto in order to assume a release position of said spring-loaded brake (pressure PF supplied through line 62 to cylinder 6a of spring-type actuator 6 to release the brake; Figs. 3 and 5); and,
a setting device for setting the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure (immobilizing brake valve unit 8 including relay valve 58, which outputs pressure PF at output 59c; see Fig. 5).
Van Thiel does not expressly disclose setting the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure to a value which is less than the reservoir pressure in the brake circuit.
Marsh teaches setting the pressure supplied to released spring brakes below the available reservoir-supplied pressure by disclosing a spring brake modulating relay valve 60 receiving reservoir-supplied pressure at supply port 112 and supplying spring brake chambers 76 through delivery port 114, wherein the delivered pressure is limited to 105 psi when system pressure exceeds 105 psi, and the spring brakes are held in the release position at the limited pressure (Figs 3, and 5-6, see ¶¶ 0024, 0026, and 0031-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Thiel’s immobilizing brake unit EPH with Marsh’s pressure-limiting spring-brake operation because Marsh teaches limiting the pressure delivered to released spring brakes while maintaining the brakes in the release position, thereby predictably holding Van Thiel’s spring-type actuators 6 released using a pressure PF less than reservoir pressure PV.
Regarding claim 9, Van Thiel as modified discloses the parking brake system of claim 8, wherein said setting device is a valve assembly (immobilizing brake valve unit 8 including relay valve 58; see Fig. 5) having an input pressure (reservoir pressure PV at reservoir port 59b) and an output pressure (spring-type actuator working pressure PF at output 59c), wherein said valve assembly is configured to supply the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure as an output pressure (pressure PF supplied from output 59c through line 62 to spring-type actuator port 4; see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Van Thiel discloses the parking brake system of claim 9 further comprising an electronic control device configured to regulate the output pressure of said valve assembly (ECU performs closed-loop control using signal SF corresponding to pressure PF and controls bistable valve 10 and auxiliary brake valve 55; see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Van Thiel discloses the parking brake system of claim 10 further comprising a pressure sensor for sensing the output pressure and for transmission to said electronic control device (pressure sensor 64 connected to line 62 detects pressure PF and transmits electronic signal SF to the ECU).
Regarding claim 13, Van Thiel discloses the parking brake system of claim 10, wherein said valve assembly and said electronic control device are constituent parts of said control module (immobilizing brake valve unit 8 of immobilizing brake unit EPH and ECU integrated in electropneumatic control module 1).
Regarding claim 14, Van Thiel as modified discloses the parking brake system of claim 9, wherein said valve assembly includes a pressure limiting valve (Marsh’s spring brake modulating relay valve 60 limits pressure delivered to spring brake chambers 76 and 105 psi, see ¶0032).
Regarding claim 16, Van Thiel as modified discloses the parking brake system of claim 9, wherein said valve assembly is integrated into said control module (immobilizing brake valve unit 8 of immobilizing brake unit EPH, which is integrated into electropneumatic control module 1 in common housing 2).
Regarding claim 22, Van Thiel as modified discloses the computer program product which comprises commands (instructions of the computer program-controlled regulation; see claim 7 above) which, carried out on an electronic control device of a control module in a parking brake system (ECU; Van Thiel), carry out the method of claim 7. The computer program-controlled regulation of claim 7 necessarily comprises commands carried out by the ECU to perform the recited method.
Regarding claim 23, Van Thiel as modified discloses an electropneumatic control module (1) comprising an electronic control device (ECU integrated in housing 2) and configured for use in the parking brake system of claim 8 (control module 1 including immobilizing brake unit EPH and immobilizing brake valve unit 8 supplying pressure PF to spring-type actuators 6).
Regarding claim 24, Van Thiel as modified discloses a vehicle (502) comprising the parking brake system (520) of claim 8.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Thiel et al. (US 20200079341 A1) in view of Marsh et al. (US 20040119332 A1) and further in view of Orschek et al. (US 5394137).
Regarding claim 2, Van Thiel as modified discloses the method of claim 1.
Van Thiel does not expressly disclose wherein the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure is 1 to 5 bar below the reservoir pressure.
Orschek teaches this limitation by disclosing the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure (pressure regulated by regulator 38 to approximately 100 psi in parking brake air line 31 for releasing spring-applied brake unit 74) is 1 to 5 bar below the reservoir pressure (parking brake reservoir 26 at approximately 130-140 psi, providing a reduction of approximately 30-40 psi, i.e. approximately 2.07-2.76 bar).
Regarding claim 3, Van Thiel as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure is 1.5 to 3 bar below the reservoir pressure (Orschek’s regulator 38 reduces pressure from approximately 130-140 psi in parking brake reservoir 26 to approximately 100 psi in parking brake air line 31, i.e., approximately 2.07-2.76 bar).
