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.
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) 1-3, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0050739 A1 to Koepff et al. in view of US 2021/0394729 A1 to Seol.
Re-claims 1 and 2, Koepff et al. teach (in figure 10) a braking control device that controls braking force to be applied to a first wheel VL, a second wheel VR, a third wheel HR, and a fourth wheel HL, the braking control device comprising: a first main instruction unit E1(as part of 40), a second main instruction unit E2 (as part of 42), when both of the first main instruction unit and the second main instruction unit are functioning properly, the first main instruction unit E1 gives instructions of braking force to be applied to the first wheel VL and the third wheel HR, the second main instruction unit E2 gives instructions of braking force to be applied to the second wheel VR and the fourth wheel HL, a failure causes only the second main instruction unit, out of the first main instruction unit and the second main instruction unit, to function properly, the second main instruction unit takes over a task of giving the instruction of braking force to be applied to the first wheel VL (via actuation of valve EVBVL and separator 402, see paragraph 42). However, Koepff et al. fail to teach a backup instruction unit as instruction units that instruct braking force to be applied to the wheels, and the instruction for the braking force to be applied to the first wheel and the braking force to applied to the third wheel are shared between the second main instruction unit and the backup instruction unit; or the backup instruction unit takes over a task of giving the instruction of braking force to be applied to the third wheel and the fourth wheel (as per claim 2).
Seol teach a brake system having first 300, second 400 and backup control units, the backup being the parking brake control unit 600. During failure events of the first unit 300, the second unit takes control of the front wheels and the parking brake unit 600 takes over control of the rear wheels, see figure 9 and paragraphs 109-112, and braking force instructions are shared between the second main instruction unit and the backup instruction unit (i.e. parking brake unit) via a communication unit 700. This reduces the load on the hydraulic actuators and reduces the need for driver intervention, as well as share brake force information between units, particularly when having a diagonal hydraulic of the type shown in figure 10 of Koepff et al. 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 Koepff et al. with a backup or parking brake unit for providing control of the third and fourth wheel (i.e. rear wheels) as taught and suggested by Seol, as this would have reduced the load required of the still functioning hydraulic system and would have reduced the need for push-through/manual driver intervention.
Re-claims 3 and 17, Koepff et al. further teach a first wheel actuator HP (as part of unit 40) that generates a hydraulic pressure in a wheel cylinder in the first wheel VL; a second wheel actuator HP (as part of unit 42) that generates a hydraulic pressure in a wheel cylinder in the second wheel VR; a first switching mechanism (such as EVBVL) switches between a state for blocking communication between the wheel cylinder in the first wheel and the wheel cylinder in the second wheel, and a state for allowing the communication, wherein the first main instruction unit gives an instruction of braking force to be applied to the first wheel by giving an instruction of a hydraulic pressure to be generated, to the first wheel actuator, the second main instruction unit gives an instruction of braking force to be applied to the second wheel by giving an instruction of a hydraulic pressure to be generated, to the second wheel actuator, and when the failure occurs, the second main instruction unit switches the first switching mechanism from the state for blocking the communication to the state for allowing the communication, and gives instructions of braking force to be applied to the first wheel and the second wheel, by giving an instruction of a hydraulic pressure to be generated, to the second wheel actuator. E2 controls valve EVBVL such that fluid pressure is provided to separator 402, which in turn provides a pressure buildup in the first wheel cylinder VL.
Re-claims 13 and 20, when the failure occurs, the second main instruction unit E2 gives instructions for applying same braking force to the first wheel VL and to the second wheel VR.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12, 14-16 and 19 are 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 July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks regarding Koepff et al. as modified by Seol have been considered. However, it is the position of the Office that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of having functional control of all four wheel brakes of a vehicle during a failure mode of a first main instruction unit. With regards to Koepff et al., during a fail condition of unit E1, unit E2 will operate three of the four available wheel brakes. This would lead to greater braking distances than during periods when all four wheel brakes are operating. The teachings of Seol and their use of a parking brake control unit as a backup to at least one of a failed unit enables the continued use of all available wheel brakes. By extending the teachings of Seol to the system of Koepff et al. one could provide control to the uncontrolled third wheel brake HR, being the right rear wheel brake as this brake is not connected to circuit 42 (as shown in figure 10). Thus the combination provides control at all four wheel brakes, which would lead to shorter braking distances and improved control over the vehicle.
Regarding the now amended claim language, it is noted that coordination between the still functioning units would have provided a consistent brake regulation between the wheel brakes, which is desirable for vehicle control. As such it is the position of the Office that the claim is properly rejected, and as such the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zipfel teaches a first, second and third brake control units.
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 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights