DETAILED ACTION
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 17-20 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the inlet valve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Holst (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0094853).
Regarding claim 1, Holst discloses a method for checking an actual-pressure sensor (13) (20 disclosed in ¶41) of a motor vehicle brake system (8) (fig. 2), the said method comprising:
establishing a duration of a reaction interval (i1t=t7-t1, fig. 2) (At) 200): establishing a minimum threshold value (P4) (pmin); (300)
operating a motor vehicle brake system (8) of a motor vehicle (1) in an electronic braking mode, wherein the motor vehicle brake system (8) delivers a braking pressure (pans) (Dset) to a trailer (2) connected to the motor vehicle (1), so that a trailer brake system (7) of the trailer (2) can be actuated by means of the braking pressure (paus) (400) (¶39):
starting the reaction interval (At) (t=t1) at the beginning of a braking process and measuring pneumatic actual braking pressure values (pist) (p) by means of an actual-pressure sensor (13), wherein a starting braking pressure (pstart) of the motor vehicle brake system (8) is measured by the actual-pressure sensor (13) at the beginning of [[a]]the braking process which is carried out in the electronic braking mode for the trailer (2) 500):
measuring pneumatic reaction braking pressures (pre; prei,pre2, pre3) (p1, p2, p3) within the reaction interval (At) by means of the actual-pressure sensor (13) 600):
determining that at least one of the reaction braking pressures (pre; prei,pre2, pre3) (¶50) exceeds the minimum threshold value (pmin) and (600a):
continuing the operation of the motor vehicle brake system (8) in the electronic operating mode (as long as the result is above P4 the system is able to continue to operate).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Holst discloses wherein the process steps starting the reaction terminal, measuring the pneumatic reaction braking pressures, and checking whether the braking pressures exceed the minimum threshold value are carried out for every braking process initiated with the motor vehicle brake system (8) operated in the electronic braking mode (abstract ¶12 ¶18).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Holst discloses the starting braking pressure (pstart) is measured to have a value of 0 bar (¶6, ¶42, fig. 2 at line 40).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Holst discloses comprising: determining a target value (psonl) for the braking pressure (paus)a the target value (pson) not in excess of 1 bar and regulating the braking pressure (paus) on the basis of the target value (psonl) for the braking pressure (pans) and on the basis of the actual braking pressure values (pist) measured by the actual-pressure sensor (13) (fig. 2 control of brake pressure, p2, and measured values 41, 42, 43, 44).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 4, Holst discloses wherein the minimum threshold value (pmin) is set at a value between 0 bar and the target value (psonl) of the braking pressure (¶39).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, Holst discloses wherein the motor vehicle (1) comprises a trailer control valve system (10) with an inlet valve (20a), and the method comprises moving the inlet valve (20a) is moved to [[its]]an open condition at least once within the reaction interval (At) in order to increase the braking pressure (pans) of the motor vehicle brake system (8) in such manner that the reaction braking pressures (pre3) exceed the minimum threshold value (min) (valves 26 and 27 ¶46-47).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 7, Holst discloses wherein within the reaction interval (At) the inlet valve (20a) is moved to the open condition several times, and moving the inlet valve (20a) to the open condition for a first time includes holding open the inlet valve (20a) for a longer time than when subsequently moving the inlet valve to the open condition again after the first time (¶46-47 discloses how the inlet valve is opened to attain the P2 pressure and closed and the reopened after the venting to allow for attaining to P2 again.).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 8, Holst discloses comprising moving the inlet valve (20a) to the open condition while no braking process is being carried out, so that a pressure peak (26) occurs in the time variation (27) of the braking pressure (paus) while no braking operation is in progress (¶38 discloses opening the valve when no braking is taking place).
Regarding claim 11, Holst discloses a motor vehicle (1) comprising a motor vehicle brake system (8) with an electronic control unit (17), wherein the motor vehicle brake system (8) is configured to be operated in an electronic braking mode, and the motor vehicle brake system (8) delivers to the trailer (2) connected to the motor vehicle (1) a braking pressure so that a trailer brake system (7) can be actuated by virtue of the said braking pressure, and the electronic control unit (17) is configured to carry out the following processes: starting a reaction interval (At) at the beginning of a braking process and measuring pneumatic actual braking pressure values (pist) by means of an actual-pressure sensor (13), wherein a starting braking pressure (pstart) of the motor vehicle brake system (8) is measured by the actual-pressure sensor (13) at the beginning of the braking process which is carried out in the electronic braking mode for the trailer(measuring pneumatic reaction braking pressures (pre; prel, pre2, pre3) within the reaction interval (At) by means of the actual-pressure sensor (13); and checking whether the reaction braking pressures (pre; prel, pre2, pre3) exceed the minimum threshold value (pmin) (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 7, Holst discloses comprising moving the inlet valve (20a) to the open condition while no braking process is being carried out, so that a pressure peak (26) occurs in the time variation (27) of the braking pressure (paus) while no braking operation is in progress (¶44).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 12, Holst discloses wherein the trailer control valve system (10) comprises an outlet valve (20b), and the method comprises moving the inlet valve (20a) to a closed condition after the inlet valve has previously been moved to the open condition, and the outlet valve (20b) is then moved once to its open condition while no braking operation is in progress, so that the pressure peak (26) is counteracted (¶44).
