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) 14, 15, 19, 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2016 202224 A1 to Neu et al.
Re-claim 14, Neu et al. disclose a method for regulating a hydraulic brake system, the method comprising: carrying out a holding mode in response to a reduced availability of a linear actuator 5 (such as minimizing thermal overload during a stop request, see page 2 paragraph 6 “During the stoppage of the vehicle, the driver can request a high pressure as desired by appropriate pedal actuation, which is provided by the pressure supply device. A long pressure request results in a high current on the linear actuator. After some time, this high current can lead to the thermal overloading of the components involved, such as the integrated circuits (IC), electronic components, printed conductors, but also copper windings in the electric motor, which can damage or even destroy the system”), a hydraulic pressure in a plurality of wheel brakes is shut in utilizing a valve arrangement 26 and a power output of the linear actuator is reduced (see page 5, “the electricity at the electric motor 35 is reduced”); measuring a system pressure gradient in the holding mode (see page 3 paragraph 6); and carrying out a transition from the holding mode into an alternative mode based on the system pressure gradient, the reduced availability of the linear actuator is detected if a temperature assigned to the linear actuator exceeds a threshold value (see page 4 paragraph 8, a temperature sensor is assigned to the motor winding). It is apparent the sensor is utilized to determine when an excessive temperature value is reached, thus preventing the thermal overload.
Re-claim 15, determining the system pressure has dropped in the holding mode; the carrying out the transition from the holding mode into the alternative mode is further defined as carrying out the transition from the holding mode into the alternative mode in response to the system pressure dropping below a threshold value (see page 3 paragraph 6, and the resupply mode).
Re-claim 19, the holding mode is carried out when the motor vehicle is in a standstill state, such as hill holding or stopped.
Re-claim 22, the alternative mode is a cooperative mode, in which an additional hydraulic pressure provision device is actuated in order to increase the shut-in pressure, and subsequently a switchover is carried out again into the holding mode.
Re-claim 26, Neu et al. disclose a hydraulic brake system for a motor vehicle comprising: a linear actuator 5 as a driver-independent pressure provision device; a hydraulic valve arrangement 26 disposed between the linear actuator and wheel brakes of the vehicle; and a control device configured to carry out a holding mode in response to a reduced availability of the linear actuator (such as thermal overload), the hydraulic pressure in the wheel brakes is shut in utilizing the valve arrangement and a power output of the linear actuator is reduced, measure the system pressure gradient in the holding mode, and carry out a transition from the holding mode into an alternative mode based on the system pressure gradient, the reduced availability of the linear actuator is detected if a temperature assigned to the linear actuator exceeds a threshold value (see page 4 paragraph 8, a temperature sensor is assigned to the motor winding). It is apparent the sensor is utilized to determine when an excessive temperature value is reached, thus preventing the thermal overload.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neu et al. in view of US 2014/0372004 A1 to Kinoshita.
Re-claim 16, Neu et al. fail to teach the threshold is set based on a roadway gradient.
Kinoshita et al. teach a hill hold method in which a hydraulic pressure value target value for holding a vehicle against rolling away is set based on a roadway gradient (see at least paragraph 8). This would provide a sufficient hydraulic brake force for maintaining the vehicle in place and against rolling away. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the locked in hydraulic pressure of Neu et al. as a function of and based upon a roadway gradient as taught by Kinoshita et al., thus ensuring the vehicle would remain stationary.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neu et al. in view of US 10,654,459 to Englert et al.
Re-claim 18, Neu et al. fail to teach a replenishing mode based on the system pressure gradient and the availability of the linear actuator, wherein in the replenishing mode the shut-in pressure is increased by way of the linear actuator and subsequently a switchover is carried out again into the holding mode.
Englert et al. teach a replenishing mode based on the system pressure gradient and the availability of the linear actuator, wherein in the replenishing mode the shut-in pressure is increased by way of the linear actuator and subsequently a switchover is carried out again into the holding mode, see column 5 lines 21-54. This provides a means of providing a subsequent supply of fluid pressure to the wheel cylinder, thus compensating for fluid pressure loss. 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 system of Neu et al. with a method of replenishment or subsequent supply of fluid as taught by Englert et al., so as to compensate for any fluid pressure loss experienced during the pressure hold condition.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neu et al. in view of US 2013/0162010 A1 to Koyama et al.
Re-claims 20 and 21, Neu et al. fail to teach the alternative mode is not a hydraulic fallback level (as per claim 20), or a parking brake mode, in the case of which an electromechanical parking brake of the motor vehicle is applied and the hydraulic brake system is deactivated, as a result of which the vehicle is held by way of the parking brake (as per claim 21).
Koyama et al. teach a vehicle holding state in which the vehicle is held in position using an electromechanical parking brake (see figure 3C). This mode is not a hydraulic fallback level and is a parking brake mode. This reduces the need for maintain a fluid pressure within the brake cylinder, which minimizes leak issues and strain upon various brake components, such as seals. 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 system of Neu et al. with an electromechanical parking brake in place of the hydraulic fluid as suggested by Koyama et al., as this reduces the stress upon the hydraulic fluid brake system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 24 are allowed.
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The presence of a temperature sensor assigned to the linear actuator indicates the desire to monitor and maintain a temperature below a threshold value (i.e. maximum safe operating temperature), and thereby alert the system that threshold value is exceeded. It stands to reason that the purpose of any temperature sensor associated with a component is to monitor and maintain the component below a threshold value, or temperature level above which damage to the component is likely. For instance, internal combustion engines are provided with temperature sensors for alerting the driver and ECU when a threshold temperature value is exceeded. This reduces the potential damage to the engine. Maximum operating temperatures for various brake components are generally known to those skilled in the art, including the maximum safe operating temperature for a motor winding. This maximum safe operating temperature is interpreted as the threshold value that should not be exceeded during the operation of the linear actuator. As such it is the position of the Office that Neu et al., with the presence of the temperature sensor, intend to monitor the temperature of the linear actuator and take corrective action when the temperature exceeds a safe operating temperature of the motor windings, and by extension the safe operating temperature of the linear actuator. Thus the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizusaki and Jung each teach overload protection with regards to an electric motor.
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 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights