DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 recites, “monitoring for functionality the primary ane secondary electric motor”. It appears this is a typographical error meant to read “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nilsson (U.S. 2008/0296106).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) An electromechanical brake system (10) for a motor vehicle (abstract at least), and a method for operating the system, the system comprising:
four wheel brake devices (
24
1
-
24
4
)
; four primary electric motors (first motor 30); four secondary electric motors (second motor 30’); four control devices (40); and
a backup control device (18’), wherein the control devices and/or the backup control device are configured to acquire and/or evaluate sensor data from sensors (e.g. 44, 44’) assigned to the wheel brake devices and/or the motor vehicle (see pgh. 0054),
wherein each respective wheel brake device of the wheel brake devices is respectively assigned one of the primary electric motors and one of the secondary electric motors for operating the respective wheel brake device (fig. 2A as shown), and
wherein, for actuating the primary and secondary electric motors, each of the control devices is respectively assigned to one of the primary electric motors of one of the wheel brake devices (fig. 2A as shown, 40 assigned to 30) and the backup control device is assigned to the four secondary electric motors of the wheel brake devices (figs 1 and 2A as shown, 18’ assigned to 40’ and 30’);
the method comprising the following steps:
monitoring for functionality the primary and secondary electric motors (pgh. 0055 at least), the control devices (pgh. 0055 at least), and the backup control device (pgh. 0043 at least) of the brake system; and
based on a failure of one of the primary and secondary electric motors, of one of the control devices, or of the backup control device, triggering a replacement response (fail-safe operations, e.g. pgh. 0017, providing brake actuator control during failure of another portion of the actuator).
Regarding claim 10, Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) the sensors are rotor position sensors (e.g. “position sensors”), and/or rotational speed sensors (e.g. “wheel speed sensors”), and/or air bag sensors, and/or distance sensors.
Regarding claim 12, Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) each of the control devices is arranged directly on the wheel brake device to whose primary electric motor the control device are assigned (fig. 2A as shown, 40 arranged on 24).
Regarding claim 14, Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) based on a failure of one of the primary electric motors, the secondary electric motor assigned to the same wheel brake device is actuated as the replacement response (pgh. 0024, first and second actuation mechanisms are operable independently of one another in case of failure of one of them. Pgh. 0048, “actuation mechanism” is the motor 30 and 30’).
Regarding claim 15, Nilsson discloses (figs. 1-2A) based on a failure of one of the control devices, the backup control device is actuated as the replacement response (pgh. 0053-0055 at least, fail silent operation, if one controller 40 or 40’ fails, the other can operate).
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.
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.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (U.S. 2008/0296106) in view of Weiberle (DE 102009046238 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Nilsson does not appear to disclose the type of electric motors presently claimed. In the same field of endeavor of redundant brake systems, Weiberle teaches (figs. 1-2) electric motors for each wheel (25,26,29,30), where the motors are electronically commutated electric motors (see page 10 pgh. 3 of the provided copy and translation).
In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the motors of Nilsson would be provided as electronically commutated as suggested by Weiberle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided electronically commutated motors to actuate the brakes to provide a motor design that has high reliability and efficiency, thereby minimizing failures and power consumption. Note that providing a reliable motor design does not negate the need for redundancy, as failure could still occur since no system is 100% reliable.
Regarding claim 16, Nilsson does not appear to disclose outputting a warning. In the same field of endeavor of redundant brake systems, Weiberle teaches as the replacement response, a warning is output on a display device (24) assigned to a driver of the motor vehicle (see page 12 first paragraph, “displays warning messages” that are “depending on the operating condition of the brake system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a warning to a driver to alert the driver that there is a problem in the brake control system, so that the problem can be investigated/repaired.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various brake control systems and redundancies thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, 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.
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.
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616