DETAILED ACTION
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) 16-23,26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt 11,155,253 in view of Schnittger et al. U.S. 2021/0261110 AND Schnittger et al. U.S. 2011/0147141.
Regarding claim 16, as broadly claimed, Schmidt shows in figure 1: A module 1 for generating and supplying a control pressure (see abstract) for a pressure- controlled fluidic brake system of a first vehicle (i.e. trailer), the module comprising: a valve unit 2,4,8 comprising at least two stable switching states; a pressure source 9a,9b configured to provide a supply pressure Pv to the valve unit 4,8; and an outlet port 12 configured to supply the control pressure to the brake system of the first vehicle (i.e. trailer); wherein the module is configured to (i.e. is capable of) generate the control pressure from the supply pressure according to at least two operating modes which are respectively activated according to one of the at least two switching states of the valve unit 2,4 (note the two operating states of valves 14,16 as discussed throughout the document).
Note that Schmidt describes the piston valve unit 2 as operating in a ‘bistable manner’. Therefore this valve is considered as a nearly equivalent type of valve to that of applicant’s at 8.
Lacking in Schmidt is a specific description of according to a second of the at least two operating modes, the module is configured to set the generated control pressure to a constant control pressure value to activate the brake system of the first vehicle to hold the first vehicle in at least one of a non- moving state and a parking state. However from the drawings and a reading of the specification, and given the fact that it is capable of various implementations and/ or optional valve arrangements as discussed throughout the document it appears the brake system of Schmidt operates in the claimed fashion, as broadly claimed.
Also lacking in Schmidt is the specific limitation of the second of the at least two operating modes is maintained, after activation of the second stable switching state of the valve unit, by a module control pressure line such that switching from the second operating mode to the first operating mode requires a subsequent signal to activate the first stable switching state of the valve unit.
Schnittger et al shows a parking brake device similar in both purpose and construction to that of Schmidt and states in paras 0021-0025:
[0021] As operating modes, a driving state, a parked state or a graduable braking state of the parking brake device may be provided for the motor vehicle.
[0022] For the graduable braking state, a demand-dependent constant pressure can be set at the output of the relay valve in order to attain any desired braking action.
[0023] In the context of the present invention, a constant pressure may be understood in particular also to mean a pressure range with a preferably predefinable maximum pressure and minimum pressure to be adhered to.
[0024] In particular, the pressure may lie between 0 bar and the maximum system pressure. [0025] In the context of the present invention, a constant pressure or pressure range may in particular be set or held intermittently.
Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that the pressure Pv in Schmidt utilized to activate the parking brakes at the connection 12 could be considered to be a 'constant control pressure value' to keep the trailer in a parked or non- moving state, as taught by Schnittger, as broadly claimed.
Further, Schnittger ‘141 shows a valve device for a parking brake having a bistable valve unit at 22 with a pneumatic input 50 controlled by a control pressure line 52 via a ‘control valve’ at 58. See the discussion in paras 0033-0035 in their entirety.
The bistable valve 2 of Schmidt includes a manually operated lever at 17 to keep the brakes in the desired state (i.e.a means of providing a ‘subsequent ‘signal’ for activating the valve 2 to either of its desired states).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have replaced the lever 17 in the bistable valve 2 of Schmidt with a ‘control pressure line’ (including appropriate valve arrangements) as taught by Schnittger at 52 simply as an one obvious equivalent means of maintaining the bistable valve 2 in the desired state—which in turn maintains the parking brakes in their desired states even in the event of air loss or leakage-- that could cause the brakes to release unintentionally. This a well known mandatory regulatory requirement in most commercial vehicles.
Regarding claims 17,18 in light of the discussion in Schnittger paras 0023-0024 these limitations are considered to be met (or capable thereof) by Schmidt as modified by Schnittger.
Regarding claims 19,20 as readily apparent from figure 1 and description of Schmidt these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 21 see col 7 around lines 46-52 of Schmidt.
Regarding claim 22 note the description of the valve 2 is that it is constructed in a 'bistable' manner (col 7 lines 33-46). Note the input ports at 22,24 and spring (not labeled) just to the right of port 22.
Regarding claim 23 note the at least one actuation pressure generating valve at 14,16 in Schmidt and that in col 3 around lines 36-39 Schmidt states: The pilot module has the at least one pilot valve combination (14,16) which can preferably be electrically switched and is preferably electromagnetically constructed.
Regarding claim 25 Schmidt as modified above, lacks specifically showing the valve unit also comprises a control valve, wherein the valve unit is configured to generate a module control pressure for controlling the control valve according to the at least two switching states, wherein the control valve is configured to generate the control pressure according to the module control pressure from the valve unit.
However, as discussed above, Schnittger '141 shows a control line 52 with a 'control valve' at 56.
It would have been obvious to have provided some type of 'control valve' in Schmidt, as modified, and as further taught by Schnittger at 56 simply to ensure that the parking brakes are maintained in the applied or released state as intended and that a power failure cannot lead to an unintentional switch-over from the park state into a driving state.
Regarding claim 26 as readily apparent from figure 1 of Schmidt and at 17 these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 27 note that in col 6 around lines 35-41 Schmidt indicates that at least the pilot valve module 4 may be located either on the first or second vehicles. Therefore it would have been obvious to have simply placed the module on the second (i.e. towing/utility) vehicle based upon such well known engineering considerations as type of vehicle/ ease of installment, costs and specific brake application.
Regarding claim 28 since both Schmidt and Schnittger describe their parking brake devices implemented as 'modules' the ordinary skilled worker in the art would realize that both of these devices are implemented in a housing and/or with a 'carrier member' (for connecting the valves to electrical components), as broadly claimed.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt/Schnittger ‘110/Schnittger ‘141 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of WO 2019/030242-- for which U.S. 11,511,718 to Weider is relied upon for a translation.
Regarding claim 24 Schmidt, as modified, lacks specifically stating that the valve unit 4,8 comprises at least a stable switching solenoid valve. However Schmidt does indicate that the pilot valves 14,16 are in fact solenoid valves (col 3 around lines 36-39).
The reference to WO '242 (see Weider) also shows a parking brake device similar to Schmidt and Schnittger and states that the valves 110,120 are 'stable switching solenoid valves'. See Weider at least col 6 lines 16-20.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that the valves 14,16 in Schmidt are capable of being implemented as "stable switching solenoid valves, as broadly claimed, due to their inherent function and similarity with the 'stable switching solenoid valves' 110,120 of Weider.
Claim(s) 29,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Schnittger et al. U.S. 2011/0147141.
Regarding claim 29 Schmidt in view of Schnittger et al. ‘141 is relied upon as applied above.
Regarding claim 30 note the valves at 14,16 and 2 in Schmidt.
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.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Schmidt or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schmidt in view of Schnittger ‘141..
Regarding claim 31 Schmidt and Schnittger ‘141 are relied upon as explained above.
In Schmidt note the manual lever at 17 is capable of providing the means of “.. maintaining the respective state of the at least two stable switching states [ of bistable valve 2] even if the supply pressure to the valve is at least one of subsequently reduced and removed.
In the alternative one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have replaced the lever 17 in the bistable valve 2 of Schmidt with a ‘control pressure line’ (including appropriate valve arrangements) as taught by Schnittger at 52 simply as an one obvious equivalent means of maintaining the bistable valve 2 in the desired state—which in turn maintains the parking brakes in their desired states even in the event of air loss or leakage-- that could cause the brakes to release unintentionally.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
9/28/26