Regarding claim 14, Holst discloses a method for checking an actual-pressure sensor (13) of a motor vehicle brake system (8), the method comprising: establishing (100) a duration of a reaction interval (At);establishing (200) a minimum threshold value (pmin);operating (300) a motor vehicle brake system (8) of a motor vehicle (1) in an electronic braking mode in which the motor vehicle brake system (8) delivers a braking pressure (paus) to a trailer (2) connected to the motor vehicle (1) and so that a trailer brake system (7) of the trailer (2) can be actuated by means of the braking pressure (paus);starting (400) the reaction interval (At) at the beginning of a braking process and measuring pneumatic actual braking pressure values (pist) by means of an actual-pressure sensor (13), wherein a starting braking pressure (pstart) of the motor vehicle brake system (8) is measured by the actual-pressure sensor (13) at the beginning of the braking process which is carried out in the electronic braking mode for the trailer (2);measuring (500) pneumatic reaction braking pressures (pre; pre1,pre2, pre3) within the reaction interval (At) by means of the actual-pressure sensor (13) (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 1);
determining (600) that none of the pneumatic reaction braking pressures (pre3) exceed the minimum threshold value (pmin); and discontinuing the operation of the motor vehicle brake system (8) in the electronic operating mode (¶50 “Moreover, controller 23 switches the brake system to the conventional mode of operation, free of electrical control”); wherein the process steps (500) and (600) are only carried out when, in process step (400),the value 0 bar is measured as the starting braking pressure (pstart) (line 40).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 14, Holst discloses wherein the starting braking pressure (pstart) is measured to be 0 bar (line 40).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holst (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0094853) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6 and 16 which depends from claim 1 and 14 respectively, Holst does not disclose wherein the reaction interval (At) is set to a duration of 50 milliseconds to 300 milliseconds.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a 50 to 300 ms time range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 16, Holst discloses comprising: moving the inlet valve (20a) (26 disclosed in ¶37 as being used to effect the pressure) the open condition for a first time within the reaction interval (At).
Regarding claim 18 which depends from claim 17, Holst discloses comprising: moving the inlet valve (20a) to the open condition a second time after the first time, wherein moving the inlet valve the to the open condition the first time includes holding open the inlet valve (20a) for a longer time than when moving the inlet valve to the open condition for the second time (¶46-47 discloses how the inlet valve is opened to attain the P2 pressure and closed and the reopened after the venting to allow for attaining to P2 again.).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 18, Holst discloses comprising moving the inlet valve (20a) to the open condition while no braking process is being carried out, so that a pressure peak (26) occurs in the time variation (27) of the braking pressure (paus) while no braking operation is in progress (¶38 discloses opening the valve when no braking is taking place).
Regarding claim 10 and 20 which depends from claim 9 and 19 respectively, Holst discloses wherein the trailer control valve system (10) comprises an outlet valve (20b) (27), and the method comprises moving the inlet valve (20a) to a closed condition after the inlet valve has previously been moved to the open condition, and the outlet valve (20b) is then moved once to the open condition while no braking operation is in progress, so that the pressure peak (26) is counteracted (Where Holst does not explicitly disclose this method step what is disclosed would have made this step obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. ¶38 discloses the situation where the system switches to purely pneumatic braking and ¶39 discloses how both valves 26 and 27 are adjusted to achieve the desired pressure. So when pneumatic braking occurs but then switches back to the electric braking and the pressure is higher than desired 26 would be closed and 27 opened so as to relieve pressure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 13 and 14 that the Holst reference is not establishing a reaction interval during a braking process. Where fig. 2 is a depiction of a test cycle done while performing braking it is stated that these results can be produced during actual braking in ¶45 when saying a test isn’t needed and “a braking-pressure change caused by braking requirements of the vehicle operator can be used”. P2 is the braking pressure that is being provided to the trailer system and the sensor is measuring this result. The venting that takes place during this test is done for the test to slightly change the applied braking pressure by an imperceptible amount. Then will flag an error when values P4 and P5 are seen. This is done during the reaction interval of t1-t4 which starts the braking at a 0 pressure. But if the system starts to dip like line 45 at P4 the system will flag an error and change the way in which pressure is provided away from the electronic system. As long as values stay above P4 the system will continue to operate during this test and during actual braking events. This is disclosed in the conclusion of Holst in ¶50-51 where it is stating that brake pressure is being supplied to the brake cylinder and not just being vented. This is a system that is measuring pneumatic pressures during the delivery of a braking pressure which is stated in ¶45.
Applicant argues on page 14 that Holst does not establish a minimum threshold the argument than points out that Holst establishes a maximum at P5. The reference is being used to address a minimum threshold where an error can occur which the reference states is at P4 which is not a minimum measured value but an established threshold where a warning is made. This is similar to the claims and what is disclosed in this application as depicted in the present applications fig. 3. The disclosure of Holst is that at the start of the braking process if the system never attains to P2 and only stays below P4 that is an error which is sated in ¶50.
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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights