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
In Applicant Arguments filed 17th April 2027, Applicant contends “Neither York nor Plewnia disclose automatically initiation brake steering when the steering angle exceeds a threshold value” this argument is not persuasive because this is not what is claimed in Amended Claim 1 (see Applicant Argument, Amended Claims filed 17th April 2026). Amended Claim 1, in reference to the limitation “automatically”, claims “if the external signal exceeds a threshold valve, automatically determining a direction of the steering angle 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”. As noted by Applicant, York discloses “comparing a steer input command to a steer input threshold” and using the automatically determined steering angle to “determine how much brake pressure to command each output” which is equivalent to the quoted limitation from Amended Claim 1. Additionally, even if the Applicant claimed “automatically initiation brake steering when the steering angle exceeds a threshold value” York teaches this (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [0102-0103]). It should be noted that Amended Claim 1 uses the language “comprising” meaning any method used in rejection can include additional steps not recited in Amended Claim 1. New grounds for rejection, necessitated by amendment, appear below.
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 and 5 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. It should be noted Claims dependent on Claim 1 or 5 are rejected for the same reasons based on their dependence on rejected Claim 1 or 5.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “external signal” is recited. It is unclear to what extent the signal has to be “external”. For example, external could refer to a signal external to the control unit within the electrohydraulic braking system or to a signal external to the electrohydraulic braking system all together. For purposes of examination the limitation “external signal” will be interpreted as “signal external of the control unit”.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “a hydraulic circuit divided into one first hydraulic circuit and one second hydraulic circuit” is recited. It is unclear if this structure is intended to be the same structure in Claim 1 because claim 1 does not recite “a hydraulic circuit” only “a first hydraulic brake circuit…and a second hydraulic brake circuit”. For purposes of examination the hydraulic circuit of Claim 5 will be interpreted as being equivalent to the hydraulic circuits of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “a hydraulic brake actuating pedal” is recited. It is unclear if this structure is intended to refer to the structure “brake actuating pedal” of Claim 1 or be a separate structure. For purposes of examination the limitations will be interpreted as referring to the same structure.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “an electronic control unit” is recited. It is unclear if this structure is intended to refer to the structure “a control unit” of Claim 1 or be a separate structure. For purposes of examination the limitations will be interpreted as referring to the same structure.
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 1-2, 4-6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York (US 20180148026 A1) in view of Hill et. al. (US 20190184952 A1) and further in view of Plewnia (US 20200207320 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, York discloses an electrohydraulic braking method for a mobile working machine (see [0002-0003]), comprising: continuously monitoring a steering angle (1102) of a steering train during travel of the mobile working machine (see Fig. 10, [0101]) and transmitting it an external signal (1022) indicative of the steering angle to a control unit (1004) (see Fig. 10, 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, [0102-0103]).
York appears to disclose, but does not explicitly disclose, wherein the mobile working machine has 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 [0098]). York does not disclose 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 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.
A first embodiment of Hill teaches wherein a mobile working machine (98) has a first hydraulic brake circuit (120, 154, 176) associated with one side of the mobile working machine (98) and a second hydraulic brake circuit (118, 152, 174) associated with one side of the mobile working machine (98), each hydraulic brake circuit configured to be pressurized by a corresponding braking pressure (see Fig. 4, [0014]). Additionally, Hill teaches calculating a required valve flow based on the at least one target braking pressure determined (see [0033]); and transmitting the calculated valve flow to a control valve (130) (see Fig. 4); and adjusting the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits via a brake actuating pedal (114, 116) so that brake steering is adjusted (see Fig. 4, [0026], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of a mobile work machine and hydraulic circuit control of a first embodiment of Hill with the electrohydraulic braking method of York in order to improve synchronization of the electrohydraulic brake actuation while retaining independent control of each side of the mobile work machine (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; [0002-0005]). Additionally, as York discloses the use of its method with an electrohydraulic system (see US 20180148026 A1 [York]; [0098]), but not an explicit electrohydraulic system, and Hill teaches an explicit electrohydraulic system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using or combining the method of York with the structure of Hill would “improve steer response, vehicle stability, and the like via an automated control system that utilizes a brake actuation system.” (see US 20180148026 A1 [York]; [0003]).
York modified by a first embodiment of Hill does not teach wherein the control valve (130) is of a brake actuating pedal (114, 116) (see Fig. 4).
A second embodiment of Hill teaches wherein the control valve (130) is of a brake actuating pedal (114, 116) (see Fig. 3), but does not teach wherein the controller can transmit the calculated valve flow to the control valve.
Plewnia teaches that it would have been obvious to combine the second embodiment of Hill with York modified by a first embodiment of Hill such that the control valve is of the brake actuating pedal, the control valve can be controlled by the controller, and the pedal can operationally control the control valve in order to provide an auxiliary manual method of braking if there is a system failure in the electrical or controller based braking system (see US 20200207320 A1 [Plewnia]; [0004-0007]). Thus, in combination, York modified by Hill teaches both wherein the system is configured for transmitting the calculated valve flow to a control valve (130) (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; Fig. 4) and the control valve (130) is of a brake actuating pedal (114, 116) (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, York discloses wherein the transmission of the external signal, to the control unit takes place via a wired or wireless connection (see Fig. 3, Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [0057], [0099]).
