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 § 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 US 2004/0189087 A1 to Kusano et al. in view of US 2018/0118181 A1 to Maki et al.
Kusano et al. teach 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.
However, Kusano et al. fail 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 by comparing a detected pressure value (i.e. operational value equivalent to a servo pressure value in Kusano et al.) and a determination value (a set maximum master pressure value). This comparison results in a difference value, or predetermined pressure value, the difference value of zero is indicative of an equal pressure value between the detected value and the determination value. Thus this equal value result is the limitation “where a difference between the servo pressure and the master pressure is equal … than a predetermined pressure”. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The now amended claim 6 including a changing calculation method for a target differential pressure is not found in the art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is the position of the Office that Maki et al. and their teachings regarding a comparison of a detected value and a determination value are pertinent to the instant claim and the recited limitation that determines the bottoming out. A difference value is obtained when comparing two values in Maki et al., the difference value is either zero, meaning equal, or a value greater than zero. It is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art, when having looked at the disclosure of Maki et al. and their comparison of pressure values for determining a bottoming out condition would have recognized the application to the measured values recorded in Kusano et al. It stands to reason that a servo pressure value (i.e. detection value of Maki et al.) at least reaching a master pressure value (i.e. determination value of Maki et al.) resulting in an equal result, and thus a difference of zero or being equal, is applicable to the limitations recited in the instant claim. As such the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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
September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights