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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saotome et al. (US-20210046909) in view of Muenster (US-5845976).
Regarding claim 1, Saotome et al. discloses a first unit (11/25) that outputs a supply pressure in accordance with an operation amount of a braking operation member (9); a second unit (31/44) that is provided between the first unit and a wheel cylinder (fig 1, 2FL, 2RR, 2FR, and 2RL), increases the supply pressure, and outputs a wheel pressure to the wheel cylinder (at least [0054] wherein the wheel cylinder pressure control unit 44 increases the hydraulic pressures in the hydraulic brake apparatuses 2FL, 2RR, 2FR, and 2RL independently of the hydraulic pressure in the master cylinder 6); a communication bus (fig 1, 45, and at least [0059]) that performs signal transfer between the first unit and the second unit ([0059], wherein the master cylinder pressure control unit 25 and the wheel cylinder pressure control unit 44 are connected to each other via a vehicle data bus 45 therebetween);an operation amount sensor (24) that detects the operation amount (fig 1); and a supply pressure sensor (43a) that detects the supply pressure, wherein the first unit controls the supply pressure so as to bring the supply pressure close to a target pressure calculated based on the operation amount (at least [0058] and [0062] wherein control unit 25 calculates a service target hydraulic pressure by the target hydraulic pressure calculation portion 25A based on the pedal operation amount (the displacement amount, the pressing force, or the like) detected by the brake operation amount detector 24).
Saotome et al. lacks wherein when the first unit is abnormal, the second unit increases the wheel pressure based on a deviation between the target pressure and the supply pressure. Muenster teaches an electronic brake system (fig 1) wherein the signal of a force meter 2 is supplied to electronic control unit 6 via an input line 11, the signal of pressure meter 5 is supplied to the control unit via an input line 12, and the signal of pressure meter 8 is supplied to the control unit via an input line 14. Control unit 6 actuates the valves and pumps of regulating unit 7 via at least one output line 15. The force acting on the brake pedal is routed from force meter 2 to control unit 6, where the data of the force meter are compared to that of the pressure meter. If a predefined ratio of the force exerted on the brake pedal to the pressure in the brake line (pressure meter 5) is not observed, the control unit checks, using pressure meter 8, whether sufficient pressure is present in the brake line. If the braking pressure is insufficient, the pressure is increased by pump 7 so that braking can occur without increased use of force (at least col. 2, lines 15-23). In other words, Muenster teaches wherein while brake demand is monitored, brake pressure at the booster/MC is monitored in order to detect situations wherein generated pressure is insufficient relative to a target demanded braking, and activating a pump/regulating unit (7) to generate additional wheel brake pressure when the upstream pressure source is degraded or failed.
Regarding claim 2, Muenster teaches wherein a second unit (7) increases the wheel pressure by an amount corresponding to the deviation (col. 2, lines 52-56, wherein in step 24, a check whether sufficient pressure has built up is performed by comparing the braking pressure with the braking force exerted. The pressure is sufficient if it is basically equal to the expected pressure for the force exerted).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the braking system of Saotome et al. using a failure response strategy as taught by Muenster at least so that when a pressure generating first unit becomes abnormal or incapable of generating sufficient pressure, a downstream unit increases the pressure without an increase in demand which “ensures that braking is performed without increased application of force even if the pressure in the wheel brake is insufficient, for example, as a result of a failure of the braking force amplifier” (Muenster, col. 1, lines 35-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/JAMES K HSIAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights