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
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 or figure 7); 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 independently open the first shut-off valve and the second shut-off valve, respectively, 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).
Each shut-off valve 100/108 is controlled by a designated (primary) controller. In addition, the claim language does not preclude further operations of each controller, as the preamble does contain the phrase “comprising”. Furthermore, as seen in figure 7 of Besier et al., each shut-off valve 100/108 is provided with a single solenoid, indicating a designated control carried out by the controller that is part of that pressure unit, such as controller 250 operating valve 100 and controller 254 operating valve 108.
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, 8 and 9 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 independently open the first shut-off valve and the second shut-off valve, respectively, 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). As disclosed in paragraph 66, first shut-off valve 61 is assigned to control unit A (or first control unit), and second shut-off valve 62 is assigned to control unit B (or second control unit). The figures further show a single solenoid (actuating coil) with each valve which is indicative of a control by a single control unit. This position is further supported by the disclosure in paragraph 67 which describes a dual control feature having two actuating coils per valve.
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.
Re-claim 8, the first pressure adjustment unit 5 comprises: a first pressure increasing control valve 6c/6d; a first pressure reducing control valve 7c/7d are coupled to the first pressure increasing control valve; a first communication valve 26 is coupled to the first pressure increasing control valve 6c/6d, the first pressure reducing control valve 7c/7d, the first wheel cylinder 8c/8d, and the first shut-off valve 61; when pressure is increased, the first pressure increasing control valve is opened and the first pressure reducing control valve is closed (as is common with a pressure increasing request); when the pressure is reduced, the first pressure increasing control valve is closed and the first pressure reducing control valve is opened (as is common with a pressure reduction operation); the adjusted pressure is output to the first wheel cylinder and the first shut-off valve by opening the first communication valve.
Re-claim 9, the second pressure adjustment unit 2 comprises: a second pressure increasing control valve 6a/6b; a second pressure reducing control valve 7a/7b are coupled to the second pressure increasing control valve; a second communication valve 27 is coupled to the second pressure increasing control valve, the second pressure reducing control valve, the second wheel cylinder 8a/8b, the second shut-off valve; when pressure is increased, the second pressure increasing control valve is opened and the second pressure reducing control valve is closed; when the pressure is reduced, the second pressure increasing control valve is closed and the second pressure reducing control valve is opened; the adjusted pressure is output to the second wheel cylinder and the second shut-off valve by opening the second communication 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, 7 and 10 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 164 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.
Re-claim 10, the brake device further includes: a stroke simulator 158 coupled to the master cylinder 164 by the connection pipe to receive brake fluid from the master cylinder and generate a brake pedal reaction force; a stroke simulator cut valve 150 is coupled between the master cylinder and the stroke simulator in the connection pipe (in the same manner as the instant invention, as it is noted that stroke simulator is shown as upstream of the connection pipe, 519 instant figure 6). However, Besier et al. fail to teach the third control unit closes the stroke simulator cut valve in a case where both the first fluid pressure unit and the second fluid pressure unit are normal.
Iwasaki et al. teach a brake system having pedal simulator S/Sim connected to a master cylinder via a simulator valve Can/V (see at least figures 10 and 18). Iwasaki et al. further teach a master control unit 300 (i.e. third) as well as individual sub-units that are each assigned to a respective fluid pressure unit (see figure 18) and controlling various valves (see control line to Can/V. This provides a high level of control for the simulator valve 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 assigned control of the simulator valve in Besier et al. with the 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to Besier et al., as noted above, the claim language fails to specifically recite and thus claim that each shut-off valve is solely controlled by just one control unit. The currently presented claim does not recite this feature. Additionally, it is noted that Besier et al. disclose in at least figure 7 the shut-off valves having each only one actuating coil (solenoid), which implies that each valve in question is controlled by a single control unit. Thus the rejection in view of Besier is maintained.
With regards to Zimmermann, the remarks regarding the control of isolating valves 26 are considered. However, it is noted that these valves and their control is not relied upon in the above rejection. The Office interprets valves 61 and 62 as the shut-off valves, and it is shown in the figure as well as disclosed in paragraph 66 that each of these valves have an independent control. Valve 61 is controlled independently and solely by control unit A, whereas valve 62 is controlled independently and solely by control unit B. As such the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jungbecker teaches a brake system incorporated by reference in Zimmermann.
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 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 /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights