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
Claims 18, 19, 22, 23 and 30-32 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.
Regarding claim 18 line 3, it is unclear if the recitation “a fluidic device control signal” is intended to reference the previously recited “fluidic device control signal” (cl. 17 line 7), or another fluidic device control signal.
Claim 19 is rejected due to its dependence upon claim 18.
Regarding claim 22 lines 3, 4, 8 and 9, it is unclear if the recitation “a fluidic device control signal” is intended to reference the previously recited “fluidic device control signal” (cl. 17 line 7), or another fluidic device control signal.
Claim 23 is rejected due to its dependence upon claim 22.
Regarding claim 30, it is unclear if the recitation “a device” is intended to reference the previously recited device (cl. 1).
Regarding claim 31, it is unclear of the recitations “a vehicle” and “a brake system” are intended to reference the previously recited vehicle and brake system as recited in claim 30.
Regarding claim 32 line 1, it is unclear if the recitation “a fluidic brake control signal” is intended to reference the previously recited “fluidic brake control signal” (cl. 16 line 1), or another fluidic brake control signal.
Regarding claim 32 lines 1-2, it is unclear if the recitation “a fluidic brake system” is intended to reference the previously recited “fluidic brake system” (cl. 16 lines 1-2), or another fluidic brake system.
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) 16-22, 25, 26, and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3 822 133 A1 to Nemeth et al.
Re-claims 16 and 32, Nemeth et al. disclose a device and method for generating a fluidic brake control signal for a fluidic brake system of a first vehicle, comprising:
a control input (lines 90) receives a brake request signal (as from unit 30);
a control unit (units 10a and 10b) processes the brake request signal;
a pressure source 60 provides a supply pressure;
an outlet terminal 29b outputs the fluidic brake control signal into the brake system; and
a valve unit (such as at least 20) is controlled by the control unit in accordance with the brake request signal and generates and transmits the fluidic brake control signal to the outlet terminal 29b based on the supply pressure in accordance with the control by the control unit.
Re-claim 17, the valve unit 20 comprises a first valve control circuit 201a and a second valve control circuit 201b, and (i) the device generates the fluidic brake control signal directly by the first valve control circuit and/or by the second valve control circuit (the control unit operates solenoid valves 21a-21d in accordance with the brake request), or (ii) the first valve control circuit and the second valve control circuit generate a fluidic device control signal (as via relay valve 26, see column 6 lines 32-34 “Another outlet of the dual channel relay valve 26 is connected to a brake control pressure terminal D by a brake control pressure outlet 29b”), and the device is configured to generate the fluidic brake control signal in response to the fluidic device control signal. It is noted that the figure 2 appears incorrect, as the disclosure clearly states the relay valve transmits a signal to line D via outlet 29b).
Re-claim 18, the first valve control circuit and the second valve control circuit generate the fluidic device control signal (as from relay valve 26), the valve unit comprises a pressure-actuated control valve 26, the pressure-actuated control valve is configured to generate the fluidic brake control signal in response to the fluidic device control signal.
Re-claim 19, the pressure-actuated valve is a relay valve 26.
Re-claim 20, the valve unit 20 comprises a plurality of electrically actuated valves 21a-21d.
Re-claim 21, the valve unit generates the fluidic brake control signal such that a situation-dependent activation of the brake system is caused by the fluidic brake control signal in order to brake the vehicle during driving operation (such as operation of unit 30), or (ii) the valve unit is generates the fluidic brake control signal such that a permanent activation of the brake system is caused by the fluidic brake control signal in order to hold the vehicle at a standstill (such as a parking brake operation and actuation of unit 31). See at least paragraph 26.
Re-claim 22, the first valve control circuit 201a and the second valve control circuit 201b generate a fluidic device control signal, the first valve control circuit 201a generates a fluidic device control signal such that a situation-dependent activation of the brake system by the fluidic brake control signal is caused in order to brake the vehicle during driving operation.
Re-claim 25, the control unit 10a/10b comprises a first control device 10a and a second control device 10b, and the first and second control devices are redundant with respect to each other (see paragraph 24).
Re-claim 26, the valve unit comprises a first valve control circuit 201a and a second valve control circuit 201b, the first control device 10a controls the first valve control circuit 201a and the second control device 10b controls the second valve control circuit 201b.
Re-claim 28, the brake request signal comprises electrical signals (such as along lines 90).
Re-claim 29, the device 20 is modular and comprises the control input, the control unit, the pressure source, the outlet terminal and valve unit as elements, in addition, the device 20 is connected to a second vehicle (such as the tractor), the tractor is connected to the first vehicle (such as a trailer).
Re-claims 30 and 31, the device is part of a brake system and 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) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth et al. in view of WO 2015154788 A1 to Hecker et al.
Re-claims 23 and 24, Nemeth fails to teach a replenishment valve, as recited in the instant claims.
Hecker et al. teach a replenishment valve 30 that during a permanent operation of the brake (i.e. parking operation), the valve is controlled by a control unit to an open condition, thus providing a replenishment of the fluidic brake control signal (see figure 5). This replenishment control provides a more stable operation. 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 the device of Nemeth et al. with a replenishment valve as taught by Hecker et al., thus providing a more stable parking brake operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Herges, Sai and Klostermann each teach a dual input relay valve. Yang teaches a feedback or replenishing line to the relay valve control input.
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
June 8, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights