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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends, in Applicant Arguments After Final filed 6th August 2026, that none of York/Hill/Plewnia “disclose initiating brake steering when the steering angle exceeds a threshold”. This argument is not persuasive. Prior art of record York (US 20180148026 A1) discloses “initiating brake steering when the steering angle exceeds a threshold” (see Fig. 11, [0103]). Applicant states step (1108) of York “is not used to automatically initiate brake steering”, Examiner disagrees. Fig. 11 of York discloses steps (1110) and (1112) following the threshold comparison of step (1108), these steps disclose “Execute command logic based on compare steps” and “Modulate brake pressure at each output of vehicle to achieve desired steer command” respectively. These three steps (1108, 1110, and 1112) are interpreted to being equivalent to the claimed matter “initiating brake steering when the steering angle exceeds a threshold” argued by Applicant. Additionally, Applicant argues “Ishino does not contemplate a driver input for an adjustment to brake steering”. This is not persuasive. Prior art of record Ishino (US 20210213925 A1) discloses an “a selection switch for automatic braking, which is installed in the driving section 12, is operated so that the automatic brake mode is selected, the steering control unit 22C executes automatic brake control so as to control activation of the hydraulic unit 64 in the first brake operating device 45, based on detection by a steering angle sensor, in order to operate the left and right brakes 42” (see [0062]), “in a case where the steering angles of the left and right front wheels 10 reach or exceed the set angle” (see [0062]), and “in a case where the driver selects the automatic brake mode” (see [0064]). As the “selection switch” is disclosed as being in the “driving section” and the “driver selects the automatic brake mode”, one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Ishino, would understand the selection switch is operated by the driver to select the automatic brake mode. Therefore, the rejections of claimed matter, at least as used in the new rejection below are maintained. Examiner presents new grounds of rejection in response to the RCE filing in order to expediate the examination.
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 1-2, 4-6, and 8-14 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 1 and 5, the limitation “transmitting the calculated valve flow to a control valve” is recited. As disclosed in the applications specification and figures it is unclear how the control valve can receive a calculated valve flow. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “transmitting commands corresponding to the calculated valve flow to a control valve”. Claims 2, 4, 6 and 8-14 are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 1, 5-6, and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkley et. al. (US 20130038118 A1) in view of York (US 20180148026 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Brinkley discloses an electrohydraulic braking method for a mobile working machine having a first hydraulic brake circuit associated with one side of the mobile working machine and a second hydraulic brake circuit associated with one side of the mobile working machine, each hydraulic brake circuit configured to be pressurized by a corresponding braking pressure (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4), comprising: monitoring a steering angle of a steering train (324) (see Fig. 6) during travel of the mobile working machine and transmitting a first signal (see [0017]) indicative of the steering angle to an electronic control unit (74); in the electronic control unit (74), processing if the first signal exceeds a threshold value (326) (see Fig. 6), automatically determining a direction of the steering angle and determining a target braking pressure to pressurize one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuit based on the external signal and the direction of the steering angle (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0039-0040]); calculating a required valve flow based on the at least one target braking pressure determined; and transmitting the calculated valve flow to a control valve (190) of a brake actuating pedal; and adjusting the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits via the brake actuating pedal so that brake steering is adjusted according to the first signal(see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0040]).
Brinkley does not explicitly disclose wherein the monitoring of the steering angle is continuous or a method of monitoring a man-machine interface and transmission of a corresponding second signal.
York teaches a electrohydraulic braking method comprising: continuously monitoring a steering angle (1102) of a steering train during travel of the mobile working machine (see Fig. 10, [0101]) and transmitting a first signal (A) (see Annotated Fig. 10 below) indicative of the steering angle to an electronic control unit (1004); continuously monitoring a man-machine interface (1020) for a driver input to the interface corresponding to a driver request for brake steering and an adjustment to the brake steering and transmitting a second signal (B) in response to the driver input (see Fig. 10, Annotated Fig. 10 below, Fig. 11, [0099]); in the control unit (1004), processing the external signal and if the external signal exceeds a threshold value (1108) (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11), automatically determining a direction of the steering angle (1110) and determining a target braking pressure to pressurize one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits based on the external signal and the direction of the steering angle (1112) (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the braking method of York with the braking method for a mobile work machine of Brinkley in order to improve the brake steering response of the vehicle, in turn improving vehicle safety and responsiveness (see US 20180148026 A1 [York]; [0003]).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 10
Regarding Claim 5, Brinkley discloses a brake function arrangement for a mobile working machine, comprising: a hydraulic brake actuating pedal (134, 168) configured to adjust a braking pressure; a control valve (190, 240) arranged on the hydraulic brake actuating pedal (134, 168) (at least to the degree Applicants valve is arranged on the actuating pedal) (see Fig. 4); a hydraulic circuit divided into one first hydraulic circuit (80) and one second hydraulic circuit (84), wherein the first hydraulic circuit (80) is arranged and operatively connected to a first actuating portion (212) of the hydraulic brake actuating pedal (134, 168), and the second hydraulic circuit (84) is arranged and operatively connected to a second actuating portion (262) of the hydraulic brake actuating pedal (134, 168); an electronic control unit (74) connected to the control valve (190, 240) and configured to transmit calculated valve flow to the hydraulic brake actuating pedal via the control valve (190, 240); a steering angle sensor (76) configured to monitor a steering angle of a steering train during travel of the mobile working machine, to generate a first signal (see [0017]) indicative of the steering angle and to transmit said first signal to the electronic control unit (74); wherein the electronic control unit (74) is configured and operable to process the first signal and if the first signal exceeds a threshold value (326) (see Fig. 6), automatically perform the steps of; determining a direction of the steering angle and determine a target braking pressure to pressurize one of the first and second hydraulic circuits (80, 84) based on the first signal and the direction of the steering angle (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0039-0040]); calculating a required valve flow based on the at least one target braking pressure determined (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0040]); and transmitting the calculated valve flow to the control valve (190, 240) of the hydraulic braking actuating pedal (134, 168); to adjust the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic circuits (80, 84) via the hydraulic brake actuating pedal (134, 168) so that brake steering Is adjusted according to the first signal (see Fig. 4, Fig. 6, [0040]).
Brinkley does not explicitly disclose a man-machine interface for a driver input to the interface corresponding to a driver request for brake steering and an adjustment to the brake steering and configured to transmit a second signal to the electronic control unit in response to the driver input, or wherein the monitoring of the steering angle is continuous.
York teaches a braking function arrangement comprising: a steering angle sensor (1022) to continuously monitor a steering angle (1102) of a steering train during travel of the mobile working machine (see Fig. 10, [0101]), to generate a first signal (A) (see Annotated Fig. 10 above) indicative of the steering angle to an electronic control unit (1004) and a man-machine interface (1020) for a driver input to the interface corresponding to a driver request for brake steering and an adjustment to the brake steering and configured to transmit a second signal (B) in response to the driver input (see Fig. 10, Annotated Fig. 10 below, Fig. 11, [0099]); wherein the electronic control unit (1004) is configured and operable to process the first and second signal and if the first signal exceeds a threshold value (1108) (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11), automatically perform the steps of; determining a direction of the steering angle (1110) and determine a target braking pressure to pressurize one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits based on the first or second signal and the direction of the steering angle (1112) (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of brake function arrangement of York with the brake function arrangement for a mobile work machine of Brinkley in order to improve the brake steering response of the vehicle, in turn improving vehicle safety and responsiveness (see US 20180148026 A1 [York]; [0003]).
Regarding Claim 6, Brinkley modified by York teaches wherein the man-machine interface (1020) is a switch or joystick (see US 20180148026 A1 [York]; Fig. 10, [0099]).
Regarding Claim 11, Brinkley modified by York teaches wherein the mobile working machine is an agricultural machine (see US 20130038118 A1 [Brinkley]; [0008], Fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkley et. al. (US 20130038118 A1) as modified by York (US 20180148026 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Zimmerman (US 20200047738 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Brinkley modified by York teaches the electrohydraulic method according to Claim 1 and appears to contemplate wherein the transmission of the first signal, to the control unit takes place via a wired or wireless connection (see US 20180148026 A1 [York]; Fig. 3, Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [0057], [0099]).
Brinkley modified by York does not explicitly specify wherein the first signal takes place via a wired or wireless connection.
Zimmerman teaches an electrohydraulic braking method wherein the transmission of a first signal, indicative of the steering angle, to the control unit takes place via a wired or wireless connection (see [0039], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the electrohydraulic braking method of Zimmerman with the braking method for a mobile work machine of Brinkley modified by York in order to allow measurement signals of the angle sensor to be transferred and processed efficiently and economically.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkley et. al. (US 20130038118 A1) as modified by York (US 20180148026 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Watanabe (US 20120215414 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Brinkley modified by York teaches the electrohydraulic braking method according to Claim 1, wherein the calculation of the braking pressure is performed with the aid of mathematical formula and/or algorithms (see US 20180148026 A1 [York]; [0081]).
Brinkley modified by York does not explicitly teach wherein the calculation of the necessary valve flow is performed with the aid of mathematical formulas and/or algorithms.
Watanabe teaches an electrohydraulic braking method wherein the calculation of the necessary valve flow is performed with the aid of mathematical formulas and/or algorithms (see Fig. 9, [0096]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the electrohydraulic braking method of Watanabe with the braking method for a mobile work machine of Brinkley modified by York in order to increase the control accuracy of the braking system (see US 20120215414 A1 [Watanabe]; [0004-0005]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkley et. al. (US 20130038118 A1) as modified by York (US 20180148026 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Yoshihama (US 20130197713 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Brinkley modified by York teaches the electrohydraulic braking method of Claim 1.
Brinkley modified by York does not teach the step of processing the first signal includes determining if the first signal exceeds the threshold value for a predetermined time duration.
Yoshihama teaches a driver assist method wherein a step of processing a first signal, indicative of the steering angle, includes determining if the first signal exceeds the threshold value for a predetermined time duration (see Fig. 3, [0012-0013]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of processing the first signal of Yoshihama with the electrohydraulic braking method of Brinkley modified by York in order to properly determine if it was the driver’s intention to turn, avoiding unintended brake action that could harm vehicle parts or drivers (see US 20130197713 A1 [Yoshihama]; [0006]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brinkley et. al. (US 20130038118 A1) as modified by York (US 20180148026 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Ishino (US 20210213925 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Brinkley modified by York teaches the electrohydraulic braking method of Claim 1.
Brinkley modified by York does not teach after adjusting the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits via the brake actuating pedal so that brake steering is adjusted, when the first external signal falls below the threshold value, releasing the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits.
Ishino teaches after adjusting the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits via the brake actuating pedal so that brake steering is adjusted, when the first external signal falls below the threshold value, releasing the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits (see [0063]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the electro-hydraulic braking method of Ishino with the electrohydraulic braking method of Brinkley modified by York in order to continue normal vehicle travel after completion of a turn (see US 20210213925 A1 [Ishino]; [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 8, prior art Kobashi (US 3910643 A) teaches a hydraulic brake actuating pedal with a control valve (see Fig. 1), but does not teach the first subassembly comprises the first slider and one first actuating piston which are both movable along a first axis, at least one first spring is arranged between the first slider and the first actuating piston along the first axis, the first subassembly comprises the second slider and one second actuating piston which are both movable along a second axis, at least one second spring is arranged between the second slider and the second actuating piston along the second axis, the first and second axes are parallel to each other, the second subassembly comprises one third and one fourth actuating piston, the third actuating piston is movable along the first axis, the third actuation comprises a third contact surface configured to contact a first contact surface of the first actuating piston, the fourth actuating piston is movable along the second axis, and said fourth actuating piston comprises a fourth contact surface configured to contact a second contact surface of the second actuating piston. Claim 9-10 and 12 would be allowable based on their dependance on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
