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 .
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn in light of the current amendments to the claim.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-22 and 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are at least partially persuasive. Claim 16 has been amended to require all of the first plurality of parameters and Kamiya is silent on a current temperature of the external environment, the current slope of the wheel sliding plane, the current disc pad temperature and the current disc temperature. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the current amendments to the claims. Applicant argues that claim 16 requires the step of “applying a third braking force equal to half the requested braking force to both the at least one first and the at least one second piston of the disc brake caliper of the vehicle” however the claim requires this step or the alternative step of “applying a first and a further second braking force…” Kamiya was not relied upon for disclosure of applying a third braking force equal to half of the requested braking force. Applicant also argues that Kamiya does not disclose “applying a further first and a further second braking force to the at least one first and at least one second pistons of the disc brake caliper of the vehicle, respectively, wherein a ratio between the further first and the further second braking force is different from one and a sum of the aforesaid further first and further second braking force is equal to the requested braking force.” Applicant reasons that the distribution ratio disclosed by Kamiya is different from the claimed ratio of said first further and second further braking forces. However, Kamiya teaches that the distribution ratio is the ratio of the braking forces generated by the front pistons 161FL and the braking force generated by the rear pistons 162FL and thus correspond to the claimed further braking forces in the noise prevention brake control [see Kamiya paragraph 0061 and Figure 1].
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) 16, 22-23 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0206589) in view of Ehrmaier (DE 10 2004 047 102 B3) in view of Park (KR 1999-000864 U) and further in view of Liske (DE 10 2012 101 546 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 22, Kamiya discloses a method for controlling a braking system of a vehicle for distributing braking forces on at least one first and at least one second piston (161FL, 162FL) of a disc brake caliper (16FL) of the vehicle [0006-0007, 0024-0027], said method being performed by a control system (including 10) of the braking system for distributing braking forces, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by the control system, a request for applying a braking force following a braking action applied on a pedal/button of the braking system [0022-0023, 0046, 0067-0068];
receiving, from the control system, a first plurality of parameters associated with the braking system each representative of a current operating condition of the braking system, wherein said first plurality of parameters comprise information about: the current speed of the vehicle and the current actuation force/pressure [0022, 0038, 0068-0069];
comparing, by the control system, each received parameter of said first plurality of parameters with a respective reference parameter of a second plurality of parameters representative of a critical operating condition of the braking system [0046, 0069];
when at least one of the parameters of the first plurality of parameters equals the respective reference parameter of the second plurality of parameters, the method comprises the steps of:
applying a first braking force (Pf) to the at least one first piston of the disc brake caliper of the vehicle,
applying a second braking force (Pr) to the at least one second piston of the disc brake caliper of the vehicle,
wherein the sum of said first and second braking force is equal to the requested braking force and a ratio of said first and second braking force is different from one [0041, 0043-0044, 0046, 0092, the first hydraulic pressure Pf in the brake conduit B1 that applies the first braking force to one piston of the disc brake caliper and the second hydraulic pressure Pr in the brake conduit B2 that applies the second braking force to the other disc brake caliper are independently controlled while the sum of Pf and Pr remain constant];
when at least each of the parameters of the first plurality of parameters differs from the respective reference parameter of the second plurality of parameters, the method comprises the steps of :
applying a third braking force equal to half the requested braking force to both the at least one first and the at least one second piston of the disc brake caliper of the vehicle, or
applying a further first and a further second braking force to the at least one first and at least one second pistons of the disc brake caliper of the vehicle, respectively, wherein a ratio between the further first and the further second braking force is different from one and a sum of the aforesaid further first and further second braking force is equal to the requested braking force [0049-0056, 0069, as shown in Figure 3, the control system applies either the first and second braking forces or the further first and further second braking forces on the basis of whether or not the noise prevention brake control is executed. The noise prevention brake control is executed when the vehicle is moving and the noise prevention brake control changes the feedback independent control of the braking pressures so that the sum of Pf and Pr remain constant while changing the reference or target values of Pf and Pr compared to the case where the noise prevention brake control is not executed];
wherein a ratio between said first and second braking forces is greater than one [0061].
Kamiya does not disclose the first plurality of parameters additionally comprise information about the current temperature of the external environment, the current slope of the wheel sliding plane, the current disc pad temperature and the current disc temperature.
Ehrmaier discloses a method of controlling a braking system comprising receiving a current temperature of an external environment or a current disc temperature, comparing by a control system, the temperature of the external environment with a temperature representative of a critical operating condition of the braking system and the current disc temperature with a temperature representative of a critical operating condition of the braking system and modifying braking operation when the received temperatures equal the respective temperatures representative of the critical operating conditions [0016-0018: “…the parking brake is only activated if at least one availability-related additional condition does not prohibit the activation of the parking brake. An example of an availability-related additional condition is exceeding a predefined outside temperature threshold…An additional availability-related condition is, for example, falling below a predetermined brake temperature threshold”].
