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 § 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.
Claims 16, 18, 19, 24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurosawa (JP 2015-071382) (machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 16, Kurosawa discloses a method for operating a brake system including a primary brake actuator (16) and a secondary brake actuator (18), the method comprising the following steps: adjusting a brake pressure using the primary brake actuator based on a first braking specification (see machine translation, ¶ 0047); reading in, using a control unit (31) of the secondary brake actuator or an additional control unit, the brake pressure adjusted using the primary brake actuator (see ¶ 0058); and performing a first plausibility check of the read-in brake pressure (see ¶ 0125), using the control unit of the secondary brake actuator or the additional control unit, with a second braking specification (see ¶ 0125, “the amount of braking operation”) which was supplied to the control unit of the secondary brake actuator or to the additional control unit (see ¶ 0125).
Regarding claim 18, Kurosawa discloses that the first braking specification and the second braking specification are identical (see e.g. ¶¶ 0047, 0125), and wherein the first braking specification and the second braking specification have an identical source (see e.g. ¶¶ 0047, 0125).
Regarding claim 19, Kurosawa discloses that the first braking specification and the second braking specification are driver-dependent or driver-independent braking specifications (see ¶¶ 0047, 0125).
Regarding claim 24, Kurosawa discloses that the first plausibility check takes place based on a first type of characteristic curves and/or characteristic maps, which define a relationship between the brake pressure and the second braking specification (see ¶ 0125).
Regarding claim 26, Kurosawa discloses that a check takes place for an existing error signal set by the primary brake actuator (see ¶ 0112).
Regarding claim 27, Kurosawa discloses that the additional control unit is an onboard additional control unit or an off-board additional control unit (see FIGS. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 28, Kurosawa discloses that at least the brake pressure (Ph), a deceleration signal (153), and the first or second braking specification (see ¶¶ 0084, 0125), are: (i) supplied via an off- board or onboard communication arrangement, to the additional control unit for evaluation (see ¶¶ 0084, 0125), or (ii) already available to the additional control unit.
Regarding claim 29, Kurosawa discloses a brake system for a vehicle (see FIGS. 1, 2), comprising: a primary brake actuator (16); and a secondary brake actuator (18); wherein: a brake pressure can be adjusted using the primary brake actuator on the basis of a first braking specification (see ¶ 0047), the brake pressure adjusted using the primary brake actuator can be read in using a control unit (31) of the secondary brake actuator or an additional control unit (see ¶ 0058), and using the control unit of the secondary brake actuator or the additional control unit, a first plausibility check of the ascertained brake pressure can be carried out with a second braking specification (see ¶ 0125, “the amount of braking operation”), which was supplied to the control unit of the secondary brake actuator or to the additional control unit (see ¶ 0125).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17, 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa (JP 2015-071382), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lee (KR 2014-00838060 (machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 17, Kurosawa does not disclose that in the case of a negative first plausibility check, a second plausibility check takes place using the control unit of the secondary brake actuator or the additional control unit, using the second braking specification and a deceleration signal.
Lee teaches a method for operating a brake system (see machine translation, ¶ 0001) wherein plausibility check takes place using a control unit using a second braking specification and a deceleration signal (see ¶ 0013).
It would have been obvious to combine the second plausibility check of Lee with the method of Kurosawa to provide a control method that detects mechanical failure even while braking pressure is being generated normally (see e.g. machine translation, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 25, Lee discloses that the second plausibility check takes place based on a second type of characteristic curves and/or characteristic maps, which define a relationship between a vehicle deceleration and the second braking specification (see ¶ 0013, “monitoring whether vehicle deceleration corresponding to the calculated target braking pressure and the target deceleration occurs”).
Regarding claim 30, Kurosawa does not disclose that in the case of a negative first plausibility check, a second plausibility check takes place using the control unit of the secondary brake actuator or the additional control unit, using the second braking specification and a deceleration signal.
Lee teaches a method for operating a brake system (see machine translation, ¶ 0001) wherein plausibility check takes place using a control unit using a second braking specification and a deceleration signal (see ¶ 0013).
It would have been obvious to combine the second plausibility check of Lee with the method of Kurosawa to provide a control method that detects mechanical failure even while braking pressure is being generated normally (see e.g. machine translation, ¶ 0006).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23 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 NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, 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.
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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights