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 § 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.
Claims 4, 5, 7-12 and 14-16 are 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 4 recites the limitation "the upper limit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 line 5, it is unclear if the recitation “a pedal force at the upper limit value” is intended to reference an upper limit value of the pedal force (cl. 3 lines 1-2) or another pedal force.
Claims 7-12, it is unclear if the recitation “a malfunction” is intended to reference the previously recited malfunction (cl.1 line 6), or another malfunction.
Claim 14, it is unclear if the recitations “a hydraulic braking mechanism”, “a brake cylinder”, “a displaceable piston”, “a braking torque”, “an electromechanical parking brake”, and “a control device” are intended to reference these limitations previously recited.
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, 2, 7, 10, 11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0324751 A1 to Englert et al.
Re-claim 1, Englert et al. disclose a method for operating a braking system of a motor vehicle, the braking system comprises an electromechanical parking brake (see paragraph 4) secures the parked motor vehicle, and a hydraulic braking mechanism (paragraph 4) brakes the motor vehicle, the hydraulic braking mechanism includes a brake cylinder 22 having a displaceable piston 16 and hydraulic fluid in order to generate a braking torque, the method comprising: if a malfunction of the hydraulic braking mechanism is present, generating an additional braking torque by way of the parking brake (using motor 13) in order to brake the motor vehicle; and adjusting the additional braking torque generated by the parking brake so that, within in a linear range, the torque depends on a pedal force exerted on the brake pedal by the driver when a brake pedal of the motor vehicle is pressed. The braking force applied by the electromechanical brake is linear or substantially linear, see paragraph 9.
Re-claim 2, Englert et al. disclose empirically determined linear relationships between the pedal and generated torque (see paragraphs 12-13).
Re-claim 7, the malfunction is present if, compared to a nominal state without malfunction, it is more difficult or impossible to suction the hydraulic fluid from a hydraulic fluid reservoir into the brake cylinder by way of a hydraulic support mechanism of the braking system. Figure 4 shows a nominal state without malfunction (gradient Fe,g) versus a malfunction state (gradient F’e,g), it is noted the lead lines appear to be incorrect. Paragraph 7 further details problems associated with a malfunctioning hydraulic system.
Re-claim 10, the malfunction is present if an actual system stiffness of the braking system, which depends on the displaced hydraulic volume of hydraulic fluid when the piston is displaced and on the braking force generated by way of the displaced hydraulic volume, is less than a minimum permissible threshold value, and the system stiffness is determined by determining a pressure increase in the hydraulic fluid as a function of a hydraulic volume of hydraulic fluid moved when the piston is displaced. Paragraphs 14-16 discuss caliper stiffness and malfunctioning hydraulic system, the pressure is a known function of the volume, in that a low volume of fluid will result in a low pressure.
Re-claim 11, the malfunction is present if an operating temperature of the braking system exceeds a first predetermined maximum value. Englert et al. discuss the temperature of the caliper as affecting the stiffness, the stiffness value has a set or known value (paragraphs 14-15)
Re-claim 13, control unit 11 functions as a control device, and is programmed to carry out the method of controlling the various brake devices.
Re-claim 14, the method is applied to a brake system of a motor vehicle, and is provided with the control device 11.
Re-claim 15, the brake system includes a hydraulic support mechanism (see figure 1 and hydraulic elements 8), see also booster 10 which is operated by an electric motor (see paragraph 29).
Re-claim 16, the hydraulic support mechanism is an ESP system, or stability control system that includes ABS, ASR or traction control.
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) 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert et al.
Re-claim 3, Englert et al. fail to specify the linear range is limited to an upper limit value of the pedal force. However, it stands to reason that the pedal force as applied by the operator would be the requested upper limit of brake force, and as such the upper limit of the linear range. As any value above the pedal force would be beyond the request of the operator. 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 as upper limit to the linear range, thus limiting the application of brake force to the requested pedal force.
Re-claims 4 and 6, the recited values of the upper limit, and additional braking torque are within the knowledge and scope of those skilled in the art, as these recited values do not appear to solve any stated problem in the art or are indicated as pertinent to the invention. 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 selected the recited values such as the upper limit being approximately 0.2 kN and the additional braking torque of 0.1 m/s2 generated by the parking brake when the brake pedal is pressed at a pedal force of 10 N, and/or in the event of a malfunction, an additional braking torque of 2 m/s2 is generated by the parking brake when the brake pedal is pressed at a pedal force of 200 N, when having carried out the operations of the electromechanical brake of Englert et al., as these values are known to those skilled in the art or would have been determined during routine testing for best optimization of the electromechanical brake.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 9 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Groh and Nishikawa each teach a method for operating a vehicle brake using an electromechanical brake.
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 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights