DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/6/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
4. Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 12/6/2023.
Claim Interpretation
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 13 the recitation “A control device for operating a hydraulic brake system..” contains a generic place holder (i.e device) modified by functional language. However since the generic place holder is modified by sufficient structure (i.e. defined by “control”), the limitation is deemed to NOT 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-3, 9, and 15 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 claims 1 & 9 the recitation “a main pressure source which can be actuated via a brake pedal” is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the phrase “can be”, this is an indefinite and / or relative phrase and raises the question as to whether the claimed pressure source is actuated or not?
Suggested recitation: “a main pressure source that is actuated via a brake pedal..”.
Regarding claim 1 the recitation “wherein the detection of the fill level takes place in analog fashion.”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the term “fashion”, this is an ambiguous and / or relative term and raises the question as to whether the detection is in analog or not?
Suggested recitation: "Wherein the fluid level determination involves analog detection."
Regarding claims 2 & 15 the recitation “wherein the fill level is detected by the measurement assembly in analog fashion ...”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the term “fashion”, this is an ambiguous and / or relative term and raises the question as to whether the detection is in analog or not?
Suggested recitation: "Wherein the analog detected fill level is determined by the measurement assembly…"
Regarding claim 3 the recitation “the brake fluid reservoir is detected in analog fashion...”, is ambiguous and overly broad. With emphasis on the term “fashion”, this is an ambiguous and / or relative term and raises the question as to whether the detection is in analog or not?
Suggested recitation: "… the brake fluid reservoir involves analog detection.."
Claims 2-9 and 13-18 are rejected for depending on rejected Claim 1.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 14 the recitation “the control device as claimed in claim”, does not appear to further limit claim 13 with further any structural and / or functional language that is distinct form claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STANOJKOVSKI et al. (DE 102019215418 A1)
Regarding claim 1 STANOJKOVSKI et al teaches the hydraulic brake system has a hydraulic unit (Abstract)(Entire Document) 2 , a brake fluid reservoir (Abstract)(Entire Document) 4 and hydraulically actuatable wheel brakes (Abstract)(Entire Document) 8a – 8d, wherein the hydraulic unit (Abstract)(Entire Document) 2 has a main pressure source (Abstract)(Entire Document) 5 which can be actuated via a brake pedal (Abstract)(Entire Document) 8a – 8d, an additional pressure source 41 fluidically separate from the main pressure source 5, and control valves 7a – 7d by which the main pressure source 5 and the additional pressure source 41 on one side and the wheel brakes 8a – 8d on the other side are connected together (fig. 1), wherein in the brake fluid reservoir 4, multiple at least partially mutually separate reservoir chambers 17 29 are provided for (Intended use recitation) supplying the main pressure source and the additional pressure source with a brake fluid, wherein the method comprises detection of a fill level (Abstract)(Entire Document) of the brake fluid in the brake fluid reservoir 4 by a measurement assembly 50, wherein the detection of the fill level takes place in analog fashion (Abstract)(Objective of Invention) 50.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STANOJKOVSKI et al. (DE 102019215418 A1) in view of Ganzel et al (US 20210053547 A1).
Regarding claims 4-6 STANOJKOVSKI et al. teaches all of the basic features of the claimed invention. STANOJKOVSKI et al. does not explicitly teach initiation of a reaction measure by a control device of the motor vehicle depending on a behavior of the detected fill level in the brake fluid reservoi(Interpreted as a warning / notification response to low fluid level(s). Ganzel et al teaches initiation of a reaction measure by a control device of the motor vehicle depending on a behavior of the detected fill level in the brake fluid reservoi
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of brake monitoring systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake fluid monitoring system taught by STANOJKOVSKI et al with a reaction measure by a control device of the motor vehicle depending on a behavior of the detected fill level in the brake fluid reservoi
Regarding claim 18 STANOJKOVSKI et al teaches all of the basic features of the claimed invention. STANOJKOVSKI et al does not teach the lowering of a float received in a brake fluid reservoir, below the brake fluid level, by creation of a flow in the brake fluid, wherein the flow is created by a suction process by the additional pressure source, detection of a position of the lowered float. Ganzel et al teaches the lowering of a float 20 received in a brake fluid reservoir 100, below the brake fluid level [0030][0032][0035], by creation of a flow in the brake fluid, wherein the flow is created by a suction process (Interpreted as negative pressure) [Abstract][0005][0034][0036] by the additional pressure source 116, detection of a position of the lowered float 20.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of brake monitoring systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake fluid monitoring system taught by STANOJKOVSKI et al with the lowering of a float received in a brake fluid reservoir, below the brake fluid level, by creation of a flow in the brake fluid, wherein the flow is created by a suction process by the additional pressure source, detection of a position of the lowered float as taught by Ganzel et al for the purpose of providing a guiding element within a the fluid system of a brake monitoring device that accurately follows fluid levels and accurately determines critically low levels.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious a diagnosis program comprising one or more of a leak test for locating a leak, and also an at least partial containment of the leak in response to a successful location of the leak, a function test of the measurement assembly, and an increase in frequency of the leak test and/or the function test, wherein the diagnosis program is started after detection of the leak of the hydraulic brake system based on the behavior the detected fill level and/or after establishing that the motor vehicle is in normal driving mode, has been deactivated or switched off.
Claims 8 & 10-12 are objected based on their dependency of claim 7.
9. Claims 2, 3, 15 &17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious a fill level has analog detection by a measurement assembly firstly in a common region in a brake fluid reservoir above reservoir chambers separated by one or more intermediate walls, and after detection of a fill level fall in only one of the reservoir chambers, which further is assigned to a additional pressure source.
Regarding claim 3 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious a measurement assembly having a sensor and a magnet, wherein the measurement assembly is arranged on a brake fluid reservoir such that a position of the magnet changes with the fill level to be detected, wherein the sensor is configured as a Hall sensor, wherein the magnet is received in a float, wherein the fill level in the brake fluid reservoir involves analog detection by determination of a magnetic field generated by the magnet by the Hall sensor.
Regarding claim 15 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious a measurement assembly having a sensor and a magnet, wherein the measurement assembly is arranged on a brake fluid reservoir such that a position of the magnet changes with the fill level to be detected, wherein the sensor is preferably configured as a Hall sensor, wherein the magnet is received in a float, wherein the fill level in the brake fluid reservoir involves analog detection by determination of a magnetic field generated by the magnet by the Hall sensor.
Claim 16 would be allowed based on its dependency of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the provision of one or more of: a brake function degradation of the hydraulic brake system, graduated remaining travel times, and graduated maximal speed limitations, a diagnosis program.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11292443 B2 Method for the functional testing of an electromechanical fill level monitoring device
DE 102020207434 A1 Method and device for determining an available volume of liquid, braking system
DE 102018010167 A1 Hydraulic motor vehicle brake system and method for operating the same
DE 112008002155 T5 Brake control system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855