DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/720231 filed 6/14/2024.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 6/14/24 and 10/22/24 have been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the legal phraseology “said” in line 2, “comprising” in lines 2 and 17 and “comprises” in lines 9 and 10 should be deleted. Further, the abstract is currently over the 150 word length range. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-34 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.
-Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least four inlet valves" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (same issue in line 7 of claim 32).
-Claim 18 recites the limitation “a second hydraulic port for connecting a further pressure source” in line 13. Is the second port connecting “to” the further pressure source, please clarify and amend accordingly (same issue in line 14 of claim 32).
-Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the second line section of the brake supply line is hydraulically connected to the second hydraulic port and the other of the at least four inlet valves” in lines 17-18. Are the “other of the at least four inlet valves” referring to the other two valves not included in the “at least two of the at least four valves” as recited on lines 15-16, please clarify and amend accordingly (same issue in line 19 of claim 32).
-Claim 22 recites the limitation “said device does not include any other hydraulic port in addition to the wheel ports, the first hydraulic port, and the second hydraulic port”. The current view of the courts is that there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation. So long as the boundaries of the patent protection sought are set forth definitely, albeit negatively, the claim complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. However, the current invention does describe other hydraulic ports, i.e., 220, 411, 412, 521, etc. which suggest that applicant doesn’t have an invention not including any other hydraulic ports outside of the ports recited in claim 22, please amend accordingly.
-Claim 27 recites the limitation “a check valve that opens in the direction of the brake supply line and is connected in parallel with the separation valve”. Figures 2 and 3 and [0094] in specification show and describe check valve 71 parallel to the separation valve 26 recited in claim 19, not the circuit separation valve 40 recited in claim 18. It is unclear as to which separation valve is being referred to in this claim, please clarify and amend accordingly.
-Claim 28 recites the limitation “an electrically actuatable, normally open, further separation valve connected in parallel with the separation valve”. Figure 3 and [0113] in specification show and describe a valve 27 parallel to the separation valve 26 recited in claim 19 and not the circuit separation valve 40 recited in claim 18. Further, valve 27 is described as a normally closed valve and not a normally open valve. It is unclear as to which separation valve and parallel further separation valve is being referred to in this claim, please clarify and amend accordingly.
-Claim 32 recites the limitation “a second electrohydraulic brake control device including a second electrically actuatable pressure source” in lines 21-22. It is unclear as to if this second pressure source is the same as the “further pressure source” recited in line 14, please clarify and amend accordingly.
-Claim 32 recites the limitation “the first electrohydraulic brake control device and the second electrohydraulic brake control device are connected to one another by at most one pressure-resistant hydraulic connecting element” in last three lines. It is unclear as to what the phrase “at most” is referring to, please clarify and amend accordingly.
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) 18, 19, 21-26 and 29-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102019207056 (IDS cited art with examiner machine translation). As to claim 18, DE discloses an electrohydraulic brake control device for a motor vehicle having at least four hydraulically actuatable wheel brakes (HA, VA), said brake control device comprising: an electrically actuatable pressure source (2); an electrically actuatable inlet valve for each wheel brake (6); an electrically actuatable outlet valve for each wheel brake (7); a brake supply line connected to the at least four inlet valves (13); an electrically actuatable circuit separation valve arranged in the brake supply line such that when the circuit separation valve is closed (40), the brake supply line is hydraulically separated into a first line section (13a) and a second line section (13b); at least four hydraulic wheel ports for connection to the wheel brakes (lines coupled to 8a-8d); a first hydraulic port for connection to a pressure medium reservoir (via 14a, 41, 42); and a second hydraulic port (via 13b to 38) for connecting a further pressure source (5); wherein the first line section (13a) of the brake supply line is hydraulically connected to the electrically actuatable pressure source (via 27) and at least two of the at least four inlet valves (6a, 6b); and wherein the second line section (13b) of the brake supply line is hydraulically connected to the second hydraulic port and the other of the at least four inlet valves (6c, 6d).
As to claim 19, further comprising an electrically actuatable separation valve (26) arranged hydraulically between the second hydraulic port and the second line section of the brake supply line.
As to claim 21, wherein the circuit separation valve is configured as normally open (page 7, lines 32-33 in translation).
As to claim 22, wherein said device does not include any other hydraulic port in addition to the wheel ports, the first hydraulic port, and the second hydraulic port (DE doesn’t describe any other “ports” outside of the ports 27, 28 which are part of first hydraulic port 41, ports for wheels and what the examiner considers ports to be between 13b and 38).