Regarding Claim 4, York discloses calculating (1110) how much brake pressure to supply outputs and modulating the braking pressure to the outputs using formulas (see [0101], [0103]).
York does not explicitly disclose wherein the modulating the braking pressure includes calculation of necessary valve flow.
Hill teaches processing signals from sensors in a controller which calculates valve flow to modulate the brake pressure and communicates the valve flow with control valves (see Fig. 3, Fig, 4, [0026], [0033]). Thus, in combination, York and Hill teach wherein the calculation of the necessary valve flow is performed with the aid of mathematical formulas.
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of calculating valve flow as a part of the brake modulating process of Hill with the electrohydraulic braking method of York, which utilizes formulas, in order to achieve a target braking pressure control in an electro-hydraulic valve system as combined in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, York modified by Hill and Plewnia teaches a brake function arrangement for a mobile working machine, comprising: a hydraulic brake actuating pedal (114, 116) configured to adjust a braking pressure; a control valve (130) arranged on the hydraulic brake actuating pedal (114, 116); a hydraulic circuit divided into one first hydraulic circuit (118, 174, 152) and one second hydraulic circuit (120, 176, 154) (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; Fig. 3), wherein the first hydraulic circuit (118, 174, 152) is arranged and operatively connected to a first actuating portion of the brake actuating pedal (114), and the second hydraulic circuit is arranged and operatively connected to a second actuating portion of the brake actuating pedal (116) (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; [0014]); an electronic control unit (132) connected to the control valve (130) and configured to transmit a calculated valve flow to the hydraulic brake actuating pedal (114, 116) via the control valve (130) (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; Fig. 3, Fig. 4); a steering angle sensor (164) configured to generate the external signal, wherein the brake function arrangement is designed to perform the electrohydraulic braking method according to claim 1 (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0026], [0033]). It should be noted the control valve structural arrangement is broadly claimed here, further refining or definition of the control valve structural arrangement would be looked upon favorably in examination.
Regarding Claim 6, York modified by Hill and Plewnia teaches a man-machine interface (124) designed as an external control device operable to generate a second external signal indicative of a driver request for brake steering (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, York modified by Hill and Plewnia teaches wherein the mobile working machine (98) is an agricultural machine (see US 20190184952 A1 [Hill]; Fig. 1, [0002]).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York (US 20180148026 A1) as modified by Hill et. al. (US 20190184952 A1) and Plewnia (US 20200207320 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Yoshihama (US 20130197713 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, York modified by Hill and Plewnia teaches the electrohydraulic braking method of claim 1.
York modified by Hill and Plewnia does not teach wherein the step of processing the external signal includes determining if the external signal exceeds the threshold value for a predetermined time duration.
Yoshihama teaches wherein a step of processing an external signal includes determining if the external signal exceeds the threshold value for a predetermined time duration (see Fig. 3, [0012-0013]).
It would have been obvious to combine the step of processing an external signal of Yoshihama with the electrohydraulic braking method of York modified by Hill and Plewnia 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]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York (US 20180148026 A1) as modified by Hill et. al. (US 20190184952 A1) and Plewnia (US 20200207320 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Ishino (US 20210213925 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, York modified by Hill and Plewnia teaches the electrohydraulic braking method of Claim 1.
York modified by Hill and Plewnia 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 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 a hydraulic brake circuit so that brake steering is adjusted, when the external signal falls below the threshold valve, releasing the braking pressure in the hydraulic brake circuit (see [0063]).
It would have been obvious to combine the method of retuning the brakes to a release state after turning of Ishino with the electrohydraulic braking method of York modified by Hill and Plewnia in order to continue normal vehicle travel after completion of a turn (see US 20210213925 A1 [Ishino]; [0063]).
Regarding Claim 15, York modified by Hill and Plewnia teaches the electrohydraulic braking method of Claim 1, that the control valve is of the brake actuating pedal, and the adjustment of the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits occurs via the brake actuating pedal so that brake steering is adjusted according to the driver request.
York modified by Hill and Plewnia do not explicitly teach detecting a second external signal generated by a man-machine interface corresponding to a driver request for brake steering.
Ishino teaches detecting an external signal generated by a man-machine interface corresponding to a driver request for brake steering; transmitting the second external signal to a control unit; and in the control unit, determining a second target braking pressure to pressurize one of the a first and a second hydraulic brake circuits based on the second external signal; calculating a required valve flow based on the target braking pressure determined; and transmitting the calculated second required valve flow to the control valve; and adjusting the braking pressure in the one of the first and second hydraulic brake circuits pedal so that brake steering is adjusted according to the driver request (see [0062-0063]). It should be noted that “driver request” and “based on second external signal” are broad limitation, further refining and explicit definition of these terms may be looked upon favorably in examination.
It would have been obvious to combine the external signal generated by a man-machine interface and corresponding braking action of Ishino with the electrohydraulic braking method of York modified by Hill and Plewnia in order to allow the vehicle or machine operator manually toggle brake steering avoiding unintended interactions with the operator and automatic systems (see US 20210213925 A1 [Ishino]; [0010]).
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, York modified by Hill and Plewnia does not teach wherein: the hydraulic brake actuating pedal comprises one first and one second slider and one first and one second subassembly which are configured to be assembled together in a pre-assembled manner, 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. Accordingly, claims 9-10 and 12 would be allowable based on dependence on an allowable Claim 8.
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 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
Prosecution Insights