Ehrmaier teaches that the braking discs may freeze when the temperature of the external environment is below a critical temperature threshold and the braking discs may stick together thwne the current disc temperature exceeds a critical temperature threshold [0017-0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally receive the temperature of the external environment and the current disc temperature to be compared to respective critical temperatures in the braking system disclosed by Kamiya to prevent freezing or sticking of the brake discs.
Kamiya, as modified by Ehrmaier, does not disclose the first plurality of parameters additionally comprise information about the current slope of the wheel sliding plane or the current disc pad temperature.
Park discloses a method of controlling a braking system comprising receiving a current disc pad temperature, comparing by a control system, the current disc pad temperature with a temperature representative of a critical operating condition of the braking system and notifying a driver to modify braking operation when the received temperature equals the temperature representative of the critical operating condition [Technical task to be achieved: “In order to achieve the above object, in the present invention, a temperature sensor is mounted on the brake to sense the temperature of the brake pad and the disk, and the temperature sensor is connected to an electronic control unit that determines the state of the brake using the sensed temperature”] [Composition and function of the draft plan: “The warning system 4 is a device that informs the driver of the state of the brake 1 by a warning sound or lighting when an abnormal operation may occur due to overheating of the brake according to the judgment of the electronic control unit 3”].
Park teaches that warning the driver in response to the comparison of the current disc pad temperature to a critical temperature “suppresses excessive use of the brake system…[which] has the effect of stably maintaining the brake” [Effect of design]. Specifically, excessive use of the brake while driving the vehicle causes the temperature to rise due to frictional heat produced between the brake pad and the disk causing a fading and welding phenomenon to occur that could lead to a serious vehicular accident [Technical field to which the draft belongs and prior art of the field: “However, if the brake is excessively used while driving the vehicle, severe friction occurs between the brake pad and the disk, so that the brake pad is easily worn and the temperature rises due to frictional heat. When the temperature of the brake pads and disks rise in this way, i.e., when overheated, a fading phenomenon and welding phenomenon may occur, and the brake may not operate as intended by the driver, resulting in a serious accident”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally receive the current disc pad temperature to be compared to a critical temperature in the braking system disclosed by Kamiya to prevent the fading and welding phenomena that occur when the brake pad overheats, thereby reducing the possibility of an accident.
Kamiya, as modified by Ehrmaier and Park, does not disclose the first plurality of parameters additionally comprise information about the current slope of the wheel sliding plane.
Liske discloses a method of controlling a braking system comprising receiving a current slope of the wheel sliding plane, comparing by a control system, the current slope of the wheel sliding plane with a slope representative of a critical operating condition of the braking system and modifying braking operation when the received slope equals the slope representative of the critical operating condition [0007: “According to the invention, a method for controlling a vehicle is provided, comprising determining the vehicle's sideslip angle, determining the angle difference between the sideslip angle (or the absolute value of the sideslip angle) and the safety angle (or the absolute value of the safety angle corresponding to the maximum steering angle) of the vehicle, and braking the vehicle by simultaneously locking all wheels of the vehicle when the determined angle difference is greater than a predetermined angle difference threshold”].
Liske teaches that modifying the braking operation in the case that the current slope of the wheel sliding plane exceeds a threshold allows increased braking deceleration that allows the vehicle to be brought into a controllable, safe driving condition in a shorter time, thereby reducing the probability of accidents [0008: “By automatically locking all wheels in the described driving situation (i.e., without using or deactivating any anti-lock braking system provided on the vehicle), the braking deceleration acting on the vehicle can be increased – since a locked wheel has a higher braking effect than a poorly braked, partially rolling wheel – both compared to the case where the vehicle is braked using ABS and compared to the case where the vehicle is not (actively) braked by the driver at all, and thus the vehicle can be brought into a controllable, safe driving condition in a shorter time. In particular, the vehicle can be rapidly braked in both its forward and rotational movements, thereby...the turning radius swept during the turning movement can also be reduced accordingly quickly, so that the probability of accidents in the driving situations described can be reduced”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally receive the current slope of the wheel sliding plane to be compared to a critical slope of the wheel sliding plane in the braking system disclosed by Kamiya to increase braking deceleration where required, thereby reducing the possibility of an accident.
Regarding claim 23, Kamiya further discloses wherein said first and second braking forces are calculated by means of the equations: first braking force = X* requested braking force, second braking force = (1-X)* requested braking force [0041, 0043, 0046] but does not disclose the value of X is equal to 0.8. In Kamiya, the first braking force and the second braking force are feedback controlled so that their sum is equal to the requested or target braking force [0041, 0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the value of X to 0.8 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process, such as feedback control, is normally obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(C).
Regarding claim 30, Kamiya further discloses a system for controlling a braking system of a vehicle for distributing braking forces on at least one first piston and one second piston of a disc brake caliper of the vehicle, the control system comprising at least one electronic brake control unit configured to generate electrical signals for operating said disc brake caliper of the system, said at least one braking electronic control unit of the control system being configured to perform the steps of the method of claim 16 [0006-0007, 0020-0021, 0024-0027].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-21 and 24-29 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
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 JOSHUA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8215. The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571) 272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-
direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA CAMPBELL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights