DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been received and considered.
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.
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) 1,2,4,6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113525317 A in view of Leiber 12,005,870 .
Regarding claim 1 CN ‘317 shows in figures 1-3: a brake pipe (see all of the fluid connection lines between the master cylinder 1 and wheel brakes 19-22); a first pressure controller 6 comprising a first brake actuator; a second pressure controller 9,10 comprising a second brake actuator; a first ECU – ECU1; a second ECU—ECU2 and what appears to be a ‘redundant’ ECU – ECU3 in figure 2.
Lacking in CN ‘317 (as best understood from the machine translation) is a specific statement that ECU3 is a ‘redundant’ ECU.
However given the statements in the machine translation (as best understood) CN ‘317 desires a dual redundancy brake system.
Nevertheless Leiber states in col 16 around lines 15-20:
The open-loop and closed-loop control device ECU is a constituent part of the overall system and of the packaging. A redundant or partially redundant ECU is required for a fail-safe function. This partially redundant ECU may also be used for particular functions in addition to the redundant ECU. In any case, the valves are or should be driven redundantly by means of separate valve drivers and circuit breakers, which deactivates a failed valve driver.
(48) A redundant on-board electrical system connection is also required for the redundancy of the open-loop and closed-loop control unit ECU.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have made ECU3 a ‘redundant ECU’ in the device of CN ‘317, as taught by Leiber, simply to drive other components of the brake system should one (or both) of ECU1 and ECU2 fail.
Regarding claims 2,4 as modified above CN ‘317 is capable of meeting the claimed requirements.
Regarding claim 6 note CN ‘317 shows in figure 3 that a master cylinder assembly 3-6 is capable of being integrated into the system.
Regarding claim 7 these limitations are met.
Claim(s) 3,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘317/Leiber as applied to claims 2,4 above, and further in view of Watanabe 12,090,975.
Regarding claims 3,5 CN ‘317, as modified, lacks the specifics of the type of braking actions are handled by the still operating ECU.
Watanabe also shows a redundant type of brake system in figure 2, similar to that of CN ‘317. Note the first and second brake units at 6 and 7 and the first and second ECU’S at 18 and 19.
Watanabe states in col 11 lines 25-43:
(Backup Control) Backup control refers to control that the second unit 7 substitutes to perform the brake control when a failure has occurred in the first unit 6 and makes it impossible to perform the normal brake control or the autonomous brake control. An example expected as the failure in the first unit 6 is a failure that makes the control impossible mainly due to a malfunction in the electronic system, such as short-circuiting of the valve solenoid in the first hydraulic pressure unit 105, a malfunction of the hydraulic pressure sensor 26 or 27 or a malfunction of the motor driving function, and a malfunction of the calculation function in the first control unit 18. Another expected example is a mechanical failure such as a leak of the brake fluid in the first hydraulic pressure unit 105. The first control unit 18 includes a unit that detects the above-described failure in the first unit 6, and takes a safety action such as causing the system to transition to a fallback or stop the operation according to a fail-safe when the failure is detected. When detecting the failure in the first unit 6, the first control unit 18 transmits this failure information to the second control unit 19 via the CAN.
Also Watanabe states in col 9 lines 17-33:
The second control unit 19 is an electronic control unit (ECU) that controls the second hydraulic pressure unit 106. The second control unit 19 calculates a vehicle behavior state based on values detected by a wheel speed sensor mounted on each of the wheels FL to RR, a longitudinal acceleration sensor, a yaw rate sensor, and the like. For example, the second control unit 19 performs ABS control if a currently braked wheel has a lock tendency and performs ESC control if the vehicle is in a skidding state as a result of the calculation of the vehicle behavior state. For example, in the ESC control, if determining the skidding state based on the behavior state of the vehicle targeted for the control, the second control unit 19 calculates the target wheel cylinder hydraulic pressure for resolving the skidding and actuates the second hydraulic pressure unit 106 in such a manner that the wheel cylinder hydraulic pressure matches the target wheel cylinder hydraulic pressure.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that at least one of the ECU’S ECU1-ECU3 in CN ‘317 is capable of controlling one of the first or second pressure controllers 6 or 9,10 to complete at least one of an ABS/Traction control/Stability control operation should one of the ECU’s ECU1-ECU3 fail, as better illustrated by Watanabe in figure 2.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘317 in view of Lesinski, Jr 10,166,964.
Regarding claim 8 CN ‘317 is relied upon as explained above.
However it is not entirely clear from the drawings and machine translation whether the brake actuator(s) 6 and/ or 9,10 are separately coupled to the first ECU and second ECU.
However as explained in the machine translation for the redundancy level desired this appears to be the case.
Nevertheless Lesinski also shows a redundant brake system and in figures 1 and 3 that these limitations are capable of being met by ECU1 and ECU2 in the manner in which they are connected to the first and second pumps 28 and 32. Note the connection of the ECU’s ECU1 AND ECU2 in figure 3A.
Lesinski states in col 3 around lines 12-27:
In the case of an autonomously controlled vehicle, it may be desirable to have some redundancy in the braking system to ensure braking capability is maintained in the event of a brake component malfunction or failure. To this end, first and second control systems 22, 24 are provided in the braking system. During normal operation, a first electronic control unit (ECU) 26 and first pump 28 of the first control system 22 are used to selectively actuate the braking devices 16a-16d. In the event of a component failure in the first control system 22, the second control system 24, which includes a second electronic control unit (ECU) 30 and second pump 32, may take over for a failed component. The first and second electronic control units 30, 32 may be in communication with any number of components within the braking system 12 in order to perform the functions described herein.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the redundant brake system of CN ‘317 has a brake actuator 6 or 9,10 that is separately coupled to the first and second/redundant ECU1, ECU2 and/or ECU3 that are configured to independently or jointly drive the brake actuator, as taught by Lesinski, for the reasons above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘317/Lesinski, as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Besier 11,685,356.
Regarding claim 17 CN ‘317 lacks specifically showing a solenoid valve comprising a dual coil with separate direct current connections of the dual coil valve to ECU1, ECU2 and/or ECU3.
The reference to Besier shows a redundant type brake system similar to CN ‘317 best seen in figures 7 and 8 and at the bottom of col 1 states: The valve arrangement has a first control unit and a second control unit. The first control unit is connected to all first coils in order to actuate these. The second control unit is connected to all second coils in order to actuate these.
(9) Each valve can be operated both by the first coil and by the second coil of the coil arrangement assigned thereto, independently of each other.
(10) By means of the valve arrangement according to an aspect of the invention, a security of operation of the valves can be increased in that the respective valves can each be operated by two coils which are actuated by different control units. Thus on failure of a control unit or a coil, the respective valve can still be operated by the other coil.
It would have been obvious to have used dual coil valve arrangements in CN ‘317, a taught by Besier, for the reasons above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16,18,19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights