DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 8/7/2026 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending in the application. Claim 5 has been cancelled and claims 13-20 are new.
-The claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 11 accordingly.
-The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 1, 6-9 and 11 accordingly and cancelling claim 5.
-The 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant amending claims 1 and 11 with limitations not disclosed by the prior art of record used in the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first controlled port and the second controlled port" in lines 16 and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to the limitations not being previously recited (introduced) in claim, examiner suggest changing the term “the” to “a” at beginning of each limitation.
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 215154554 (with machine translation). As to claim 1, CN discloses a brake control module, comprising: a first brake control valve formed as a relay valve (31), an output of which is connected to at least one controlled port (output from 31 to 41 or 42); a second brake control valve formed as a relay valve (32), an output of which is connected to a third controlled port (output from 32 to 43 or 44); a third brake control valve formed as a relay valve (33), an output of which is connected to a fourth controlled port (output from 33 to 45 or 46); a processor unit, which is adapted to control brake pressures (vehicle central control system, page 4, lines 7-9); at least one control port (via 12, 14), which is adapted to activate at least one of the brake control valves; wherein the first brake control valve is connected to at least one first compressed air supply port (via 21), and the second brake control valve and the third brake control valve are connected to at least one second compressed air supply port (via 22).
As to claim 2, wherein the output of the first brake control valve has a first controlled port (between 31 and 42) and a second controlled port (between 31 and 41).
As to claim 3, wherein the first brake control valve is connected to a first control port (via 12), and the second brake control valve and the third brake control valve are connected to a second control port (via 14).
As to claim 4, wherein all the components of the brake control module are housed in one housing (would be obvious based on disposition of components as shown in Figure 1).
As to claim 6, wherein: the first controlled port is adapted to be connected to a first brake cylinder (42), which is to the left on a front axle of a vehicle.
As to claim 7, further comprising: a fifth controlled port (output from 32 to 44), which is connected to the output of the second brake control valve, wherein the fifth controlled port is adapted to be connected to a further brake cylinder (44), which is to the left on a further rear axle of a vehicle.
As to claim 11, CN discloses a braking system, comprising: a brake control module, including: a first brake control valve formed as a relay valve (31), an output of which is connected to at least one controlled port (output from 31 to 41 or 42); a second brake control valve formed as a relay valve (32), an output of which is connected to a third controlled port (output from 32 to 43 or 44); a third brake control valve formed as a relay valve (33), an output of which is connected to a fourth controlled port (output from 33 to 45 or 46); a processor unit, which is adapted to control brake pressures (vehicle central control system, page 4, lines 7-9); at least one control port (via 12, 14), which is adapted to activate at least one of the brake control valves; wherein the first brake control valve is connected to at least one first compressed air supply port (via 21), and the second brake control valve and the third brake control valve are connected to at least one second compressed air supply port (via 22), wherein at least one control port is connected to a foot brake module (via 1), wherein the first controlled port is connected to a first brake cylinder (42) via a first ABS valve (page 5, lines 38-42 describes that an electrical ABS can be part of module), wherein the second controlled port is connected to a second brake cylinder (41) via a second ABS valve (page 5, lines 38-42 describes that an electrical ABS can be part of module), wherein the third controlled port is connected to a third brake cylinder (43 or 44), wherein the fourth controlled port is connected to a fourth brake cylinder (45 or 46), wherein the first brake cylinder and the second brake cylinder are assigned to a front axle of a vehicle, and wherein the third brake cylinder and the fourth brake cylinder are assigned to a rear axle of a vehicle (as shown in Figure 1).
As to claim 13, wherein the second controlled port is adapted to be connected to a second brake cylinder (41), which is to the right on a front axle of a vehicle.
As to claim 14, wherein the third controlled port is adapted to be connected to a third brake cylinder (44), which is to the left on a rear axle of a vehicle.
As to claim 15, wherein the fourth controlled port is adapted to be connected to a fourth brake cylinder (45), which is to the right on a rear axle of a vehicle.
As to claim 16, further comprising: a further controlled port (output from 33 to 45), which is connected to the output of the third brake control valve, wherein the further controlled port is adapted to be connected to a further brake cylinder, which is to the right on a further rear axle of a vehicle.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN in view of Lulfing et al 10093293 (previously cited). CN discloses a first, second and third brake control valve, but doesn’t disclose electrically actuated pilot valve assemblies per valve as recited.
Lulfing discloses a brake control module having a first brake control relay valve (18) and a second brake control relay valve (18a) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide each valve with an electrically actuated piloted valve assembly (13 and 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each of the brake valves in CN with electrically actuated piloted valve assemblies in view of Lulfing to provide precise, smooth and responsive braking control by modulating the pressure flow based on signals to enhance safety and performance during complex braking situations as needed.
Claim(s) 9, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN in view of Lulfing et al 10093293 (previously cited). CN discloses a first, second and third brake control valve, but doesn’t disclose a pressure sensor per valve as recited.
Lulfing discloses a brake control module having a first brake control relay valve (18) and a second brake control relay valve (18a) and shows that it is well known in the art to provide each valve with a pressure sensor (22 and 22a).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each of the brake valves in CN with a pressure sensor in view of Lulfing to provide precise, smooth and responsive braking control by detecting modulating pressure flow to enhance safety and performance during complex braking situations as needed.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN in view of Ziegler et al 7284802 (previously cited). CN discloses a brake control module, but doesn’t disclose the module having at least one yaw rate sensor and at least one acceleration sensor as recited.
Ziegler discloses a brake control module and shows that it is well known in the art to have at least one yaw rate sensor and at least one acceleration sensor in the brake control module (column 6, lines 51-52).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the brake control module in CN with a yaw rate and acceleration sensors in view of Ziegler to enhance stability safety and performance of vehicle during braking on low or high friction road surfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-a brake control module having a first brake valve output connected to at least one controlled port; a second brake valve output connected to a third controlled port; a third brake valve output connected to a fourth controlled port; a processor controlling brake pressures; at least one control port activating at least one of the valves; the first valve connected to at least one first compressed air supply port and the second and third valves connected to at least one second compressed air supply port and wherein the first air supply port and a third compressed air supply port are connected to the first valve via a pressure selection valve and in combination with the limitations exactly as written in claim 10.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Bruehmann et al 6089831 (previously cited) discloses a brake control module having at least three compressed air supply ports (37), each connected to overflow valves (40) which further have pilot valve assemblies (44). However, the overflow valves are not considered relay valves as recited (in claims 1 and 11) and further lack a pressure selection valve for connecting two supply ports to one of the valves as recited (in claim 10).
-CN 217374462 (Figure 1; 10, 11 and 14) and CN 109677386 (Figure 1; 14.1-14.3) both disclose brake control modules and shows that it is well known in the art to provide the modules with three brake control relay valves connected to controlled ports.
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 TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 October 7, 2026
