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 § 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) 15-22 and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolarsky et al (US# 9827965).
Kolarsky et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; a method for controlling a hydraulic volume in a system including a power brake 68 and a driving dynamics control (ESP system/100), wherein the system is configured to hydraulically couple the power brake to the driving dynamics control, the method comprising the following steps: providing a signal to build up a first hydraulic pressure for the driving dynamics control (via 66); generating a first control signal indicating hydraulic pressure using the driving dynamics control, and providing the first control signal to the power brake (via 20) to provide hydraulic volume at the hydraulic coupling; generating a second hydraulic pressure using the power brake 68 to provide the hydraulic volume at the hydraulic coupling; providing the hydraulic volume at the second hydraulic pressure at the hydraulic coupling using the power brake; and building up the first hydraulic pressure in the driving dynamics control using the provided hydraulic volume (col. 9, line 64-col. 10, line 40).
Regarding claim 16, a signal is provided to reduce pressure for the driving dynamics control; generating a second control signal using the driving dynamics control, and providing the second control signal to the power brake to receive the hydraulic volume at the hydraulic coupling; generating a third hydraulic pressure using the power brake to receive the hydraulic volume at the hydraulic coupling; receiving the hydraulic volume at the second hydraulic pressure at the hydraulic coupling using the power brake; and reducing the first hydraulic pressure in the driving dynamics control using the hydraulic volume received by the power brake (col 10, line 41- col. 11, line 37).
Regarding claim 17, the hydraulic volume is provided by a plunger 68a of the power brake.
Regarding claim 18, the plunger 68a does not have a sniffer bore, as broadly recited.
Regarding claim 19, the second hydraulic pressure and/or the third hydraulic pressure is generated by the plunger 68a of the power brake.
Regarding claim 20, the first control signal and/or the second control signal is provided by a control device 100 of the driving dynamics control.
Regarding claim 21, the first control signal and/or the second control signal is provided by a signal 24 or 12 at an activated changeover valve 70 or 72 of the power brake and/or of the driving dynamics control.
Regarding claim 22, the activated changeover valve 70 or 72 is a valve is a controllable valve of the driving dynamics control.
Regarding claim 24, the second hydraulic pressure and/or the hydraulic volume is reached by mechanically moving a position of a piston 68a of the plunger from an initial position in order to provide an increased pressure at the hydraulic coupling .
Regarding claim 25, the second hydraulic pressure is determined using a pressure sensor 90 in order to regulate the second hydraulic pressure.
Regarding claim 26, the signal to build up pressure for the driving dynamics control is provided by a control device 100 of a mobile platform (vehicle).
Regarding claim 27, Kolarsky et al disclose a system 1 for controlling a hydraulic volume in a system including a power brake 68 and a driving dynamics control (100/ESP), comprising: a power brake 68; a driving dynamics control (ESP) hydraulically coupled to the power brake; a control device 100 for the driving dynamics control; wherein the power brake is coupled by signals 20/18 to the driving dynamics control; and wherein the system is configured to: provide a signal (via 66) to build up a first hydraulic pressure for the driving dynamics control, generate a first control signal 20 indicating hydraulic pressure using the driving dynamics control, and provide the first control signal to the power brake to provide hydraulic volume at the hydraulic coupling, generate a second hydraulic pressure using the power brake to provide the hydraulic volume at the hydraulic coupling, provide the hydraulic volume at the second hydraulic pressure at the hydraulic coupling using the power brake, and build up the first hydraulic pressure in the driving dynamics control using the provided hydraulic volume (col. 9, line 64-col. 10, line 40).
Regarding claim 28, the system is configured for braking at least one wheel of a mobile platform (vehicle).
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 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolarsky et al (US# 9827965) in view of Kim et al (US# 2021/0237706) or Grieser-Schmitz et al (US# 2014/0129108).
Regarding claim 23, Kolarsky et al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to the first control signal and/or the second control signal being a binary signal and/or an analog signal. Kolarsky et al is silent as to whether the signals are binary, analog or some other form of signal. Kim et al discloses a vehicle brake system and further teaches control signals in either analog or digital form [0078]. Grieser-Schmitz et al also discloses a vehicle brake system and further teaches control signals in either analog or digital/binary form [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a binary or analog signal for the signals of Kolarsky et al, as taught by Kim et al or Grieser-Schmitz et al, as obvious and known suitable means of transmitting the information which provides the predictable results of component actuation as commanded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Kolarsky, Applicant argues that the reference fails to disclose generating a first control signal indicating hydraulic pressure using the driving dynamics control, and providing the first control signal to the power brake to provide hydraulic volume at the hydraulic coupling. This is not persuasive as Kolarsky discloses generating a first control signal indicating hydraulic pressure using the driving dynamics control, and providing the first control signal to the power brake (via 20) to provide hydraulic volume at the hydraulic coupling.
With regards to signal 20, Applicant argues:
“As described, these inputs are directed to the brake booster to generate said force Fv, which is not a "first control signal indicating hydraulic pressure," as recited in amended claim 15. Kolarsky's brake master cylinder-the component that effects hydraulic pressure-is only actuated via a mechanical throughput of a user's physical force.”
This is not persuasive as the booster force Fv is a commanded force separate from the user’s physical force Ff. The force Fv applied by the booster to the master cylinder corresponds to or indicates a hydraulic pressure determined by the product of the force and the area of the master cylinder piston. As noted by Applicant, the signal of Kolarsky causes a physical force input via a user (e.g., via a pedal) to be assisted or resisted. In assisting the user, booster 68 is driven in the advancing direction which results in the providing of a hydraulic volume at a hydraulic coupling, as broadly recited by the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights