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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification fails to disclose an open state for the third shut-off valve when both the first and second pressure units are operating normally, as recited in instant claim 6. Figure 7 appears to contradict this operation, as does paragraph 166.
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 and 7 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 and the matter of the third shut-off valve being open when both the first and second pressure units are operating normally, it is unclear if this situation is what the applicant intends to claim as the invention, since the specification fails to state this situation. In addition, it is unclear why the third shut-off valve would remain open, thus communicating the master cylinder to the wheel cylinders if the first and second pressure units are operating normally. This would appear to cause an overpressure issue. The prior art of Besier will be applied in accordance with the instant disclosure.
Claim 7 is rejected due to its 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0031165 A1 to Besier et al.
Re-claim 1, Besier et al. disclose a brake device mounted on a vehicle, the brake device comprising: a first fluid pressure unit 28 supplies brake fluid to at least one first wheel cylinder 6/8 (see figure 1); a second fluid pressure unit 32 supplies brake fluid to at least one second wheel cylinder 10/12; a connection pipe (pipes 290/296) connect the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit to allow the brake fluid to flow therethrough; the first fluid pressure unit includes a first shut-off valve 100 which blocks flow of the brake fluid relative to the connection pipe 290, a first control unit 250 controls opening and closing of the first shut-off valve 100 (see paragraph 66), the second fluid pressure unit includes a second shut-off valve 108 which blocks flow of the brake fluid relative to the connection pipe 296, a second control unit 254 controls opening and closing of the second shut-off valve 108, the first control unit and the second control unit respectively open the first shut-off valve and the second shut-off valve in a case where a failure of at least one of the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit is detected (see at least paragraphs 65-66).
Re-claim 2, the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit have a same configuration, see figure 1.
Re-claim 3, the first shut-off valve and the second shut-off valve are electromagnetic valves which are blocked by electrification, the first control unit 250 and the second control unit 254 stop electrification to the first shut-off valve by the first control unit and stop electrification to the second shut-off valve by the second control unit in a case where a failure of either the first fluid pressure unit or the second fluid pressure unit is detected. Each unit is capable of operating the shut-off valves as required.
Re-claim 4, the first fluid pressure unit includes a first pressure feeding unit (i.e. pump 52) which pressure-feeds the brake fluid, and a first pressure adjustment unit (such as opening and closing of valves and movement of the pump pistons) which adjusts a fluid pressure of the brake fluid, the first pressure adjustment unit is connected to the first shut-off valve, and communicates with the connection pipe by opening the first shut-off valve (see at least paragraphs 57-58). It is noted that valves 112/116 can be interpreted as the first shut-off valves.
Re-claim 5, the second fluid pressure unit includes a second pressure feeding unit 56 which pressure-feeds the brake fluid, and a second pressure adjustment unit (associated valves, see figure 1) which adjusts a fluid pressure of the brake fluid, and the second pressure adjustment unit is connected to the second shut-off valve, and communicates with the connection pipe by opening the second shut-off valve. It is noted that valves 120/124 can be interpreted as the second shut-off valves.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0276963 A1 to Zimmermann.
Re-claim 1, Zimmermann discloses a brake device mounted on a vehicle, the brake device comprising: a first fluid pressure unit 5 supplies brake fluid to at least one first wheel cylinder 8c/8d; a second fluid pressure unit 2 supplies brake fluid to at least one second wheel cylinder 8a/8b; a connection pipe 13 connects the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit to allow the brake fluid to flow therethrough; the first fluid pressure unit includes a first shut-off valve 61 which blocks flow of the brake fluid relative to the connection pipe, a first control unit A controls opening and closing of the first shut-off valve 61 (see paragraph 66), the second fluid pressure unit includes a second shut-off valve 62 which blocks flow of the brake fluid relative to the connection pipe, a second control unit B controls opening and closing of the second shut-off valve 62 (paragraph 66), the first control unit and the second control unit respectively open the first shut-off valve and the second shut-off valve in a case where a failure of at least one of the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit is detected (see at least paragraphs 71-75).
Re-claim 2, the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit have a same configuration, see figure.
Re-claim 3, the first shut-off valve and the second shut-off valve are electromagnetic valves which are blocked by electrification, the first control unit A and the second control unit B stop electrification to the first shut-off valve by the first control unit and stop electrification to the second shut-off valve by the second control unit in a case where a failure of either the first fluid pressure unit or the second fluid pressure unit is detected. The figure indicates each shut-off valve is controlled by a respective unit.
Re-claim 4, the first fluid pressure unit includes a first pressure feeding unit 75 which pressure-feeds the brake fluid, and a first pressure adjustment unit (such as opening and closing of valves 6c/d – 7c/d) which adjusts a fluid pressure of the brake fluid, the first pressure adjustment unit is connected to the first shut-off valve, and communicates with the connection pipe by opening the first shut-off valve.
Re-claim 5, the second fluid pressure unit includes a second pressure feeding unit 72 which pressure-feeds the brake fluid, and a second pressure adjustment unit (valves 6a/b to 7a/b) which adjusts a fluid pressure of the brake fluid, and the second pressure adjustment unit is connected to the second shut-off valve, and communicates with the connection pipe by opening the second shut-off valve.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besier et al. in view of US 2008/0234909 A1 to Iwasaki et al.
Re-claim 6, Besier et al. further teach a master cylinder and third shut-off valve 96/104. The shut-off valves are closed (not open as stated in the instant claim) in a case where both the first fluid pressure unit 28 and the second fluid pressure unit 32 are normal (figure 3); blocks the third shut-off valve in a case where a failure of either of the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit is detected (such as shown in figure 4, third shut-off valves are closed during malfunction of unit 32); and opens the third shut-off valve in a case where a failure of both the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit is detected (as shown in figure 6). However, Besier et al. fail to teach a third control unit that controls the opening and closing of the third shut-off valve.
Iwasaki et al. teach a brake system having a master control unit (i.e. third) as well as individual sub-units that are each assigned to a respective fluid pressure unit (see figure 18). Third shut-off valves, or master cylinder separating valves S OFF/V (figures 19 and 20) are controlled by the main ECU 300 (see paragraph 46). This provides a high level control for the master cylinder separating valves that is independent of the control units assigned to the pressure units. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the third shut-off valves of Besier et al. with a third control unit (or higher level unit) as taught by Iwasaki et al., thus providing an additional level of redundancy not found in Besier et al.
Re-claim 7, the third shut-off valve is an electromagnetic valve which is closed by electrification and opened by non- electrification, electrification to the third shut-off valve is stopped in a case a failure is detected in both the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leiber, Maj, Drotleff, and Di Stefano each teach a first and second pressure unit having first and second control units.
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
December 31, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616