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 .
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 6, 9 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 6 line 3, it is unclear if the recitation “a second modulation valve” is intended to reference the previously recited second modulation valve (cl. 5 line 30), or another second modulation valve.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected based upon their dependence upon claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,242,627 to Prescott et al.
Re-claim 1, Prescott et al. disclose in figure 1, an electronically controlled brake valve, comprising: a housing; in inlet port 12; an inlet chamber 30b with an inlet seat 34a; an inlet valve 32, the inlet valve has a central bore 32a and an inlet valve seat 32b, the inlet valve moves in an axial direction between a closed position and an open position, a spring 44 biasing the inlet valve toward the closed position; a control piston 26 is retained in a modulation chamber, the control piston is in slides against a sidewall of the modulation chamber (via seal 28) and divides the modulation chamber into a dispensing side 30 and a control side 22, the control piston has a control piston seat 26a that contacts the inlet valve seat 32b, the control piston moves between an open position with the control piston seat 26a spaced from the inlet valve seat 32b (as shown in figure 1), a holding position with the control piston seat 26a contacting the inlet valve seat 32b while the inlet valve seat is in contact with said inlet seat 34a, and a cracked position in which the control piston seat 26a contacts the inlet valve seat 32b and the inlet valve seat 32b is spaced from the inlet seat 34a (i.e. an open condition) thereby locating the inlet valve 32 into its open position, the open position of the inlet valve providing fluid communication between the inlet chamber 30b and the dispensing side 30 and the closed position of the inlet valve sealing the inlet chamber 30b from fluid communication with the dispensing side 30; an outlet port 14 communicates with the dispensing side 30; a modulation passage (see figure 1 and leads to 18a) communicates with the inlet chamber 30b; a first modulation valve 18c selectively connects the modulation passage to the control side 22 to facilitate a flow of fluid from the inlet chamber 30b to the control side 22; a second modulation valve 20c relieves pressure from the control side; a controller (see column 1 lines 43-59) receives a proportional braking signal, the controller processes the proportional braking signal and operates the first and second modulation valves to control fluid pressure on the control side 22 and thereby moves the control piston 26 to control fluid flow at the outlet port (see column 3 lines 38-67 to column 4 lines 1-35).
Re-claim 5, Prescott et al. disclose in figure 1, an electronically controlled brake valve, comprising: a housing; in inlet port 12 connected to a pressurized fluid from a pressurized fluid source (such as an air reservoir, see column 1 lines 63-64); an inlet chamber 30b with an inlet seat 34a; an inlet valve 32, the inlet valve has a central bore 32a and an inlet valve seat 32b, the inlet valve moves in an axial direction between a closed position and an open position, a spring 44 biasing the inlet valve toward the closed position; a control piston 26 is retained in a modulation chamber, the control piston is in slides against a sidewall of the modulation chamber (via seal 28) and divides the modulation chamber into a dispensing side 30 and a control side 22, the control piston has a control piston seat 26a that contacts the inlet valve seat 32b, the control piston moves between an open position with the control piston seat 26a spaced from the inlet valve seat 32b (as shown in figure 1), a holding position with the control piston seat 26a contacting the inlet valve seat 32b while the inlet valve seat is in contact with said inlet seat 34a, and a cracked position in which the control piston seat 26a contacts the inlet valve seat 32b and the inlet valve seat 32b is spaced from the inlet seat 34a (i.e. an open condition) thereby locating the inlet valve 32 into its open position, the open position of the inlet valve providing fluid communication between the inlet chamber 30b and the dispensing side 30 and the closed position of the inlet valve sealing the inlet chamber 30b from fluid communication with the dispensing side 30; an outlet port 14 communicates with the dispensing side 30; a modulation passage (see figure 1 and leads to 18a) communicates with the inlet chamber 30b; a modulation valve 18c selectively connects the modulation passage to the control side 22 to facilitate a flow of fluid from the inlet chamber 30b to the control side 22; a second modulation valve 20c relieves pressure from the control side; a controller (see column 1 lines 43-59) receives a proportional braking signal, the controller processes the proportional braking signal and operates the first and second modulation valves to control fluid pressure on the control side 22 and thereby moves the control piston 26 to control fluid flow at the outlet port (see column 3 lines 38-67 to column 4 lines 1-35).
Re-claim 6, the modulation valve 18c is a first modulation valve, the second modulation valve releases pressurized fluid, as stated previously.
Re-claim 11, Prescott et al. disclose in figure 1, an electronically controlled brake valve, comprising: a housing; in inlet port 12 connected to a pressurized fluid from a pressurized fluid source (such as an air reservoir, see column 1 lines 63-64); an inlet chamber 30b with an inlet seat 34a; an inlet valve 32, the inlet valve has a central bore 32a and an inlet valve seat 32b, the inlet valve moves in an axial direction between a closed position and an open position, a spring 44 biasing the inlet valve toward the closed position; a control piston 26 is retained in a modulation chamber, the control piston is in slides against a sidewall of the modulation chamber (via seal 28) and divides the modulation chamber into a dispensing side 30 and a control side 22, the control piston has a control piston seat 26a that contacts the inlet valve seat 32b, the control piston moves between an open position with the control piston seat 26a spaced from the inlet valve seat 32b (as shown in figure 1), a holding position with the control piston seat 26a contacting the inlet valve seat 32b while the inlet valve seat is in contact with said inlet seat 34a, and a cracked position in which the control piston seat 26a contacts the inlet valve seat 32b and the inlet valve seat 32b is spaced from the inlet seat 34a (i.e. an open condition) thereby locating the inlet valve 32 into its open position, the open position of the inlet valve providing fluid communication between the inlet chamber 30b and the dispensing side 30 and the closed position of the inlet valve sealing the inlet chamber 30b from fluid communication with the dispensing side 30; an outlet port 14 communicates with the dispensing side 30; a modulation valve 18c/20c selectively connects a modulation passage to the control side 22 to facilitate a flow of fluid into the control side 22 (via valve 18c) and releasing fluid from the control side 22 (via valve 20c); a controller (see column 1 lines 43-59) receives a proportional braking signal, the controller processes the proportional braking signal and operates the first and second modulation valves to control fluid pressure on the control side 22 and thereby moves the control piston 26
Re-claim 12, the modulation valve is a first modulation valve 18c for selectively allowing passage of pressurized fluid into the control side 22, and a second modulation valve 20c operated by the controller for releasing pressurized fluid from the control side 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2-4, 7-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prescott et al. in view of US 2002/0195870 A1 to Brunson et al.
Re-claims 2-4, 7-10 and 13-16, Prescott et al. fail to teach the specific type of vehicle the brake valve is associated with, such as a towing vehicle which provides the brake signal, and includes a constant power circuit or independent constant power source independent of the towing vehicle.
Brunson et al. teach a towing vehicle 22 with a means of providing a brake signal proportional to an actuating operation (see paragraph 21), the towing vehicle is provided with a constant power circuit (paragraph 22) and an independent constant power source independent of the towing vehicle 22 (such as part of a trailer system, see paragraph 37 and battery 152). This arrangement allows the driver of the towing vehicle to determine a desired brake value that would be transmitted to the controller, as well as provide a power source during connection with the towing vehicle, so as to carry out requested brake commands, and during periods when disconnected from the towing vehicle, so as to maintain the trailer in a parked or locked condition. Therefore, as per the teachings of Brunson et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the electronically controlled brake valve of Prescott et al. with a towing vehicle having a constant power source and independent constant power source separate from the towing vehicle as taught by Brunson et al.,
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/513,117 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the features recited in claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 are recited in claims 1, 5 and 9 of the copending application.
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 5 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/513,117 (reference application). As such claims 1, 5 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/513,117 (reference application) fully encompass the subject matter of claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 and therefore anticipates claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12. Thus the invention of claims 1, 5 and 9 of the copending Application No. 18/513,117 (reference application) is in effect a "species” of the “generic” invention of claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 12 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by claims 1, 5 and 9 of the copending Application No. 18/513,117 (reference application), claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 13 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 5 and 9, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claim 1, 5 and 9.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Geobels, Roether, Hecker, Schnittger, Greisser, Shaw and Potter each teach a modulator valve having a modulation passage communicating an inlet chamber with a control chamber.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
February 2, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616