Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/474,714

BRAKE SYSTEMS WITH MOTOR-DRIVEN MASTER CYLINDERS AND PUMP INLET ATTENTUATORS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Examiner
LANE, NICHOLAS J
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
ZF Active Safety US Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
590 granted / 904 resolved
+13.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
962
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 904 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 1-20 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 independent claim 1, the phrase “MC outputs” because “MC” has not been defined by the claims and it is unclear whether this is a reference to the previously recited “master cylinder.” Regarding independent claim 1, the phrase “first and second PTU outputs” is indefinite because neither the specification nor the claims define the meaning of “PTU.” Furthermore, it is unclear whether “PTU” refers to the previously recited “secondary brake module,” or rather, some other element. Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a same iso valve type” is indefinite because the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E). Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the first and second bypass iso valves” lack antecedent basis. It is suggested that the dependency of claim 15 be amended to depend from claim 8 instead of claim 7. Regarding claim 18, the phrase “a PIA piston” is indefinite because “PIA” has not been defined by the claims and it is unclear whether this is a reference to the pump inlet attenuator or some other element. 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 1-7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnishi et al. (US 2014/0026557) in view of Knechtges et al. (US 2015/0314686) and further in view of Dolmaya et al. (US 2020/0189546). Regarding independent claim 1, Ohnishi discloses a brake system (see Abstract, FIG. 1) for actuating a plurality of wheel brakes (32FL, 32RR, 32RL, 32FR) comprising first (32FL, 32RR) and second (32RL, 32FR) pairs of wheel brakes, the system comprising: a reservoir (84); a motor-driven master cylinder (16) operable during a normal non-failure braking mode (see ¶ 0164) by actuation of an electric motor (72) of the master cylinder to generate brake actuating pressure at first (24b) and second (24a) MC outputs for hydraulically actuating the first and second pairs of wheel brakes, respectively (see ¶¶ 0164, 0165; FIG. 1); a secondary brake module (136) configured for selectively providing pressurized hydraulic fluid at first and second PTU outputs (140) for actuating the first and second pairs of wheel brakes in at least one of a normal non-failure braking mode and a backup braking mode (see e.g. ¶ 0213), the secondary brake module including an electric PTU motor (M) configured to selectively pressurize the hydraulic fluid by transmitting rotary motion to at least two pumps 136), each pump piston providing pressurized hydraulic fluid to a corresponding one of the first and second PTU outputs (see FIG. 1), each of the first and second PTU outputs providing fluid to a corresponding one of the first and second pairs of wheel brakes (see FIG. 1) and an electronic control unit for controlling at least one of the secondary brake module and the master cylinder responsive to at least one brake pressure signal (see ¶¶ 0166, 0167). Ohnishi does not disclose that the pumps are pump pistons. Knechtges teaches a brake system (see Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising a pump that is configured as a pump piston (see ¶ 0035). It would have been obvious to configure the pump of Ohnishi as a pump piston to implement a configuration of a pump that is known to be suitable for use in brake systems. Ohnishi does not disclose a single return line placing the reservoir and each pump piston in hydraulic connection; a pump inlet attenuator interposed hydraulically between the reservoir and the pump pistons and in direct fluid connection with the reservoir via the single return line; wherein the pump inlet attenuator regulates pressure in the single return line to reduce pressure fluctuations at an inlet side of each pump piston via solely mechanical pressure attenuation. Dolmaya teaches a brake system (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising a reservoir (4), a pump (2a, 2b), and a single return line (34) placing the reservoir and each pump in hydraulic connection (see FIG. 2); a pump inlet attenuator (5a) interposed hydraulically between the reservoir and the pumps (see FIG. 2) and in direct fluid connection with the reservoir via the single return line (see FIG. 2); wherein the pump inlet attenuator regulates pressure in the single return line to reduce pressure fluctuations at an inlet side of each pump piston via solely mechanical pressure attenuation (see ¶ 0048). It would have been obvious to combine the single return line and the pump inlet attenuator of Dolmaya with the device of Ohnishi to provide the advantage that pressure medium is held ready and can be drawn out directly , thereby minimizing flow resistances and ensuring availability of building up pressure (see Dolmaya, ¶ 0048). Regarding claim 2, Ohnishi discloses an iso/dump control valve arrangement (120, 124, 128, 130) associated with each wheel brake of the plurality of wheel brakes (see FIG. 1), each iso/dump control valve arrangement being controlled by the electronic control unit (see e.g. ¶ 0160). Regarding claim 3, Ohnishi discloses that each iso/dump control valve arrangement is in fluid communication with both a selected one of the first (24b) and second (24a) MC outputs (see FIG. 1) and a selected one of the first and second PTU outputs (140) for selectively receiving pressurized hydraulic fluid therefrom (see FIG. 1). Regarding claim 4, Knechtges teaches that the secondary brake module includes a plurality of pump pistons associated with each of the first and second PTU outputs (see ¶ 0035). Regarding claim 5, Ohnishi discloses a first traction control iso valve (116) hydraulically interposed between the motor-driven master cylinder and the first pair of wheel brakes via the first MC outlet (24b) (see FIG. 1); and a second traction control iso valve (116) hydraulically interposed between the motor-driven master cylinder and the second pair of wheel brakes via the second MC outlet (24a) (see FIG. 1). Regarding claim 6, Ohnishi discloses that a first brake pressure sensor (Pp) is interposed hydraulically between the first MC output and a corresponding first traction control iso valve (see FIG. 1) and a second brake pressure sensor (Ph) is interposed hydraulically between the second MC output and a corresponding second traction control iso valve (see FIG. 1). Regarding claim 7, Ohnishi discloses an iso/dump control valve arrangement (120, 124, 128, 130) associated with each wheel brake of the first and second pairs of wheel brakes (see FIG. 1), wherein the first traction control iso valve (116) is hydraulically interposed between the motor-driven master cylinder and the iso/dump control valve arrangements of the first pair of wheel brakes (see FIG. 1), and wherein the second traction control iso valve (116) is hydraulically interposed between the motor-driven master cylinder and the iso/dump control valve arrangements of the second pair of wheel brakes (see FIG. 1). Regarding claim 14, Dolmaya discloses that at least a portion of the pump inlet attenuator is in fluid communication with an ambient space outside the brake system (see ¶ 0047). Regarding claim 20, Ohnishi discloses that the motor-driven master cylinder includes an electric MC drive motor (72), a primary MC chamber (98b), a secondary MC chamber (98a), a primary MC piston (88b) configured for selective movement longitudinally within the primary MC chamber responsive to longitudinal motion imparted by a ball nut assembly (80) along a ball nut axis (see ¶ 0105), and a secondary MC piston (88a) configured for selective movement longitudinally within at least one of the primary and secondary MC chambers responsive to longitudinal motion imparted by the ball nut assembly along the ball nut axis (see ¶ 0105), and wherein the MC drive motor rotates a drive shaft having a drive shaft axis which extends substantially parallel to the ball nut axis (see FIG. 1), and wherein rotational motion of the drive shaft is transferred to rotational motion of a spindle of the ball nut assembly via an MC gear train (78) (see ¶ 0105). Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohnishi et al. (US 2014/0026557) in view of Knechtges et al. (US 2015/0314686) and further in view of Dolmaya et al. (US 2020/0189546), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ganzel (US 2021/0155215). Regarding claim 19, neither Ohnishi nor Dolmaya disclose that the pump inlet attenuator is a single pump inlet attenuator. Ganzel teaches a brake system (see Abstract, FIGS. 16, 17) comprising a pump inlet attenuator (1010) (see FIG. 16), wherein the pump inlet attenuator is a single pump inlet attenuator (see ¶ 0162; FIG. 16). It would have been obvious to use a single pump inlet attenuator to provide a more cost effective and simplistic brake system (see e.g. Ganzel, ¶ 0162). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-13 and 15-18 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. 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 February 7, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601414
PRESSURE BALANCED POPPETT WITH CHECK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589721
BRAKE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590618
SHOCK ABSORBER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583428
ELECTRIC BRAKE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584531
CLAMPING AND/OR BRAKING DEVICE FOR HUMID ENVIRONMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+7.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 904 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month