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 Objections
Claims 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of claims 4-6 line 7, the recitation “increases a degree to increase a degree to increase the master pressure” should be reviewed, as it appears repetitive. 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 (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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0020328 A1 to Kusano et al.
Re-claim 1, Kusano et al. disclose a braking control device for a vehicle comprising: a master cylinder TMC having a master chamber CM1/CM2 divided by a master piston 10; a first pressure regulation unit 4 has a servo chamber CO1 and CO2 located on an opposite side of the master piston from the master chamber and supplies a servo pressure to the servo chamber, thus generating a master pressure in the master chamber, the first pressure regulation unit acquires the master pressure and the servo pressure, and determines bottoming out of the master piston on the basis of a comparison between the master pressure (as measured by pressure sensor S2) and the servo pressure (as measured by pressure sensor S1). Paragraph 33 describes a leak detection condition using values from the pressure sensors, with the leak resulting in a bottoming out condition.
Re-claim 2, the first pressure regulation unit makes the comparison on the basis of a pressure-receiving area of the servo chamber and a pressure-receiving area of the master chamber. The pressure sensors are each associated with a pressure receiving area (i.e. chamber space).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0189087 A1 to Kusano et al.
Re-claim 1, Kusano et al. disclose a braking control device for a vehicle comprising: a master cylinder 4 having a master chamber 4b divided by a master piston 4a; a first pressure regulation unit 5 has a servo chamber 9 located on an opposite side of the master piston 4a from the master chamber 4b and supplies a servo pressure to the servo chamber, thus generating a master pressure in the master chamber, the first pressure regulation unit acquires the master pressure and the servo pressure (unit 15), and determines bottoming out of the master piston on the basis of a comparison between the master pressure (as measured by pressure sensor 14) and the servo pressure (as measured by pressure sensor 13). Paragraphs 39-42 describe the bottoming out determination.
Re-claim 2, the first pressure regulation unit makes the comparison on the basis of a pressure-receiving area of the servo chamber 9 and a pressure-receiving area of the master chamber 4b.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusano et al. (US ‘328 or US ‘087) in view of US 2018/0118181 A1 to Maki et al.
Kusano et al. fails to teach the first pressure regulation unit determines occurrence of the bottoming out in the case where a difference between the servo pressure and the master pressure is equal to or greater than a predetermined pressure.
Maki et al. teach a bottoming out determination unit 61 that has first pressure regulation unit determining occurrence of the bottoming out in the case where a difference between the servo pressure and the master pressure is equal to or greater than a predetermined pressure (see paragraph 36 and “detection value is equal to or greater than the determination value”). This provides an accurate picture of the condition within the system, by minimizing a false bottoming out signal. As such 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 regulating unit (ECU) of Kusano et al. with a predetermined pressure value for determining the bottoming out condition as taught by Maki et al., thereby minimizing false signals.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusano et al. (US ‘328 or US ‘087) in view of US 6,805,415 to Isono et al.
Re-claims 5 and 6, Kusano et al. fail to teach measures taken when determining the bottoming out condition, specifically a second pressure regulation unit that is provided between the master cylinder and a wheel cylinder and can increase and supply the master pressure to the wheel cylinder, wherein the second pressure regulation unit increases a degree [to increase a degree] to increase the master pressure when the occurrence of the bottoming out is determined in comparison with a case where the occurrence of the bottoming out is not determined.
Isono et al. teach a system responsive to a determined leakage condition, the response utilizes a second pressure regulation unit (at least 150 and/or 152) provided between a master cylinder and a wheel cylinder and can increase and supply the master pressure to the wheel cylinder, the second pressure regulation unit increases a degree [to increase a degree] to increase the master pressure when the occurrence of the bottoming out is determined in comparison with a case where the occurrence of the bottoming out is not determined. The fluid leakage is associated with a bottoming out condition. This response provides sufficient fluid pressure to the wheel brakes. 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 during bottomed out condition in Kusano et al. with a fluid pressure response of the type taught by Isono et al., thus providing a sufficient pressure to the wheel cylinders during a leak condition.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusano et al. (US ‘328 or US ‘087) in view of Maki et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Isono et al.
Kusano et al. fail to teach measures taken when determining the bottoming out condition, specifically a second pressure regulation unit that is provided between the master cylinder and a wheel cylinder and can increase and supply the master pressure to the wheel cylinder, wherein the second pressure regulation unit increases a degree [to increase a degree] to increase the master pressure when the occurrence of the bottoming out is determined in comparison with a case where the occurrence of the bottoming out is not determined.
Isono et al. teach a system responsive to a determined leakage condition, the response utilizes a second pressure regulation unit (at least 150 and/or 152) provided between a master cylinder and a wheel cylinder and can increase and supply the master pressure to the wheel cylinder, the second pressure regulation unit increases a degree [to increase a degree] to increase the master pressure when the occurrence of the bottoming out is determined in comparison with a case where the occurrence of the bottoming out is not determined. The fluid leakage is associated with a bottoming out condition. This response provides sufficient fluid pressure to the wheel brakes. 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 during bottomed out condition in Kusano et al. with a fluid pressure response of the type taught by Isono et al., thus providing a sufficient pressure to the wheel cylinders during a leak condition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okana teaches comparison of pressure values to determine a fluid leakage.
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
April 6, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights