DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1,4,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnke et al. U.S. 2020/0361429 in view of Lee U.S. 2021/0354677.
Regarding claims 1,10 Jahnke shows a braking device capable of use with an autonomous vehicle (see bottom of para 0029). This device comprises first and second braking ECU’s at 20 and 24. As stated in paras 0042-0043:
[0042] In this embodiment, as the first braking ECU 20 is provided with both a wireless signal receiver, and transmitter 38, it may be programmed to transmit to the second wireless signal receiver 40, at periodic intervals, a status signal [i.e. a ‘Heartbeat’- as broadly claimed ] indicating that it is transmitting and receiving wireless signals. The first braking ECU 20 may be programmed to cease transmitting this status signal in the event that the first wireless signal receiver fails. The second braking ECU 24 may check for receipt of the status signal from the first braking ECU 20, so the second braking ECU 24 is therefore alerted to the failure of the first wireless signal receiver and/or transmitter by a failure to receive a status signal from the first wireless signal transmitter 38 constantly or within a predetermined period of time. For example, the first braking ECU 20 may be programmed to transmit a constant status, and the second braking ECU 24 may be programmed to take over acting on the signal from a further vehicle if no status signal is received from the first braking ECU 20. The first braking ECU 20 may alternatively be programmed to transmit a status signal every 0.01 to 1.00 seconds, such time period being designated x, and the second braking ECU 24 may in such case be programmed to take over acting on the signal from a further vehicle if no status signal is received from the first braking ECU 20 within a 0.01 to 1.00 s period, said second time period y being slightly longer than the period between the status signals being sent out by the first ECU 20. The time periods x and y are typically predetermined, and may be set according to certain rules.
[0043] In this embodiment, the second braking ECU 24 is provided with a second wireless signal transmitter 40, and is programmed to transmit to a further vehicle data concerning braking initiated by the first and/or second braking ECU 20, 24, in the event of failure of the first wireless signal transmitter 38.
Lacking in Jahnke is a specific showing of the master cylinder actuated by a linear actuator, although a pedal operated device of some kind is indicated at 36.
The reference to Lee shows an electric booster for an autonomous vehicle with a master cylinder 3 than can be actuated by a ‘linear actuator’ 20,22 in a dual actuator – redundancy type of arrangement should an emergency occur.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used an electric booster arrangement having both a master cylinder and linear actuator in the brake system of Jahnke since Jahnke is not specific as to the type of brake actuator needed and both systems offer redundancy type of arrangements should a part or component of the brake system malfunction or fail.
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, note the pressure sensors at 42 in Jahnke.
Claim(s) 2,3,10,14,16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnke/Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brenn et al. 9,776,607.
Regarding claim 2 Jahnke, as modified, lacks specifically showing independent first and second power sources.
The reference to Brenn shows a brake system than can be used with autonomous vehicles (col 5 lines 30-35) and shows first and second independently arranged power sources at 43 and 45. Note the virtual driver 20. See col 4 lines 32-50.
It would have been obvious to have utilized first and second independent power sources in the brake system of Jahnke, as modified by Lee, for simply redundancy.
Regarding claim 3 note the wheel speed sensors at 68 in Brenn. It would have been obvious to have used these at the wheels in Jahnke as an integral part of any well known vehicle stability control system. See the discussion in paras 0029-0030 of Jahnke.
Regarding claim 14 these limitations are inherently met due to the information supplied by the wheel speed sensors at 68 in Jahnke, as modified by Brenn. See paras 0029,0030 in Jahnke.
Regarding claim 16 the ordinary skilled worker in the art would recognize that in the event that in response to determining that the rotational speed of the wheel is zero and that a speed of the operating vehicle is greater than a threshold speed, the linear actuator used to actuate the braking system to reduce a braking force applied to the wheel would be retracted since the vehicle would go into stability control/ABS mode in which hydraulic pressure from the master cylinder and linear actuator should be reduced.
Regarding claim 17 the ordinary skilled worker in the art would recognize that the linear actuator should be extended in this situation of the vehicle driving condition.
Claim(s) 5 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnke/Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bauer 4,795,004.
Regarding claim 5 Jahnke, as modified, lacks specifically showing two separate brake calipers ‘operable coupled’ to the same rotor.
The reference to Bauer also shows a redundant brake system with two calipers 36,38 ‘operably coupled’ to the same rotor at 50.
It would have been obvious to have used two calipers at at least two of the brake discs in Jahnke for redundancy purposes should one of them malfunction or fail. To have used one OEM brake caliper and a ‘separate’ brake caliper would have been obvious simply to reduce expenses.
Claim(s) 6-8,11,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnke/Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fay 3,734,248.
Regarding claims 6,11 to have used an OEM brake caliper as the only brake caliper (presumably inherent in Jahnke) would have been an obvious choice since the majority of motor vehicles use this type of standard arrangement. Fay is relied upon to show a well known type of brake caliper in figures 1,2.
Regarding claims 7,8 Jahnke, as modified, lacks specifically showing first and second independent hydraulic lines coupled to the brake caliper.
The reference to Fay shows independent hydraulic lines at 106,110 and at 108 arranged on the brake caliper.
It would have been obvious to have arranged independent hydraulic lines supplying fluid to the brake caliper in Jahnke, as shown by Fay, for redundancy/emergency.
Regarding claim 13, as broadly claimed, these limitations are met by the sensor at 2 in Lee.
Claim(s) 9,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnke/Lee/Fay as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Weiberle et al. 9,061,673 or Arienti et al. U.S. 2025/0340187.
Regarding claims 9,12 Jahnke as modified lacks specifically showing an isolator of some type disposed in the second hydraulic line to disable the fluid pressure in this line.
The references to either Weiberle or to Arienti both teach this idea at 32 (see the several different embodiments) or at 1,5,8 in Arienti.
It would have been obvious to have placed an isolation valve of some type in the second hydraulic line 108 in Jahnke, as modified by Fay, to be able to cut off fluid pressure in the event of a leak, or some other type of failure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15,18,19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
2/15/26