DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Redundancy Control and Power Supply for Hydraulic Brake Motor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Zimmermann (U.S. Pat. No. 11,414,062).
Regarding claim 14, Zimmermann discloses a brake system for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of hydraulic output ports (lines connected to 7a-d, 3), each output port allowing connection of a hydraulically activatable wheel brake;
an electrically actuatable hydraulic pressure source (2, 5 are both sources) including a cylinder- piston (shown in fig. 1) assembly having a pressure chamber (20) and a piston (21), wherein the piston is configured to be actuated forward and backward with an electric motor (22 causes the actuation);
Note: the “including” language sounds like there are many parts in this comprising claim. It is suggested to change to “a pressure source that is a single electrically actuatable motor with a cylinder and pressure chamber”
a first electronic control and feedback-control unit; a second electronic control and feedback-control unit (col. 7, lines 39-45 discloses the two control and feedback systems A,B);
a pressure medium reservoir (4) which is under atmospheric pressure (abstract states that the medium reservoir is at atmospheric pressure);
a plurality of electrically activatable inlet valves (6a-b), each inlet valve hydraulically connected directly between the pressure source and one of the output ports (shown in fig. 1), each inlet valve being open when non-energized (col. 6, lines 10-11) and having a compression spring and a solenoid coil; and
a plurality of electrically activatable outlet valves (7a-b), each outlet valve hydraulically connected directly between the pressure medium reservoir and one of the outlet ports (shown in fig. 1), each outlet valve being closed when non-energized (col. 6, lines 27-28);
wherein the electric motor of the pressure source is actuatable by either of the first and second electronic control and feedback-control units (B controls 2 and A controls 5); and
wherein each of the inlet valves is a 2/2-way valve (shown is a valve that is either open or closed) and in such a manner that the inlet valve may be closed in response to pressure differences from both directions by actuating the solenoid coil (these are valves that can be closed when actuating the coil), and may be opened in response to pressure differences from both directions by switching off or reducing the actuation of the solenoid coil (the valves are normally open valves when the coil is not energized).
Regarding claim 16 which depends on 14, Zimmermann discloses wherein no check valve is connected in parallel with any of the inlet valves, and none of the inlet valves includes an integrated check valve (no check valves are disclosed in those locations).
Regarding claim 17 which depends on 14, Zimmermann discloses wherein the compression spring of each inlet valve is dimensioned in such a manner that the inlet valve may be opened in relation to a negative pressure difference over the inlet valve by switching off the actuation of the solenoid coil (the valve is a open valve when deenergized and so as long as the negative pressure is small enough to not increase friction it would open).
Regarding claim 18 which depends on 14, Zimmermann discloses wherein no valve is disposed between the pressure chamber of the pressure source and each of the inlet valves (shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19 which depends on 14, Zimmermann discloses wherein the inlet and outlet valves are the only electrically activatable valves (in the lines shown).
Regarding claim 20 which depends on 14, Zimmermann discloses wherein each electrically actuatable valve is activated by the first electronic control and feedback-control unit (col. 8, lines 13-19).
Regarding claim 21 which depends on 14, Zimmermann discloses further comprising only one pressure sensor, wherein the pressure generated by the pressure source is determined by the pressure sensor, and the signals of the pressure sensor are supplied to and evaluated by the first electronic control and feedback-control unit (there is only one pressure sensor for HA brakes).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann (U.S. Pat. No. 11,414,062) as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 15 which depends on 14, Zimmermann does not disclose wherein each of the inlet valves may be closed and opened in response to a pressure difference from both directions of a value up to 120 bar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a solenoid that can open a valve with a 120 bar pressure difference, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The problem is solved by providing a solenoid that is powerful enough to overcome the forces at the desired pressure difference.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann (U.S. Pat. No. 11,414,062) in view of Schuller (U.S. Pat. No. 10,864,898).
Regarding claim 24, Zimmermann discloses a method for operating a brake system of a motor vehicle, the brake system including a plurality of hydraulic output ports, each output port allowing connection of a hydraulically activatable wheel brake, an electrically actuatable hydraulic pressure source including a cylinder-piston assembly having a pressure chamber and a piston, wherein the piston is configured to be actuated forward and backward with an electric motor, a first electronic control and feedback-control unit, a second electronic control and feedback-control unit, a pressure medium reservoir which is under atmospheric pressure, a plurality of electrically activatable inlet valves, each inlet valve hydraulically connected between the pressure source and one of the output ports, each inlet valve being open when non-energized and having a compression spring and a solenoid coil, and a plurality of electrically activatable outlet valves, each outlet valve hydraulically connected between the pressure medium reservoir and one of the outlet ports, each outlet valve being closed when non-energized, wherein the electric motor of the pressure source is actuatable by either of the first and second electronic control and feedback-control units, and wherein each of the inlet valves is a 2/2-way valve and in such a manner that the inlet valve may be closed in response to pressure differences from both directions by actuating the solenoid coil, and may be opened in response to pressure differences from both directions by switching off or reducing the actuation of the solenoid coil (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 14), said method comprising.
Zimmermann does not disclose maintaining the feeding pressure medium into the pressure chamber of the pressure source by closing the inlet valves; and retracting the piston of the pressure source with the electric motor.
Schuller, which deals in hydraulic brakes, teaches maintaining the feeding pressure medium into the pressure chamber of the pressure source by closing the inlet valves; and retracting the piston of the pressure source with the electric motor (col. 3, lines 21-36 discloses this process).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Zimmermann to maintain pressure in the way of Schuller because so that a pressure is maintained and not fed back to the fluid container (col. 3, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 25 which depends on 24, Schuller discloses further comprising: advancing the piston of the pressure source with the electric motor when the inlet valves are closed until the pressure of the pressure source approximately equals the pressures of the wheel brakes; and opening the inlet valves in response to the pressure of the pressure source approximately equals the pressures of the wheel brakes (col. 3, lines 55-63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22, 23, 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 22: the claim requires one motor have two sensors detecting the speed so that each sensor can be feeding information to a respective controller in which either controller is able to control and power the motor.
Claim 23: The claim requires two controllers that each independently control a respective parking brake of a rear axle.
Claim 26: The claim requires a model of the pressure medium that is checked by a pressure sensor to then be compared to the pressure value determined by a calculation of the displaced volume in order to determine pressure in the chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 7 that the title has been amended. The submitted title is still not sufficiently descriptive of the invention.
Applicant argues on page 8 and 9 that the inlet valves are not directly between the pressure source and output. Where valve 9 is placed in between some of the valves and the pressure source this is not true of all the valves and so the office action has removed the ones that do not address the limitation.
Applicant argues on page 8 that claim 16 is not addressed because the check valves are shown in the drawings. The reference does not disclose any check valves in the disclosure at all. Where drawings have been made that seem to include other items they are not disclosed as being a part of the disclosed invention.
Applicant argues on page 10 for the limitation of claim 21 requiring only one pressure sensor. The circuit as it is now being used, since the other valves do not qualify as addressing the limitations, only has one pressure sensor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights