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 .
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.
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.
Claims 10-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isono et al. (U.S. 6604795) in view of Hagspiel et al. (U.S. 2015/0344009).
Regarding claim 10, Isono discloses (fig. 1) An electrohydraulic dual-circuit power brake system (as shown), comprising:
a brake fluid container (62);
a piston-cylinder unit (12), a cylinder (one of 120,122) of piston-cylinder unit being connected to the brake fluid container (indirectly at least), the piston-cylinder unit including a first piston (106) which can be displaced with a first electric motor (100) via a rotation/translation conversion gear (112/114/116/102/110) in the cylinder of the piston-cylinder unit to generate hydraulic brake pressure (piston 106 moves left and right), and a second piston (108) which is displaced in the cylinder by subjecting it to hydraulic pressure by the first piston or mechanically by abutment of the first and second pistons on one another (at least one of these two, as shown);
two brake circuits (front and rear, as shown), which are connected to the cylinder of the piston-cylinder unit in a manner hydraulically separated from one another by the second piston (as shown); and
a power brake pressure generator (182) using which hydraulic brake pressure in a brake circuit of the power brake system can be generated as an alternative to generating brake pressure with the piston-cylinder unit (182 is capable of producing brake pressure “as an alternative” at least); and
a check valve (at least one of 132, 142, 98, 60, 184, 186) through which the power brake pressure generator is connected to the brake fluid container (indirectly at least).
Isono does not appear to disclose a filter upstream of the check valve. In the same field of endeavor of brake systems, Hagspiel teaches (fig. 1) a braking system (12) including a check valve (adjacent to 36) having a filter upstream of the check valve (diamond as shown, see also pgh. 0045). 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 the filter upstream of the check valve to prevent debris from entering the check valve, thereby ensuring proper sealing.
Regarding claim 11, Isono discloses (fig. 1) the power brake system includes a respective power brake pressure generator (182, left and right) in each of the brake circuits the respective power brake pressure generators being connected to the brake fluid container by a respective check valve in each of the brake circuits (184, left and right, at least).
Regarding claim 12, Isono discloses (fig. 1) the first piston is connected to the rotation/translation conversion gear in a tension- resistant and pressure-resistant manner in such a way that the first piston can be displaced with the first electric motor via the rotation/translation conversion gear in two opposite directions in the cylinder of the piston-cylinder unit (see col. 29 lines 30-54: “The control piston 106 is axially moved with a drive shaft 110 which is an output shaft of the motion converting device 102. More specifically described, the control piston 106 is advanced and retracted depending upon whether the pressure-control motor 100 is operated in the forward or reverse direction.”).
Regarding claim 13, Isono discloses (fig. 1) the first piston has no piston return spring (the piston 106 does not “have” a return spring, because the motion of piston 106 is controlled entirely by the rotation/translation conversion gear and associated drive shaft 110. The spring 124 is a return spring for the piston 108 to “return” the piston 108 to the right and to balance the pressure between left and right chambers. See col. 30 lines 4-29).
Regarding claim 14, Isono discloses (fig. 1) a slip control (170 and 172 at least), which has the respective power brake pressure generators (left and right 182, at least).
Regarding claim 17, Isono discloses (fig. 1) the power brake system does not have manual actuation (see col. 34, lines 31-41. At least one mode does not have manual actuation).
Regarding claim 18, Isono discloses (fig. 1) A method for returning pistons of an electrohydraulic dual-circuit power brake system, the power brake system including:
a brake fluid container (62),
a piston-cylinder unit (12), a cylinder (one of 120,122) of piston-cylinder unit being connected to the brake fluid container (indirectly at least), the piston-cylinder unit including a first piston (106) which can be displaced with a first electric motor (100) via a rotation/translation conversion gear (112/114/116/102/110) in the cylinder of the piston-cylinder unit to generate hydraulic brake pressure (piston 106 moves left and right), and a second piston (108) which is displaced in the cylinder by subjecting it to hydraulic pressure by the first piston or mechanically by abutment of the first and second pistons on one another (at least one of these two, as shown),
two brake circuits (front and rear, as shown), which are connected to the cylinder of the piston-cylinder unit in a manner hydraulically separated from one another by the second piston (as shown); and
a power brake pressure generator (182) using which hydraulic brake pressure in a brake circuit of the power brake system can be generated as an alternative to generating brake pressure with the piston-cylinder unit (182 is capable of producing brake pressure “as an alternative” at least), and
a check valve (at least one of 132, 142, 98, 60) through which the power brake pressure generator is connected to the brake fluid container (indirectly at least),
wherein the power brake pressure generator is connected to the cylinder by a valve (184 at least), and
the method comprises: subjecting at least one of the first and second pistons to hydraulic pressure, by the power brake pressure generator (when the pressure generated by 182 exceeds a threshold, valves 184 opens, exposing lines 180 to the pressure therefrom, which is connected to the first and second chambers 120,122, thereby subjecting the pistons to that pressure).
Isono does not appear to disclose a filter upstream of the check valve. In the same field of endeavor of brake systems, Hagspiel teaches (fig. 1) a braking system (12) including a check valve (adjacent to 36) having a filter upstream of the check valve (diamond as shown, see also pgh. 0045). 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 the filter upstream of the check valve to prevent debris from entering the check valve, thereby ensuring proper sealing.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isono et al. (U.S. 6604795) in view of Hagspiel et al. (U.S. 2015/0344009), and further in view of Besier et al. (U.S. 2019/0031165).
Regarding claim 15, while Isono discloses the rotation/translation conversion gear is coaxial with the cylinder (see 114,148,102,110,106 all coaxial with one another), it does not disclose the first electric motor also being coaxial therewith. In the same field of endeavor of brake control systems, Besier teaches (fig. 1) a piston-cylinder unit (32) with electric motor (32) coaxial with the rotation/translation mechanism (see pgh. 0036 and fig. 1 as shown) and the first piston (48). 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 the electric motor coaxial with the associated piston to eliminate the need for additional transfer gears required for providing the motor in parallel to the piston, thereby simplifying the construction of the piston-cylinder unit.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isono et al. (U.S. 6604795) in view of Hagspiel et al. (U.S. 2015/0344009), and further in view of Besier et al. (U.S. 2017/0282877).
Regarding claim 16, Isono does not appear to disclose a redundant power supply and/or electronic control. In the same field of endeavor of brake control systems, Besier teaches (fig. 1) a first electronic control (ECU1) and power supply (70) associated with the first electric motor (35) and piston-cylinder unit (5), and a second electronic control (ECU2) and power supply (170) associated with the power brake pressure generators (142). 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 redundant control and power supply of the power brake pressure generator and piston-cylinder unit respectively to ensure brake pressurization in the case of one of the two systems failing, thereby improving safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 18 have been considered but are moot because a new reference was added to the rejection to address the newly added claim limitations, therefore the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights