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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Number 63 is labeled in the drawings (Fig. 2), but not disclosed in the specification.
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 the limitation “at least one external signal” despite being dependent on Claim 1, which also recites the limitation “at least one external signal.” Thus, it is unclear if the external signals are intended to be the same or separate signals. For purposes of examination, Claim 5 is being interpreted as reciting “the at least one external signal.”
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 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York (US 20180148026 A1) in view of Plewnia (US 20200207320 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, York discloses an electrohydraulic braking method for a mobile working machine, comprising: detecting at least one external signal and transmitting it to a control unit (1102); processing the at least one external signal and determining at least one target braking pressure based on the at least one external signal (1112); wherein the detection of the at least one external signal is performed manually via a man-machine interface or automatically via a steering angle sensor (1020) (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11).
Although it appears York anticipates calculating required flow, York does not explicitly disclose the calculation of flow and transmission of valve flow to a control valve.
Plewnia teaches calculating a required valve flow based on the at least one target braking pressure determined (180); transmitting the calculated valve flow to a control valve (170) of a brake actuating pedal (130); and adjusting a braking pressure in a hydraulic brake circuit via the brake actuating pedal so that brake steering is adjusted (see Fig. 1, [0061], [0066]).
It would have been obvious to combine the valve and control structure of Plewnia with the electrohydraulic braking method of York in order to control the wheel brake pressure operations.
Regarding Claim 2, York discloses the transmission of the at least one external signal detected by the steering angle sensor, which is designed as a digital or analog electronic signal, to the control unit takes place via a wired or wireless connection (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [0099]).
Regarding Claim 3, York discloses during travel by the mobile working machine, the steering angle sensor continuously monitors the steering angle of the mobile working machine (see Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [0100]).
Regarding Claim 4, York discloses the calculation of the necessary valve flow is performed with the aid of mathematical formulas, and/or algorithms, and/or a predetermined threshold value (see Fig. 11, [0004], [0081], [0093]).
Regarding Claim 11, York discloses the work machine is an agricultural machine (see [0003]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York (US 20180148026 A1) as modified by Plewnia (US 20200207320 A1) in claim 1, above, further in view of Johnson (US 10,625,726 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, York modified by Plewnia teaches a brake function arrangement for a mobile working machine, comprising: a hydraulic brake actuating pedal (130) configured to adjust a braking pressure; a control valve (170) arranged on the hydraulic brake actuating pedal (130) an electronic control unit (180) connected to the control valve (170) and configured to transmit a calculated valve flow to the hydraulic brake actuating pedal (130) via the control valve (170) (see US 20200207320 A1 [Plewnia]; Fig. 1), [0061], [0066]); a man-machine interface (1020) connected to the electronic control unit (1004); and at least one sensor (1022) configured to detect at least one external signal of the mobile working machine (see US 20180148026 A1 [York]; Fig. 10, Fig. 11), wherein the brake function arrangement is designed to perform the electrohydraulic braking method according to claim 1.
York modified by Plewnia does not teach a hydraulic circuit divided into one first hydraulic circuit and one second hydraulic circuit, wherein the first hydraulic circuit is arranged and operatively connected to a first actuating portion of the brake actuating pedal, and the second hydraulic circuit is arranged and operatively connected to a second actuating portion of the brake actuating pedal.
Johnson teaches a hydraulic circuit divided into one first hydraulic circuit (a) and one second hydraulic circuit (b), wherein the first hydraulic circuit is arranged and operatively connected to a first actuating portion of the brake actuating pedal, and the second hydraulic circuit is arranged and operatively connected to a second actuating portion of the brake actuating pedal (30) (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the divided hydraulic circuit of Johnson with the brake function arrangement of York modified by Plewnia in order control brakes separately while avoiding Bias and overshoot and their accompanying negative effects (see US 10625726 B2 [Johnson]; 1: 18-42).
Regarding Claim 6, York discloses the man-machine interface is designed as an external control device (see Fig. 10, [0099]).
Regarding Claim 7, York discloses the at least one sensor is designed as a steering angle sensor configured to enable determination of the steering angle of the mobile working machine (see Fig. 10, [0099]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 8, York does not disclose 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 dependencies on an allowable Claim 8.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zumbusch (US 9156465 B1), Drumm (US 8979218 B2), and Kobashi et. al. (US 3910643 A).
Zumbusch (US 9156365 B1) discloses a method of operating a brake-assisted steering system.
Drumm (US 8979218 B2) discloses a brake system for motor vehicles with two sets of parallel pistons.
Kobashi et. al. (US 3910643 A) discloses a brake system with dual piston bores.
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