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 reduced holding-pressure operation of Van Thiel as modified by Marsh with the regulated pressure difference taught Orschek because Orschek teaches supplying a suitable reduced pressure from a parking brake reservoir to release a spring-applied brake, thereby predictably providing a reduced holding pressure within the claimed range while maintaining release of the spring-loaded brake.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Thiel et al. (US 20200079341 A1) in view of Marsh et al. (US 20040119332 A1) and further in view of Farres et al. (US 20200207317 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Van Thiel discloses the method of claim 1.
Van Thiel does not expressly disclose that the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure is above a spring-loaded accumulator release pressure by at least a safety margin.
Farres teaches this limitation by disclosing the spring-loaded accumulator holding pressure (pressure in spring brake chamber 6b when the parking brake is released) is above a spring-loaded accumulator release pressure by at least a safety margin (released-state chamber pressure of approximately 8.5 bar and release pressure of approximately 6.5 bar, wherein the pressure differences provides a safety margin against a slight unexpected pressure drop; see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Van Thiel as modified discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the safety margin is at least 1 to 2 bar (released-state chamber pressure of approximately 8.5 bar minus release pressure of approximately 6.5 bar equals a 2 bar safety margin; see Fig. 5).
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 reduced holding pressure of Van Thiel as modified by Marsh above the release pressure by the safety margin taught by Farres because Farres teaches maintaining released-state chamber pressure above release pressure to accommodate a slight unexpected pressure drop, thereby predictably maintaining release of the spring-loaded brake during minor pressure fluctuations.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Thiel et al. (US 20200079341 A1) in view of Marsh et al. (US 20040119332 A1) and further in view of Bensch et al. (US 20050029859 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Van Thiel as modified discloses the parking brake system of claim 10, wherein said valve assembly has a pneumatic relay valve (relay valve 58), and the output pressure is present at an output of said valve assembly (pressure PF at output 59c; see Fig. 5).
Van Thiel does not expressly disclose an electropneumatic proportional valve, said relay valve is configured to receive control pressure from said electropneumatic proportional valve; and, said proportional valve is configured to be activated by said electronic control device in order to set the output pressure.
Bensch teaches an electropneumatic proportional valve (proportional valve 221 activated by electrical signals from electronic control unit 208), said relay valve is configured to receive control pressure from said electropneumatic proportional valve (relay valve 224 connected downstream of proportional valve 221 by pneumatic line 223); and said proportional valve is configured to be activated by said electronic control device in order to set the output pressure (proportional valve 221 provides accurate supply/venting of relay valve 224, which outputs pressure in line 225 corresponding to control pressure in line 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Thiel’s immobilizing brake valve unit 8 with the proportional-valve/relay-valve arrangement of Bensch because Bensch teaches that the proportional valve provides particularly accurate air supply and venting of the downstream relay valve, thereby predictably permitting electronic setting of the output pressure PF with improved accuracy.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Thiel et al. (US 20200079341 A1) in view of Marsh et al. (US 20040119332 A1) and further in view of Vorech et al. (US 2132090 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Van Thiel discloses the parking brake system of claim 14.
Van Thiel does not expressly disclose that said valve assembly has a non-return valve connected in parallel to said pressure limiting valve.
Vorech teaches this limitation by disclosing a non-return valve (check valve 42) connected in parallel to said pressure limiting valve (check valve 42 disposed in bypass conduit 45 around pressure-limiting valve elements 35, permitting reverse flow from outlet chamber 41 to inlet 20 for rapid release; see Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pressure-limiting valve arrangement of Van Thiel as modified by Marsh with the parallel check-valve bypass taught by Vorech because Vorech teaches that the bypass permits rapid reverse flow around a pressure-limiting valve when inlet pressure is reduced, thereby predictably improving release flow in the pressure-limited brake circuit.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Thiel et al. (US 20200079341 A1) in view of Marsh et al. (US 20040119332 A1) and further in view of Bensch et al. (DE 2008014458 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Van Thiel discloses the parking brake system of claim 8.
Van Thiel does not expressly disclose wherein said control module is an axle modulator.
Bensch teaches wherein said control module is an axle modulator (axle modulator 34 having control device 36 for controlling both a service brake function and parking brake control function 3, including supplying pressure for spring accumulator parts of brake cylinders; see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Van Thiel’s electropneumatic control module unit as an axle modulator according to Bensch because Bensch teaches integrating service brake and parking brake pressure-control components in an axle modulator housing to save space and reduce manufacturing and assembly cost, thereby predictably providing the claimed control module as an axle modulator while retaining control of the spring-loaded brake.
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