DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show sufficient details such that one familiar with the specification understands what is depicted without having to reference the specification as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7-13 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 threshold value (pset) (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):
checking whether the reaction braking pressures (pre; prei,pre2, pre3) (¶41, 44, 46-48, 49, 51) exceed the threshold value (pmin) and (600a):
continuing the operation of the motor vehicle brake system (8) in the electronic operating mode is continued if when at least one measured reaction braking pressure (pre3) exceeds the threshold value (pmin), or_(600b) (¶47):
discontinuing the operation of the motor vehicle brake system (8) in the electronic operating mode is discontinued if when none of the measured reaction braking pressures (pre) exceeds the threshold value (pmin) (¶50, 51).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Holst discloses wherein the process steps (400) to (600) are carried out for every braking process initiated when the motor vehicle brake system (8) is operated in the electronic braking mode (abstract ¶12 ¶18).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Holst discloses 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) (¶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 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 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 (¶39 discloses the actuation of valves in order to achieve desired pressure which includes the limitations of this claim as needed).
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 (¶44).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 9, 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 the open condition while no braking operation is in progress, so that the pressure peak (26) is counteracted (¶44).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 1, 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 process steps (400) to (600) in accordance with the method according to claim 1 (¶2).
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).
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 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 which depends from claim 1, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review when considering a response to this office 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