As to claim 23, further comprising a pressure sensor connected to the first line section and configured to measure the pressure produced by the pressure source (third pressure valve, page 5, line 1-2).
As to claim 24, wherein the outlet valves are connected to the first hydraulic port (via 14a, 14b to 42).
As to claim 25, wherein the pressure source (2) is connected to the first hydraulic port (via 41) on a suction side (28) without the interposition of an electrically actuatable valve (no valve shown between 28 and 41).
As to claim 26, wherein the pressure source (2) is configured as a multi-piston pump (page 5, line 4) with suction sides (via 28) interconnected to one another and connected to the first hydraulic port (via 41).
As to claim 29, further comprising a valve block (via 200) and an electronic controller (100, 110).
As to claim 30, wherein the pressure source, the inlet and outlet valves, and the circuit separation valve are activated by the electronic controller (100, 110).
As to claim 31, further comprising an electrically actuatable separation valve (26) arranged hydraulically between the second hydraulic port and the second line section of the brake supply line, wherein the separation valve is activated by the electronic controller (100).
As to claim 32, DE discloses a brake system for a motor vehicle having at least four hydraulically actuatable wheel brakes, said brake system comprising: a first electrohydraulic brake control device, including an electrically actuatable pressure source (2); an electrically actuatable inlet valve for each wheel brake (6); an electrically actuatable outlet valve for each wheel brake (7); a brake supply line connected to the at least four inlet valves (13); an electrically actuatable circuit separation valve arranged in the brake supply line such that when the circuit separation valve is closed (40), the brake supply line is hydraulically separated into a first line section (13a) and a second line section (13b); at least four hydraulic wheel ports for connection to the wheel brakes (lines coupled to 8a-8d); a first hydraulic port for connection to a pressure medium reservoir (via 14a, 41, 42); and a second hydraulic port (via 13b to 38) for connecting a further pressure source (5); wherein the first line section (13a) of the brake supply line is hydraulically connected to the electrically actuatable pressure source (via 27) and at least two of the at least four inlet valves (6a, 6b); and wherein the second line section (13b) of the brake supply line is hydraulically connected to the second hydraulic port and the other of the at least four inlet valves (6c, 6d) and a second electrohydraulic brake control device including a second electrically actuatable pressure source (5), wherein the first electrohydraulic brake control device and the second electrohydraulic brake control device are connected to one another by at most one pressure-resistant hydraulic connecting element (26 can be considered a pressure resistant hydraulic element based on valves being well known in the art to regulate flow and pressure of hydraulic fluid within a system often operating under high pressure conditions).
As to claim 33, wherein the second electrically actuatable pressure source is connected to a hydraulic port (37 to 38) of the second electrohydraulic brake control device, and in that the second hydraulic port (13b to 38) of the first electrohydraulic brake control device is connected to the hydraulic port of the second electrohydraulic brake control device with the pressure-resistant hydraulic connecting element (26).
As to claim 34, wherein in addition to the pressure source (2) of the first electrohydraulic brake control device and the second pressure source (5) of the second electrohydraulic brake control device, the brake system does not comprise any further pressure source for building up a brake pressure for actuating the wheel brakes.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE in view of Zimmermann 20200276963. DE discloses a normally closed separation valve (26), but not normally open as recited.
Zimmermann discloses an electrohydraulic brake control device and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an electrically actuatable separation valve (26) arranged between a first and second hydraulic port be in the form of a normally open valve ([0038], line 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separation valve in DE into a normally open valve in view of Zimmermann to allow fluid to consistently flow during electrical power failure which ensures optimal operation of device.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE in view of Peichl et al 20190241167. DE discloses a separation valve, but doesn’t disclose a check valve connected in parallel.
Peichl discloses an electrohydraulic brake control device and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a separation valve with a check valve connected in parallel ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the separation valve in DE with a parallel connected check valve in view of Peichl to prevent back flow of pressure to valve during operation ensuring that fluid flows in the intended direction which optimizes performance of device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is objected to (via prior art purposes only) 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. Reasons for allowance will not be indicated at this time due to 112(b) rejection of claim 28, applicant’s response may remove allowability of claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-The PCT written opinion has been considered and the examiner agrees that the prior art cited as novel does meet the limitations of at least claims 18, 19 and 32.
-DE 1020172224454 (IDS cited art, Figure 1) and DE 102017222435 (Figure 1) both disclose electrohydraulic braking devices and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a brake supply line that can be split into two separate lines via a separation valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights